08-14-2003, 11:02 PM
Decimus,<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Matt, I think we need to understand that the brightly decorated, extremely ornate examples of Roman artifacts that we are so fond of reproducing as reenactors are those that most museums are displaying precisely because they represent the pinnacle of the Roman culture's artistic achievements on their technology<hr><br>
<br>
On the contrary, Lorica Segmentata <em>is</em> somewhat ornate, and that was the <strong>standard</strong> for that type of armor, which we are discussing. We are not discussing officer's kit here. Take a look at all the finds of this kind of armor. All of them have an enormous amount of intricacies to them, especially the Newstead types. The same goes for the gallic and itallic type helmets. These are extremely functional pieces of armor, not show pieces, such as the cavalry sports helm, or the velsen dagger. Yet, they have decorations on them, mostly in brass as well.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Also, we cannot make the assumption that legionnaries had all day to sit around doing nothing - for example, foraging for food and firewood, maintaning and repairing weapons and other equipment, fighting drills, etc. <hr><br>
<br>
It's not really an assumption. It's based more of the "process of elimination". When not fighting, or building roads, time would be given to weapons and armor maintenance. Even when projects were on the go, time would have been set aside for this. Why? Ask any soldier. Your weapons are your life. They will take life, and save yours. If they are not serviceable, then they won't work. If they rust, blades then lose their edge and strength, and if armor rusts, it looses it's protective value right? So why would they neglect their armor? I think we can safely establish the fact that the armor was <em>not</em> blackened on the outside, or blued for that matter, given the above points. As such, it would require a daily oiling at the least. Some days, if it wasn't worn, or worn on light duty, it would NOT need to be scrubbed at all. The oil will protect it. As such, minimal attention will be needed to maintain it.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>BTW, I do use and believe the sources and so forth - however, I try not to predicate absolute knowledge of the Roman way on my interpretation of things. <hr><br>
<br>
I don't think anyone is, but it's important to look at this issue from all angles, and figure it out as best we can. We know it's not feasible to blacken the outside of the armour...it won't last...because of this, regular maintenance (ie a scrub and oiling) will be required. Now, based on that, time would have been set aside to do this. Soldiers have to take care of their kit, because one day, it will take care of them. That's just how it works. It's like cause and effect. Cause: Armor Rusty. Effect: Bad guy's sword penetrates = bad.<br>
<br>
On tinning: I don't think every lorica, regardless of type was tinned. I have a feeling that was a matter of station, or wealth. Maybe Matt can help me out here, but tinning was at least partly done in emulation of silver, and thus rank and station. Plus, it would have cost more and been more time consuming. As Derrek pointed out as well, the lorica seg. was iron, not steel, and thus didn't rust as quickly. ( i beleive that is due to teh carbon content in steel). Therefore, tinning was probably decorative. BUT, that is truly just my opinion.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Art will show us how a culture wishes to portray itself - while it can be a very accurate portrait at times, it can also sway into serious self-delusion at others.<hr><br>
<br>
That's a generalization. Not all art is abstract, or is it surrealist. Some is very accurate and based on real life. Saying that because it's art, and thus open to interpretation is a complete cop out, unless you've spoken to the artist in person, and he has verified this. Roman statuary for example, is <em>extremely</em> accurate, especially when it comes to proportions and form.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I agree with you on hard evidence over speculation any day of the week - but it's a lot of fun to ask folks like you and all the others on this forum for your understanding of these subjects. It allows me (and I hope others) to think a bit more in depth about our hobby, and it beats working any day! <hr><br>
<br>
Amen to that brother! I find that more brains = more angles = probable solution. That's teh best we can do in a lot of cases I guess.<br>
<br>
Hey, did you check out that japanese armor site yet?<br>
<p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine."<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i></i>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Matt, I think we need to understand that the brightly decorated, extremely ornate examples of Roman artifacts that we are so fond of reproducing as reenactors are those that most museums are displaying precisely because they represent the pinnacle of the Roman culture's artistic achievements on their technology<hr><br>
<br>
On the contrary, Lorica Segmentata <em>is</em> somewhat ornate, and that was the <strong>standard</strong> for that type of armor, which we are discussing. We are not discussing officer's kit here. Take a look at all the finds of this kind of armor. All of them have an enormous amount of intricacies to them, especially the Newstead types. The same goes for the gallic and itallic type helmets. These are extremely functional pieces of armor, not show pieces, such as the cavalry sports helm, or the velsen dagger. Yet, they have decorations on them, mostly in brass as well.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Also, we cannot make the assumption that legionnaries had all day to sit around doing nothing - for example, foraging for food and firewood, maintaning and repairing weapons and other equipment, fighting drills, etc. <hr><br>
<br>
It's not really an assumption. It's based more of the "process of elimination". When not fighting, or building roads, time would be given to weapons and armor maintenance. Even when projects were on the go, time would have been set aside for this. Why? Ask any soldier. Your weapons are your life. They will take life, and save yours. If they are not serviceable, then they won't work. If they rust, blades then lose their edge and strength, and if armor rusts, it looses it's protective value right? So why would they neglect their armor? I think we can safely establish the fact that the armor was <em>not</em> blackened on the outside, or blued for that matter, given the above points. As such, it would require a daily oiling at the least. Some days, if it wasn't worn, or worn on light duty, it would NOT need to be scrubbed at all. The oil will protect it. As such, minimal attention will be needed to maintain it.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>BTW, I do use and believe the sources and so forth - however, I try not to predicate absolute knowledge of the Roman way on my interpretation of things. <hr><br>
<br>
I don't think anyone is, but it's important to look at this issue from all angles, and figure it out as best we can. We know it's not feasible to blacken the outside of the armour...it won't last...because of this, regular maintenance (ie a scrub and oiling) will be required. Now, based on that, time would have been set aside to do this. Soldiers have to take care of their kit, because one day, it will take care of them. That's just how it works. It's like cause and effect. Cause: Armor Rusty. Effect: Bad guy's sword penetrates = bad.<br>
<br>
On tinning: I don't think every lorica, regardless of type was tinned. I have a feeling that was a matter of station, or wealth. Maybe Matt can help me out here, but tinning was at least partly done in emulation of silver, and thus rank and station. Plus, it would have cost more and been more time consuming. As Derrek pointed out as well, the lorica seg. was iron, not steel, and thus didn't rust as quickly. ( i beleive that is due to teh carbon content in steel). Therefore, tinning was probably decorative. BUT, that is truly just my opinion.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Art will show us how a culture wishes to portray itself - while it can be a very accurate portrait at times, it can also sway into serious self-delusion at others.<hr><br>
<br>
That's a generalization. Not all art is abstract, or is it surrealist. Some is very accurate and based on real life. Saying that because it's art, and thus open to interpretation is a complete cop out, unless you've spoken to the artist in person, and he has verified this. Roman statuary for example, is <em>extremely</em> accurate, especially when it comes to proportions and form.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I agree with you on hard evidence over speculation any day of the week - but it's a lot of fun to ask folks like you and all the others on this forum for your understanding of these subjects. It allows me (and I hope others) to think a bit more in depth about our hobby, and it beats working any day! <hr><br>
<br>
Amen to that brother! I find that more brains = more angles = probable solution. That's teh best we can do in a lot of cases I guess.<br>
<br>
Hey, did you check out that japanese armor site yet?<br>
<p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I<br>
<br>
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine."<br>
<br>
- Number of posts: current +1248</p><i></i>
