10-23-2002, 04:19 PM
Dan is quite right and I don't mean to undervalue all those re-enactors who use equipment that is, by Roman standards, over-specified (and usually better-made) given the general crumminess of the originals. Besides, most cuirasses look authentic to all but the ultimate nit-picker and how many of those are there? Far more important that re-enactors give an overall impression of what the armour looks like and how it functions. You can even make useful observations about the stuff from such re-enactor cuirasses (as you will see when the forthcoming volume has come forth... not long now ;-).<br>
<br>
But (and it is an immense, Colossus of Rhodes-sized but) to make statements about the technical performance of lorica seg you must make it (as Dan said) in the original manner, with as near authentic materials and techniques as possible, and (I hate to say this) as badly as the Romans did. It must be made authentically *and* used/tested authentically (ie over a padded arming doublet and something that passes as a substitute for the human frame).<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
<br>
But (and it is an immense, Colossus of Rhodes-sized but) to make statements about the technical performance of lorica seg you must make it (as Dan said) in the original manner, with as near authentic materials and techniques as possible, and (I hate to say this) as badly as the Romans did. It must be made authentically *and* used/tested authentically (ie over a padded arming doublet and something that passes as a substitute for the human frame).<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
