07-17-2006, 11:47 PM
Hibernicus has recently raised an issue that I've thought about for a while now- just how smooth or not smooth was the surface of roman armor iron plate? His suggestion (please correct me if I'm wrong Sean) is that it wasn't so much so, and for a long time I had thought so as well figuring that it had likely been hand-hammered from billets. But when I saw well-preserved segmentata plates, for the first time, I wasn't so sure. I've attached the one image I have at present and to be honest, it looks quite smooth to me. Sure it's not perfect, but it doesn't look to me to bear a lot of hammermarks from flattening either. The suggestion put forth is that using modern sheet steel is less-than-accurate because the rolling is so precise, but when I look at the plates below, and many copper alloy armor plates, fittings, etc., they all look fairly smooth and don't bear marks that, to me, look pre-product (armor, etc.) fabrication in nature. In fact, the thicknesses of some of the pieces I have in my collection (copper alloy) are so nice, I can't help but wonder if some sort of rolling mill was in fact used to finish the sheet metal. It's not exactly complex technology- certainly not for the Romans- and it would allow a great deal of control over amount of metal used, time involved to fabricate sheet metal, and consistency. Given that the suggestion has recently been made that various thicknesses of iron were used for different areas of cuirasses purposely, the latter element seems rather important.
All this having been said, I certainly can say it's not as 'normal' as one might thing to see hammermarks in iron, or any metal for that matter, from flattening hot- a misconception I had, but was cured of when I made my very first steel object. Prior to that I'd always thought there should be clear evidence of hammerstrikes, but when I actually did it, the product was remarkably smooth. It seems dependent on a number of factors including the size and smoothness (face) of the hammer one is working with, is the iron worked red-hot, whether or not one is really trying to produce even thickness product, and probably most important of all, how flat/ smooth the anvil is. If the anvil is well-kept (something that is stressed in everything I've ever read about blacksmithing), it leaves a nice, smooth face on its side of anything being hammered- and if you end up with 'good-one-side' metal, even for armor, I can see using that side preferrentially- I sure would :lol:
Actually, on that note particularly, all one has to do is look at helmets- even if the exterior is fairly smooth and nice (relatively), the interior and undersides bear all kinds of marks. Certainly care would be taken where necessary and no time wasted where it's unnecessary.
So I'm just curious what others may know about the condition of actual sheet iron artifacts- those where corrosion hasn't damaged the surface of course - with respect to evidence of flattening on sheet metal (so for helmets, only the neckguards probably apply). Is this section of lorica segmentata from Xanten nicer than average or is it reasonable to think it might be of normal quality?
While I certainly agree that a lot of reproductions these days are far too nice- made to modern quality standards (smooth, shiny, straight, etc.)- I don't think that sheet steel, for example, that bears not more than the few marks from fabricating the finished object, is particularly inauthentic. I should think that the artifact from Xanten certainly constitutes evidence that the iron plates of segmentatae could indeed be nice
All information (please be sure you can reference it though) is welcome- I find the subject of manufacture techniques and details quite fascinating :wink:
Vale
Matt
All this having been said, I certainly can say it's not as 'normal' as one might thing to see hammermarks in iron, or any metal for that matter, from flattening hot- a misconception I had, but was cured of when I made my very first steel object. Prior to that I'd always thought there should be clear evidence of hammerstrikes, but when I actually did it, the product was remarkably smooth. It seems dependent on a number of factors including the size and smoothness (face) of the hammer one is working with, is the iron worked red-hot, whether or not one is really trying to produce even thickness product, and probably most important of all, how flat/ smooth the anvil is. If the anvil is well-kept (something that is stressed in everything I've ever read about blacksmithing), it leaves a nice, smooth face on its side of anything being hammered- and if you end up with 'good-one-side' metal, even for armor, I can see using that side preferrentially- I sure would :lol:
Actually, on that note particularly, all one has to do is look at helmets- even if the exterior is fairly smooth and nice (relatively), the interior and undersides bear all kinds of marks. Certainly care would be taken where necessary and no time wasted where it's unnecessary.
So I'm just curious what others may know about the condition of actual sheet iron artifacts- those where corrosion hasn't damaged the surface of course - with respect to evidence of flattening on sheet metal (so for helmets, only the neckguards probably apply). Is this section of lorica segmentata from Xanten nicer than average or is it reasonable to think it might be of normal quality?
While I certainly agree that a lot of reproductions these days are far too nice- made to modern quality standards (smooth, shiny, straight, etc.)- I don't think that sheet steel, for example, that bears not more than the few marks from fabricating the finished object, is particularly inauthentic. I should think that the artifact from Xanten certainly constitutes evidence that the iron plates of segmentatae could indeed be nice
All information (please be sure you can reference it though) is welcome- I find the subject of manufacture techniques and details quite fascinating :wink:
Vale
Matt
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!