Full Coverage Manica

[jsantell]

I just finished a full coverage manica for a customer. It is for a very large fellow so I won't model the armor as it looks ridiculously large on me. For the technical specs, it is 18 gauge mild steel. Full coverage plates overlap up from the wrist, seams run along the inner arm out of sight when worn. Rolled edges at wrist and upper lamination with one inch of exposure per lame. I stopped the plates from gapping by using 4 suspension leathers but only fastening 3 per lame and alternating the pattern in a rather ingenious fashion of which I am very proud. Much more flexible than I thought it would be ( I took this commission with more than a few reservations. I thought the plates would gap terribly and that the armor would be stiff.) The customer wanted a shoulder cop and some more laminations extending down to the first set of knuckles on his hand so I took a few pictures before attaching those other parts that really don't belong on a Roman armor.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzewgo2k/uplo ... anica1.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzewgo2k/uplo ... anica2.jpg

[Doc]

Juan,

Very nice looking manica.

However, one thing and maybe you know this, but the manica samples that were found, at least to my knowledge, were 20 or 22 gauge not 18 gauge.

Matt Lukes is making a manica for me and it wiil be one of the gauges I mentioned not 18. I had a long discussion with him on that since I too thought originally that they were 18 gauge thick.

Bu then again your customer may want 18 gauge.

Nonetheless, nice job.

[jsantell]

I don't know if the buyer knows what he is planning to do with it yet, He may go into SCA so anything lighter for that crew would be almost disposable armor. For reenacting without the threat of combat I would have gone with 20 or 22 gauge brass. With the price of brass that would be very expensive though.

[Doc]

Juan,

That is why I mentioned the customer. You are correct with respect to SCA.

However, you mentioned going thinner for reenactment not for combat. The originals in the ranges I mentioned are for combat not for show. (I just do not remember if it is 20 or 22)

Roman legionary armor is not as thick as supposed. Many original helmets were something like 20 gauge. They were used in combat.

Brass scales for scale armor were .25-.3mm thick. But when staggered an layered, they went to about 20 gauge thickness and more at times but not 18 gauge. (AFAIK).

Now if you are referring to SCA, then yes, the thicker the better to protect the wearer.

But if you are implying that 20 or 22 gauge brass is not for battle, then this assumption is not entirely correct.

We know that gladiator armor could have been and was at times thicker than legionary armor.

[Peroni]

However, one thing and maybe you know this, but the manica samples that were found, at least to my knowledge, were 20 or 22 gauge not 18 gauge.

Curle's Newstead report on the Newstead manica remains states.."Altogether there were more than one hundred fragments (Plate XXIII.). These consisted for the most part of thin plates of brass from one inch to
one inch and three-sixteenths in width, slightly curved, and having a thickness of two mm. The longest piece was about three and a half inches in length.

Also..
"Upon several of these there are still to be seen adhering pieces of the leather backing to which they have been attached".

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

2 mm plates or where they overlap?

[jsantell]

I overlapped these plates about 1/2 inch to get them to stop gapping, 2 to 3 mm wouldn't be able to move much without a gap showing.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

i have one with at least 2 mm plates, and it is quite 'gappy'..the thinner ones from A. Walpole are better.

BTW, that is a pretty effective looking piece of kit Juan!

[Doc]

Peroni,

Is that for all the fragments or just that one. Thicknesses varied amongst the sheet metals used. :?:

I believe that thikness would be where the plates overlap in which case obviously you get 2mm or close to it. But how about each individual plate? If each plate is 2mm, then at the overlap it would be 4mm. hock:

Again, the manica I am having made by Matt Lukes, does not have 2mm thick plates. At the overlap they are about 2mm. I doubt that someone with the knowlege of Lukes would construct a piece of armor for a client using the incorrect thickness and proportions. :wink:

[jsantell]

I could see brass in 2mm thickness being used. I make a lot of SCA armor and one of my rules of thumb is that any time a customer wants brass plates I usually go one gauge thicker. So, in this case I made the manica in 18 gauge I would have used 16 gauge in brass. The brass is not nearly as durable as steel, it dents and scratches easily. Also, there wouldn't be much point in making this in thin brass as the first time it got hit it would dent and crease, from that point on the lames would no longer glide over each other and mobility would be lost or even worse, the plates would gap wide open.
I forgot to mention that I did form each lame with a slight curve in at the top so that the plates would not catch as the moved. Just flat and formed in a circle they kept catching.

[Doc]

Juan,

I agree that for SCA thicker is better. Brass may scratch but it hardens when you strike it.

The manica like all armors was there for the incidental hit, not that you stick your arm out and have it struck. For that matter 'the thickness would be irrelevant. If as Peroni mentions there were 2mm thick lames, then yours are within "historical accuracy".

But we cannot catagorically say that thinner would not be useful armor. Remember that scales were not very thick, but it was the overlap that made them thicker; not 2mm, closer to .9 mm and still was considered armor.

By the way can you PM me your phone number. I live in NYC.

Paolo

[Peroni]

Peroni,

Is that for all the fragments or just that one. Thicknesses varied amongst the sheet metals used.

Curle does not specify whether it was a single lame or a combination. The quote I posted above is taken directly from his report (online .pdf file)

I too think that 2mm is rather heavy. 1mm is more than plenty for this type of defence. Curle also uses a mixture of inches and millimetres in the same paragraph too, which makes you question why?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Perhaps he wrote it on a Monday morning?

[Matt Lukes]

Bishop specifically states that the artifacts are 0.5mm thick in his Lorica segmentata book- clearly 2mm is excessive, so Curle's text must simply be wrong. Quite a few Roman protective objects were just 0.5mm in thickness- squamata scales (the 1.5x2.5cm type such as those from Vindonissa), the small breast plates of mail and scale armor, some umbones (a square type I examined), scutum edge binding, for a few examples (I've seen and measured original examples of all)- so 0.5mm for manica lames is perfectly reasonable. Because it's for the sword arm, which is likely to constantly be in motion in a battle, it does better being light so as not to tire the wearer unduly, and it's clearly not impact protection, but cut protection, so even relatively thin metal will do the job just fine.

But all that's not really relevant to Juan's piece, which is really nice :wink: , since it was made to order and if the guy may want it for SCA 'combat', it can't be historically-accurate and still conform to their armor safety standards.

[le Cavalier Invisible]

So, if I understand correctly, this is a Manica with full coverage, so all the way around (or something like that.. :roll: )? How does something like that work?

Sorry for the strange question.. :? roll:

Greetz,