06-13-2008, 08:19 AM
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.
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.
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
