Kalkreise segmentata

[Caius Fabius]

Fantastic!<br>
<br>
One of the things that people seem to hang up on, is the idea that additional shoulder protection would have to be actually attached to the hamata. As seen in some medieval sets, the various plate combinations could be worn over mail without having attachment points. Whether or not this was something that was happening in "our" period of time is another question. If the shoulder combination were not attached to girdles plates but only secured to the wearer by straps, some of the "buckle points" might be more logical.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>"Just before class started, I looked in the big book where all the world's history is written, and it said...." Neil J. Hackett, PhD ancient history, professor OSU, </p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I think you mistake what I intended here.<br>
I dont think the vertical straps went with mailm, but all of the evidence suggests girdle plates.<br>
If you dont attach them to your hamata or to girdle plates what are you going to attach the vertical staps to, or use the side rivet points for, or the top hing for?<br>
Do you intend that all Romans had nipple rings and buckled them to that?<br>
Very uncomfortable & not too practical.<br>
Is it not armour at all then?<br>
Should it be placed with the London leather knickers and classed as Roman "Ann Summers " wear. <p></p><i></i>

[Caius Fabius]

I have found over the years that there are two kinds of research.<br>
One type of research is usually fostered by the higher educational system, which almost forces prospective candidates to pick a specific theory and prove it to the exclusion of all others. This often causes any other possible answers to be either ignored or belittled in an attempt to show that the original theory is the only really possible one. I think this model can stifle brilliant minds, because it is very difficult to stop in the last phases of your research, and start with a new theory or have to admit that there is more than one probable answer to the data available. This is especially true in mathematics, but is becoming more and more true in Social Sciences as people try to write the “One Book of Historyâ€ÂÂ

[Anonymous]

As a re-enactor, and one who actually fights in Roman armour, both mail and segementata, I have found that when trying to combine the two you limit your physical movements for fear of losing the top part of your armour, because where the mail would join the supposed segmentata shoulder plates it tends to rip. You also have more open gaps, for example under the arms. Also, when you are in mail you tend to be fighting as light infantry or cavalry and need the lightweight flexibility of the mail, especially on the shoulders.<br>
<br>
With regard to the Kalkriese plate, it has rivet & hinge points similar to a Corbridge, horizontal & vertical strapping similar to a Corbridge, so in all probability belonged to something similar to, but earlier than a Corbridge. As mentioned earlier, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, in all probability it isn’t a fish!<br>
<br>
“..to pick a specific theory and prove it to the exclusion of all others. This often causes any other possible answers to be either ignored or belittled in an attempt to show that the original theory is the only really possible one.â€ÂÂ

[FlaviusCrispus]

Caius Fabius--<br>
<br>
<<actually I am looking at three possible combinations, the girdle bands being one, and only one. The attached to hamata being the least favorable, and a free-floating shoulders over hamata, instead of mail doubling, being the least researched, yet additionally feasible and sensible.>><br>
<br>
While you're at it, you might make a version with a built-in jet pack, and another with spring-loaded whirling helicopter blades, and another with a chest-mounted repeating ballista! After all, we can't prove it WASN'T like that, can we?<br>
<br>
I find it odd that you belittle the likes of M.C. Bishop for jumping to conclusions and possibly building jackelopes out of sparse, fragmentary remains, when you yourself seem committed to building the biggest, wildest jackelope of all, evidence be damned!<br>
<br>
I'll ask again: What is it about the Kalkriese breastplate that makes you think it belongs to anything other than a lorica segmentata similar to the Corbridge? What piece of evidence convinces you it might be something else?<br>
<br>
And no, seeing a photo of Dan Peterson wearing a composite, Arlon-style cuirass (with no breastplates, by the way) does not constitute "evidence."<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Caius Fabius]

You know, you are absolutely correct, I am Nemo. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=caiusfabius>Caius Fabius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ROMANISROMANORVM/files/C%20Fabius%201988b.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 2/1/05 8:04 pm<br></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>Now, can you answer this question: Is there any indication at all that any of the Kalkriese (and related) fragments were mated to anything other than girth hoops, i.e. that the girth section may have been mail or scale instead?</em><br>
<br>
Not really, but then the main reason for thinking that it had girth hoops lies in looking at what came afterwards: the Corbridge type. Interesting to note that one of the vaguely plausible types of composite armour (and it is less ambiguous than the infamous Arlon relief), the Alba Iulia type, appears to combine scale shoulder sections with segmental girth hoops.<br>
<br>
<em>Oh, by the way, on page 24 of your "LC Vol. I," there is a drawing of the Kalkriese breastplate with a scale next to it-- does this not constitute a "scale drawing"? Or are there pieces as large or larger still to be published?</em><br>
<br>
Well, it is based on the published photo which was said to be at a particular size, which could be cross-checked with the published details, but it is not what I would class as a scale drawing, made by an archaeological illustrator from the artefact itself and avoiding the inevitable distortions imposed by a camera lens (these days I often use a scanner for the basic starting point for a proper archaeological drawing, much more accurate than the old Grant projector I used to wrestle with, but nothing beats holding the artefact whilst measuring and drawing it). As for if there is more to be published - who knows?<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Mike,<br>
I do know what the Alba Iulia relief is, but I've only ever seen a (your) drawing. Do you know of a published photo anywhere? <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>I do know what the Alba Iulia relief is, but I've only ever seen a (your) drawing. Do you know of a published photo anywhere?</em><br>
<br>
It was published in Jon Coulston's original article in <em>Arma</em> 7 (1995), 15 fig.2. We saw it when we were there in 1987 and I at least had not been aware of its existence until then. It also appears as colour plate 7 in <em>Lorica Segmentata I</em> (on p.53).<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=mcbishop>mcbishop</A> at: 2/7/05 11:01 am<br></i>