Why Not Use Stainless Steel For Segmentatas

[Hibernicus]

Why not use stainless steel for segmentatas?

Why not?

Over the last several years I have made segmentatas with stainless steel for guys who fight SCA. I even made one for myself.. back in the day...

I just finished a segmentata for a school in the UK. They do historic tours and like to dress kids in armor. We decided on stainless steel in order to reduce the need for daily rust prevention and or removal. Other than that everything is historically dead on.

In this case the stainless was burnished to break down the waxy appearance of the surface. I did it myself instead of buying brushed stainless... The brushed stainless was significantly more expensive.

But, here's the rub. CR steel that's been burnished can look so much like brushed or burnished stainless that it's .. intriguing.

What's the point of using CR steel that's kept "bare".. some of us burnish it giving a greyish matte, other slightly burnish it, others polish the tar out of it making it mirror shiny. Others buy segmentatas made in India that are often from stainless... AND many clubs allow these segmentatas as acceptable kit items.

My point is that unless you are going to finish your CR steel to look like it came off the forge (hammered, tempered and blue/black ) OR tinned, why not use stainless that's been brushed or burnished to look like lightly burnished CR steel?

Stainless can be different to work, can be harder, costs more and weighs less than CR steel of the same gauge.

CR steel is not Roman iron but acts like it when hammered and tempered. Most of us never work the CR steel to that degree.

If you can make stainless steel look like CR steel by burnishng and or brushing why not use it?

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Sean,

I have asked the same question myself. Many reenactors seem to think that modern mild steel is actually more "authentic" since it will actually rust, and dull. However most of them have no concept that its just as inaccurate as stainless steels.


I imagine the vast majority of reenactors would never even come close to guessing it was stainless if you finished it the way you describe. You can even age it with some chemicals to give it that " lived in" look if you desire.

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

Well, call it a simple standard of accuracy, a line in the sand if you will. No, mild steel is not Roman wrought iron, but it is as close as we can reasonably come. If I were to require wrought iron, I'd be "an army of one", eh? (And I wouldn't have a lorica myself!) I do not agree that stainless steel is as close to wrought iron as mild steel--it is clearly a different alloy with visibly different properties.

I see the rusting as more advantage than disadvantage. We do try to keep our armor free of rust, but it is possible to see where rust has been removed. Isn't that a little more realistic? If someone feels that the minimal maintenance needed to keep a lorica from turning brown is just too much, maybe that person isn't quite dedicated enough for my group. Now, ask around, and my guys will tell you that I am hardly a martinet! No weekly drills or route marches, no hour-long kit inspections, very little screaming and beating. But I do feel that a reenactor should care about his hobby enough to keep his armor oiled. It's not too much to ask.

For churches and theater groups and such, heck, yeah, use stainless! Shoot, better yet, use aluminum! Easier to work and far less weight. Nylon webbing for the intenal leathers, and it will never rot apart.

But for reenactment purposes, why not stick with mild steel? There's no point in backsliding to stainless. We don't require hand-spun and hand-woven wool for our tunics, but we do require 100 percent wool. "No one can tell" if we used 20 percent nylon, it's simply a standard we have decided to stick to.

We should always be looking for ways to make our gear MORE accurate, not less.

Valete,

Matthew

[Matt Lukes]

Absolutely. I'd consider using stainless steel as a HUGE step back- away from the authenticity that should be striven for. Sure regular mild steel isn't wrought iron, but it's as close as we can get in the right direction, just as is modern yellow brass- not quite orichalcum, but the best we can do. Mild steel is just iron and carbon- and there's no way Roman iron was carbon-free, so the constituents are correct, just not as nicely-distributed - VERY inauthentic. I don't even like the idea of using anything but true copper-tin bronze- no aluminum bronze thanks!

I really love the trend of late towards maximizing authenticity- the examination of objects with an eye to getting them as right as possible and the very start point to that is material.

And the little bits of corrosion and staining add a lot I think to the realistic appearance of the gear. If the interior is oil-blackened there's no worry about issues there, and the exterior, if it's burnished some to start with, isn't terribly difficult to keep clean.

Now I agree with Matt about other users- theater, SCA, etc. absolutely could/ should go for stainless over mild for practical purposes and because authenticity isn't paramount for them- but for us? I might be a little more 'understanding' than some and accept non veg-tanned leather as acceptable, but stainless steel would be definitely out...

It's funny- it's a very old joke among my family and friends about Exaclibur being the movie with the guys in the stainless steel armor :lol:

[Hibernicus]

But, if by appearance you can not tell if it's stainless steel, if its a brushed or burnished stainless that looks like brushed or burnished.. even polished.. CR steel....

If so many are acceptably wearing the segs out of India that are made with a variety of steel alloys....

And, is stainless really less accurate than CR steel?
.... especially when its surface treatment creates comparable visual effects?

Both are wrong, but differently wrong.

If folk aren't going to use a segmentata the way it was intended, if its for looks only, why be concerned by which wrong metal to use, so long as you achieve a similar outward visual appearance?

If your goal is a bare steel look in imitation of that possible historic surface treatment what does it matter whether you attain that appearance with CR steel or stainless steel?

[Matt Lukes]

I guess I'm a purist- I like as-authentic-as-is-reasonably-possible. Mild steel is just iron and carbon- no modern alloying metals. The Romans didn't have nickel, molybdenum, niobium or titanium, so I don't want them present if I have a choice.

Are you suggesting that stuff from India, etc. is not just plain steel? Or by various alloys do you mean varying carbon contents? Because not only would that not be inaccurate but rather more so; ancient steel couldn't have had a consistent, specific carbon content

A major part of the reason that the Indian (and other) armor is acceptable is because of cost; it's a lot cheaper and thus affordable- the same reason I think non-veg tanned leather can be acceptable (because it's not all that different than veg tanned and is a LOT less costly). Were the costs the same however, I'd definitely say the more authentic one would be the only way to go. So if you're going to go to the expense of really authentic stuff, why would you sacrifice that to go with a modern material?

I suppose if you lived in a terribly humid environment and there was a significant corrosion hazard, it would be practical to protect your investment as much as possible- but I live barely 25km from the Pacific Ocean in a place where it rains A LOT (record of 29 days straight cloud cover and rain back in January) and so long as the armor steel is polished some (just with emery cloth and steel wool- necessary after oil-blackening the interiors anyway), it's not terribly prone to rusting and needs only occasional swipes with steel wool to keep the little spots at bay.

Just my two Asses of course

[M. Demetrius]

Gee.
I remember mentioning aluminum lorica for theatre some time back and getting hung on a hook by the leadership of a legion (of which I am no longer a member) and gutted for my trouble. Matt Amt mentions it and it's passed right by. I guess things change.

So what's next? A suggestion of anodized aluminum hinges, hooks, and paterae?

I'm sorry, guys, but even though steel rusts, I'm still not for the stainless. Nor, or course, for "brass" anodized aluminum. Nor a rayon-acetate blend instead of linen. Not that it matters a lot what I think about anything. I mean it's not like I'm bringin' up the possibility of using wool blankets that are a blend of nylon and wool, you know?

Slam me if you want to, I'll probably ignore it anyhow.

[Tarbicus]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but perhaps because it IS more resilient than Roman plate. I don't want stuff that is built to last, I want stuff that could need more maintenance.

The problem is that the use of unauthentic materials leads to myths, simply because people say "Well, my seg doesn't need 'this, or it doesn't need 'that'." And it all leads to a perception that therefore the ancients didn't need to do 'this', or didn't need to do 'that', even though the originator said nothing of the sort. When you wear caligae that don't have conical hobnails guess what - you don't have the grip in the grass the real guys had. So we end up with "Well, I had a problem with this maoeuvring, so the Romans must have had the same."

Or, "My scutum was pierced by a pub dart, so the Romans must have crapped themselves when the archers came out."

Just my opinion.

[Hibernicus]

"Leads to myths".... like the use of burnished or polished CR steel.. "it rusts therefore Roman armor rusted."

Segs out of India? Not all manufacturers but many segs with asst steel alloys, lots of non-CR steel.
.......

My point... CR steel has the potential to be similar in form AND function to Roman iron, but in its untreated off the shelf form its just another modern steel.

The only way we can equate CR steel with Roman iron is by working it and tempering it, even if you buff off the forge blackening and polish it up

If you don't do these things CR is no different than stainless except in metal composition. However, they can be made to look the same.

And... if you can't tell the difference when looking at it, and if you don't make it to function more like Roman iron, then what's the difference? It's potential?

Form AND function!

When we can make something more like what it was shouldn't we?

We can't make stainless function like Roman iron but we can make it look like Roman iron in one of its proposed surface finishes.

If we can make CR steel look like AND function like Roman iron, shouldn't we?

[FAVENTIANVS]

I like to have traces of rust on my helmet... call me dirty...
A 100% of accuracy is impossible, then it's better to have a 95% than a 87%. So, the more accurate the better, even if it's not a 100%.

[Caius Fabius]

One of the things about writing for the masses is to never use a a acronym throughout the body of your message unless you define it first. I am assuming that "CR Steel" is "Cold Rolled Steel"? Does it mean something else? If cold rolled steel, can't the steel have many different chemical compositions, or is there only one? Or is 'CR Steel' Carbon Reduced steel? Is the CR a process? If so, can this be done to all sorts of carbon/iron/+other stuff mixtures or only to certain specific formula? How does CR Steel compare to the carbon enriched iron used by the Romans?

Why not use stainless steel for segmentatas?

......
O.

But, here's the rub. CR steel that's been burnished can look so much like brushed or burnished stainless that it's .. intriguing.

What's the point of using CR steel that's kept "bare".. some of us burnish it giving a greyish matte, other slightly burnish it, others polish the tar out of it making it mirror shiny. Others buy segmentatas made in India that are often from stainless... AND many clubs allow these segmentatas as acceptable kit items.

My point is that unless you are going to finish your CR steel to look like it came off the forge (hammered, tempered and blue/black ) OR tinned, why not use stainless that's been brushed or burnished to look like lightly burnished CR steel?

Stainless can be different to work, can be harder, costs more and weighs less than CR steel of the same gauge.

CR steel is not Roman iron but acts like it when hammered and tempered. Most of us never work the CR steel to that degree.

If you can make stainless steel look like CR steel by burnishng and or brushing why not use it?

[Hibernicus]

CR steel is, according to the metallugist I've used, the closest in composition to Roman iron

CR usually refers to cold rolled sometimes called "commercial steel"... its a process not a description of the composition of the steel though most metal retailers/wholesalers, from what I have been told, for the most part sell the same material unless a customer asks for other variants

I prefer to use HR (hot rolled) steel since I often work it, but my supplier doesn't stock it in the gauges I use. It generally costs less.

For most guys CR is better because its harder than HR

[Hibernicus]

CR steel has been work hardened by rolling, but if you are going to hammer steel you may as well use HR... hot rolled.. you'll end up make it as hard fi not harder than the CR

[Matthew Amt]

Gee.
I remember mentioning aluminum lorica for theatre some time back and getting hung on a hook by the leadership of a legion (of which I am no longer a member) and gutted for my trouble. Matt Amt mentions it and it's passed right by. I guess things change.

Wacky, someone went off on you for suggesting that churches and theaters might use aluminum armor? Bizarre. I should hope they misinterpreted what you said! And I should hope that anyone could feel free disagree with me on a subjective thing like that, too, though hopefully it would be in a friendly way. I for one have never had a problem with non-reenactors, the SCA, or Hollywood using whatever materials they want.

I think most of us agree with you on this one, don't worry!

Sean, your other post (was it supposed to be a reply here?), "Content with the way it looks..." says that you would never use stainless for a reenactment lorica, but you seem to be trying hard to convince us that it's all right or even better than mild steel. So I'm still puzzled by your arguments, particularly since most discussions on this board about such topics are from an authenticity-minded viewpoint (as opposed to SCA combat use, for instance).

Sure, looks are important, since we are above all a visual hobby. And yes, we all have mistakes, particularly when you get down to the molecular level. We should be aware of those mistakes and not try to rationalize them to the public or ourselves. A reenactor who approaches the hobby by trying to hide or get away with as many inaccuracies as possible would worry me.

On the other hand, we seem to be discussing personal philosophies, here, and I can only speak for myself and my group. What other groups decide for their standards is entirely up to them!

Valete,

Matthew

[Caius Fabius]

Laudes to Matt Amt for a well written and calming post. This is not a topic to get angry about, people have different standards. There seems to be some confusion, maybe in the writing, maybe in the perceptions, but at the end of the day, only you know what kind of steel you want to wear.