07-16-2004, 12:16 AM
<span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:medium;">Avete!</span><br>
It seems that there’s gathering interest in building the Newstead version of the lorica segmentata, which is wonderful! Adding a Newstead to one’s public display greatly enhances the publics understanding of the progressive development of Roman armor, as well as our own. (I would add, however, that I hope those concerned will display it with it’s associated equipment of the same 2nd-3rd Century time period: closed-toe calcea, semi-spathae, the mid-Imperial [typically cross-braced] helmet, short or non-existent apron straps, et al. It would be a disservice to the public, as well as other Roman reenactors, to simply wear a Newstead with otherwise 1st Century kit, because it would blur what was a pretty distinctive difference in the appearance of the army by the time the Newsteads appeared.)<br>
<br>
I would like to submit several points of fundamental difference between the Corbridge and the Newstead models of the lorica segmentata, so as to make reconstruction efforts more accurate. These points are covered in Dr. Mike Bishop’s recent Lorica Segmentata book, Mr. MD Thomas, who wrote the second volume of the same title (and in which he basically catalogues the dimensions of every scrap of lorica segmentata ever discovered/published thus far), and our own Arik Greenberg (a.k.a., Diogenes) who’s successfully built two Newsteads so far. And, with Dio’s help, I was even able to build one myself<br>
<br>
<span style="color:yellow;"><span style="text-decoration:underline"><strong>The Upper Section</strong></span></span><br>
<br>
Whereas the upper sections of the Corbridge models were of 1-1.2mm thickness (18 gauge), the Newsteads were quite a bit beefier, both in both sheer size and weight. The pectoral plates, back plates, and major shoulder guards were 1.5mm (16 gauge) in thickness. And the mid-collar plates (the ones closest to the body, on either side of the neck) were actually 1.7 to 1.8mm… 14 gauge! Dio has built his latest Newstead to these dimensions, and it’s quite spectacular. The mid-collar plate is so thick that there’s no need to roll it down onto itself around the neck hole… one upward roll is all that’s necessary. He also decided to make the mid-shoulder guards (that is, the middle plate of the three-piece major shoulder guard, which lied directly atop the mid-collar plate) in 14-gauge thickness as well. While that particular plate has yet to be found, the increased thickness dovetails with what appears to have been Roman intention to make the segmentata impervious to downward, slashing blows from such heavy weapons as the Dacian falx and the Frankish ax.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, the thickness of the sleeve plates is not mentioned by Mr. Thomas, and so presumably may have been left at 18 gauge, we really don’t know.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:yellow;"><span style="text-decoration:underline"><strong>The Lower Section</strong></span></span><br>
<br>
All Corbridges seem to have had seven to eight girth hoop plates of equal width (top to bottom), which was approximately 55mm. More accurately, the Corbridge A had eight girth hoops, while the Corbridge B and C models had seven.<br>
<br>
At this point it becomes necessary to note that there were two versions of the Newstead found. One is known as the Stillfried variant, and dated to the Antoinine period (140-160 AD… I still like AD better than CE), and the other was the Zugmantel variant, from roughly 225-260 AD. With the Stillfried variant, two halves were found; one featured seven girth hoop plates of 75mm width (!), while the other featured eight, equally of 50mm width. This resulted in similar top-to-bottom measurements overall, around 10-10.5 inches (they were originally thought to be two halves of the same cuirass, but this was not the case).<br>
<br>
The later Zugmantel variant was the strangest of all: six girth hoops total, all of progressively smaller dimensions, with the widest plate at the <em>bottom</em>, and the narrowest at the top, permanently secured to the back/pectoral plates with large hooks. And the bottommost plate was almost double the width of the others (this is where the Museum Replicas reproduction gets the über-wide bottom girth hoop from, although the other girth hoops of equal dimensions is closer to a Stillfried).<br>
<br>
The thickness/weight of the girth hoops on both Corbridge and Newstead models was 0.8 to 1mm, or between 18-20 gauge. It seems that, even later on, the Romans had enough confidence in their large, rectangular scutae to justify lowering the overall weight of the armor in that area.<br>
<br>
And cosmetically, there’s one more difference worth noting: a thin but distinct brass edging was riveted to the bottom edge of the very last plate, not dissimilar to the edging seen on the pectoral plates of the much-earlier Kalkriese find (which was a Corbridge).<br>
<br>
Anyone who would like further information on Newstead construction can read Dio’s article in Dr. Mike’s forthcoming issue of JRMES, in which he addresses a multitude of details too numerous to recount here. Until its publication, I hope this is helpful enough to assist anyone in their Newstead projects for now.<br>
<br>
Darius<br>
<span style="color:orange;font-family:georgia;font-size:medium;">Legion VI Victrix So. Cal.</span> <p></p><i></i>
It seems that there’s gathering interest in building the Newstead version of the lorica segmentata, which is wonderful! Adding a Newstead to one’s public display greatly enhances the publics understanding of the progressive development of Roman armor, as well as our own. (I would add, however, that I hope those concerned will display it with it’s associated equipment of the same 2nd-3rd Century time period: closed-toe calcea, semi-spathae, the mid-Imperial [typically cross-braced] helmet, short or non-existent apron straps, et al. It would be a disservice to the public, as well as other Roman reenactors, to simply wear a Newstead with otherwise 1st Century kit, because it would blur what was a pretty distinctive difference in the appearance of the army by the time the Newsteads appeared.)<br>
<br>
I would like to submit several points of fundamental difference between the Corbridge and the Newstead models of the lorica segmentata, so as to make reconstruction efforts more accurate. These points are covered in Dr. Mike Bishop’s recent Lorica Segmentata book, Mr. MD Thomas, who wrote the second volume of the same title (and in which he basically catalogues the dimensions of every scrap of lorica segmentata ever discovered/published thus far), and our own Arik Greenberg (a.k.a., Diogenes) who’s successfully built two Newsteads so far. And, with Dio’s help, I was even able to build one myself<br>
<br>
<span style="color:yellow;"><span style="text-decoration:underline"><strong>The Upper Section</strong></span></span><br>
<br>
Whereas the upper sections of the Corbridge models were of 1-1.2mm thickness (18 gauge), the Newsteads were quite a bit beefier, both in both sheer size and weight. The pectoral plates, back plates, and major shoulder guards were 1.5mm (16 gauge) in thickness. And the mid-collar plates (the ones closest to the body, on either side of the neck) were actually 1.7 to 1.8mm… 14 gauge! Dio has built his latest Newstead to these dimensions, and it’s quite spectacular. The mid-collar plate is so thick that there’s no need to roll it down onto itself around the neck hole… one upward roll is all that’s necessary. He also decided to make the mid-shoulder guards (that is, the middle plate of the three-piece major shoulder guard, which lied directly atop the mid-collar plate) in 14-gauge thickness as well. While that particular plate has yet to be found, the increased thickness dovetails with what appears to have been Roman intention to make the segmentata impervious to downward, slashing blows from such heavy weapons as the Dacian falx and the Frankish ax.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, the thickness of the sleeve plates is not mentioned by Mr. Thomas, and so presumably may have been left at 18 gauge, we really don’t know.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:yellow;"><span style="text-decoration:underline"><strong>The Lower Section</strong></span></span><br>
<br>
All Corbridges seem to have had seven to eight girth hoop plates of equal width (top to bottom), which was approximately 55mm. More accurately, the Corbridge A had eight girth hoops, while the Corbridge B and C models had seven.<br>
<br>
At this point it becomes necessary to note that there were two versions of the Newstead found. One is known as the Stillfried variant, and dated to the Antoinine period (140-160 AD… I still like AD better than CE), and the other was the Zugmantel variant, from roughly 225-260 AD. With the Stillfried variant, two halves were found; one featured seven girth hoop plates of 75mm width (!), while the other featured eight, equally of 50mm width. This resulted in similar top-to-bottom measurements overall, around 10-10.5 inches (they were originally thought to be two halves of the same cuirass, but this was not the case).<br>
<br>
The later Zugmantel variant was the strangest of all: six girth hoops total, all of progressively smaller dimensions, with the widest plate at the <em>bottom</em>, and the narrowest at the top, permanently secured to the back/pectoral plates with large hooks. And the bottommost plate was almost double the width of the others (this is where the Museum Replicas reproduction gets the über-wide bottom girth hoop from, although the other girth hoops of equal dimensions is closer to a Stillfried).<br>
<br>
The thickness/weight of the girth hoops on both Corbridge and Newstead models was 0.8 to 1mm, or between 18-20 gauge. It seems that, even later on, the Romans had enough confidence in their large, rectangular scutae to justify lowering the overall weight of the armor in that area.<br>
<br>
And cosmetically, there’s one more difference worth noting: a thin but distinct brass edging was riveted to the bottom edge of the very last plate, not dissimilar to the edging seen on the pectoral plates of the much-earlier Kalkriese find (which was a Corbridge).<br>
<br>
Anyone who would like further information on Newstead construction can read Dio’s article in Dr. Mike’s forthcoming issue of JRMES, in which he addresses a multitude of details too numerous to recount here. Until its publication, I hope this is helpful enough to assist anyone in their Newstead projects for now.<br>
<br>
Darius<br>
<span style="color:orange;font-family:georgia;font-size:medium;">Legion VI Victrix So. Cal.</span> <p></p><i></i>
![[Image: smallparmarat.jpg]](http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/peronis/smallparmarat.jpg)
