Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally?

[Matt Lukes]

I'm right in the middle of preps for a big event so I don't have the time to do the full research yet but this needs more looking at. :x

Absolutely- I didn't start from the position of believing the plates hung at an angle, but that they were likely straight- I discovered the angle when examining the artifact diagrams, and was rather surprised. It's not that I simply feel I'm right, it's just that I can find no other possibility, so if someone can, I'd be curious to know

I follow Matt's points, and agree that the lie of the crossing plates would not unduly expose the neck. but look at the angles and overlap at the bottom of the chest plates. This is unecessary and out of step with all of the rest of the plates which are parallel (if overlapping with each other). From a logical point of view this shold be reshaped to parallel the girth plates.

Indeed it seems strange, but we're not talking about loose artifacts, the original orientation of which we're trying to discern- they're articulated and the shapes are known. Logic cannot be imposed to alter phyisical fact. The fact that the fasteners aren't angled seems odd to us, but unless anyone can show how the artifacts in their current orientations can adopt different conformations that still work, we are left with wondering just why the fittings are the way they are.

Ambrosius backs up my point about the buckles. Sulla, if you consider an A, then both the lateral (chest the chest) and vertical buckles (chest to girdle) would be stressed (and Matt is showing an angle of about 30 degrees). Whilst the leather would take this curve, this isn't the weak point. The point of highest stress is the brass hinged buckle fitting. Based on this angle and the thickness of brass used on the originals I would suggest that a contemprary piece would be lucky to last 6 months before these hinges failed and required repair.

What makes you think 6 months between repairs was abnormal? It might have been significantly more frequent than that for all we know. Imposing modern ideas of how things 'should' last is dodgy- I doubt many of use would disagree that the lobate hinges are unduly complex and weak to be used on armor, but they were for centuries so the Romans obviously had a different take on the matter. And again, there are lots of broken buckles around- I have 6 myself- so this kind of damage was indeed common it seems, which means your statement actually supports the idea of angled breastplates.

A final thought in regard of historical evidence; What is the context of the finds (in service armour, defcetive poorly designed copies, apprentice c**k ups) will we ever know?

Fair enough, but how likely is it that the one set of clearly well-used, based on the number of repairs, articulated artifacts we have are any of the above? It might be reasonable to wonder if we had just one and it had issues that seemed difficult to explain, but that's not the case at all.