Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally?

[ambrosius]

But are the plates supposed to be vertical?

I'd say they were.

Not to sound confrontational, but can you demonstrate this using the exact layout of the original Corbridge artifacts? Because I can't.

If the external buckles/straps on a Corbridge were intended to allow
the pectoral plates to hang 'not verically' and 'not parallel to each
other', then the buckles/straps would have been rivetted to the pectorals
at that angle, and not perpendicular to the edges of the plates. You
just don't rivet a buckle to a plate so as to have it stressed at 20-30'
angle or twist. You don't wear your belt buckle twisted at that angle,
and nor would you want your segmentata buckle unduly stressed at
that angle, either. It would break long before it otherwise would if it
was hanging correctly, and would be a pain in the *** for your legionary
quartermaster and blacksmith, having to replace the leathers three
times more often than they wanted to.

Firstly, the angle of attachment of the buckles/straps is perpendicular to the edge of the plates, ...

But you have to bear in mind that the wearer wasn't just standing there he moved around quite a lot and with that motion, the plates, being very mobile relative to one another, would rotate, flex, etc. and as Barry has rightly pointed-out,

And as you and Barry have to bear in mind, the internal leathers
are what are supposed to allow for the plates to flex relative to each
other wherever the internal leathers are placed. If you ain't got
internal leather between plates, then they ain't supposed to flex at
that particular junction! :roll: Look at the shoulder guards - they have
internal leathers to allow them to flex. Look at the abdominal plates -
they have internal leather to allow them to flex. Look at the junctions
between the two pectoral plates - no internal leather hock:
That's becuase they were not designed to flex relative to each other
They were just meant to hang there in a vertical position. And this is
the clue as to what shape the subarmalis must have been - so as to
allow the plates to hang vertically.

Diagonally crossing plates, instead of giving you the protection they were designed to give, open up the neck hole to allow an enemy to attack your throat more easily, which is about the most vulnerable unarmoured part of the body. The shoulder guards and the cheek guards of the helmet between them give some protection, but it's still vulnerable and largely uncovered. So you want the neck hole to be
as small as possible while still allowing you to breathe. :lol:

I'm afraid this is just incorrect- the cross doesn't increase the size of the neck opening- if anything, they decrease it since the long edge of some plates would result in a deep neckline exposing more of the sternum. Play with cutouts or Photoshop some real artifacts and you'll see.

No, you play with them. I have no idea what you are trying to say,
above, but you are incorrect. If the pectorals are pulled outwards, because they are not hanging vertically, the neck opening increases

Actually the Newstead is infinitely superior in providing protection than the Corbridge A - the Corbridge B being an intermediate between the two, with the leathers between the shoulders and girths
being replaced by metal hooks & eyes. This becomes a total replacement of the external leathers, including the horizontasl ones, in the Newstead. Byron is right. The whole point of replacing external leathers with metal hooks & eyes is for better protection. An enemy can slash you open
from gizzard to beakfast-time by cutting the external leathers holding your Corbridge together. He can't if you have a Newstead.

I don't mean to be a pain, I really don't :lol: , but again I have to disagree- I've built and worn both types and I don't find the Newstead to be significantly superior to the Corbridge with respect to protective value.

Ah, but dude... that's because you've never had anyone with a sword
trying to gut you like fish. 8)

There's an awful lot of area on a cuirass to hit, and that's only if one gets past the man simply moving out of the way, and then his shield- what then is the liklihood of cutting a small lether part on the armor? Pretty minimal. And with 5 or 6 laces, you'd have to be Achilles to cut all at once :wink:

I am. And to prove it, you stand here in your Corbridge A. I just make
one vertical slash with my falcata, unzipping first your pectoral strap
and then the five laces on your girth-hoops. I don't even have to cut
horizontally to sever the pectorals from the abdominals, just rotate my
wrist and run the blade back upwards, again. That's all she wrote. 8)

Given that soldiers were in battles quite infrequently and that training damage and parts wearing out is far more likely to be the cause of repairs being necessary, it's only logical to realize that the maintnance issue can be reduced significantly by introducing metal fasteners instead of leather ones.

Which I thought was my second point...

Plus the quartermaster is going to love you, as you've got a lorica
which will last you a full 25 years, without ever needing to be handed
in for replacement of the external leathers. (Okay, so the internal
leathers will still need replacing, but these should last longer than the
external leathers, which have far more stress on them, and are the
ones exposed to the sword cuts of the enemy.) The downside of the
Newstead is more rididity over the Corbridge. But so what. I'd prefer
protection and durability to the small loss of flexibility, anyday. And,
because of that rigidity, the shoulder guards hang the way they are
designed to do, and don't flap about at a diagonal angle. 8)

There you've hit the nail on the head :wink: Yes, the metal fittings are more durable in combat, but that's more significant a fact the other 99.99% of the time. And yes the Newstead is a bit more rigid than the Corbridge, but not so much as to really be so significant- the human body doesn't bend so much in the thoracic region, so the armor being fairly rigid there isn't bad, and yes the wider breast and back plates do offer a bit more restriction to the movement of the shoulders, but I don't think it's appreciable really either if one is used to it. Indeed the rigidity of the breast and back is better protection though because they're rigid. But since we don't have an articulated artifact, you can't say the shoudler wasn't angled- it's all about the exact shape and orientation of the mid-collar plate and because the back plate's corner is angled, not straight, it seems rather more likely that they were angled just like those of the Corbridge. Angled is better protection too- downward blows will deflect more- the sloped vs. flat armor plate idea- the former is ALWAYS superior.

Well you've admitted, yourself, inadvertently, that we know exactly
that the Newstead pectorals were designed to hang vertically, and
parallel to each other, since the metal hooks/eyes/turnkeys on the
Newstead are rigid and the eyes are all set vertically and
parallel to the edges of the pectoral plates. :lol: And if the pectoral
plates of the Corbridge (which the Newstead replaced) weren't also
designed to hang at exactly the same angle, then I'll wear your
Corbridge A into combat over my Newstead - anin't that ain't never
gonna happen. 8)


Ambrosius/Mike