Corbridge A Breastplates - to cross or not cross diagonally?

[marsvigilia]

Old pic of a a very old seg with very stretched out leathers. I'd've thought that was obvious? Look at the pic again and you can see the tunica betwween the plates! Yikes!

Good enough. We've all worn things worn out from use.

Our SCA experiences with using segs is probably maybe 25% of the total and getting smaller each year. What we learned about the function and durability of the armor in simulated combat has been useful. I highly recommend it

Look Sean, I am not completely discounting all SCA and sim-combat experience. I just think this experience need to be taken within the limits of the archaeological evidence. It can help suggest possible answers to questions where the historical record is incomplete or ambiguous. But to say that modern experience allows us to essentially jettison the evidence is not supportable.

Of course there are open questions. Crossed plates answer the question as to why the neck holes are so small when mounted vertically. It doesn't answer the question as to why the attachments are vertical / horizontal. Perhaps this was aesthetics, perhaps custom. But it is easier to accept that buckles were mounted inefficiently and wore out to quickly than it is to imagine that the armor found is all a mistake, or designed to be worn by skeleton warriors out of Sindbad.

I suggested a theory that perhaps the vertical straps were really diagonal. It might improve the support for the girdle plates. In the vertical strap position if one strap breaks, that side tends to sag open. With crossed straps, this tendency might be diminished. It might also better align the strap attachments with the direction of stress.

The horizontal breast strap would not be aligned with direction of stress. But there is very little stress on this strap with the vertically mounted straps and diagonally mounting would further deduce stress on the horizontal strap.

The buckles on the upper girdle plate are an issue. But there may be some tendency for these to curve down anyway, which would bring the buckles more in alignment with the diagonal. And some may be mounted at different angles, not just vertical. I don't know. It was just a theory I threw out. But it is easier to believe than that all of these plates are completely mis-sized, and mis-shaped, or made to partially decapitate legionaries. I just think we have to respect the available evidence.

Note: Does crossing the straps really work? Probably not. It certainly doesn’t work with my segmentata. The shoulders are early Albion, the girdle plates are mine, but the verticals are spread a little too far. But even allowing for these possible inaccuracies, the results were atrocious. The breast plates tried to not merely cross, but to completely overlap, and close up the neck hole. (Ironic?) Also it was difficult to close the gap between the girdle and breast plates.

But even if a total failure, this theory at least does not require re-shaping, and re-sizing the historical evidence. And maybe the buckles really did just break a lot. After all they were replaced with the hook and eye.

Roman reenacting is about trying to recreate what the Romans actually did, not to improve it.

Sean, I am honestly a bit surprised. Given your concern about making scutums by layering the wood and using hide glue, why the willingness to completely re-shape and re-size these breast plates when a feasible alternative exists? IMHO your modifications go way beyond scaling up for a slightly larger modern frame.

On the other hand I am more than willing to hear alternative evidence. I began this thread believing vertical to be the ideal to strive for and Matt Lukes to be off his rocker. He, and the evidence he presented, and some of my own experiments has changed my mind. I find this exciting.

But please feel free to try and change it back again. That would be quite interesting. I just find that Matt’s theory provides a better explanation of the evidence than yours does.