After a fair bit of reading here and there, and asking around on RAT, I couldn't find any "unearthed" historical evidence on exactly how shoulderguards were leathered or how much overlap there was between the plates. As far as I can tell, the only thing we do know is the pattern of rivet holes where the leather was attached and the width of the shoulder lames. It would seem that this is largely due to the fact that in all present finds, leather survives only as mineralized fragments near rivets - it tends to rot away without being preserved for future study.
We do, however, have some pictorial evidence - the occasional stele, frieze, and of course Trajan's column (whose authenticity with detail is widely doubted.) While my investigation of these depictions can hardly be called exhaustive, I was struck by one element which seems to remain constant - The lesser shoulder plates just barely cup or cover the shoulder and then stop.
I believe this is a reliable datum, since it seems to persist across different time periods and styles. And examining the "digital reconstructions" included in Bishop's Lorica Segmentata, Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour, it would seem that I am not entirely alone in this belief.
Furthermore, a helpful RAT member has confirmed that a contemporary source listed 5'6" (in modern units) as the preferred minimum height for a legionary. While this doesn't mean that there weren't any legionary midgets, it does suggest that most legionaries were slightly taller. A quick check on google informs me that the average male height in the US, Canada, and UK is about 5'9", from which I conclude that the average legionary shoulder width was not significantly different from modern people.
So if we know the width of the plates, the width of the shoulders, and how far they should reach on the shoulder/arm, the amount of overlap can be deduced to a certain extent. We also know from unearthed plates where the rivet holes go. Great! We've answered the question of how the shoulders were leathered... or have we?
While trying to reach the answers summarized above, I ended up looking at more than a few pictures of reenactor's seggies. (This was motivated in part by the problems with my first complete shoulder. ) One detail which appears to a greater or lesser extent in a number of different people's photos of both Corbridge and Newstead seggies is lesser shoulder lames hanging in a "stepped" pattern. I've taken an edge-on shot of my own shoulder to provide an exaggerated example of what I mean - below.
This is a natural result of a riveting the edges of inflexible plates to a flexible strap. You can minimize the visibility of this phenomenon by either loosening and/or narrowing your rivets, or by increasing the floppiness of your strap. The latter option has the added bonus of helping the lames to lie down on your upper arm instead of rigidly projecting from your shoulder; but this requires thinner leather, constant/careful oiling, a long break-in phase, a different part of the animal hide, or some combination of the above.
But what if there was another option? One which gave a more "natural" shape to the lesser shoulder guards even with thicker and/or less flexible leather?
While trying to resolve the issues in my own segmentata, I sat down with this proto-shoulder and experimented quite a bit with the position of both lame and leather holes. While some options were better than others, nothing ever really looked 'right' when draped over my shoulder. Eventually, I decided to ignore what I "knew" about leathering and just try to make exactly the look I wanted - by building the shoulder curve into the spacing of the holes on my leather. Instant success! Not only that, but the funny-looking "stepped" pattern is gone too.
Initial Attempt - Mild curve, Leathers widely angled
The only "secret" here is that the spacing of the holes on the front & rear straps is smaller than the spacing of the holes on the central strap. When the shoulder is right-side up, the load is still distributed evenly among the three leathers -- the tension needed to tuck in the corners of the plate is negligible. It doesn't appear to affect mobility very much -- lifting the arm up requires flexion only in the central leather, and reaching forward-and-back motion is no different from the typical leathering method. I also think that pre-tilting the plates this way might allow the armour to "shed" glancing blows with less stress on the leathers. (We would need a reenactor to try this leathering method in order to get more concrete answers on these suppositions).
In terms of looking at the shoulder edge-on, this method greatly reduces the bizarre "see-through plate armour" issue, but the effect on protection against edge-on attacks would be negligible at best. However, it does ensure that the lesser shoulder more closely "cups" the shoulder -- just as it is depicted in friezes and steles. Given the level of detail in such depictions and the nature of artistic license, it's difficult to determine if there is any significance to this, but one can always hope. :)
One might think that this would not have been used historically because it reduces the "stackability" of a segmentata, but this is in fact false. When placed flat on the ground, the central leather flexes and the lames all lie flat, just as is it does with the leathering method traditionally employed by reconstructionists -- I had to carefully position the shoulder guards to take the pictures shown here of the inverted shoulders.
Second attempt - More pronounced curve, and leathers follow a straighter rivetting pattern.
So in conclusion, I submit this as my own "speculative reconstruction" of the leathering of a segmentata shoulder section - one which to the best of my knowledge is compatible with all unearthed artifacts and historical depictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment