The Armour Archive

hello, long time listener first time caller.....
my name is woody and i am an industrial blacksmith, armour enthusiast, and part time producer of reenactment metalwork.

i have been asked to make (the older rivetted interpretation of) a newstead lorica segmentata.
my proposed customer originally said stainless...i cringed...
he has now said "spring steel" (he wouldnt even know what grade or probably the differences)
having never made lorica, and not worked with spring steel sheet (although during my blacksmithing apprenticeship i regularly worked with spring round and bar stock, and 4140and innumerable other grades of alloys) i was wondering on the difference that there would be, on time and material costs, from, say, making out of mild steel? (or stainless just for a bit of an idea)
i think i could get a vague estimate in my head of time for mild.
i would like to thank any repliers pre reply.
j 'woody' c

If you need patterns:
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/lorica.html
Matt Amt (on here) developed this site and the patterns work. Plus he worked out all the nuances to make building one easier. It still is not a cake walk however ( mine is in parts in my shop!)

Also: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/index.php

You will have to register to post or read most of the site, however, Roman is their main focus...

As I have seen...the hinges take the most time. Almost all other parts are flat and get curled.
As far as materials...mine is mild, it rusts even if you look at it. I guess it would depend on what he wanted it for. For living history, mild is the only way to go, I don't know of many groups that allow stainless. SCA wise, I guess stainless would be cheaper than spring steel (4130), but it would be heavier, but it will resist rust.

I have no experience with Spring or spring stainless, but at some point I would love to make some armour in Spring stainless...

There a lot of threads on here dealing with spring steel...For more information on that, I would defer to the search function or hope that members who work in it would chime in...

On the surface of things, it doesn't seem that your customer is actually wanting an accurate recreation of a lorica segmentata; neither stainless nor spring steel were used in period, with the majority of lorica being assembled on site out of mild steel (wrought iron) and possibly by the legionaires themselves.

This being the case, and not knowing what the customer's intended use for the armour (LARP? SCA? Display?), it's difficult to give a firm recommendation on how you should handle it. After all, they may be saying to you that they want a 100% period recreation on one hand, while asking for stainless in the same breath. If you don't already know the answers to these questions, I highly recommend you have a heart-to-heart conversation with your customer to work out the goal of this armour before you sit down to work out a quote.

You need to know that there is a fair amount of production time tied up in simply manufacturing the hardware for the segmentata (the hooks/loops/hinges/etc.) Cutting/shaping/finishing the individual plates is reasonably simple, as is the assembly, but "simple" does not equal "fast". If you need to use stainless rather than mild steel, then your cost in material has gone up, your labor costs need to go up (stainless is more difficult to work with), and your labor time will increase also (it will take longer to complete the project.) This all applies to spring steel also, with the added issue of having to harden and temper each individual plate.

You need to account for all of this in your price quote before you even touch a hammer. Don't start work until your customer has agreed to pay for exactly what you will be creating. "Vague estimates" lead to "armourer headaches" and "unhappy customers". Don't do that to yourself.

Should historical accuracy not be high on your customers list of importance, there are a couple of pointers I can pass along. Substitute nylon belt webbing for the internal strapping; it will be absolutely impervious to any wear/tear/moisture/mold/etc and is completely hidden while being worn. If nylon offends them for some reason, then absolutely go for Latigo strapping; it's no more period than the nylon but it will prevent the internal strapping from needing to be replaced for many years. On a personal note, I've done a replica that used veg tanned goat for the strapping; it didn't last more than a year. Should you have a customer that requires a LH quality peice, make sure to warn him that the internal strapping will require regular replacement (and that you'll be happy to do that for him when needed...for an extra charge.)

The Legio website is a good place to start, as is http://www.romanarmy.com There are a lot of good books that cover the arms and armour of rome as well as there being loads of photo resources on the web. Personally, I always like it when a customer can point at a photo and say, "Yep! That's what I want! I really like this part here and there." This allows me to create exactly the thing that my customer is dreaming about.

One final note: since this is the first segmentata you'll have made, you will find that there are things that will need to be reworked. Tell your customer up front that you will be giving him the armour to wear a few times to find out what portions need to be tweaked and tailored; this will prepare him for the initial armour pinching/problems that occur and will keep him in a good frame of mind.


Frederich

Frederich Von Teufel wrote:possibly by the legionaires themselves.

Where did this idea come from? Given the shoddy nature of a lot of extant finds and the available evidence in Roman texts it seems highly probable that a lot of Roman equipment was contracted out to the lowest bidder. During the 3rd-4th centuries the state took over production of this gear rather than leaving it to private enterprise.

thankyou for your kind prompt responses.
the sites you have suggested i have found prior to my post, but it is great to know they are there.
and any advice is always welcome.

my main concern is the 'spring steel' factor.(for my own mind not the customer, although it does give me some sort of cred if i know what im talking about )
although i realise that the ancients had no access to modern steels i am asking because this 'suit' will be made for steel combat for recreational (possibly re-creational) purposes.
and yes i realise that the originals were build to withstand steel weapon attack, but there were no whso's then either.

4130 is not technically 'spring steel' being created for its properties in shafts and tooling, which i would definately not substitute for 5160 or similar steels, so why would it work the other way around?
or is "spring steel armour" simply a 'laymens term'
if using 4130 sheet, what is your advice on the heat treatment of said sheet steel?
having only ever worked with larger volumes (16mm round up to 150mm round) for forging and heat treating, in bar form, how much difference does it make in 1.2/1.6mm sheet?
and then only as an interupted quench and temper process...
is it worked cold or is frequent annealing required?
does it come annealed or normalised?
speaking of the armour, this is the only picture i have been given.....
i realise it is now the "old interpretation" but the customer is king (apparently)

woodyarmourer wrote:4130 is not technically 'spring steel' being created for its properties in shafts and tooling, which i would definately not substitute for 5160 or similar steels, so why would it work the other way around?
or is "spring steel armour" simply a 'laymens term'
if using 4130 sheet, what is your advice on the heat treatment of said sheet steel?
having only ever worked with larger volumes (16mm round up to 150mm round) for forging and heat treating, in bar form, how much difference does it make in 1.2/1.6mm sheet?
and then only as an interupted quench and temper process...
is it worked cold or is frequent annealing required?
does it come annealed or normalised?
speaking of the armour, this is the only picture i have been given.....
i realise it is now the "old interpretation" but the customer is king (apparently)

Hello Woodyarmorer and welcome,

In the armoring community "Spring Steel" is generally used as shorthand for any heat-treatable steel that can be worked in a soft annealed state or worked hot and then have pixie-dust or voodoo magic applied to it to make it stronger then mild steel of the same thickness. 4130 and 1050 are the more common variants used around here.

The trick with working with thin metal is how quickly it air cools on the way to the quench tank. The second is a sheeting phenomenon where the hot steel at the bottom boils the water forming a sheet of steam between steel higher up and the water messing with the heat-treat. This leads to oil quenching, oil floating on water quenching, 'super-quench'.

Another issue is warping. The best way to quench multiple pieces of steel so that they don't warp more then the nearby pieces is to bolt them together or to a frame or both. That means even for a Lorica You really want to quench a cylinder maybe 40" in circumference and 18" tall. That's a fairly big quench tank and a rather large kiln. I don't think you can heat something that size evenly in a forge, even a modern propane fired one never mind a coal or charcoal version.

Given the speed of the quench most people do a full quench and a second return heat. Timing of an interrupted quench can be rather tricky without fancy equipment.

I have only bought 1050 in it's annealed/normalized condition. I suppose 4130 comes the same way.

Pictured didn't come through on my end.

Armoring involves a lot of cold-work. The metal doesn't hold the heat long but thankfully heats up quickly in exchange. Many armorers make a successful living with no real heat source other then a welder.

If I were to build a Lorica for myself I would start with measurements and a cardboard model and then order the material sheared into strips of the correct width. Time is money and cutting long straight lines never seem to come out straight.

I have a lot of respect for blacksmiths and blade-smiths and I'm only a hobbiest armor-smith but I can say that even though the 3 arts share a lot of similar features they are truly different arts. I hope you enjoy your foray into armor smithing.

Sean

ive actually been armouring for friends and occasional customers since 1997. the lorica customer bought a set of gothic fluted gauntlets off me in 2003. so its not really a new thing for me, just havent done any ancient kit before.
looking forward to it.
i have some gear photos on

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=lf# ... 5514499014 not sure how to post links!

i have to say that blacksmithing and armourwork are VERY similar and compliment each other beautifully.
once you feel how to make the metal flow, its all go!
[/url]

Dan Howard wrote:

Frederich Von Teufel wrote:possibly by the legionaires themselves.

Where did this idea come from? Given the shoddy nature of a lot of extant finds and the available evidence in Roman texts it seems highly probable that a lot of Roman equipment was contracted out to the lowest bidder. During the 3rd-4th centuries the state took over production of this gear rather than leaving it to private enterprise.

I don't have access to my library at the moment, so I can not give specific citations. However, this theory is presented by a number of archeologists due to a number of finds at roman sites of finished, but unassembled, segmentata plates. The state in which they were found implies that they were finished to that state elsewhere, then shipped out to be assembled on site. Given the ease of learning how to turn a rivet, it has been hypothesized that there need not have been a skilled armourer available, but that the legionaires themselves could have done basic assembly and maintenance.

I present the theory without giving it credence, however I do find it plausible. Segmentata plates and hardware do pack much smaller when unattached to each other and assembly requires a small skill set.

Regarding spring steel: most/all of the shaping work for a segmentata can be accomplished cold and without any additional annealing (while it is possible to obtain some spring steel in hardened state, most comes annealled.) However, to harden the plates, you will need a oven/kiln that will bring the entire plate up to the critical temperature at the same time. For the main torso plates this will require a fairly large kiln; I've used a ceramics kilns with an internal volume of 1.5 to 2.0 cubic feet in the past, and that was about the minimum volume required for this type of project.

Once the piece is at critical temperature (for 4130 this is 1600 degrees F), the piece it taken out and plunged into a quench tank (I use a 30 gallon tub of water, but good/better results are obtained from oil). It the peice has been properly shaped, properly heated, and properly quenched, it should come out without any warping. If any warping does occur, then the peice needs to be fully annealled, reshaped and then go back through the hardening process. As Sean points out, stabilizing the peices by connecting them to each other works, but you still need to ensure that no one piece gets over/under heated, and that they all get a proper fast quench.

On a final point: the customer may be "King" but "Kings" don't know what you, as an armourer, do and can be just as stupid as anyone else. The most important lesson you can learn as a craftsman is how to say "NO". Learning how to say "no" without actually offending your customer is nice, but do yourself a kindness and be willing to say "no" in the first place. You job is to create armour that will provide a level of safety to your client while they are engaged in an unsafe sport. Your job is not to fawn over them and cater to their every whim. The reason you are doing this in the first place is because the act of creation gives you satisfaction; it's very common to realize that, in trying to please a customer, you have lost any pleasure that this creation could have given you.


Frederich

Frederich Von Teufel wrote:I present the theory without giving it credence, however I do find it plausible. Segmentata plates and hardware do pack much smaller when unattached to each other and assembly requires a small skill set.

We know how segmentata was packed and transported since an example was found at Corbridge. It was already assembled but separated into sections and placed in a chest.

Dan Howard wrote:

Frederich Von Teufel wrote:I present the theory without giving it credence, however I do find it plausible. Segmentata plates and hardware do pack much smaller when unattached to each other and assembly requires a small skill set.

We know how segmentata was packed and transported since an example was found at Corbridge. It was already assembled but separated into sections and placed in a chest.

That's one segmentata out of roughly tens of thousands that were probably made within decades after the armor was invented, not to mention however many may have been manufactured in total over the course of 150+ years they were used.

It certainly seems like one way they were packed has been discovered due to the Corbridge piece... But that's one segmentata. I hardly consider that to be "case closed, this is how it was done" evidence when considering the scope of the question. I think further research regarding how legionaries transported and maintained their equipment can lead to a lot of reasonable insights and possible explanations to these material issues faced by soldiers in the field.

-Gerhard

Dan Howard wrote:

Frederich Von Teufel wrote:I present the theory without giving it credence, however I do find it plausible. Segmentata plates and hardware do pack much smaller when unattached to each other and assembly requires a small skill set.

We know how segmentata was packed and transported since an example was found at Corbridge. It was already assembled but separated into sections and placed in a chest.

No, thanks to Corbridge, we **think** we know how mismatched, scrapped armour pieces were buried for later retrieval. We do not know that these chests were how armour was transported in the field - especially since there is more evidence to support the use of a heavily-oiled bag for armour storage.

I believe that Dr. Bishop has expressed support for the idea that raw materiels were shipped to legionary fortresses for reworking - either by specialized armourers, or in the case of smaller facilities, by the ltroops themselves, possibly during the non-campaign seasons.

Like Frederich, I am away from my Roman library...

Medium carbon ('spring') steels are fine. Dr. Alan Williams did metallography on some lorica bits (hmm, did he test more thatn one?) found in Germany that were about 0.6% carbon. More serious armour for a more serious theater of war, perhaps?

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:Medium carbon ('spring') steels are fine. Dr. Alan Williams did metallography on some lorica bits (hmm, did he test more thatn one?) found in Germany that were about 0.6% carbon. More serious armour for a more serious theater of war, perhaps?

thankyou sir.

and to all others on their comments. i knew i would start a debate and learn along the way! that is why im glad ive been following this forum for years.....

At 1:03 of this recent event you can see a dude with lorica segmentata that seems to work well. The waist bands are almost like metal belts. He has a red tunic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsK2zuWuSMo

I am planning on making a lorica segmentata probably the Corbridge type out of 410. I can make out of .032 thickness and have it super tough and somewhat rust resistance. What is cool abou this armor if you look at the designs, that are pretty basic and easy to replicate. A cardboard mock up is a great idea for sure. The most tedious part is all the brass attachments that have to be made for it. I might outsource mine or do them as well. I have not decided yet. the 410 is easy to shape and the shapes of a lorica are very basic. there are only a few placees that a rolled edge is needed. the shoulder design is very redundant and if you had to reduce some of the lames for more movement so that you can fight in the SCA, it will not take way the look of the kit. From what I have seen the lorica is very flexible and movement is pretty impressive.

Sextus Maximus wrote:I am planning on making a lorica segmentata probably the Corbridge type out of 410. I can make out of .032 thickness and have it super tough and somewhat rust resistance. What is cool abou this armor if you look at the designs, that are pretty basic and easy to replicate. A cardboard mock up is a great idea for sure. The most tedious part is all the brass attachments that have to be made for it. I might outsource mine or do them as well. I have not decided yet. the 410 is easy to shape and the shapes of a lorica are very basic. there are only a few placees that a rolled edge is needed. the shoulder design is very redundant and if you had to reduce some of the lames for more movement so that you can fight in the SCA, it will not take way the look of the kit. From what I have seen the lorica is very flexible and movement is pretty impressive.

I've fought in my reenactment segmentata, and I laugh heartily when someone tries to 'improve' one for SCA use. My favourite is when aluminum is used - the girdle plates then don't have the weight to hang properly, and ride up - leaving things exposed for someone with a sharp eye and fast stick...

I will say that will the seg is superior war armor, it's less so for tourney fighting - as all of the noise may cause know-nothing onlookers to make false assumptions about whether or not you're taking your hits...