Segmented vs. Solid

dominic · Post by **dominic** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:40 am

Hi Everybody,

(I know someone somewhere started discussing this very thing, but for the life of me I can't find the discussion. If you happen to know where it is, please let me know)

So I was wondering, what are people's opinions comparing and contrasting a solid breastplate to a segmented one. Specifically, European styles in the 1375 to 1425-ish range and practical application being for ground combat and mounted (taking a lance hit and falling off a horse). Any thoughts on the subject? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Dominic

Thomas H · Post by **Thomas H** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:49 am

The main advantage to a segmented breastplate is that you can make the plates thinner thus reducing weight. This is about all i can add unless someone gets me started.

Cet · Post by **Cet** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:05 am

Given the time range you specified I assume you want to compare the Churburg #13 ( the one with the brass trim) 9pc breast to solid breasts like the #14 from Churburg.

I don't believe there is any functional advantage to the multipiece construction since, if constructed exactly as the #13, it will be at least as rigid as a solid breast and ( I have to disagree with Tom here)as heavy or heavier than a comparable solid piece. It does cover a bit more of the torso around the back than the #14 an similar pices which can be helpfull.

Thomas H · Post by **Thomas H** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:19 am

BUt if you used 16g for a solid breastplate it would be much heavier than using a hardened 18g for seperate plates.

Mike F · Post by **Mike F** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:24 am

Why wouldn't you just use 18 hardened for the breastplate?

Personally, I think it's better for storage and weight fluctuations. Thrusts would be well protected against, while side shots would hit fewer plates. Also, since the plates weren't rigidly attached, you get hit slightly harder (I doubt you'd notice) due to lack of a solid mass.

I'm making a Churburg 13 segmented breastplate, so you see my vote. It also looks nicer, in my opinion.

Jacob · Post by **Jacob** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:33 am

Segmented: Covers more, novel idea/construction, weighs more, more difficult to make, more expensive, unique piece

Solid: More typical, multiple existing versions, used for a long timeframe, recreated relatively infrequently

I say go with the solid breastplate unless you want the novelty of building the segmented one. That said, I made a copy of the churburg 13 breastplate ( http://filebox.vt.edu/users/jselmer/churburg.htm ) partly for the challenge, and mostly because I didn't have a single big enough piece of metal and a friend wanted a breastplate quickly.

Jacob

Brian W. Rainey · Post by **Brian W. Rainey** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:34 am

Thomas james hayman wrote:But if you used 16g for a solid breastplate it would be much heavier than using a hardened 18g for seperate plates.

Not really... before even attempting to make that assumption you would have to make the two and weigh them against each other.

Remember that the segmented breast has overlap that would probably negate any weight savings of using lighter metal. There is also additional leather and rivets involved that add to the weight, also.

You still have the stop rib. You have brass, if edging is applied. The rivets/nails holding the brass on.

I do not see any weight savings. As a matter of fact, I see an increase in weight for a segmented breast.

I can look up the weight of each piece when I get home this afternoon, if anyone is interested.

dominic · Post by **dominic** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:10 am

Cool,
Thanks for the input so far. Yes, I was thinking of the Churburg 13 and 14 as examples. Brian, I would love to hear the weight comparison. So, a good question was asked earlier, why would I need to use a thicker gauge for a solid version? Besides weight issues, would there really b much difference in the "protectiveness" of the two styles?

Dominic

Brian W. Rainey · Post by **Brian W. Rainey** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:16 am

dominic wrote:Cool,
Thanks for the input so far. Yes, I was thinking of the Churburg 13 and 14 as examples. Brian, I would love to hear the weight comparison. So, a good question was asked earlier, why would I need to use a thicker gauge for a solid version? Besides weight issues, would there really b much difference in the "protectiveness" of the two styles?

Dominic

In theory, the segmented breast would allow for "thinner" plates in SCA-style combat... where you are literally clubbing a person... because the force of impact would be driven into plates behind the focal point of impact. The load would be spread.

Essentially, the layering of plates would help absorb the blow. Each individual plate could then be thinner. However, the individual plates would still take a beating/denting unless made to specifically avoid this (i.e., hardened/tempered material or suficient thickness of material, etc). However, the wearer may not feel the impact as much since it is dissepated to other plates beofre reaching the wearer.

Thomas H · Post by **Thomas H** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:24 am

i'd feel safer wearing a solid Bplate from thicker stuff hardened or not as the thicker suff would 'absorb' a lot of the impact. whereas a thinner solid Bplate would possibly lead to injuries like blunt trauma. DO you se where i'm coming form?

Dufnial Hardraada · Post by **Dufnial Hardraada** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:40 am

Hey everyone,
I personally like either, however, a segmented breastplate is rather striking in my opinion. I would feel safer with a solid one, but they are less flexible and a lot of the time, less pleasing to the eye unless decorated. Also, for the historical aspect, up until the later periods, a solid breastplate was harder to make due to the lack of that much steel in one spot. Still, brigandines were often prefered up until the very late ages of full plate.

On top of that all, I'd just say that either are nice... While we're on the subject, anyone have any good patterns/pictures of a segmented breastplate? Other than the Churburg?

Mike F · Post by **Mike F** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:42 am

Does a Lorica Segmentata count?

Otherwise, no. I've never seen one.

Brian W. Rainey · Post by **Brian W. Rainey** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:46 am

Dufnial Hardraada wrote:On top of that all, I'd just say that either are nice... While we're on the subject, anyone have any good patterns/pictures of a segmented breastplate? Other than the Churburg?

I think Churburg 13 is an odd and lonely duck. I am not aware of any other similar pieces in existence.

Jacob · Post by **Jacob** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:52 am

Check out anime's for later segmented breastplates. They, however, articulate vertically instead of horizontally.

Coats of plates, corizonas, and brigs could also be considered segmented breastplates, but they have the metal on the inside.

The rolled edges, lance rest (or just staples) and stop rib add interest to breastplates. I agree that they quickly become less interesting without these. Wearing a slightly dished plate is boring once you've seen the others.

Jacob

Brian W. Rainey · Post by **Brian W. Rainey** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:00 am

Jacob wrote:Coats of plates, corizonas, and brigs could also be considered segmented breastplates, but they have the metal on the inside.

I would not put brigs (15th century and later works of NUMEROUS plates) into the segmented breast plate category, nor the coat of plates, as generally defined (generally a term used for 14th century body armour made of fewer plates that the later brigs).

However, the corazzina, with it's more standard two-piece or paneled chest protection might classify. But it has a term all to its own.

My interpretation/opinion is that once you start breaking down into more and more pieces... the clasifications start to change.

Actually, since there is only one known surviving example, the term segmented breast plate sort of has its own definition, eh?

Henry of Bexley · Post by **Henry of Bexley** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:57 pm

I've been doing a bit of research on Gothic armor lately as I'd like to attempt it someday- and looking at multiple suits most I saw were at least two piecers.

Just thought I'd add a little something.

DanNV · Post by **DanNV** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:38 pm

One thing no one has mentioned.... The #13 is currently dated to about 1365, this puts it a bit before the earliest date you asked about and well before the end. The #14 is dated to within your range, although it probably wouldn't have been used by the later date, either.

Dan

Ivo · Post by **Ivo** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:20 pm

Hello.

DanNV wrote:The #14 is dated to within your range, although it probably wouldn't have been used by the later date, either.

Dan, the fortress at Rhodes got sacked in 1525, and amongst the finds there was a splendid example of a breastplate looking just like #14. One-piece, no fauld nor flange at the base, and sporting a rivetted- on stop rib near the neck. It would not have been manufactured in this style around the mentiuoned date, but might very well have been used.

As to the original question: In the time frame given which basically is a huge bracket around a transitional era basically a #13 would denote its "beginning" and #14 its "end", the first one being the peak of a multiple-part construction and the last the one-piece "fashion of the day".

Comparing an contrasting is a bit tough since we basically can only discuss a given time frame (see above). I assume any solution should be as serviceable as the other, as long as the piece is crafted and fitted properly. At least, back then they used them for a purpose, didnÃ‚Â´t they?

Regards

Ivo