From: doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Aluminum Armour (was Re: HELP WANTED RE KINGDOM AWARDS)
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:32:50
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
	<1992Dec19.180756.13410@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<DOCONNOR.92Dec20095044@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<1992Dec20.175004.16679@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Sun, 20 Dec 1992 17:50:04 GMT


ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman) writes:
] Which brings me back to our discussion. I certainly agree with Dennis
] that making armor out of steel does not guarantee that it is
] authentic, for all the reasons he mentions--nor does making it out of
] hardened leather. But using the more nearly period material makes it
] more likely that you will be doing what they did, and limiting
] yourself to period materials puts you closer to solving the problem
] they were solving--how to make functional armor with their
] technology--than letting yourself use modern materials. It is not
] exactly the same problem since we are fighting with blunt weapons,
] but much of it is the same--we, like they, need to be able to move
] easily, not to get tired too fast, prefer materials that do not rust,
] etc. 

Except we rpobably get whacked more than they did, have less time to
spend on our armour, are probably more upset about bruises (at least
I probably am), and don't have the same importance attached to "flattening"
a blow or making it glance, which steel is probably better than leather at,
and which I think was probably of major importance in archery-oriented
military organizations like the Mongols and Japanese.

] I think part of my disagreement with Dennis is that he thinks he
] knows more than I think I know.

It's the NAME. I've been hearing yours since Pennsic X. 
"Your reputation preceeds you", as they say.

] If we knew a lot about period armor, we might be able to do what he
] believes he is doing--use one inauthenticity (aluminum) to cancel out
] another (rolled instead of forged plates). But that assumes that we 
] already know all the things he is guessing--how thick the armor was,
] how it was made, how hard, etc.

But here's really no excuse to not know. There's enough archeological
remains, that the exact dimensions, composition and method of 
manufacturer should be deducable by modern science. My problem is
that I've been looking fr this data in books when I should have
been checking professional archeological journals and conferences.
I intend to remedy this, and even tho I will undoubtably make
my lamellar of aluminium anyway, I'll at least know how off it is.

] Since we do not know those things, we are better off making our
] armor the same as theirs in those dimensions where doing so is
] practical (i.e. we know enough and it is not too hard to do), use
] technologies they could have used when we do not know what they did
] use (hence beeswax instead of paraffin to harden my armor), and try
] to grope closer, by successive approximation, to what they actually
] did.

That may be the only way with leather, unless there are some
leather armour bits that have survived. If there are, then it
seems to me archeological techniques should be a better way
than "groping". Hoever, it's probably less fun for most people.

] If you make aluminum lamellar you will also be pushed into various
] experiments to improve it--but those experiments are less likely to
] generate information relevant to period armor.

That's possibly true. It's an enlighteneing comment tho : what
you are advcating is learning about period techniques by
experimentation. What I am planning is to learn about period
armour and techniques by research, and then to construct a
modern analouge that is working SCA armour and will also be a 
useful tool for teaching about that particular period armour.
Kind of like the "Visible Man" models they sell a Toy-R-Us.

Don't both your approach and mine have a place in the SCA ?

] One more point. I wrote that  ...  ". One result of his
] "dissemination of information" may be a lot of people, less well
] informed than he is, getting a vague idea that good, strong, lamellar
] metal armor weighs five pounds. " Dennis replied:
]
] "Not if my documentation is good. And if I enter the armour in an A&S
] competition, the local people I know who judge them won't let me get
] away with sloppy docs. "
]
] I was not thinking of contests. I was thinking of all the people who
] will see your armor, pick it up, maybe try it on. Do you plan to give
] each of them a lecture on what is and is not period about it? If so,
] that may have unfortunate consequences for any medieval feel the
] event you are participating in may have.

Aluminum sounds and looks different than steel, and if it wasn't
obvious to someone that the armour wsa aluminum I'd tell them.
I can't imagine anyone handling my armour without me or someone
who knew me and it around, so I think it's unlikely anyone will
ever think it's made of steel who lifts it. So most people, lacking
any explanation, will probably assume that it is lighter than
period iron lamellar would have been, even tho they could be wrong.
The same argument is less applicable to a steel replica.

Armor is probably the most visible of the SCA's A&S, except perhaps
costuming. I don't know why everyone who makes an attempt at period
armour reproduction doesn't enter it in competition. I intend to.


--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com