Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[ray243]

Using the M2TW engine, you can actually depict the more advanced set of armour worn by your units. For example, a non upgraded unit may not wear any armour at all, however, if you bought some armour workshop and re-train those units, you can give them better armour.

This can be an accurate depiction as legionnaires do not wear that armour until the later part of the Roman empire, and that armour isn't that widespread.

So, by making the armour available when you have a high level armour workshop, you do not have so legionnaires wearing the LS, and you do have a chance to provide your troops with that armour until the late game period.

Even if you did manage to equip those units with the Lorica Segmentata, only a few legions can afford it.

Upgrades to a unit's armor are also depicted - a unit of unarmored spearmen upgraded to have leather armor will be depicted wearing it

So perhaps chain mail or lorica hamata will be worn by 'unarmoured' legionnaires, while Sementata will be worn by heavily armoured legionnaires?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This has been brought up many times, read the FAQ for the EB teams final statement on Segmentata use.

[Mediolanicus]

Using the M2TW engine, you can actually depict the more advanced set of armour worn by your units. For example, a non upgraded unit may not wear any armour at all, however, if you bought some armour workshop and re-train those units, you can give them better armour.

This can be an accurate depiction as legionnaires do not wear that armour until the later part of the Roman empire, and that armour isn't that widespread.

So, by making the armour available when you have a high level armour workshop, you do not have so legionnaires wearing the LS, and you do have a chance to provide your troops with that armour until the late game period.

Even if you did manage to equip those units with the Lorica Segmentata, only a few legions can afford it.

This all very possible and true, but I don't see what it has to do with EB.
It is also possible to add musket units to all the factions. MTW2 engine has them, and the whole of Europe used them at some point in history. But I don't see what that has to do with EB either...

[antisocialmunky]

The armor system is messed up and LS isn't going to be in the game. Just wait for a LS mod.

[Macilrille]

Or someone extending the game into AD which is where the LS was taken into use. By Legions who were, BTW ALWAYS armoured, no unarmoured Legioaires, ever. Auxilia often wore lighter armour, Legions heavier.

Cut and Paste from Wiki, whose Roman series of articles is not bad at all.
During the time of its use, it was modified several times, the currently recognised types being the Kalkriese, Corbridge and Newstead types. There was, however, a considerable overlap between these types in use and the Corbridge and Newstead types are often found at the same site (e.g. at Caerleon [Wales], Carnuntum [Austria], Carlisle [England] and Leon [Spain]). It is possible that there was a fourth type, a hybrid of the banded armour together with scale shoulder defences. However, this is only known from a badly damaged statue originating at Alba Julia in Romania. The currently accepted range for the use of the armour is from about 9 B.C. (Dangstetten) to the late 3rd century A.D. (Leon). However, similar armouring techniques were used during the 16th century, employing sliding rivets and this was known as anima. Introduced in the early 1st century AD, the armor saw widespread use during the period of 2nd-3rd centuries AD.

[ray243]

I do not mean depicting the Legionaires as unarmored. I mean depicting an 'unarmoured' unit of Legionaires wearing Hamata.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

First of all, there will be no LS in EBII. Unless someone finds some sort of revolutionary find of LS use in the second century BC, the team will stick to "No LS".

I understand what you are suggesting, and yes it is possible to do as you say.

However, armor upgrades are hardcoded to give +1 armor (nothing more, nothing less). Not to turn this into a LS debate (which will be closed if it does), but some people argue that LS actually provided less protection then LH.

Also, it hasn't been decided yet, but armor upgrades may be used for something other than armor upgrades and may not be available for this purpose.

[antisocialmunky]

However, armor upgrades are hardcoded to give +1 armor (nothing more, nothing less). Not to turn this into a LS debate (which will be closed if it does), but some people argue that LS actually provided less protection then LH.

In the unit description it displays +1 but in the actual engine registers more than a +1 for many levels. If you look around, you can find the exact numbers. The only one I remember is that from unarmored to padded is +4.

[Macilrille]

Well, I checked, and there were LS found at Kalkriese. That is 9 AD and thus concievably within EB timeframe if only just.

[Ludens]

Well, I checked, and there were LS found at Kalkriese. That is 9 AD and thus concievably within EB timeframe if only just.

Wasn't that just a single suit? The main argument against inclusion is not that it wasn't used, but that it wasn't common. One team member mentioned that even at the height of it's popularity, LH would still be used by many if not most legionaries, but I haven't seen the sources that back that up. Either way, unless a trove of LS is found and dated to EB's time-frame, we can assume it was uncommon in the period that concerns the mod.

[Macilrille]

It is a single find yes, but others of its type has been found (known as the kalkriese Type), and it is not as if that much chainmail has been found at Kalkriese as i understand it. Dunno TBH, for I have not studied the find in detail.

[antisocialmunky]

How about more Squamata? :-D

[ljperreira]

Wasn't that just a single suit? The main argument against inclusion is not that it wasn't used, but that it wasn't common. One team member mentioned that even at the height of it's popularity, LH would still be used by many if not most legionaries, but I haven't seen the sources that back that up. Either way, unless a trove of LS is found and dated to EB's time-frame, we can assume it was uncommon in the period that concerns the mod.

Not even a whole cuirass, just a partial breastplate and shoulder guard. But the info is not derived by how many "suits" they found at Kalkriese, but how many "fittings" they found. Fittings are the plate hinges, strap and buckle hinges, tie hooks, etc. The plates of the Segmentata cuirass is made of iron, which is very corrosive, but the fittings are made from a copper alloy (such as brass or bronze) and resists corrosion. So, after 2000 years, the only parts they usually find are Segmentata fittings. "Kalkriese" style fittings have also been found at sites that predate the "Teutoburg" site, which could suggest that Loricas were used prior to AD 9 (late first century BC). And Kalkriese fittings have also been found in Britain, so that style is believed to have been used there during the early time frame of the invasion (most reenactors use the Corbridge style exclusively). But I wouldnt push the subject here, as far as arguing for the use of Segmentatas in EB 2, they will just shout you down. Trust me, Ive tried.

[Ludens]

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of pre-Teutoburger LS finds. Can you give us the references?

I think though, that the fact it hasn't been mentioned before goes a long way to explaining why LS tends to get "shouted down". We've had about two dozen discussions on the inclusion of LS already, and this is the first time I hear of these finds. The people who suggest it generally don't do so because of the historical evidence, but because they simply want LS. Frankly, I am tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again, and I guess so is the team.

[ray243]

Well, most people like the LS because it looks cool, and don't care if it is historical or not. The reason I ask about LS is not because I want every soldier to look cool. I am asking if it is simply plausible to depict the fact that the LS is not widespread, but it was used by the Romans in limited amount.

I thought that with M2TW, it might be plausible to depict scneario where 1-2 cohorts wore LS, while others simply wore chain mail. It allows you to immerse yourself in battles, where some of your veteran cohorts managed to get the good stuff, while the more junior cohorts gets the normal stuff.

[oudysseos]

How many people actual play up til AD 9? That's 1124 turns into the game: it hardly seems worth it to put work into a feature for something that minor for our time period, since the resources for models and reforms etc. aren't infinite. There are other uses for upgrades that will be much more significant than a few Romans in LS.

Guys, the team has said time and again no LS (and by the way the Romans didn't even call it Segmentata- something the fanboys never seem to know). It's time to get over it already.

[mikil100]

How many people actual play up til AD 9? That's 1124 turns into the game: it hardly seems worth it to put work into a feature for something that minor for our time period, since the resources for models and reforms etc. aren't infinite. There are other uses for upgrades that will be much more significant than a few Romans in LS.

Guys, the team has said time and again no LS (and by the way the Romans didn't even call it Segmentata- something the fanboys never seem to know). It's time to get over it already.

What did they call it? I forget, remember seeing it somewhere.

[Ludens]

What did they call it? I forget, remember seeing it somewhere.

We don't know, actually. It may have been lorica laminata, but that could just as well refer to another type of armour.


I thought that with M2TW, it might be plausible to depict scneario where 1-2 cohorts wore LS, while others simply wore chain mail. It allows you to immerse yourself in battles, where some of your veteran cohorts managed to get the good stuff, while the more junior cohorts gets the normal stuff.

Possible, but prepare for a serious discussion with PVC about the effectiveness of LS. It may not have been an upgrade (in protective terms) over LH at all. The Romans themselves were never that enthusiastic about LS, since it never entirely superceded (or even outnumbered) chainmail.

[Macilrille]

LS is a rennaissance term we still use, just as we call chainmail... chainmail. And since the Roman name for it is unknown, what else would we call it?

I still think it deserves inclusion, but I guess it is all a matter of priorities.

[ljperreira]

Frankly, I am tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again, and I guess so is the team.

Which is why I said it isnt worth mentioning.....

Also, overall Roman reenacting groups dont wear the Lorica Segmentata strictly because they think its cool (though I know some do). The Segmentata is much easier to make in comparison to the Lorica Hamata (chain mail). Ive made 3 Segmentatas myself, but I hesitate to make the Hamata. Most Roman reenacting groups stress authenticity, such as Legio XX (http://www.larp.com/legioxx/index.html), and request you not use butted chain mail. Roman chain mail was made with alternating rows of solid rings and riveted rings, making it a very tedious and drawn out project. Keep in mind the fact that each shirt has anywhere from 8000-15000 rings. Thats a lot of riveting. Its much easier to be authentic wearing a Segmentata.
The Segmentata is also worn because the most popular Roman era to reenact is the invasion of Britain (AD 43). I think this is because (at least in the U.S.) alot of people are of British decent, and have no interest in reenacting anything that has nothing to do with Britain (my brother-in-law is Scottish and he's like that). My new Roman group is trying to break the mold though and weve decided to portray Legionaries in Germany prior to AD 40.

Kalkriese Lorica Source: Mr. Mike Bishop (Lorica Segmentata: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour (http://www.armatura.co.uk/)) claims that the Kalkriese Lorica could have been used as early as 10 BC (here is a link to his website on the Segmentata: http://loricasegmentata.org/ clisk on "What is it", then choose "Kalkriese Type" towards the bottom. I hope this suffices.

[Ibrahim]

Which is why I said it isnt worth mentioning.....

Also, overall Roman reenacting groups dont wear the Lorica Segmentata strictly because they think its cool (though I know some do). The Segmentata is much easier to make in comparison to the Lorica Hamata (chain mail). Ive made 3 Segmentatas myself, but I hesitate to make the Hamata. Most Roman reenacting groups stress authenticity, such as Legio XX (http://www.larp.com/legioxx/index.html), and request you not use butted chain mail. Roman chain mail was made with alternating rows of solid rings and riveted rings, making it a very tedious and drawn out project. Keep in mind the fact that each shirt has anywhere from 8000-15000 rings. Thats a lot of riveting. Its much easier to be authentic wearing a Segmentata.
The Segmentata is also worn because the most popular Roman era to reenact is the invasion of Britain (AD 43). I think this is because (at least in the U.S.) alot of people are of British decent, and have no interest in reenacting anything that has nothing to do with Britain (my brother-in-law is Scottish and he's like that). My new Roman group is trying to break the mold though and weve decided to portray Legionaries in Germany prior to AD 40.

Kalkriese Lorica Source: Mr. Mike Bishop (Lorica Segmentata: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour (http://www.armatura.co.uk/)) claims that the Kalkriese Lorica could have been used as early as 10 BC (here is a link to his website on the Segmentata: http://loricasegmentata.org/ clisk on "What is it", then choose "Kalkriese Type" towards the bottom. I hope this suffices.

what reenacting legion are you from? (If you are from one)

[Ludens]

Which is why I said it isnt worth mentioning.....

Perhaps it is if there is new evidence. I have quickly browsed the link you provided, and as far as I can see this is the only relevant passage (notes and references included):


Attempts to pinpoint the adoption of lorica segmentate by the Roman army have not, as yet, met with much success. These have included the Roman defeat at Carrhae in 53 BC and the revolt of Florus and Sacrovir in AD 21.(7) We now know that the Kalkriese form of the cuirass was in use as early as 9 BC, possibly by legio XIX,(8) and that it was present amongst legiones XVII, XVIII, and XIX when they were defeated in the teutoburgerwald debacle in AD 9, so it had clearly been adopted well before AD 21 (Fig.10.1). It is a type of armour provides defence against downward blows with long swords, a style of combat favoured by various Iron Age European peoples, so any notion that it was invented to counter the perceived superiority of Parthian archery in the east seems unlikely.

7. Carrhae: BRIZZI, 1981, 198; Florus and Sacrovir: BISHOP & COULSTON, 1993, 85
8. As indicated by finds from Dangstetten (BISHOP, 1998, 12)

G. Brizzi, ‘L’armamento legionario e le guerre partiche’, Critica Storica 19, 177-201
M.C. Bishop & J.C. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, London
M.C. Bishop, ‘The development of “lorica semgentata”: recent advances and old work re-assessed, Arma 10, 10-14

So the way I see it, the assertion that LS was in use around 9 BC is based on a single publication by the same author. However, I cannot find the publication on the internet or in the my universities library. Can someone with access to this Arma journal check it out?

[The General]

Uargh, what's with the LS obsession?

Never bloody understood it, m'self.

[ljperreira]

Perhaps it is if there is new evidence. I have quickly browsed the link you provided, and as far as I can see this is the only relevant passage (notes and references included):



So the way I see it, the assertion that LS was in use around 9 BC is based on a single publication by the same author. However, I cannot find the publication on the internet or in the my universities library. Can someone with access to this Arma journal check it out?

"Lorica Segmentata, Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour (http://www.armatura.co.uk/)" look under Chapter 4: The Kalkriese Type" page 23, paragraph 3.
"It was only after the initial publication of the Kalkriese breastplate that it became possible to identify similar items from other sites. Moreover, the other loose fittings from the Kalkriese excavations made it possible to isolate a second variant, and again comparison with finds from other sites showed that its components had been known - but not recognised - for some time."
And on para. 4: "The earliest pieces so far identified come from Dangstetten (Germany) and date to around 9 BC (3) and these appear to have been exclusively of type A (with double-riveted buckles attached to leather straps). Other sites with a known Augustan presence - such as Vindonissa (Windisch, Switzerland) and Strasbourg (France) - have produced similar buckles or sub-lobate hinges, whilst fittings belonging to the type B cuirass have even been found in Britain (at Chichester and Waddon Hill), showing that it continued in use until after AD 43."

3. FINGERLIN, 1986 (http://www.amazon.com/Dangstetten-Forschungen-Berichte-Fruhgeschichte-Baden-Wurttemberg/dp/3806207755/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234664433&sr=1-2), Abbn.268.1, 285.5, 448.1; 1998, Abb.681.2
(Gerhard Fingerlin 1986: Dangstetten I. Katalog der Funde (Fundstelle 1 bis 603), Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 22, Stuttgart (http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9783806214024/Landesdenkmalamt_Baden-Wurttemberg/Dangstetten.html))

Armamentarium (http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/welc/subjects/subbib1.htm) look at Dangstetten (Germany)

According to M. C. Bishop the the assertion that LS was in use around 9 BC is based on archaological evidence.


what reenacting legion are you from? (If you are from one)

A few fellow history nuts and I are just starting Legio XXI Rapax, in central California. Our gear list has been growing pretty quickly and soon we should have enough "Legionaries" to start attending events. Ive also had contact with Legio X Fretensis (http://home.surewest.net/fifi/index9.htm)(in the Bay Area) and Legio IX Hispana (http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org/)(SoCal), but not only are their clubs portraying the British invasion, but their events are a bit out of the way. The going has been a bit slow because two of our full time members are deployed to Iraq......and the others havent gotten their kits together yet. In the mean time ive given a couple of school presentations and I attend Medieval/Celtic fairs in my kit. Ive gotten a lot of positive responses from those I talk to, so this season im going to try to recruit.

[antisocialmunky]

Uargh, what's with the LS obsession?

Never bloody understood it, m'self.

Honestly, I find that chainmail is more practical...

...because it's really hard to make a lamallar bikini.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VuA7dyVJL.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe the earliest possible find is 23 BC, the god of Roman Armour, Mike Bishop is very reliable. You'll notice the second volume there is an exhaustive catalogue of finds.
Regardless, it's shoddy stuff and it's not going in because clever legionaries didn't use it.

[oudysseos]

Munky, I'm with you on that one!:thumbsup:

[anubis88]

Lol haven't been on the forum for almost a year now, and the last thing i remember was some people trying to prove that Lorica Segmentata should be in EB....

I mean LOL! Someone should run a program which would automaticly ban a user that uses the LS word:beam:

[Ludens]

"Lorica Segmentata, Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour (http://www.armatura.co.uk/)" look under Chapter 4: The Kalkriese Type" page 23, paragraph 3.

Blast, I read the chapter but overlooked that bit. Thanks for pointing it out. Good luck with your re-enactment group!


I believe the earliest possible find is 23 BC, the god of Roman Armour, Mike Bishop is very reliable. You'll notice the second volume there is an exhaustive catalogue of finds.
Regardless, it's shoddy stuff and it's not going in because clever legionaries didn't use it.

Could you explain your reasoning?


I mean LOL! Someone should run a program which would automaticly ban a user that uses the LS word:beam:

I am tired of this discussion as well, but punishing people is going a bit far. After all, if even the history channel gets it wrong we cannot expect the average person to know this, and as ljperreira points out, it did exist in EB's time-frame.

[antisocialmunky]

You could just make a unit limit = 1 LS parade unit for the lulz. I might just do that after EB II is out.

[ljperreira]

To be honest, I too prefer the Lorica Hamata. The only reason why Ive brought up the possible dates when the Segmentata was used is just for educational purposes, and to clear up any misconceptions as far as the dating is concerned. As far as I know, M. C. Bishop is a well respected historian, and a reliable source. But, with all that aside, even if you agree that the Segmentata would have plausibly been used as early as 10 BC, thats only the last 24 years of a 286 year long game. And as a few people have already pointed out, it is a rare thing to still be playing the game at that point. So spending the time and effort on the Segmentata would be a waste.....unless its made specifically for multiplayer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Could you explain your reasoning?

Put simply Segmentata fails some of the most important tests for military procurment.

It is dangerously maintainance heavy, the leather straps and metal fittings are highly prone to breakage, especially in hotter climes. In colder climes the iron bands are vulnerable to rust, which may be why tinned examples have been found; tinned armour would be must more expensive though.

In terms of raw materials hamata is cheaper because it uses much less copper, and no tin. Although segmented armour is quicker to make it requires a greater degree of skill, because forming iron lames is difficult to do without properly smelting the iron.

These problems mean that the protective benefit vs other forms of armour is dubious at best, and non-existant or negative at worst.

The two areas this armour wins out are in weight or against blunt trauma. For this reason it has been proposed as equipment for artillery crews, who saw little hand-to hand combat, but were vulnerable to breakage in their machines (flying ballista arms etc.).

[ljperreira]

Put simply Segmentata fails some of the most important tests for military procurment.

It is dangerously maintainance heavy, the leather straps and metal fittings are highly prone to breakage, especially in hotter climes. In colder climes the iron bands are vulnerable to rust, which may be why tinned examples have been found; tinned armour would be must more expensive though.

In terms of raw materials hamata is cheaper because it uses much less copper, and no tin. Although segmented armour is quicker to make it requires a greater degree of skill, because forming iron lames is difficult to do without properly smelting the iron.

These problems mean that the protective benefit vs other forms of armour is dubious at best, and non-existant or negative at worst.

The two areas this armour wins out are in weight or against blunt trauma. For this reason it has been proposed as equipment for artillery crews, who saw little hand-to hand combat, but were vulnerable to breakage in their machines (flying ballista arms etc.).

I would like to point out a few things that may make a bit of difference....

1. Maintainence: The iron in the hamata (chain mail) would be just as prone to rust as the iron in the Segmentata in colder climates, wouldnt you say? As disciplined as the Legionaries were I wouldnt be surprised if they cleaned and maintained their armour and weapons a couple times a day, just like we do in the modern military.
The fittings can, and did break (as seen in the "Corbridge hoard"), but the Hamata also used copper alloy fittings to hold the shoulder doubling to the shirt, as well as together in front. Also, remember that the cuirass is the 3rd line of defense for the Legionary. The first is his Gladius, the second is his shield. The idea is not to let the enemy get past these defenses. The fittings are not so bad as to break upon first usage. Ive worn and "fought" in my Segmentata and have not had a problem yet.

2. Skill and Cost: Once again, after actually making 3 Segmentatas, and attempting to make a riveted Hamata that contains approx. 10,000 rings (and quitting out of sheer boredom and frustration), the LABOR involved is considerately less with the Segmentata (though the fittings can be a pain in the Ace). I make both armours completely by hand (hand made fittings, hand cut and shaped plates, etc). When I want to make a Segmentata, I visit my local Steel supplier and buy a sheet of cold rolled 18g steel. For the Hamata, I usually but a roll of 14g steel wire (or Galvanized wire, using vinegar to remove the gavanization). In ancient times, wire was made by drawing iron through a draw plate, a labor intensive and time consuming process in its own right. Then of course there comes the coiling to make rings, annealing the iron, riveting and welding the rings shut, and so on (once again, 10,000 or more rings). Plate iron was made by heating and hammering flat a piece of iron into plates, then trimming and shaping, annealing as you go. As far as skill goes, theres required quite a bit to be able to rivet 16g or 14g rings that have an inner diameter of 3/8". There is no skill required to anneal, you just heat the metal until its just red hot, then allow the metal to slowly cool. As far as cost goes, both armours require a certain amount of iron, both require a copper alloy for fittings (though the Segmentata requires more), but the Hamata is much more time consuming and labor intensive. So, I think they would both equal out in the end.

3. Protection: We can go on all day about which one would protect you better, it would just be a matter of opinion. But the Segmentata was used from 9 BC to the late 3rd century AD. Thats approx. 250 years. There must have been some benifit to using it.

Who claimed that the Lorica was only used by Artillery? And what eveidence is there to support this?

[antisocialmunky]

It is theorized that the shoulder guards are designed to reduce kick if the soldier is hit by the torsion arm of a ballistae. I can't cite it for you but it came up in another LS topic.

[ljperreira]

It is theorized that the shoulder guards are designed to reduce kick if the soldier is hit by the torsion arm of a ballistae. I can't cite it for you but it came up in another LS topic.

If only members of the artillery sections used the Lorica Segmentata, then why does Trajan's column and a multitude of other similar monuments show the common infantryman wearing it? Besides archaeology and period writings, art is very important to tying the pieces together, and cannot be excluded as a source.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm just repeating what I heard.

[Elmetiacos]

Why are people obsessed with lorica segmentata? I just don't understand.

[Macilrille]

Because,
1. It looks cool.
2. It is the "image" or "brand" ingrained in us from childhood when we think Roman legionaire.

[ljperreira]

Why are people obsessed with lorica segmentata? I just don't understand.

I would suggest reading all the above posts before commenting, because you would find the answer to that question.
At this point we are not debating on wether the Segmentata should be used in the game, because its already been established, quite a few times, that the usage would only be at the last 24 years or so of the game, and therefore pointless to add in. What we are discussing is when the Segmentata would have been used, and by whom. This is such a hot subject because neither is known for certain.

What I dont understand is when someone doesnt like the direction a thread is going, why they feel the need to express this. If you dont like the topic, then move on. You dont have to read it, you can just find something else to read. I felt that an we were having an intellectual conversation, and youre comments added nothing to this. Of course I cant tell you not to post....on the other hand, why a topic starts like this when there are so many threads covering the same thing (including the FAQ), ill never know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would like to point out a few things that may make a bit of difference....

1. Maintainence: The iron in the hamata (chain mail) would be just as prone to rust as the iron in the Segmentata in colder climates, wouldnt you say? As disciplined as the Legionaries were I wouldnt be surprised if they cleaned and maintained their armour and weapons a couple times a day, just like we do in the modern military.
The fittings can, and did break (as seen in the "Corbridge hoard"), but the Hamata also used copper alloy fittings to hold the shoulder doubling to the shirt, as well as together in front. Also, remember that the cuirass is the 3rd line of defense for the Legionary. The first is his Gladius, the second is his shield. The idea is not to let the enemy get past these defenses. The fittings are not so bad as to break upon first usage. Ive worn and "fought" in my Segmentata and have not had a problem yet.

2. Skill and Cost: Once again, after actually making 3 Segmentatas, and attempting to make a riveted Hamata that contains approx. 10,000 rings (and quitting out of sheer boredom and frustration), the LABOR involved is considerately less with the Segmentata (though the fittings can be a pain in the Ace). I make both armours completely by hand (hand made fittings, hand cut and shaped plates, etc). When I want to make a Segmentata, I visit my local Steel supplier and buy a sheet of cold rolled 18g steel. For the Hamata, I usually but a roll of 14g steel wire (or Galvanized wire, using vinegar to remove the gavanization). In ancient times, wire was made by drawing iron through a draw plate, a labor intensive and time consuming process in its own right. Then of course there comes the coiling to make rings, annealing the iron, riveting and welding the rings shut, and so on (once again, 10,000 or more rings). Plate iron was made by heating and hammering flat a piece of iron into plates, then trimming and shaping, annealing as you go. As far as skill goes, theres required quite a bit to be able to rivet 16g or 14g rings that have an inner diameter of 3/8". There is no skill required to anneal, you just heat the metal until its just red hot, then allow the metal to slowly cool. As far as cost goes, both armours require a certain amount of iron, both require a copper alloy for fittings (though the Segmentata requires more), but the Hamata is much more time consuming and labor intensive. So, I think they would both equal out in the end.

3. Protection: We can go on all day about which one would protect you better, it would just be a matter of opinion. But the Segmentata was used from 9 BC to the late 3rd century AD. Thats approx. 250 years. There must have been some benifit to using it.

Who claimed that the Lorica was only used by Artillery? And what eveidence is there to support this?

1. Actually, Mail is semi-self cleaning, because the rings rubbing together removes much of the rust, especially if you keep it oiled. You say you have "worn and fought" in your armour, have you passed the 100 hour mark yet? That is usually breakage point. We haven't even covered the problems with the leather breakages, not to mention field repair of combat damage.

2. You've missed the most important part, the 18g steel plate you bought. Actually making that plate consitantly , to 1/30", is a highly skilled job, hammering it and maintaining the quality is also difficult. Doing the same with modern-high quality steel is easy by comparison. The Rings in Hamata are also not all wire, closed rings in this period were made out of small hammered plates using a type of hole punch, a very simple job.

3. Actually, it is no longer a matter of opinion, a friend of mine forged the lames and made the mail, as the Romans did. The lames were considerably weaker, because they are so thin and iron is so poor.

[ljperreira]

1. Actually, Mail is semi-self cleaning, because the rings rubbing together removes much of the rust, especially if you keep it oiled. You say you have "worn and fought" in your armour, have you passed the 100 hour mark yet? That is usually breakage point. We haven't even covered the problems with the leather breakages, not to mention field repair of combat damage.

2. You've missed the most important part, the 18g steel plate you bought. Actually making that plate consitantly , to 1/30", is a highly skilled job, hammering it and maintaining the quality is also difficult. Doing the same with modern-high quality steel is easy by comparison. The Rings in Hamata are also not all wire, closed rings in this period were made out of small hammered plates using a type of hole punch, a very simple job.

3. Actually, it is no longer a matter of opinion, a friend of mine forged the lames and made the mail, as the Romans did. The lames were considerably weaker, because they are so thin and iron is so poor.

1. Yes, you are correct about the mail being semi self-cleaning. But if the Legionaries are maintaining their Segmentata on a daily basis, like we do with our rifles and gear today, then there shouldnt be a problem.

2. The closed rings of the period were not only made by punching plate, but were also made using wire, then forge welding the ends. And as far as punching the rings being easy...you would have to hammer flat the same iron which was used in the Segmentata...which you said yourself was not an easy task, and then punching out approx. 5,000-8,000 rings. I dont call that easy at all. Also, some theorize that an amourer at the time would not have made his own sheet metal, that he would have bought the sheets premade in certain thicknesses like we do today.

3. As far as the iron being "so thin" and "so poor"....in no. 2 above you state that the plates are 1/30". Thats approx. 20 gauge. If you used this throughout the whole armour, then yes, it would be too thin. But, I'll let Mr. M. C. Bishop do the talking (again, from "Lorica Segmentata, Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour (http://www.mcbishop.co.uk/armatura/vol1.htm)"). In reference to the quality of the iron: "Although it was long thought that the Roman army did not know how to form steel, or that where it did occur it did so accidentally, work by Dr. David Sim has shown that this was not the case and that deliberate hardening of the plates of lorica segmentata was regularly accomplished, so that it was closer to a modern mild steel that wrought iron and the term 'steely iron' may be more appropriate to describe it. The sheet metal was apparently deliberately produced with harder perlite on the outside, softer ferrite on the inside."
(chapter 9, paragraph 2)
and in the next chapter, in reference to the thickness: "Due to the fact that most lorica segmentata plates that are excavated are heavily corroded and can yield little by way of useful information on their original thickness, the occasional discoveries of uncorroded pieces (particularly from waterlogged deposits) are especially valuable. From these, it can be determined that the thickness of the ferrous plate used varied according to its position in the cuirass. Plates at the top, particularly those on the shoulders, seem invariably to have been thicker (1mm or more) than those employed on the girth hoops (around 0.7mm), presumably reflecting the perception of threat on the part of the armourers. The one likely example of a Kalkriese-type upper shoulder guard in fact shows a thickness closer to 3mm"

So the shoulder guards and breast/back plates should be 18 gauge or more, and the torso or girdle plates should be approx. 20 gauge.

With that being said, I think that your "friend" didnt take into consideration that the plates werent all 20 guage, and that the Romans had a way of hardening their metal that he/she wasnt aware of.....

[lobf]

So your buddy made some armor, and you deduce that no Roman could have made anything better?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

1. Yes, you are correct about the mail being semi self-cleaning. But if the Legionaries are maintaining their Segmentata on a daily basis, like we do with our rifles and gear today, then there shouldnt be a problem.

We are talking about sudden catastrophic failure of metal fittings, it's like the muzzle falling off your rifle without warning. It's the equivelant of your kevlar vest ripping when you go to put it on, or the buckles cracking on your belt kit.


2. The closed rings of the period were not only made by punching plate, but were also made using wire, then forge welding the ends. And as far as punching the rings being easy...you would have to hammer flat the same iron which was used in the Segmentata...which you said yourself was not an easy task, and then punching out approx. 5,000-8,000 rings. I dont call that easy at all. Also, some theorize that an amourer at the time would not have made his own sheet metal, that he would have bought the sheets premade in certain thicknesses like we do today.

It is easier, the same way scale is easier to make than plate. The smaller the piece the better the quality control. Also, with mail you are looking for greater flexibility, rather than just hardness.


3. As far as the iron being "so thin" and "so poor"....in no. 2 above you state that the plates are 1/30". Thats approx. 20 gauge. If you used this throughout the whole armour, then yes, it would be too thin. But, I'll let Mr. M. C. Bishop do the talking (again, from "Lorica Segmentata, Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour (http://www.mcbishop.co.uk/armatura/vol1.htm)"). In reference to the quality of the iron: "Although it was long thought that the Roman army did not know how to form steel, or that where it did occur it did so accidentally, work by Dr. David Sim has shown that this was not the case and that deliberate hardening of the plates of lorica segmentata was regularly accomplished, so that it was closer to a modern mild steel that wrought iron and the term 'steely iron' may be more appropriate to describe it. The sheet metal was apparently deliberately produced with harder perlite on the outside, softer ferrite on the inside."
(chapter 9, paragraph 2)
and in the next chapter, in reference to the thickness: "Due to the fact that most lorica segmentata plates that are excavated are heavily corroded and can yield little by way of useful information on their original thickness, the occasional discoveries of uncorroded pieces (particularly from waterlogged deposits) are especially valuable. From these, it can be determined that the thickness of the ferrous plate used varied according to its position in the cuirass. Plates at the top, particularly those on the shoulders, seem invariably to have been thicker (1mm or more) than those employed on the girth hoops (around 0.7mm), presumably reflecting the perception of threat on the part of the armourers. The one likely example of a Kalkriese-type upper shoulder guard in fact shows a thickness closer to 3mm"

So the shoulder guards and breast/back plates should be 18 gauge or more, and the torso or girdle plates should be approx. 20 gauge.

With that being said, I think that your "friend" didnt take into consideration that the plates werent all 20 guage, and that the Romans had a way of hardening their metal that he/she wasnt aware of.....

Well, when the doctoral thesis is published we can both read it, until then I take him at his word. One thing he did was shot the girdle hoops full of holes with a Parthian bow, results not impressive.

More to the point, quality control accross the Empire does not seem to have been consistant, the best LS does not necessarily reflect the norm. Overall, mail seems to have been easier to get right.

[-Praetor-]

1. Yes, you are correct about the mail being semi self-cleaning. But if the Legionaries are maintaining their Segmentata on a daily basis, like we do with our rifles and gear today, then there shouldnt be a problem.


Perhaps the Legionaires didn't had the time to maintain their segmentata on a daily basis. You are comparing normal service conditions with campaign conditions. In campaign one does not control the time, and the soldier may not have the conditions to give the segmentata its 100 hour check, let alone repair it. It was highly probable that in highly stressfull conditions (when the armour was needed the most) the legionary was too busy marching at forced pace, setting up camp, on guard duty, patrolling, pursuing defeated enemies, being pursued in turn, etc. In periods when the armour was most needed such as the climax of a campaign, you most probably didn't had the time to service your segmentata, and just had to trust to Mars that it didn't fall off while putting it during an ambush, or in the middle of a combat.

You can use a hamata for days or weeks without fear of it falling apart, you can march for several days and be in combat conditions for weeks and you can be confident that half your armour won't fall off because some fatigued leather strips cut themselves from over use.

It's not a matter of being diligent or not, it was a matter of battlefield conditions. In garrison duty, with all the logistical equipment requiered to service it, the segmentata rules. In a war of movement, it definitively doesn't.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So your buddy made some armor, and you deduce that no Roman could have made anything better?

oh, Lobf. you are half the reason I read the EB and EB 2 forums....

[Megas Methuselah]

In garrison duty, with all the logistical equipment requiered to service it, the segmentata rules. In a war of movement, it definitively doesn't.

Wow, a bit of an over-statement there.

[ljperreira]

We are talking about sudden catastrophic failure of metal fittings, it's like the muzzle falling off your rifle without warning. It's the equivelant of your kevlar vest ripping when you go to put it on, or the buckles cracking on your belt kit.

Usually these problems would occur due to normal wear and tear....but maintenance includes checking your gear for potential failures. In reference to your "muzzle" failure analogy, you wouldn’t be surprised by something like this if you had inspected your rifle thoroughly, I’m sure the compensator would have been loose (that would be funny though, you would be made the butt of many jokes by the guys for a while). On my Loricas I always check to see if any of the fittings are cracked, if the rivets are loose, if the metal looks stressed, etc. I would sure look foolish when I’m demonstrating Roman armor if the shoulder guards let go and the girdle plats end up around my ankles ~:doh:. But once again, I feel the need to remind you that the Hamata also had copper alloy fittings, such as hinges and what not, that could fail on you in the same way....


It is easier, the same way scale is easier to make than plate. The smaller the piece the better the quality control. Also, with mail you are looking for greater flexibility, rather than just hardness.

I only say its harder because actually punching the rings out is a very long, tiring, drawn out process. I mean, making chain mail, without riveting and punching out 10,000 rings, is a pain in the ace as it is. And yes, the chain mail as a whole is supposed to be flexible, but the individual rings are not supposed to be flexible, they have to be strong so they don’t bend and break (I’ve seen this happen), and that’s what I’m talking about.


More to the point, quality control accross the Empire does not seem to have been consistant, the best LS does not necessarily reflect the norm. Overall, mail seems to have been easier to get right.

Obviously, but whose to say that the examples found are examples of the best craftsmanship? The Segmentata fragments found in the Corbridge hoard have many flaws, and repairs....which may have been the reason why they were buried (disposed of). Maybe "the best" hasn’t been found yet.

Anyhow, as I’ve said before, I also prefer chain mail. I don’t wear chain mail because even if I don’t punch out rings, and I don’t rivet the rest (making the process of Hamata construction much, much, easier), it would still be a whole lot quicker, and easier, and less stressful, to make the Lorica Segmentata, and I have personal experience in making both......and once again, the Segmentata was used for approx 250 years!!! The Romans must have believed the armor was worth keeping around.

Everything I’ve presented on this thread about the Lorica Segmentata has been backed up by well respected sources, and by personal experience making and using both types of armor. If you think that the fittings will randomly explode on you, that the plates would melt to liquid in the hot sun, that your random conjectures on the instability of the Segmentata proves that the archaeological findings are just the pipe dream of some idiotic scientist, so be it. I don’t care anymore. We are just going to go in the same circle as we have been going. My points of interest were: The Segmentata was used as early as 10 bc....the Segmentata was used for 250 years....the Segmentata was actually capable of protecting its wearer. Im not trying to make you like the armor...that I couldnt care less about.

[satalexton]

...~_~a just face it mate, LS will NEVER make it's way into EB2

[ljperreira]

Perhaps the Legionaires didn't had the time to maintain their segmentata on a daily basis. You are comparing normal service conditions with campaign conditions. In campaign one does not control the time, and the soldier may not have the conditions to give the segmentata its 100 hour check, let alone repair it. It was highly probable that in highly stressfull conditions (when the armour was needed the most) the legionary was too busy marching at forced pace, setting up camp, on guard duty, patrolling, pursuing defeated enemies, being pursued in turn, etc. In periods when the armour was most needed such as the climax of a campaign, you most probably didn't had the time to service your segmentata, and just had to trust to Mars that it didn't fall off while putting it during an ambush, or in the middle of a combat.

You can use a hamata for days or weeks without fear of it falling apart, you can march for several days and be in combat conditions for weeks and you can be confident that half your armour won't fall off because some fatigued leather strips cut themselves from over use.

It's not a matter of being diligent or not, it was a matter of battlefield conditions. In garrison duty, with all the logistical equipment requiered to service it, the segmentata rules. In a war of movement, it definitively doesn't.

Ok, this is what I’m talking about. Nothing in this post refers to facts. Everything stated is complete conjecture. Are you going to have me believe that you’ve taken both armors on campaign??!! You’ve ranged, on foot and in armor, the highways and byways of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Britain, and wherever the heck else just to come back here and tell me with complete certainty that the Lorica Segmentata is complete junk? Because that’s the only way you’re going to convince me you know what you’re talking about. How do you know, or I know, how the Romans dealt with broken armor and equipment in the field? Do you have any evidence that the Legionaries didn’t have any time to repair the equipment, or that they didn't have armorers following the Legions? Because what could go wrong with the Segmentata could also go wrong with your Balteus, your caligae, a saddle, your helmet, your gladius, and whatever else you can throw in. And I can go on all day with "what ifs".....but it doesn’t prove anything, its facts we are striving for. The fact is, you, and others, don’t like the Segmentata because you believe its just Hollywood mumbo jumbo. But, according to historians and archaeologists, the armor was actually used, and for a good stretch of time. If you don’t like that, then that’s on you.

[Mediolanicus]

Ok, this is what I’m talking about. Nothing in this post refers to facts. Everything stated is complete conjecture. Are you going to have me believe that you’ve taken both armors on campaign??!! You’ve ranged, on foot and in armor, the highways and byways of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Britain, and wherever the heck else just to come back here and tell me with complete certainty that the Lorica Segmentata is complete junk? Because that’s the only way you’re going to convince me you know what you’re talking about. How do you know, or I know, how the Romans dealt with broken armor and equipment in the field? Do you have any evidence that the Legionaries didn’t have any time to repair the equipment, or that they didn't have armorers following the Legions? Because what could go wrong with the Segmentata could also go wrong with your Balteus, your caligae, a saddle, your helmet, your gladius, and whatever else you can throw in. And I can go on all day with "what ifs".....but it doesn’t prove anything, its facts we are striving for. The fact is, you, and others, don’t like the Segmentata because you believe its just Hollywood mumbo jumbo. But, according to historians and archaeologists, the armor was actually used, and for a good stretch of time. If you don’t like that, then that’s on you.

IIRC this is true.

But those same historians and archaeologists also conclude that segmentata never was the prevalent armor type on the Roman battle field AFAIK.

[ray243]

IIRC this is true.

But those same historians and archaeologists also conclude that segmentata never was the prevalent armor type on the Roman battle field AFAIK.

However, I thought that Trajan's column basically give us the impression that the Segmentata is a ideal armour that Romans wore? That is represent the ideal armour for the Roman army?

[Ludens]

However, I thought that Trajan's column basically give us the impression that the Segmentata is a ideal armour that Romans wore? That is represent the ideal armour for the Roman army?

Ideal? Not necessarily. Presumably, the artist used LS to better distinguish the legionaries from the auxiliaries. On the Adamclissi Meteopes, which celebrate the same campaign, many legionaries also use chain mail.

Thanks for the answers, PVC and ljperreira.

[ljperreira]

As far as I know its impossible at this time to say how many Legionaries used the armor, or who specifically used it. There is some evidence that Legionaries were required to buy their own kit (weapons, armor, and accoutrements), the money being deducted from their pay. If this is true, then the Legionary may have had to choose between the Hamata, Squamata, and Segmentata. Maybe, because the Segmentata was easier to make, it was cheaper to buy, and therefore some penny pinching Legionaries bought it for that reason. Who knows? We can theorize all day but we will only know for sure when definite evidence is found, until then.......

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't worry guys, once EBIII for ETW is made, the unlimited unit creation will allow every single possible unit to be created, including LS soldiers. :clown:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Usually these problems would occur due to normal wear and tear....but maintenance includes checking your gear for potential failures. In reference to your "muzzle" failure analogy, you wouldn’t be surprised by something like this if you had inspected your rifle thoroughly, I’m sure the compensator would have been loose (that would be funny though, you would be made the butt of many jokes by the guys for a while). On my Loricas I always check to see if any of the fittings are cracked, if the rivets are loose, if the metal looks stressed, etc. I would sure look foolish when I’m demonstrating Roman armor if the shoulder guards let go and the girdle plats end up around my ankles ~:doh:. But once again, I feel the need to remind you that the Hamata also had copper alloy fittings, such as hinges and what not, that could fail on you in the same way....

There is a big question mark over how much time a legionary had to do these checks, bear in mind that modern gear is in many cases hardier than the ancient equivelant, I believe Dan Peterson was the one who demonstrated that it's quite hard to know when the metal hook-and-eye fitting will fail, rather like the firing pin in your rifle. Unlike said firing pin, which I assume you can replace in under a minute, the armour is not simple to fix. Further, Peterson says that the interaction between iron and copper-alloy increases the rate of corrosion. As far as the hooks etc. on mail go, the shirt itself is all iron except for rivets. Worst case the shoulder-mantle has to be taken off, though you could probably do a quick fix with some boot-thongs.

Further, after dark the legionary would have no effective way to check his gear.


I only say its harder because actually punching the rings out is a very long, tiring, drawn out process. I mean, making chain mail, without riveting and punching out 10,000 rings, is a pain in the ace as it is. And yes, the chain mail as a whole is supposed to be flexible, but the individual rings are not supposed to be flexible, they have to be strong so they don’t bend and break (I’ve seen this happen), and that’s what I’m talking about.

Time and skill are two seperate rings, here we have 5,000 punched and 5,000 rivited rings. Also, the rings do need to be somewhat flexable, because they have to stretch under tension. Otherwise they snap.


Obviously, but whose to say that the examples found are examples of the best craftsmanship? The Segmentata fragments found in the Corbridge hoard have many flaws, and repairs....which may have been the reason why they were buried (disposed of). Maybe "the best" hasn’t been found yet.

I've seen the diagrams of the corbridge hoard, it's a cash of spares. If it were rubbish it would have been melted down or disposed of outside the fort, most likely. It would also have been stripped of all alloy fittings.


Anyhow, as I’ve said before, I also prefer chain mail. I don’t wear chain mail because even if I don’t punch out rings, and I don’t rivet the rest (making the process of Hamata construction much, much, easier), it would still be a whole lot quicker, and easier, and less stressful, to make the Lorica Segmentata, and I have personal experience in making both......and once again, the Segmentata was used for approx 250 years!!! The Romans must have believed the armor was worth keeping around.

Mail is used for upwards of 1,800 years, and the use of LS co-incides with the quietest period in Imperial history when many legionaries never even went on campaign. Proportionally LS is a historically unsuccessful armour which dissapears when the Empire in in turmoil.


Everything I’ve presented on this thread about the Lorica Segmentata has been backed up by well respected sources, and by personal experience making and using both types of armor. If you think that the fittings will randomly explode on you, that the plates would melt to liquid in the hot sun, that your random conjectures on the instability of the Segmentata proves that the archaeological findings are just the pipe dream of some idiotic scientist, so be it. I don’t care anymore. We are just going to go in the same circle as we have been going. My points of interest were: The Segmentata was used as early as 10 bc....the Segmentata was used for 250 years....the Segmentata was actually capable of protecting its wearer. Im not trying to make you like the armor...that I couldnt care less about.

Please, I'm suggesting no such thing. I am simply pointing out that the Segmentata is maintainance heavy, which you have admitted. You have not demonstrated that Legionaries had the time or means to maintain their armour, and you have ignored the fact that making the time would increase their overall workload. The only piece of information you have brought to bear is Mike Bishop's point that some armour was hardened.

This is true of Roman helms and swords as well, but analysis of swords in particular has shown that the gap between the best and worst swordswiths was huge, ranging from high-quality steel blades down to rank incompetance, and all appear to be service weapons.

To deal with your respons to K_raso, he made vallid points about worst case scenario. It is worth pointing out that people have been homping all over with both types of armour, wearing it wor weeks at a time, and that the consensus is that hamata is more reliable and comfortable.

As to the legionaries having armourers following them around, they did all that themselves, part of cutting down the supply train. We also know they had to buy their equipment and irrc LS was more expensive, though finding the citation for that would be hard.

Now, if you want to get into willy-waving, may I point out that I am a postgraduate at the second best university after Oxford in the UK for the study of archaeology, that I have contacts with serious experemental archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that I also have connection to the oldest re-enactedment group in the world, the Ermine Street Guard.

So I think I have some idea what I am talking about.

[antisocialmunky]

I appreciate you guys posting all this knowledge and continuing another LS debate. Its really informative to those of us who only see the monthly LS request threads.

[ljperreira]

You have not demonstrated that Legionaries had the time or means to maintain their armour, and you have ignored the fact that making the time would increase their overall workload. The only piece of information you have brought to bear is Mike Bishop's point that some armour was hardened.

I haven’t because it would be total conjecture on my part, something I try to avoid. As to "workload", I’m sorry to compare to the modern military, but today most commanders couldn’t care less how long the job took, as long as it got done (at least that goes for the Marine Corps, I cant speak for any of the other branches).


To deal with your respons to K_raso, he made vallid points about worst case scenario. It is worth pointing out that people have been homping all over with both types of armour, wearing it wor weeks at a time, and that the consensus is that hamata is more reliable and comfortable.

Once again, his points were pure conjecture, without sources or references, its hard for me to take that seriously.


As to the legionaries having armourers following them around, they did all that themselves, part of cutting down the supply train. We also know they had to buy their equipment and irrc LS was more expensive, though finding the citation for that would be hard.

Then why mention it? If you can't cite references then its pointless. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I cant just believe something based on the fact that you said it....


Now, if you want to get into willy-waving, may I point out that I am a postgraduate at the second best university after Oxford in the UK for the study of archaeology, that I have contacts with serious experemental archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that I also have connection to the oldest re-enactedment group in the world, the Ermine Street Guard.

Umm, ok, good for you. This doesn’t change a thing. And, who’s "willy-waving" (whatever the heck that means)? Did I brag or mention anything about myself? All I’m saying is that, like every other type of academic study, you cant present what you call fact without citing sources. Trust me, I would be more willing to take you for your word if you gave me sources.....

Wait a minute!!! Deosn't the Ermine Street Guard use the Lorica Segmentata?!

[Ludens]

Now, if you want to get into willy-waving, may I point out that I am a postgraduate at the second best university after Oxford in the UK for the study of archaeology, that I have contacts with serious experemental archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that I also have connection to the oldest re-enactedment group in the world, the Ermine Street Guard.

This doesn't exactly convince me you are right.

[Pontius Pilate]

I think this is because (at least in the U.S.) alot of people are of British decent, and have no interest in reenacting anything that has nothing to do with Britain (my brother-in-law is Scottish and he's like that).

um, what? is there any evidence to back this up?

[ljperreira]

Well, its just one possible reason why the majority of Roman Legion reenacting groups wear the Lorica Segmentata, and portray the invasion of Britain in 43 AD. Ive spoken to many people in the process of trying to recruit for Legio XXI, and many of them lose interest when I tell them weve decided to portray Legionaries stationed in Germany, and not Britain. This goes for other types of Living History stuff that ive done as well (such as Medieval). Not everyone is like this, of course. I usually hesitate on participating in anything thats not related to Portuguese or American history myself, so I understand where theyre coming from.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This doesn't exactly convince me you are right.

It's not meant to, I was merely making a point.

ljperreira, I'm afraid conjecture is the historian and re-enactor's stock-in-trade.

Consider this, regarding mainainance. Practicality and daylight determine the time the legionary has to complete all his tasks once he arrives at camp and has actually built the camp itself. If he runs out of time tasks will simply be elft undone when he turns in for the night.

[ljperreira]

ljperreira, I'm afraid conjecture is the historian and re-enactor's stock-in-trade.

Consider this, regarding mainainance. Practicality and daylight determine the time the legionary has to complete all his tasks once he arrives at camp and has actually built the camp itself. If he runs out of time tasks will simply be elft undone when he turns in for the night.

True, so very true. But, as a reenactor, I try to keep the conjecture to a minimum. If I do have to state a theory, or what not, I make sure its known that its just an educated guess, at best.

For me, the big selling point is the fact that the Segmentata was used for 250 years. I know Ive mentioned this already a few times, but I really think this is an important fact. I try to picture anything that the modern military has used in the past and present.....the U.S. hasnt even been around for 250 years!! 234 years ago we were using smooth bore muskets, tricorn hats, wool uniforms, etc. The steel pot helmet our soldiers used in WWII only lasted about 45 years, having been replaced in the mid '80s by the kevlar helmet I wore in the Marine Corps. I have two pot helmets (one dated 1943 and the other from the Vietnam war era), and I think they are just as uncomfortable as the Kevlar helmet. Can it be said that because it was replaced by the kevlar that it wasnt any good? Sure, it was a bit heavier, and the kevlar probably protects you a little better, but that doesnt mean the pot helmet is complete junk. My point is, its hard for me to accept that an armor that was used for a period longer than my country has even been in existance, let alone in comparison to any amount of time weve used any of our own combat gear since becoming a country, could be half as bad as some try to claim. I hope any of that makes since. Anyhow, to each his own I guess.
As far as maintanance time, its been the same for any professional fighting force. We had to maintain our rifles, mortar systems, vehicles, personal equipment, etc. It didnt matter if youd been on ops for months, or a 20 mile hike all night, the gear still had to be cleaned and maintained before we can call it a day. And when youre in the field its even more important, because you want to make sure your weapons and equipment are going to continue working for you, we didnt stop cleaning our rifles just because we had only gotten 2 hours of sleep and was patrolling or doing fire missions all day and night. Even on ship we cleaned our rifles and other weapons at least 2 or 3 times a day.

[geala]

Hehe, another segmentata discussion, and a very good one imho with useful information without too much ira et studio. Thank you.

My opinion to segmentata in EB: not at all worth the effort because of the invention in the late 1st c. BC.

My opinion to segmentata in general: an armor which offered very good protection superior to mail and scale and at the same time had acceptable comfort. So here I'm more with ljperreira.

I'm not a specialist for the Roman time (ok, I'm not a specialist for anything :laugh4:) and I don't reenact Roman soldiers (I reenact Greek soldiers) but I have some connections to Roman reenactors. The argument about the comfort comes from reenactors I know who wear the armor quite often.

As far as I know there are many findings of segmentata pieces spread over the whole Roman world, more than for mail (which is coincidence and has nothing to say). The conclusion is allowed at least that it was an often used armor in a certain timeframe.

It was the time in which the Roman army was in its most professional state and the Roman empire was economically and politically very strong. They didn't have to survive desperate wars and so had time, funds, resources and leisure to invest in the best for their heavy battle infantry. Later on that changed and simpler but still good armor was used again. That was often the same in later time, the very best for the individual was only used in certain circumstances.

I'm not of the opinion that segmentata offered worse protection compared to mail. That rigid armor is superior against blunt trauma is self explaining. Even with padded backing mail is clearly worse. Mail can also catch spikes and can be penetrated more easily. One of plates greatest benefits is the deflection of weapons points. I don't think that the physics of armor changed so much from antiquity to the medieval times. Why if mail was so superior or sufficient in itself did the medieval warriors adopt additional rigid defences from the 12th c. onwards? Defences which by the way looked first very similar to Roman segmented plate armor. Why did warriors who could afford it and were in the thick of the fray wear more and more plate defences in the later middle ages and no longer padded mail? Because plate is lighter and offers better protection and is in some aspects more comfortable to wear compared to heavily padded mail. The great advantages of mail were the unrestricted movement and the relatively simple (although time consuming) manner of fabrication. Mail is a very good armor. But for heavy battle infantry (and cavalry) a plate armor may be better in some aspects.

So my conclusion is that the Romans were no fools when they developed the segmented plate armor and used it as long as the material and political circumstances allowed.

[keravnos]

Honestly, I find that chainmail is more practical...

...because it's really hard to make a lamallar bikini.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VuA7dyVJL.jpg
:smash:

[geala]

You point at a very good reason. Mail can deflect blows but no views. Will there be amazons with this mail armor in EBII? :2thumbsup:

[Ludens]

As far as maintanance time, its been the same for any professional fighting force. We had to maintain our rifles, mortar systems, vehicles, personal equipment, etc. It didnt matter if youd been on ops for months, or a 20 mile hike all night, the gear still had to be cleaned and maintained before we can call it a day.

Except that the Romans didn't have electrical lights by which to clean it, so they couldn't do it after sunset. That's what PVC is arguing. I quite agree with your other argument, though. It must have had some benefit if the Romans used it for so long.

[antisocialmunky]

They had fire. Its not the most reliable light source but it is light.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Firstly, you can't really inspect gear by naked firelight, you can't get the flame close enough. Even if the Romans had some sort of reflector (no evidence of which I know of) it would still be nearly impossible. So, the Roman soldier must do all his complex work in daylight, leaving pretty much just eating and sharpening of weapons to camp-fire time.

geala, I'm not convinced on the comfort or protection stakes.

For starters, segmentata is neither rigid nor plate armour, it is more properly overblown scale armour. Unlike medieval horsemen, legionaries are not wearing high-quality multi-layered armour. The average warrior was wearing mail and a coat-of-plates. By the time they get up to just plate the technology for producing reliable steel is miles ahead of Rome.

The best segmentata is not even quite mild steel and it's protective qualities are dubious at best.

As far as comfort goes, while mail is heavier, a certain amount of the weight can be taken by the waist-belt and overall the armour is less constricting. A friend of mine has said that, given the choice, he would rather spend a week in mail than LS because after he takes his mail off he's fine in an hour, LS not so much.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Firstly, you can't really inspect gear by naked firelight, you can't get the flame close enough. Even if the Romans had some sort of reflector (no evidence of which I know of) it would still be nearly impossible. So, the Roman soldier must do all his complex work in daylight, leaving pretty much just eating and sharpening of weapons to camp-fire time.

And, interestingly, suppose that the soldier could somehow get the light sufficiently close enough by means of reflectors or otherwise: consider then that fire has a widely different colour spectrum from sun light, even the common watt bulbs of today do not match the intensity or spectrum of sunlight. In short: the legionary can't see half by fire-light of what he can see during the day due to the fact that the higher frequencies are under-represented (resulting in near-black for things that used to be blue).

[geala]

I think you should not overestimate the "light and see" problem. They could see enough for some hundred years. ~;) But I have to concede that maintenance of the segmented armor would have been surely not a pleasure.

@ PV Calicvla: I never wore a segmented armor, so I can say nothing about it's comfort from own experience. Your friend can. I can only imagine that comfort depends very much on how exactly the armor fits the individual.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, that's another problem with Segmentata, it has to be well fitted.

[ljperreira]

Firstly, you can't really inspect gear by naked firelight, you can't get the flame close enough. Even if the Romans had some sort of reflector (no evidence of which I know of) it would still be nearly impossible. So, the Roman soldier must do all his complex work in daylight, leaving pretty much just eating and sharpening of weapons to camp-fire time.


Once again, the modern infantryman cant use light of any kind at night, because it would give his position away. But we were still expected to keep our 782 gear and weapons clean and serviceable. And we didnt have all day to do it (way too busy closing with and destroying the enemy and such).

[Jediknight73]

Uargh, what's with the LS obsession?

Never bloody understood it, m'self.

cause its cool??

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Once again, the modern infantryman cant use light of any kind at night, because it would give his position away. But we were still expected to keep our 782 gear and weapons clean and serviceable. And we didnt have all day to do it (way too busy closing with and destroying the enemy and such).

Your belt kit is made out of synthetic webbing, unlikely the snap under stress, your body armour won't suffer from random failure of it's fittings, which aren't made of bronze.

THe analogy between modern and ancient is bad in most respects, in some it works. Soldiers will generally do the bear minimum of work to stop themselves getting killed, for instance.

[ljperreira]

Your belt kit is made out of synthetic webbing, unlikely the snap under stress, your body armour won't suffer from random failure of it's fittings, which aren't made of bronze.

THe analogy between modern and ancient is bad in most respects, in some it works. Soldiers will generally do the bear minimum of work to stop themselves getting killed, for instance.

The U.S. Marine Corps has high standards concerning the Marine's upkeep of his gear and weapons. We are not allowed to "do the bear minimum of work", all of our equipment is inspected by the team leader, squad leader, section leader, what have you....good luck to the Marine who fails.
And yes, you’re equipment can suffer from random failure....I’ve had it happen to me on a few occasions. Usually I would agree that comparing a modern infantryman to his ancient counterpart is wrong, but in this case its a simple matter of gear serviceability and the upkeep of it, which is the same whether you’re talking about a Pugio or a Bayonet.

I would also like to point out something I've been intending to add to my comments but keep forgetting......there is proof that the Legionaries made quick fixes in the field, relating specifically to the fittings. The Corbridge hoard has a couple such fixes here (http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/contents/artefax/armour/bodyarm/segment/co/cuir04a.htm), and here (http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/contents/artefax/armour/bodyarm/segment/co/cuir02d.htm). These examples show that after the hinge failed, the plates were riveted directly to each other, which may prove that a failure of this type doesn’t have to be a considerable setback.
I think that the only thing you would lose at that point is a small amount of comfort. I’m going to try this out on one of my own Segmentatas', because I don’t think it would really make much difference.

[bovi]

I think perhaps the regular infantryman of the US would be a better comparison to the regular infantryman of the Roman Empire than the elite Marines.

[BeeSting]

Why are people so bent on having Segmentata?

[antisocialmunky]

I think perhaps the regular infantryman of the US would be a better comparison to the regular infantryman of the Roman Empire than the elite Marines.

That'd be a pretty good comparison to the volunteer legions of the Principate.

[Rilder]

cause its cool??

Its ugly imho, would rather die then wear that piece of crap.

Give me good, time tested Hamata any day.

[antisocialmunky]

Why Hamata over Squamata?

[Rilder]

Because wrapping myself in reptiles doesn't seem very protective. (Yes I know what you meant :p )

[Cambyses]

It occured to me while reading this excellent thread that Roman Legionaries served for a period of up to 25 years. It is unlikely that they wore much else than their "uniform" for much of this time - and that in many cases the same armour would last them for a very long period. Would they really need perfect light in order to check something that had effectively become their second skin?

[ljperreira]

Its ugly imho, would rather die then wear that piece of crap.

Give me good, time tested Hamata any day.

I doubt that, given the choice between any form of armor or no armor at all, I believe you would chose the armor......:yes:


Because wrapping myself in reptiles doesn't seem very protective.
The Lorica Squamata (scale armor) was used by many different people throughout history (from ancient to medieval). The overlapping plates provided a bit more flexibility than rigid plate armor, at the same time as providing the protection from blunt force trauma that plate armor gives you.

All in all, each form of armor has its benifits and drawbacks. None of us could really know what those are unless we personally use them in full on, life or death combat situations. Real experience doesnt include playing a video game or even reenacting. Definate conclusions on our part without real life experience is just personal opinion, and cannot be counted as any form of fact. Comfort and vanity go to the wayside when you are trying to protect your own life......

[Rilder]

The Lorica Squamata (scale armor) was used by many different people throughout history (from ancient to medieval). The overlapping plates provided a bit more flexibility than rigid plate armor, at the same time as providing the protection from blunt force trauma that plate armor gives you.



(Yes I know what you meant :p )

Aka I was trying to make a joke, Squamata is an order of Reptiles.

On Topic,
I just don't see why people care about late roman empire armor so much. Then again I loose interest with Roman history after the christians appear.

[ray243]

Aka I was trying to make a joke, Squamata is an order of Reptiles.

On Topic,
I just don't see why people care about late roman empire armor so much. Then again I loose interest with Roman history after the christians appear.

It's all about the packaging, and the reason why so many hollywood designers love to modify historical armour to look as cool as possible.

People don't care about what happened in that era, they care about how cool history can be.

[Zaknafien]

for what its worth, there are reasons 'the LS was used for 250 years'. Thats kind of a a false argument for your point, its as if you said, "but the sword was used for 3000 years". the rate of technological advancement in a society is the result many factors, the most important of those being food supply, security, and personal independence. The Romans simply did not have the professional class of sufficient size to spark any real technological revolution as the modern west did in the past 250 years. the reason we get a rapid stream of new technology and inventions these days is because we have an entire large segment of the population that does not have to work and is supported by others so that they have time to think about things, as well as enjoying protections from others stealing their ideas through patent law.

[ljperreira]

The Romans simply did not have the professional class of sufficient size to spark any real technological revolution as the modern west did in the past 250 years.

What?? We are not discussing why they didnt invent something new, we are discussing why they used the Segmentata when there was perfectly good technologies already available, called the Hamata and Squamata. So its about existing technologies, not advancing technologies. And, may I remind you that there was technological advances at this time, though they may be considered small in comparison to today. In reference to the Segmentata specifically, the earliest form is known today as the Kalkriese type A Lorica, followed by the Kalkriese type B, the Corbridge types A and B, and the Newstead version (and of course others we may not know about yet). Each Segmentata is a vast improvement over the last. So the 250 year statement does apply, because for 250 years the Segmentata was used when, as I said above, there already was versions of armor that some feel was superior to the Segmentata. The discussion here is why they used the Segmentata for 250 years when there was other technologies available, amongst other things.

[V.T. Marvin]

Sorry for being totally off-topic, but I just have to say big HELLO TO ZAKNAFIEN - I am glad to see you here again after a long time. Great to know that you are alive and hopefully safe and soud as well. Welcome back to civilian life and I pray that they will not send you oversees any time soon.:2thumbsup:

P.S. - I still have your "Primus Inter Pares" AAR bookmarked as "my favourite" but I do not dare to hope that you might want to continue it. I am sure that you must be more than busy enough with EB II (besides the RL)! :bow: :bow: :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?? We are not discussing why they didnt invent something new, we are discussing why they used the Segmentata when there was perfectly good technologies already available, called the Hamata and Squamata. So its about existing technologies, not advancing technologies. And, may I remind you that there was technological advances at this time, though they may be considered small in comparison to today. In reference to the Segmentata specifically, the earliest form is known today as the Kalkriese type A Lorica, followed by the Kalkriese type B, the Corbridge types A and B, and the Newstead version (and of course others we may not know about yet). Each Segmentata is a vast improvement over the last. So the 250 year statement does apply, because for 250 years the Segmentata was used when, as I said above, there already was versions of armor that some feel was superior to the Segmentata. The discussion here is why they used the Segmentata for 250 years when there was other technologies available, amongst other things.

Sorry, how is Newstead an improvement? Dan Peterson, who knows more about putting soldiers in armour than anyone else, pointed out about 10-15 years ago that Newstead is inferior in very way save speed of construction.

Also, Zak, thoughts on the maintainance arguement?

[Zaknafien]

I definately agree that soldiers will do the bare minimum they can get away with. Squad, section, and platoon leaders arent omnipotent nor omnipresent, and many of them as well are also as lazy as the next guy (or girl, as we are all human). I personally find my military experience has given me great insight to the armies of the past, especially in the way we analyze archaelogical finds. From the way the military is portrayed in media and film, any of us who have served know that there are numerous errors, some of them glaring. Imagine, if you will, that archaeologists 2,000 years from now salvage a DVD movie of our western militaries and use that as part of their evidence for a book or something. Also, in Iraq today we are using 4 different sets of personal body armor. They all look very similar to the untrained eye, and an unbiased observer might think they are the same thing.

P.S--VT Marvin-- Thanks for the well wishes, its great to be back. And sadly no, I probably wont be continuing any AARs..maybe until EB II at least.

[ljperreira]

Sorry, how is Newstead an improvement? Dan Peterson, who knows more about putting soldiers in armour than anyone else, pointed out about 10-15 years ago that Newstead is inferior in very way save speed of construction.

Also, Zak, thoughts on the maintainance arguement?

As we have mentioned above the Segmentata's weakness is its fittings. The Newstead Lorica solves this problem to a degree by making larger and stronger fittings, as well as getting rid of the reliance on leather straps. The breast and back plates, as well as the girdle plates, overlap each other and "lock" into place using stronger cast lacing loops. To some this makes the Newstead version a better Segmentata, to others maybe not, its just a matter of opinion. You can read more about the Newstead at the Legio XX (http://www.larp.com/legioxx/newstlor.html)site.


I definately agree that soldiers will do the bare minimum they can get away with. Squad, section, and platoon leaders arent omnipotent nor omnipresent, and many of them as well are also as lazy as the next guy (or girl, as we are all human).

It depends on the unit, or branch of service. If you belong to a rabble, an undisciplined group of wannabes who just signed up for the benefits, then I would agree with you. But if you join an organization that takes its job seriously, and doesn’t tolerate laziness or sloth, then you’re dead wrong. My experience in the Marine Corps taught me that if squad leaders were not omnipotent, then they were pretty darn close. Of course, you always have that 10%, as we used to say, but those guys were always pulling the shite details, so to speak. I would like to think that the Legionaries constituted the more disciplined classification, but that’s just my opinion, and couldn’t be proven or disproven without traveling back in time.....


Also, in Iraq today we are using 4 different sets of personal body armor. They all look very similar to the untrained eye, and an unbiased observer might think they are the same thing.

I agree, I dont believe all Roman Legionaries used the same type of armor (anyways, I think that what you are trying to say). As I mentioned above there is some evidence that the individual Legionary had to purchase his own armor and equipment, so it would make since that he would choose whatever he was willing to pay for (and how fancy the decorations were). This is why most Roman legion reenacting groups encourage a bit of variety, and why at some archaeolgical sites both the Segmentata and Hamata are found.

[Ludens]

It depends on the unit, or branch of service. If you belong to a rabble, an undisciplined group of wannabes who just signed up for the benefits, then I would agree with you. But if you join an organization that takes its job seriously, and doesn’t tolerate laziness or sloth, then you’re dead wrong. My experience in the Marine Corps taught me that if squad leaders were not omnipotent, then they were pretty darn close. Of course, you always have that 10%, as we used to say, but those guys were always pulling the shite details, so to speak. I would like to think that the Legionaries constituted the more disciplined classification, but that’s just my opinion, and couldn’t be proven or disproven without traveling back in time.....

The marines are something of an elite unit, while your average legionary was just a salaried grunt, so I am not sure if they are comparable. For example, in "In the Name of Rome", Goldsworthy writes that when Corbulo was preparing for his Armenian campaign, he found that some of his legionaries had actually sold their armour. That does not speak of a high regard for their equipment. IIRC the Eastern provinces were considered as easy spots, so this may not be representative. But the degree of combat readiness probably varied over time and space.

[Zaknafien]

It depends on the unit, or branch of service. If you belong to a rabble, an undisciplined group of wannabes who just signed up for the benefits, then I would agree with you. But if you join an organization that takes its job seriously, and doesn’t tolerate laziness or sloth, then you’re dead wrong. My experience in the Marine Corps taught me that if squad leaders were not omnipotent, then they were pretty darn close. Of course, you always have that 10%, as we used to say, but those guys were always pulling the shite details, so to speak. I would like to think that the Legionaries constituted the more disciplined classification, but that’s just my opinion, and couldn’t be proven or disproven without traveling back in time.....

i do not buy this at all. the USMC is just like any other infantry outfit. The Rangers are the same. Special forces guys are even worse. People are people no matter where you go. The USMC is full of stupid teenage kids just like the 10th Mountain division and the 3rd Ranger BN. Im not knocking the Marines, Im saying the propaganda of elite units is usually not all its cracked up to be.

[antisocialmunky]

The marines are something of an elite unit, while your average legionary was just a salaried grunt, so I am not sure if they are comparable. For example, in "In the Name of Rome", Goldsworthy writes that when Corbulo was preparing for his Armenian campaign, he found that some of his legionaries had actually sold their armour. That does not speak of a high regard for their equipment. IIRC the Eastern provinces were considered as easy spots, so this may not be representative. But the degree of combat readiness probably varied over time and space.

That's not too different from what happened in the Chechnyan war where there were instances of Russian troops selling weapons and armor to the enemy for food.

And the armor thing reminds me of the Battle of Adrianople where some of the legionaires elected to go into battle without their armor thinking it would be an easy win.

[ljperreira]

i do not buy this at all. the USMC is just like any other infantry outfit. The Rangers are the same. Special forces guys are even worse. People are people no matter where you go. The USMC is full of stupid teenage kids just like the 10th Mountain division and the 3rd Ranger BN. Im not knocking the Marines, Im saying the propaganda of elite units is usually not all its cracked up to be.

I dont appreciate being called a liar. I served as an infantryman in the Marine Corps, and I figure the guys I served with are anything but stupid. All you have to do is read a little history of the Corps, and you will see that your offensive words are hollow. I am not a recruiter, so I have no reason to spread propoganda. If you have some facts to share about the Lorica Segmentata, or any other related Roman armor, then share it. But I will have to ask you to abstain from insulting the Marine Corps and the men I served with.

[Zaknafien]

im not denigrating the Corps. Im pointing out the historic truth that propaganda is usually greatly exaggerated or simply outright untrue. Of course the history of the Corps is glorious, it was written by us. Same thing as the history of WWII for example which leaves out all the bad parts. History is subjective, human nature is not. And certainly you do have a reason to spread propaganda, you were a member of a a small group of people, and it is in your intrests to defend them as unique and special. You're not the only veteran here though, by any means. The point of this, is that popular histories are most often incorrect, and anything that most people believe is usually a lie.

[antisocialmunky]

i do not buy this at all. the USMC is just like any other infantry outfit. The Rangers are the same. Special forces guys are even worse. People are people no matter where you go. The USMC is full of stupid teenage kids just like the 10th Mountain division and the 3rd Ranger BN. Im not knocking the Marines, Im saying the propaganda of elite units is usually not all its cracked up to be.

I understand what you're saying... However, for you own sake I'm not sure what your first language is but any point you were trying to make is overshadowed by the tone of your statement. Most United States military personel are not teenagers nor particularly intellegence deficit. According from censuses conducted during this decade: The average age for the Marines is 19. The average age of Army members is 28. The average age for Rangers is 24. The average military member has atleast one child.

Take into account the fact that many of the younger guys are there so they can get an education and you can probably see why some people would see your remarks as incendary and baseless. Especially if it were someone like the child of a 30-year-old man currently on active duty.

[Ludens]

I understand what you're saying... However, for you own sake I'm not sure what your first language is but any point you were trying to make is overshadowed by the tone of your statement. No matter how many times I read it comes over as highly disrespectful. :-\

I second that. It's irrelevant and borderline offensive. Stick to the subject of discussion.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

The topic is complex... I have not answer completerly truth...
But to close this long history of LS, the modders could produce a skin with Legionnaires LS and make it available only for the custom battle.
This is to make pleasure to those who want to see action with the LS.:2thumbsup:
Why not?

[Ludens]

For the same reason as why LS is not included in the SP campaign?

Don't worry, though. Someone will mod it in soon enough.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm fairly glad we got a big detailed LS thread. Its kinda magneted all the LS discussion so we didn't have random LS floaters all over the place.

[ljperreira]

For example, in "In the Name of Rome", Goldsworthy writes that when Corbulo was preparing for his Armenian campaign, he found that some of his legionaries had actually sold their armour. That does not speak of a high regard for their equipment. IIRC the Eastern provinces were considered as easy spots, so this may not be representative. But the degree of combat readiness probably varied over time and space.

I applaud you’re use of references. I have Goldworthy's "The Complete Roman Army", but I haven’t read "In the Name of Rome". I’ve read the review and now this book is next on my reading list.

The Legionaries selling their armor is funny to me. It reminds me of the movie "Heartbreak Ridge" where Stitch Jones sells his Kevlar helmet (or loses it, I cant remember) and shows up with an old steel pot helmet. I can only imagine what type of trouble those Legionaries got into when Corbulo found out.....

A thought struck me today as I took a lunch break at work. There are many monuments, carvings, what not that show the Lorica Segmentata, such as Trajan's Column (of course). I agree that the Legionaries were probably all portrayed with the Segmentata so that the non-military civilian type can tell the difference between Legionary and Auxilia units. But herein lies the key.....the common populace must have known what a Segmentata was, in order for them to be able to recognize the Legionary wearing it. Sort of like today when an Armored car company paints a knight in armor on the side of the truck. It is recognizable enough for even those who haven’t seen real medieval armor to appreciate its meaning. An armor that was not worn, or unpopular, would not have garnered so much respect....anyways, its just a thought.

Once again, I don’t believe the Segmentata should be included into the campaign mode of EBII. But, with this being said, I wish I knew how to mod my own game (not enough time and too lazy to learn :shame:). Why has nobody made a game for Rome from, say, 20 AD-220 AD? With the wars in Germania, the invasion of Britain, and so on, I think this would be fun to do. Yes, this is a bit off topic, but would cure EB's Segmentata woes.....

[Ludens]

I applaud you’re use of references. I have Goldworthy's "The Complete Roman Army", but I haven’t read "In the Name of Rome". I’ve read the review and now this book is next on my reading list.

Well, it's more popular history than real history, but I found it a good introduction to the subject.


An armor that was not worn, or unpopular, would not have garnered so much respect....anyways, its just a thought.

Absolutely. It must have been associated with legionaries, and uniquely with legionaries, for it to be displayed as such. But that doesn't really tell us much. For all we know, LS was the preferred armour on the parade ground, but was only used for specialized duty on the battlefield.


Why has nobody made a game for Rome from, say, 20 AD-220 AD? With the wars in Germania, the invasion of Britain, and so on, I think this would be fun to do.

Because it falls between the two most exciting periods of Rome's history? That said, didn't Roma Surrectum (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=251) or Res Bellicae (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=603) cover this period?

Don't worry about the LS. Someone will make an unofficial submod for it soon enough.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I dont appreciate being called a liar. I served as an infantryman in the Marine Corps, and I figure the guys I served with are anything but stupid. All you have to do is read a little history of the Corps, and you will see that your offensive words are hollow. I am not a recruiter, so I have no reason to spread propoganda. If you have some facts to share about the Lorica Segmentata, or any other related Roman armor, then share it. But I will have to ask you to abstain from insulting the Marine Corps and the men I served with.

I resnt your tone, I did not compalin when you denegrated every other infantryman in the world as "lazy" and only out "for the benefits".

Both Zak and I have made the same point, that the soldier will do the bear minimum to stop himself getting killed.. This is not being "lazy" it is conserving evergy, not to mention the oil and flannel used to clean you weapon, whatever you use to waterproof your boots etc.

I have known soldiers who have found ways of doing very little work in the field, some of those tricks are very clever, all save time and energy and none are "lazy" or stupid".

Further, I have known soldiers to spend an extra $200 on a reliable pair of boots (i.e. German) that they know do not need as much TLC as the British pattern.

My arguement, therefore, is that if LS is maintainance heavy, and mail is not, LS is unlikely to be especially popular, particually if it is more expensive. On the other hand, you have effectivel made another point about LS. The armour's high mainainance requirements would keep soldiers occupied in barracks.

[ljperreira]

I resnt your tone, I did not compalin when you denegrated every other infantryman in the world as "lazy" and only out "for the benefits".

My arguement, therefore, is that if LS is maintainance heavy, and mail is not, LS is unlikely to be especially popular, particually if it is more expensive. On the other hand, you have effectivel made another point about LS. The armour's high mainainance requirements would keep soldiers occupied in barracks.

I would ask that you re-read that post. I have not "denigrated every other infantryman in the world", as a matter of fact, I didn’t even specify any soldiers in particular. All I said was that IF you belong to a rabble, and so on, then I would agree. Its up to you to decide if the shoe fits.
Also, my tone was in response to "Zaknafien" specifically targeting me (in effect calling me a propagandist and a liar), the service in which I served, and the men that I served with. Also, I didnt call anyone stupid, those were Zaknafien's words.

As far as how unpopular, or high maintenance, the LS was, or as to the maintenance schedule of the Legionaries (or lack thereof), I will once again ask you to provide proof in the form of sources or references. And no, your own merits regarding education and your connections dont count, unless youve written a book that I can quote. As I’ve said before, if you intend for me to take you seriously, prove your points with evidence!

My only objective on this topic was to point out that the Romans themselves didn’t consider the LS as pure junk. That it was used a bit longer than most believed. And that the LS made a good armor for the time, even though we all know that chain mail won out in the long run (the reasons we can only guess at). I guess what I’m trying to get at is it doesn’t matter what we think about the Segmentata. Our opinions as to whether the Armor is ugly, or useful, or too high maintenance, or easy to maintain, or what not, has no bearing on history. The only opinions that matter concerning the LS is the opinion of the Legionaries and Legion commanders. The length of time the Segmentata was used, the decent amount of archaeological evidence concerning its use, and the artwork of the time specifically showing Legionaries wearing the armor (almost exclusively), leads me to believe that the general outlook on the Lorica Segmentata by the Romans themselves was favorable.....

But, with that said, I will be happy to continue debating this. So my next statement, or argument, is this: The Legionary helmet (i own a reproduction Gallic type C, which I consider one of the most beautiful helmets of its period) is made of the same iron as the LS would have been made from......so, to make a long story short, if its good enough for your head, then why not for your torso, since its less likely to get hit than your head......

[geala]

When Zaknafien called many members of the USMC and other forces "stupid teenagers" that is no insult imho, at least not for the units mentioned. It just points to the fact that most teenagers are "stupid" in some sense (no other way possible) and the teenagers in the USMC are surely no exception. I remember we were also more or less "stupid teenagers" during our service time. BTW when I read too much about elite forces superhuman deeds I always imagine one attack (units and nations are of no importance here) of the *insert certain elite commando force* in Greece on a *x-country* staff which was repelled by the stunned typewriter guys and cleaning personal. I'm still waiting for a movie about it.

But in my opinion this even backs up ljperreiras arguments about LS: if even elite unit personal is lazy and negligent like normal soldiers but both often managed to care for their equipment and did their job with it (and they did and do also now) than surely also the Roman soldiers -elite or not- (who have specialised armour and weapons smiths to their aid) were able to care for their LS, even under sometimes bad light conditions. ~;)

So I still think, LS was more or less a successful and protective armour (if though hard to maintain) in a period of a strong and wealthy state without wars which endangers the mere existence of the state.

To the helmet argument: there were/are not exactly the same requirements. You have to be able to move with the body and the more restriction the worse. Movement of the head is different. The head is also only bone and soft armour not nearly as capable to protect compared to hard armour. Beside the weigth it does not really matter wether the helmet is rigid or soft. On the body this matters. Mail does not hinder your movement (except from it's extraordinary weight), a great advantage. Nevertheless a rigid body defence has some great merits, too.

I get the feeling when I try a -crude- overview over armour history that the most professional soldiers, if they could afford and had the choice, more or less tended to go to rigid defences to back up or replace soft defences like mail or scale. This is relatively clear for the medieval period, a time from which we have much better informations than from antiquity. This alone makes me more a supporter of LS.

[Zaknafien]

sometimes we need to set aside our persona biases to properly analyze a problem. I was in no way insulting those who serve in the USMC or any other service, if you choose to be offened I can't stop you. Let's not fool ourselves though, the USMC is not "elite". Nor are the Army Rangers. I don't think we can compare Roman legionaries to modern day citizen soldiers that are used to myriad comforts and slack livng. However, human nature is human nature, and human nature is often slothful. Thats all I was saying. And yes, most military recruits are indeed stupid teenagers. Get over it.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm not personally offended and can understand what you're trying to say but there's a big difference between some and all, between "...full of stupid teenage kids" and "most military recruits are indeed stupid teenagers."

[Zaknafien]

very ture. I maintain my point though, the "Majority" of enlistees and indeed officer candidates in the U.S. armed forces anyway, are 'stupid teenagers'. Of course, I think most people in any caste are stupid anyway, so that's my bias. Stupid may be a strong word, in my parlance I use it to mean "ignorant, naive, immature, irresponsible".

[ljperreira]

Do the men and/or women you serve with know you hold them in such low esteem? Many of the men I served with have gone on to do good things after our enlistment. And none of them have expressed any regrets for joining. I highly respect the men I served with, and while I can say we were a bit naive at first (being in our late teens, early 20s at the time), those "stupid" kids acted intelligent and mature when tasked with the tough missions that came our way. Whether it was evacuating the American Embassy and providing humanitarian aid in East Timor, providing riot control at the G8 Summit in Okinawa, or any other number of things, including Iraq, the Marines I served with always acted professionally. In comparison to most of the college kids I’ve had to put up with (and will have to put up with) on my way to becoming an educator, who cant even be trusted to drive their pretty cars their parents gave them, id rather be side by side with those "stupid" kids I served with, as you’re so willing to call them. And by the way, those "stupid" kids include many relatives of mine who also served. Besides family members who served in WWI and WWII, my father served in the Air Force, one brother in the Army in S. Korea, another brother served in the Navy aboard submarines, and myself in the Marine Corps. My brother in law is in the National Guard, and hes currently in Iraq. None of us have any regrets for the time we spent in.

Anyhow, congratulations on successfully derailing this whole topic.....Id rather be discussing the merits of the Lorica Segmentata, or the lack of merits for that matter, than dealing with your......never mind.

[ljperreira]

To the helmet argument: there were/are not exactly the same requirements. You have to be able to move with the body and the more restriction the worse. Movement of the head is different. The head is also only bone and soft armour not nearly as capable to protect compared to hard armour. Beside the weigth it does not really matter wether the helmet is rigid or soft. On the body this matters. Mail does not hinder your movement (except from it's extraordinary weight), a great advantage. Nevertheless a rigid body defence has some great merits, too.


I agree that the requirements are different. But what I’m talking about is a certain measure of protection from blunt force, as well as cuts and slices. I tend to believe that chain mail cannot protect you from blunt force. Case in point: while a chain mail coif was being worn for protecting the medieval knight's or man at arms' head, he would never wear it alone. A helmet was worn over the coif because though the chain mail can help protect against cuts and such, its worthless vs. a club or something similar. The problem is the same as the solution, meaning that while chain mail provides good flexibility, it cannot fully stop the force of a solid blow. So, while your back in unpierced, your ribs are still broken :smash:. The LS isn’t really that restrictive, concerning flexibility, as much as you may believe. While Medieval armor plates are usually riveted to each other using sliding rivets or what not, the plates of the LS are connected underneath via leather straps, making the shoulder guard very flexible. Most of your full range of motion is available to you. The torso plates end just above your natural waist (a circumference at the level of your belly button), so movement bending forward and backward is easy and unrestricted. Forward and backward as well as up and down movement of the arms is also easy, due to the flexible shoulder guards. Crossing your arms in front of you is possible due to the breast plates overlapping, causing them to slide over each other as you extend your arms. My brother, who likes to portray a Portuguese medieval knight at renaissance fairs, owns a short sleeve chain mail shirt for that purpose. I’ve tried it on, and I'll have to say its not all that comfortable. The armor is dead weight on your shoulders, even after you blouse the shirt at your waist with a belt, as your supposed to. When we go to events together, he usually has to take the mail off after wearing it for a few hours, but I can wear my Segmentata for the whole event, without half the problems. I’m not saying its overly comfortable, but its bearable. But my experience is with the Kalkriese and Corbridge types of LS, not the Newstead (I haven’t made one....yet). The Newstead looks like it would be a little more restrictive.

[satalexton]

I've got a question for you. You are aware that the EB team will NOT include LS in any form/way in EBII, quoi?

[desert]

He is. He mentions it several times, actually.

It is difficult to sift through all these verbose posts, so it's understandable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

All this hostility over a frigging armor already mentioned thousands of times by the EB team not to be in the game. This just seems to me as 4 pages of pointless posting and time wasting reading. If you want to argue the purpose and practicality of LS thats great, but not in the forums of a mod confirmed not to have it in.

[Labrat]

If you want to argue the purpose and practicality of LS thats great, but not in the forums of a mod confirmed not to have it in.

This discussion is pretty much about the purpose and practically of LS, so your comment is unnecessary.

[ljperreira]

All this hostility over a frigging armor already mentioned thousands of times by the EB team not to be in the game. This just seems to me as 4 pages of pointless posting and time wasting reading. If you want to argue the purpose and practicality of LS thats great, but not in the forums of a mod confirmed not to have it in.

Youre the one that seems hostile right now. And if their was any hostility, it wasnt over the armor, but you would actually have to read the posts to know that. Im not the one who started this thread, but I figured if their was going to be a debate Id just add my 2 cents. The moderators dont seem to mind, so I dont see why you should throw a fit, if you dont like the topic, then dont read it. Besides, this thread has turned into a very educational one, I dont see anything wrong with that.

[geala]

I agree that the requirements are different. But what I’m talking about is a certain measure of protection from blunt force, as well as cuts and slices. ...

I concur. It could be added that the medieval mail coif was surely heavily padded underneath. Plus a padded cap over the coif and under the helmet. Without padding on all the sides a stroke to the throat/neck would have been devastating wether a mail coif was worn or not. Heavy padding decreases of course some advantages of mail considerably.

The LS discussion has not the purpose to force the EB team to invent it. That was made clear in this thread very early. BTW you cannot at all force the EB team. :laugh4: But even if the discussion is not related directly to the game it is an interesting historical question with sometimes new informations for the participants. The performance of armour also in other periods of history can be better judged the more informations are at your hand. I find it useful.

[satalexton]

well, the monthly LS topics DID cease after this thread came to light, which I must give credit to.

[Africanvs]

Do the men and/or women you serve with know you hold them in such low esteem? Many of the men I served with have gone on to do good things after our enlistment. And none of them have expressed any regrets for joining. I highly respect the men I served with, and while I can say we were a bit naive at first (being in our late teens, early 20s at the time), those "stupid" kids acted intelligent and mature when tasked with the tough missions that came our way. Whether it was evacuating the American Embassy and providing humanitarian aid in East Timor, providing riot control at the G8 Summit in Okinawa, or any other number of things, including Iraq, the Marines I served with always acted professionally. In comparison to most of the college kids I’ve had to put up with (and will have to put up with) on my way to becoming an educator, who cant even be trusted to drive their pretty cars their parents gave them, id rather be side by side with those "stupid" kids I served with, as you’re so willing to call them. And by the way, those "stupid" kids include many relatives of mine who also served. Besides family members who served in WWI and WWII, my father served in the Air Force, one brother in the Army in S. Korea, another brother served in the Navy aboard submarines, and myself in the Marine Corps. My brother in law is in the National Guard, and hes currently in Iraq. None of us have any regrets for the time we spent in.

Anyhow, congratulations on successfully derailing this whole topic.....Id rather be discussing the merits of the Lorica Segmentata, or the lack of merits for that matter, than dealing with your......never mind.

I can see that you're pretty emotional about this, but as a former Marine myself, let me say a few things. For one thing, you and I both know that there are plenty of stupid teenage Marines. Experienced Marines call them "boots" and they typically go through about a year-long process of getting their shit together once they hit the fleet, which is after a Marine finishes their initial training(for those who don't know). I think this must be the same for every soldier in the world who lives or ever has lived. It's basically the stupid newby phase, so don't get all sentimental when he says most recruits are stupid teenagers. Besides, what do you care what he thinks anyway? You know what you and your brothers did, and you know the quality of the people you served with. I was a grunt in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and many of the people I served with were good Marines, but there were plenty of dumb-asses as well. It isn't dishonoring the Corps to admit the obvious.

As for the LS, is the fact that it is a different kind of armor relevant? For example when the empire was fighting a lot of germans, they were facing a lot more clubs and other blunt weapons. Chain mail is all but useless against these types of weapons, because the bone gets crushed anyway. I imagine a banded form of iron mail would provide better protection against these simple but deadly weapons wouldn't it? Also, if you look at the LS, it just looks cool and powerful, even if it isn't so much. I wonder if the LS wasn't used as a psychological weapon more than anything. Kind of a symbol to represent the power of Rome. A whole legion marching with that shiny armor must have been quite a sight for a bunch of shirtless barbarians with clubs. (I'm sorry if these points have been made already, I didn't want to read every single post of this thread)

[ljperreira]

Stupid is too strong and offensive. Youre more likely to offend someone by calling them stupid than calling them naive. I dont think anybody was "stupid" (of course, theres always that 10%, as Ive said), just a bit clueless. I was a bit more offended that he indirectly called me a liar. I dont need to lie to prove a point on these threads, the sources I gave back up my theories, and I can provide pics of the armor ive made. I was just saying that in my experience that squad leaders, section leaders, platoon Sgts, and so on were pretty good at making sure your gear was serviecable, and that you maintained your weapons and equipment on a day to day basis. He said he didnt buy it. Im not "emotional" though, im just demanding a little respect. I hope this is all that needs to be said about this, Ive tried to get back on topic a couple of times.....

P.S. Please, dont tell me how im supposed to react to things, only I can decide that.

Ok, once again, back on topic....
I agree with you about the psychological effects of the LS. But the "barbarians" werent always without armor themselves. The chain mail shirts (Lorica Hamata) worn by the Romans is believed to be a direct copy of Celtic chain mail, including the "shoulder doubling" which draped over the shoulders and around the neck for extra protection. The celts also used versions of scale armor (Squamata). So it may not have been as impressive to all those the Romans came in contact with. But overall, seeing a mass of Legionaries not only all wearing armor but marching in step in disciplined order probably made quite a few of them wish they were at home eating lunch.