Monthly Lorica Segmentata thread

Yes, I know this forum is drowning in LS threads (thus the ironical title), but I think the historical questions I have below haven't been covered yet:
1. from what I heard, it was used primarily from some time before 100 AD to some time before 200 AD. Is this correct? Could the introduction of and removal of the LS be connected to any particular events, by studying advantages and disadvantages of the LS compared to the alternatives, and if so, what pros and cons would an LS have?
2. someone claimed the LS may not have existed at all, and that LS depictions on Trajan's column were in fact hellenistic Greek armor rather than accurate depictions, because the sculptor(s) was/were Greek. Someone else on the other hand claimed it was standard equipment around 100-200 AD and that it existed way back, and that there were findings of a few LS even at the Teutoburg forest battle site. What is the general consensus as to in which periods the LS existed in non-negligible numbers, and how many percent of the legionaries are expected to have used LS around 100 AD, for example? What did the others use? Also, what did the bulk of auxiliary infantry in that period use?
3. the armor of roman legionaries and auxilia were from what I've heard paid by the soldiers. How many month's wage did a full equipment cost? As for their production, were they made in standardized blacksmiths in mass-production fashion, or were there plenty of variety? For instance, I've heard statements implying mass-production from both the Republic and Empire periods. To how high degree would such standardization and standardized mass-production, have existed during the different centuries? Around 100 BC, 0, 100 AD, 200 AD, 300 AD?
4. there are plenty of sources speaking of armor improvements some time before 100 AD, after encountering the falx in Domitian's dacian war. What were these improvements? Did LS exist before these reforms? Would an LS do better against a falx than an LH?

As for #4...reinforcing bars on the helmet and extra armor on the shoulders to better protect against overhead falx bows...

Also the introduction of cheires (that arm protection metal-ring thing the eastern Kataphraktoi wear in place of shields).

On #3, standardisation would probably have been very high since specifications were standardised. Perhaps the only differences would be in ornamentation (though LS weren't meant for ornamentation, I daresay).

FYI, there's no such thing as a year 0. :)

Question 1, part 1: I believe the earliest indisputable physical evidence for Roman LS is from the Kalkriese site and has been dated to AD 9. The fragments suggest at this time it was fully developed, thus it was very likely in use some time in the 1st century BC. This also may answer question 2, part 1?

Please see...

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/kalklor.html

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/kalkriese

http://www.imperiumancientarmory.com...ry/kalkred.jpg

Reconstructed replica of the Kalkriese Lorica Segmentata.

I think LS may have served the same function ceramic plates do in modern body armour? To reduce BFT, mostly resulting from massed high-velocity missile impacts? Mail would stop penetration but not BFT.

Thanks for all the replies!

But what does BFT mean?

.
Bullet Froop Trousers :dizzy:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Thanks for all the replies!

But what does BFT mean?

---

"Blunt force trauma" - damaged caused by the sheer force of an impact. With chain mail, you can stop cuts from swords, but it didn't do much to deter broken bones when getting whacked by heavy things.

Right, ribs and top facing of shoulders very venerable to BFT. Plus, one could replace damaged segments without paying for a whole suite.

The modularity, that's very true. It'd be alot easier to repair than mail.

Except of course there were all those annoying fragile, delicate little hinges and whatnots... which, being brass, apparently also had some sort of nasty corrosive reaction with the iron. In comparision maintenance-wise mail survives more or less infinitely with regular oiling, and a smith the know-how and iron wire can make the repairs.

One gets the impression the LS was really somewhat over-engineered - not in the least from the way the later versions tried to simplify and streamline the construction.

That aside, one would assume the corselet compares to a mail shirt much the same way as a cheires (one sometimes sees the term manicea used of the Roman version - dunno what the Persians called it) compares to a mail sleeve. Smooth surface for blows (and above all pointy things, which mail per definition has some issues with) to glance off of, and the overlapping lames ought to be rather better at diffusing blunt trauma from blows than the flexible mail - although metal armour in general, and mail in particular, was practically invariably worn over some rather substantial soft-armour backing to both shield the wearer from having his skin scraped off, and to absorb the impact energy. That backing more often than not could serve as decent light armour by itself, and was often worn as such by lighter troops.

On the downside overlapping metal strips just don't have the flexibility of mail (which in most repsects behaves a lot like heavy cloth) and are duly more restrictive to movement, although conversely the weight distribution and weight-protection ratio are AFAIK considerably better - mail body armour largely just hangs off your shoulders with its more or less entire considerable weight after all, although a belt can move some of that to the hips. Conversely more rigid armours can be made to "hug" the respective body parts more closely - but AFAIK they're also more technologically demanding to make, and hence more expensive (conversely mail is relatively simple but quite time-consuming to put together - drawing wire, cutting it into links and joining those together isn't terribly complicated once the "how" has been figured out, but you need a lot of those little rings...).

One also has to keep in mind mail was pioneered by the Celts, who famously had a thing for long, heavy cutting swords - which were particularly prevalent among the senior warriors who also owned most of the armour. One rather imagines based on its popularity that it gave decent enough service against the focused impact of heavy blades - although presumably the doubling over the shoulders (the part of the body most immediately vulnerable to a heavy downwards "cut of wrath") was developed to meet a real enough tactical need, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...although metal armour in general, and mail in particular, was practically invariably worn over some rather substantial soft-armour backing to both shield the wearer from having his skin scraped off, and to absorb the impact energy. That backing more often than not could serve as decent light armour by itself, and was often worn as such by lighter troops..

---

This undergarment is named "subarmalis" in latin.

As far as i know from the middle ages, mail armour was always worn with this kind of garment (be it a gambeson or a haketon). The mail armour duty is to prevent the cutting or the penetrating of weapon, the undergarment role is to absorb the power of the blow. I don't know for sure if this kind of garment was always worn under mail armour in legions, but without it the armour itself is worthless.

By the way, i think legionnaries wearing LS should have worn something like apadded garment under it too. Overlapping metal plates can prove painfull when worn over just a shirt.

Let's just say that there's too many good reasons to have some sort of thick, robust garment under your metal armour not to wear it, especially as compered to the ironmongery such wear is dirt cheap. Sometimes armourers just built it into the harness to save hassle.

Right, the modularity of LS, and some type of under garment. I think the reason we may see this when we do is because of the greatly increased Roman on Roman violence. It appears Romans were far more adept at killing other Romans then any non-Romans ever were.

The Romans had faced the Kelt long sword for several centuries and mail tunic w/ padded shoulder seemed to have been adequate. However, LS makes its appearance in the Civil Wars of the Late Republic Period. This may have something to do with an increased combat lethality for the average Roman soldier.

Possibly designed to decrease debilitating BFT wounds resulting from high impact weapons associated with massed preparatory and/or supporting missile fire; rocks, darts, arrows, and most importantly pilum? The LS would greatly reduce the force of, or deflect impacts but may be pierced by multiple hits, while the under garment would in many cases prevent full penetration.

Thus, a given legionary may have been able to 'take a licking and keep on ticking.' Just another theory?

My bet would rather be "just because they came up with it and could afford it". I mean, the Romans had known of the laminate principle at least since Magnesia and may later have run into body-armour version on cataphracts out East (but dunno 'bout that). It's not really that surprising someone would eventuallt put two and two together, get four, and start tinkering with a laminate corselet as a lighter means of giving troops good body protection.

When were the Augustinian reforms again ? I'm wondering if those didn't create the necessary organisational and logistical conditions for prototypes being put into production and eventually field use...

You may be right. If one looks at the huge number of men he kept under arms. Replacement would have been a bitch. Maybe thats one reason why he lost it after Varus.

^ Back then, metal bands/plates were hard to forge and harder to repair...
whereas chainmail was time consuming but easy to forge/repair


Nowadays, chainmail is still time consuming and hard to forge/repair but plate is easy to forge. So that lazy bastard known as the history channel shows Romans wearing the lorica segmenta from 400 BCE to 400 CE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

that lazy bastard known as the history channel.

---

"lazy bastard"

I just call it the 'comic book' history channel?

Or the comedian history channel.
BBC rules!!


Cheers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Let's just say that there's too many good reasons to have some sort of thick, robust garment under your metal armour not to wear it, especially as compered to the ironmongery such wear is dirt cheap. Sometimes armourers just built it into the harness to save hassle.

---

There are also quite a few reasons not to wear such thing...

Like 40 degrees Celcius during marching and fighting...

Yeah the Cursaders suffered a bit from that... But, in a battle you'll thank every saint there is if you have one of those. It really increases battlefield survivability!


Cheers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

There are also quite a few reasons not to wear such thing...

Like 40 degrees Celcius during marching and fighting...

---

If that's a problem for you, you don't wear armour in the first place. Especially the metal kind, as without some decent padding wearing it is a fine form of self-torture (Order knights feeling like self-flagellating sometimes *did* wear mail shirts against the skin all day long... pretty ugly apparently; the iron started rusting from the blood fairly soon...). Why do you think people normally only donned that stuff for combat ?

Besides... cataphracts. Under the tender attentions of Middle Eastern and Inner Asian summer-day sun.
The heat was clearly regarded as something of a secondary concern.

Mind you those cats could not afford to keep standing still for any greater duration of time: lest they'd be boiled alive...

Was it possable that all legions during the 1st Century lets say 50 A.D. had Lorica Segmentata or was it depend on where the legions was recruited from and stationed? I know that this info was probobly not written down so I am looking for more educated guesses on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Mind you those cats could not afford to keep standing still for any greater duration of time: lest they'd be boiled alive...

---

I sort of fail to see how moving around would help - exertion generates extra body heat, and armour and padding does a fine job trapping it. Especially after the adoption of plate armour (which forms a pretty solid "thermos bottle" around the wearer) there were instances of Medieval knights going into full-out heat stroke in battle, for example.

And horses have an even worse internal temperature control by what I understand. Yet they, too, could survive combat in full barding in some pretty gruelingly hot climes indeed.
So it should be rather clear the heat-retention issue was more one of discomfort and reduced endurance - heavily armed warriors had to pace themselves more carefully to avoid overheating - but was clearly regarded as a price worth paying for the sheer protection factor of good armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmehrer07

Was it possable that all legions during the 1st Century lets say 50 A.D. had Lorica Segmentata or was it depend on where the legions was recruited from and stationed? I know that this info was probobly not written down so I am looking for more educated guesses on the subject.

---

With little doubt this information was written down by hundreds of quartermasters, but it likely was always on wood tablets and only in a few cases have these records survived.

One thing that is seldom mentioned when discussing plate armor is that a strong blow can/will dent the armor. This dent can push into the body make breathing and movement very painful. This is especially the case with armors as thin as LS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

With little doubt this information was written down by hundreds of quartermasters, but it likely was always on wood tables and only in a few cases have these records survived.

---

I take it the auxilia didn't have LS at any time, or?

AFAIK they never had enough in circulation to fully kit out even the Legions proper (save for maybe some "metropolitan" ones).