Its also supposed to be very uncomfortable to wear for extended periods of time.
Printable View
Its also supposed to be very uncomfortable to wear for extended periods of time.
Mail doesn't feature particularly less iron, you know... but I've heard the copper-alloy hinges, buckles and whatnot, aside from being rather fragile, overcomplicated and a real pain in the butt in general, also chemically reacted with the iron in some undesirable fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tarem
Isn't all metal body armour, though ?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Yes but LS is supposed to be particularly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
i make a mail shirt at home, but it is far from compleate. so far i have some 20kg of wire, and it is most likely it will end up consuming some more. but as you said combinaions of different metals make corosion a significant factor, and the constant friction of the rings should provide some protection from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Because most of the LS related finds are the hinges and buckles from the armor. I think there's only a few with iron plates intact and even then each is like half a suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
As for metal armor. Its not usually particularly bad unless its ill fitted or the weather conditions are trolling your tin can butt.
The Tropaeum Traiani, look up pics of this monument, it commemorates Emperor Trajan's victory over the Dacians. The more famous Trajans column depicts Legionaries marching in LS....but it was erected by people who were far from the actual battle. This monument here was much closer and depicts the legionnaires in chainmail, its a more realistic depiction.
LS was around at this time but was not popular at all and no one really knows to what capacity it was used for. In "MY" opinion from what ive studied at this time period since it was depicted but probably not actually used by regular soldiers it was most likely "ceremonial".
It could also be something of a status thing like wearing the color purple (after they stole it from the (carthaginians), I would also feel it was probably reserved for ranking members to show distinction such as the Aquilifer, the Principales rank and above, but again no solid proof so no one knows, yet.
nice and friendly first post :) Everyone asks for LS armour but they dont make it becouse it is not historical accurate. heres the post I made when I was new here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ghlight=ludwag :P
Should we not just let dead dogs lie instead of digging them up and beating them around? I am not trying to change the tone of the thread, but the Team has clearly stated that LS willbe in EBII, so why keep on?Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
If you want LS, make an LS minimod for EBII when it comes.
Now... good night.
I really see no harm in these threads, if anything they spur conversation. I personally like the look of LS (how can you not), but most people simply don't understand that: first, LS was at the earliest used too close to the end of the game period to really deserve a historical reservation in the game; second, it is still unclear exactly to what extent LS was used; and third, in all practicality LS was an inferior armor to chain, LS exposed the waist, thighs and groin, most of its weight was centered on the shoulders and in general it was less flexible than chain.
Personally from a practical standpoint I am much happier seeing my legions wearing chain than LS. But don't get me wrong, if a LS minimod is made I would def give it a try :2thumbsup:
I think these threads can be particularly useful in giving newcomers to the EB threads a real idea of what EB is all about. I think it lets them realize that they need to support claims with evidence, and things aren't done here merely because they "look cool". It also gives the less historically educated newcomers a quick lesson on the difference between Hollywood's portrayal of the Roman army, and what archaeological evidence suggests the Roman army actually looked like (most likely).Quote:
Originally Posted by paramedicguyer
1. I respect the teams decision not to include segmented armor. It came late and may not be worth the big effort (I mean the programming, in reality I think it was superior to mail).
2. However, I have the feeling that the FAQ is a bit overly conservative. We know that segmented armor was used most likely in 9 AD, surely in 14 AD, because of the findings in Germany (Kalkriese for example). We know that regular legions used both forms of armor, because there are findings of pieces of lorica hamata together with pieces of segmented armor on the same battlefield.
Perhaps the advent of segmented armor is coupled with the big military reform of Augustus in the centuries BC. Thats pure speculation however.
Over the time of its use till the 4th c. there are no less findings for segmented armor than for lorica hamata as far as I know. I don't know how someone can insist that it was used only on a minor scale.
Excellent Gustave :laugh4:
If anyone want a unit with LS, you can re-skin a unit of THERA.
The only possible way I personally can see it showing up in EBII is being worn by regimental officers (centurions) or Generals.
Or MAAAAAAAAAYBE as one of the different augustan legionaires that appears among a 1st cohort.
doubtful though, I agree with the Team's decision to not include it. But as appearing on an officer or General it is worth consideration. They would have been amongst the first to receive new armour.
for the same reason this animal won't stop. its human nature to try to project one's ideas onto a project-even if the ideas are terrible/already discarded.:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
either that, or they uncovered more evidence on the subject of LS.:book:
That would be misunderstanding. The segmented armor is one for fighting, not for generals. Never saw one depicted on an officer. Interestingly on the battlefield detected near Kalkriese in Germany and connected with the fights from 9 AD to 16 AD some fragments of the segmented armor are found, but also for example a closing hook of a lorica hamata (mail) with the inscription "I cohors". So at least some soldiers of the first cohort of one of the legion involved were equipped with mail armor. Other soldiers of the legions wore segmented armor. It was a mix. Perhaps some units got the new armor, others not (yet).Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Well its maybe a bit simplfied, but AFAIK in the time when LS were en vogue, higher ranking officers had still that "full plate" cuirass (did't they actually have until the decline of the WRE?) and many auxiliaries but also signigers had hamata.
Im not sure why LS isnt in EB1, but instead heavy armoured irish assault units... ;)
Just kidding, but my goodness, we know nothing about the british island in 270bc, next to nothing about the sweboz and sauromatae and as far as I know most relicts found in Arabia are younger than 200bc.
Still there are a lot of units for all of these factions, which are just possibilities of what warriors at that time might have looked like. If lorica segmentata was used 9ad it was probably used earlier too.
Anyway when the Team says its not in EBII than no point of arguing any further and I guess romans will have enough cool units so nobody will miss LS.
Whaaaaat? We know lots about Britain, Germany and the Ukraine in 270bc through that wonderful scientific practice know as Archeology. Most relics in arabia being younger than 200bc? you really need to read some more history books before making such sweeping claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
Maybe you should read more about the sources of history books before rejecting my claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
We dont know anything about weapons or armour used in 270bc in germany and britain and althoug we know a lot about scythian armour we dont know anything provable about their political structure.
Of course about britain and germany we dont know anything either. We already had this britain discussion in EBII forum and one member also said that there we do not know anything about the tribes until ceasars time.
historics tend to construct a lot of theories about the antics and semiprofessionals turn them into "facts" so i guess some should be really carefull to pretend we know something about antic people, esspecially barbarians.
Of course there is archaelogy which gives us a lot of insight about everyday life, art etc, but cultures without written language or stone buildings its still only speculations esspecially about political structures and warfare
Concerning weapons and armour we know a good deal through archeological finds but yes I do agree when it comes to political structures we really don't know much beyond "the people of this area shared the same culture due to similar burial methods and lifestyle patterns etc".
Saying "we don't know anything" is excessive though, we know a good deal of how people lived from the material culture they left behind in the archeological record, what we know very little of is any political orginisations they lived under hence the problem when trying to transfer to the game world.
I do and I think you should too before claiming things like "most Arabian relics are from after 200BC", there are entire ruined cities there that are older than that, a pefect example is Ma'rib and its world famous dam which are both far older than that.Quote:
Maybe you should read more about the sources of history books before rejecting my claims.
There are many archeological findings f.e. in middle Europe from the Celtic people in the south and the proto-Germanics in the north and also from the mixture zone in the middle of what is now Germany. Some conclusions from findings to certain social circumstances can be made. The settling structures tell us something about political structures for example. However many questions can not be answered. So you both are correct. About the (proto-)Germanic people we know very little about the military before the 1st c. BC and nearly everything has to be judged from later information.
Compared to this we know nearly everything about the mysterious "lorica segmentata". :wink3: