Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rilder

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:

Quote:

---

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljperreira

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.

---

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rilder

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljperreira

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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 site.

Quote:

---

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.....

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljperreira

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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.

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljperreira

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljperreira

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljperreira

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 or Res Bellicae cover this period?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljperreira

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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......

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.

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.

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."

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

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.

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?

He is. He mentions it several times, actually.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljperreira

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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)

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.