Lorica Segmentata

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abokasee

LS possibly implemented as Ancillary or trait?

Lorica Segmentata
-This character wheres a Lorica Segmentata, the improved armour has some benefit, unless you request it for the entire army then you'll be considered mad: Give +1 hitpoints

---

~:thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iasonis

regardless of whats superior or whatever people like or dislike, based JUST for historical accuracy , the Kalkriese version of the lorica segmentata should be included at 20BC via a special building or blacksmith upgrade or whatever.

Many many many other units and time periods have been introduced into the game with much less historical proof.

---

Following your reasoning, every piece of equipment known to be in use between 272 BC and AD 15 should be included. Unfortunately, there are not enough unit slots to do that. This would also mean creating a third legionary unit wearing lorica squamata. So we end up with three legionary units (not counting the Marian cohort) with the same functionality and very similar stats, for a faction that already takes up a disproportionate number of unit slots.

Let's keep this in perspective: LS appears in the last 25 years (out of 287) of the mod; it wasn't common at that point; and even at when it was popular, it would never become the most common form of legionary armour. Those are good reasons for not giving the Imperial legionary a lorica segmentata, so why do you conclude it's being ignored out of spite?

Ill repeat myself due to people ignoring me:
For CHRISTS SAKE put a texture variation into the Augustian Legionare unit with couple of guys wearing LS...
END OF STORY!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Ill repeat myself due to people ignoring me:
For CHRISTS SAKE put a texture variation into the Augustian Legionare unit with couple of guys wearing LS...
END OF STORY!!!!

---

Or even simpler, no LS in EB, End of the Story.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

Or even simpler, no LS in EB, End of the Story.:laugh4:

---

While I understand the joke :2thumbsup:

Its not that hard to get a compromise which is actually not far from historical reality...couple of guys with LS in a unit wont harm anyone...they may even allow us to avoid the cloned Romans syndrome all in LHs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

While I understand the joke :2thumbsup:

Its not that hard to get a compromise which is actually not far from historical reality...couple of guys with LS in a unit wont harm anyone...they may even allow us to avoid the cloned Romans syndrome all in LHs...

---

No compromises. No LS.:balloon2:

If people want LS in EB so bad, why doesn't someone just make a texture and model available for download that replaces Augustan legionaries or something? that way the LS fans can play with LS to their hearts' content, and the players that are really anal about their history can just not download it. Seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me.

:wall: :inquisitive:

Shame about that. By the by, here's an actual photograph taken by Varus' Chief of Staff, of the 17th Legion setting off over the Rhine (mid March 9AD). This is one of the last photo's ever of this Legion, and is quite a collector's item as it was not widely circulated at the time (as it took far longer than expected to perfect the techniques necessary to display digital photography). :beam:

Notice quite widespread use of LS ... (it rains a lot in Germania, and when it rains, LH wearers get wet, LS wearers don't!)

https://i178.photobucket.com/albums/...lmarsh15-1.jpg

Oh sorry then-guess what I was reading was wrong-besides most of what I saw was from Italy:embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:

*Ibrahim goes and burns the bad books; bans sites with bad info*
@pictish berserker:
Interesting Idea....good one
and what history manual?!??! I meant to say no one ever mentioned the LS by name in the various books written in the time period-not necessarily manuals, but any book on the subject:wall: :wall: :wall:-manuals if any probably don't mention it (i.e: I said no one in any book from the time mentions it)-sorry for the confusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iasonis

This is incorrect, read below:

1) depictions are not primarily in italia, in fact, actual LS is depicted all over the empire. --->
Alba Iulia monument, found in Romania/Antonine Column in Rome/The Arch of Septimius Severus/The funerary stele of Marcus Aurelius Diodorus from Hierapolis--turkey/The Column of Marcus Aurelius/Arch of Constantine after 300ad taken from an aurelian monument/Trajan’s column, which tells the story of Trajan’s conquest of Dacia ca. AD 102-105, depicts nearly 300 legionaries wearing the lorica segmentata/
2)depends on the time period your talking about. obviously before the armor was in use there wouldnt be any depictions of it now would there be ;)
3) what manual of history are you speaking of?

1) i dont need to comment on this one obviously
2)Many many depictions of this combined with archeological findings of the LS in actual military forts expecially in far off reaches of the empire.-not primarily parade armor.
lastly) -----lastly they were not mostly dug up in auxiliary forts:
The Roman legionary fortress of Isca contained about 9 excavation sites alone/Kalkriese, Germany /Cobridge and Chichester, United Kingdom respectively/Trimontium (Newstead), which came into use around 100 A.D-Corbridge, Northumberland, produced fragments of between three and twelve cuirasses/Carnuntum an important Roman army camp in what is now Austria.

some pics of the real stuff-
http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryE...dy-Armour.html
aparently on the history channel there was a professor shooting recreated LS with a xbow...which just bounces right off, i havent seen it. If anyone knows the name of the series its in id appreciate it thanks.

i still think the let your friend throw spears or shoot at you with arrows would be the best test....maybe they willl find your body 1000 yrs from now and think our poeple still used LS....

---

that was what my replay was about
anyways: the show was about some lost inventions-something on bronze age weapons, they were comparing bronze age armor to the LS and others (the branze age cuirass was good)

[QUOTE=Ludens]~:thumb:

"Following your reasoning, every piece of equipment known to be in use between 272 BC and AD 15 should be included. Unfortunately, there are not enough unit slots to do that. This would also mean creating a third legionary unit wearing lorica squamata. So we end up with three legionary units (not counting the Marian cohort) with the same functionality and very similar stats, for a faction that already takes up a disproportionate number of unit slots."

Incorrect, squamata was never as widely used as LS for the rank and file. There are many concrete examples of widespread use of LS being utilized, even a few concrete examples of its use during the end of the EB time frame. Just look at a reenactment site or some of my previous posts in this section if you want specifics.
Lorica Squamatata was typically seen on depictions of standard bearers, musicians and centurions, expecially during EB's time frame. Later on however, a few other examples of its use arose. There are a few finds---- Squamatata pieces were found near Lake Trasimene-- section of neck guard -Carlisle found early in 2001. The metal was generally not very thick, .020" to .032" but it offered good protection because the scales did overlap. Overall not even close to comparison as LS for the rank and file's widespread use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irb_the_Pictish_Berserker

If people want LS in EB so bad, why doesn't someone just make a texture and model available for download that replaces Augustan legionaries or something? that way the LS fans can play with LS to their hearts' content, and the players that are really anal about their history can just not download it. Seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me.

:wall: :inquisitive:

---

I think this idea is perfect, an LS patch :laugh4: They could replace one of the upgrade textures or a unit ect. Then if the individual wanted to play a few years longer, they could just edit the end date in the descr_strat.txt . Hopefully someone will eventually create one. I guess time will tell...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iasonis

Just look at a reenactment site or some of my previous posts in this section if you want specifics.

---

Eh... did you just reference reenactors? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iasonis

Incorrect, squamata was never as widely used as LS for the rank and file. There are many concrete examples of widespread use of LS being utilized, even a few concrete examples of its use during the end of the EB time frame. Just look at a reenactment site or some of my previous posts in this section if you want specifics.
Lorica Squamatata was typically seen on depictions of standard bearers, musicians and centurions, expecially during EB's time frame. Later on however, a few other examples of its use arose. There are a few finds---- Squamatata pieces were found near Lake Trasimene-- section of neck guard -Carlisle found early in 2001. The metal was generally not very thick, .020" to .032" but it offered good protection because the scales did overlap. Overall not even close to comparison as LS for the rank and file's widespread use.

---

Thanks for the information, but I don't see how it invalidates my point. LSq was not as widely used as LS, but LS was not as widely used as LH (at least that is what I understood from the EB team).

You can make a case for the inclusion of LS, but the point is there is a unit limit, and apart from the aesthetic, there would be no significant difference between LS and LH-equipped legionaries. As LS was probably never more popular than LH, and certainly not during the time-frame, the point of an LS legionary seems moot. Nor do I think that inclusion of an LS legionary will prevent threads like this from springing up. It will merely change the emphasis from "why was LS not included?" to "Why is LS not less/more effective than chainmail?".

If the LS is included it should not be due to whining people.

It would be awsome though, some legionaires wearing the LH (maybe two variants?), some the LSq and some the LS. It will also make clear that not every legionair wore the same armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Eh... did you just reference reenactors? :inquisitive:

---

You mean reenactment groups? They have good information, but mostly just about the measurements and material. Books, alot of sculptures, artwork, archeological finds, websites, i usually list my source if your interested in something specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remco

If the LS is included it should not be due to whining people.
It would be awsome though, some legionaires wearing the LH (maybe two variants?), some the LSq and some the LS. It will also make clear that not every legionair wore the same armor.

---

this is a really great idea, is something like that possible or are the variants hardcoded as well?

How many times? It's not happening.

The armour is, at best, less effective than mail and about on par with scale, plus it's only good if you're in a camp with a well supplied and skilled armourer. Plus, most modern versions are over engineered while modern mail tends to be under engineered. In general Roman mail was tighter and better rivited than modern versions.

Also, LS rusts much worse than mail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

How many times? It's not happening.

The armour is, at best, less effective than mail and about on par with scale, plus it's only good if you're in a camp with a well supplied and skilled armourer. Plus, most modern versions are over engineered while modern mail tends to be under engineered. In general Roman mail was tighter and better rivited than modern versions.

Also, LS rusts much worse than mail.

---

Your are right about the rust but I imagine scale rusts just as hard, unless its bronze offcourse. Mail isn't an issue, if it's rusty you just put it in a bag with some sand and carry it with you for some time. It will be good as new.

Rust on scale and main means replacing a ring or a scale... rust on plate... that's bad news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

How many times? It's not happening.

The armour is, at best, less effective than mail and about on par with scale, plus it's only good if you're in a camp with a well supplied and skilled armourer. Plus, most modern versions are over engineered while modern mail tends to be under engineered. In general Roman mail was tighter and better rivited than modern versions.

Also, LS rusts much worse than mail.

---

Where is your proof of LS being less effective than roman mail and equal to scale?
Roman mail was not tighter and better than more modern mail, where did you get this information? I hope your referring to the fake costume butted mail they sell on websites...you can buy real stuff nowadays but its very expensive.
Medieval mail was formed in the 6 in 1 to even the 8 in 1 or 8 in 2(kings mail)pattern forming a much tighter knit than roman 4 to 1, there is no evidence of anything more than 4 to 1 pattern. The drawback was mobility and weight, but this armor was extremely effective in stopping almost anything. Romans used mostly rivited welded rings or solid punch with rivited- For the most part roman mail was of the highest quality at the time period but not compared to the mail used in the medieval period.

Err... I'm pretty damned sure Medieval mail was overwhelmingly in the 4:1 "international standard" pattern too you know. And I'm fairly certain the solid "washers" puched out of sheet iron were a fairly late, originally Middle Eastern developement...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iasonis

Where is your proof of LS being less effective than roman mail and equal to scale?
Roman mail was not tighter and better than more modern mail, where did you get this information? I hope your referring to the fake costume butted mail they sell on websites...you can buy real stuff nowadays but its very expensive.
Medieval mail was formed in the 6 in 1 to even the 8 in 1 or 8 in 2(kings mail)pattern forming a much tighter knit than roman 4 to 1, there is no evidence of anything more than 4 to 1 pattern. The drawback was mobility and weight, but this armor was extremely effective in stopping almost anything. Romans used mostly rivited welded rings or solid punch with rivited- For the most part roman mail was of the highest quality at the time period but not compared to the mail used in the medieval period.

---

Most tests are done with low-grade mass-produced steel mail, the links are generally larger than those found in archaeology. In the same vein modern LS is usually mild steel and over engineered. As a result modern reconstructions of LS usually perform better and mail worse than the more rigerous tests that have been carried out recently.

As to Roman mail being high quality, well I think the Celts would definately have something to say about that.

I for one am happy there'll be no LS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Most tests are done with low-grade mass-produced steel mail, the links are generally larger than those found in archaeology. In the same vein modern LS is usually mild steel and over engineered. As a result modern reconstructions of LS usually perform better and mail worse than the more rigerous tests that have been carried out recently..

---

You previously stated roman chainmail was superior to more modern chain. We were talking about lh not ls compared to medieval chainmail. Exactly what test are you talking about? what exactly do you mean by engineered?

The medieval period is from 5th century to the beginning of the 16th century.
4in1 international style was the most popular yes, but not the most effective.
Also as mail use progressed from roman times, they introduced carbon steel, tempered and blackened steel and still used iron too as well as more than 15 different chainmail patterns, Smaller rings for better protection against arrow fire and flat rings for better slashing deflection.
"As to Roman mail being high quality, well I think the Celts would definately have something to say about that."
Romans adopted chainmail from the celts and improved on it in a few ways, the most important i see is the celts usually butted thier links closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Most tests are done with low-grade mass-produced steel mail, the links are generally larger than those found in archaeology. In the same vein modern LS is usually mild steel and over engineered. As a result modern reconstructions of LS usually perform better and mail worse than the more rigerous tests that have been carried out recently.

---

...which said, I've serious problems with the idea folks as pragmatic about warfare as the Romans would have spent a few centuries and not a little resources of all kinds tinkering with a genuinely defective type of body armour. Especially as most of the arguments for the LS not having provided decent enough protection that I've seen border on the patently absurd, such as the one about the lames being too widely spaced - an issue that can be readily fixed by adjusting the internal leathers, unless I've completely misunderstood something about how that kind of corselet is put together...

It's not like the laminate construction and its principles themselves were particularly novel or alien to the Romans after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Err... I'm pretty damned sure Medieval mail was overwhelmingly in the 4:1 "international standard" pattern too you know. And I'm fairly certain the solid "washers" puched out of sheet iron were a fairly late, originally Middle Eastern developement...

---

yes correct the 4in1 is was the most popular even in medieval period
sorry :( but your incorrect in this fact, the solid rings were being used by the romans, usually half were solid while the rest was riveted shut

Well, it should be obvious why you can't use all solid rings... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Well, it should be obvious why you can't use all solid rings... ~;)

---

hahaha very true :)

cant we just follow my advice ,its easier :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gebeleisis

cant we just follow my advice ,its easier :inquisitive:

---

I am afraid I did not understand it. What did you propose?

Also, the issue that is being debated is not the possibility of including it, but the historicity.

ah ,ok got it,

i proposed to have lorica segemntata as a last armour upgrade for the roman legions,i dont think anyone's gotta get them,but meh,at least nobody can say we dont have them,and they wont be ingame only if they build some uber blacksmith that needs some other stuff maybe?:inquisitive:

Just consider one thing. How many people have actually played a campaign with no cheating or extra modding what so ever and gotten the Augustan reforms? My guess: at most 3.