Just wondering if the new EB will have their imperial legion equipped with this armor, and lorica hamata.
Printable View
Just wondering if the new EB will have their imperial legion equipped with this armor, and lorica hamata.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Sorry dude, but are you serious? If you are, then I feel kinda sorry for you, since you are about to get your ass kicked.
Definitely,no. I can tell you that much for sure,having visited the EBII area only once and got somewhat of a light verbal lashing over Spartan hoplites.
The question of lorica segmentate (LS) appears every month or so on the EB1 forum, and the answer is always the same. EB ends at 15 AD, and LS didn't became common until half a century later. The team is aware that there are LS finds predating the end-date, but the impression is that LS was a rarity in the Augustean army, and such will not be included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemons
I understand people are getting tired of this question, but that is no reason to be derisive. Sadly, due to misrepresentation in popular history, most people think that all Roman legionaries wore LS.Quote:
Sorry dude, but are you serious? If you are, then I feel kinda sorry for you, since you are about to get your ass kicked.
You know how many problems would be solved if the EB team added a blurb about LS in into the description of all Roman Units?
Or even better, every time you enter the forum a big sign flashes repeatedly saying "The Romans didn´t use LS in EB´s timeperiod!".
You'd be amazed how many people would still manage to miss that :stupido2: . I'd prefer general Appo's suggestion, however there would still be people asking for "the segmented armour, don't know what's it called, the Romans used".Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Ludens, thanks for your explanation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
No need to kick anyone :smash: . It's good enough that EB fans always take the field in this recurrent issue. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
Isnt it accepted that the Kalkriese type of lorica segmentata was in use from 20BC to about 50AD? They found the breastplate dated 9ad from Teutoberg Forest so if the legions had them then, the praetorians who were better equipped should have had them some time before.(unless of coarse the less important guys would have the nice armor first which wouldnt make any sense) So maybe a praetorian unit having it wouldnt be far fetched.
Given that at least in EB1 it's possible to have the Imperial reforms pretty early in the first century BC, I'd say it rather would be.
...what is it with people and LS, anyway ? I don't get it. :huh:
It is debatable whether LS is truly superior to chainmail, so the Praetorians wouldn't necessarily have worn it. Again, the impression is that LS was rare EB's time frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
Is that a rhetorical question? Most basic history books and almost all of popular history display Romans in LS. It is recognizable and unique, so for many people it is the quintessential Roman armour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I don't know how rare it was, but I think a safe possibility would be to use it for artillery crews.
In truth, it's far more comfortable to wear mail if you need to keep bending over. Lorica might look flexible but it does tend to dig in to your flesh when you demand more movement than it wants to allow. And if you are doing a repetitive job like artillery loading, lorica tends to keep digging into the same spot each time!Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
I believe they needed to wear a scarf to keep the armor from chafing the neck
No so much the neck, but the collar bone is where it rubs. You don't notice it at first, but certainly after a few hours you find you're trying to push the scarf over the sore bits!
If you're wondering how I can say this, it's because I'm a member of a re-enactment group (the Ermine street Guard) so we tend to have first hand experience of wearing this sort of kit for 6 or 8 hours at a time. :sweatdrop:
Let me attempt a solution:
M2TW allows for multiple models per unit why not stick just couple of guys with LS?
This way its accurate and not widespread....
First archeologic evidence of the LS comes from 15 AD, I believe. Now, look at EB's ending date.
The answer for now and ever is plain no until you have very good proof of why it should be included.
9BC actually, but anyway Lorica Segmentata is ugly, and thats coming from a massive Roman fan.
What exactly is so wrong with chainmail,anyway? That's what I don't get. If anyone here knows why lorica Hamata seems to be so evil,please tell me and let me know when the exorcism is.
Seriously,though. Chainmail provided just as much,if not more,protection than the (dare I say it) Segmentata,with increased comfort and mobility. But everyone on the EB team knows that,after all.
I haven't played EB yet,but I hope you guys don't mind my :2cents: in the history department on weapons and armor.
...Then go play EB, most of the Romans wear some sort of chain main except the piss poor ones.
It is certainly true that the LS wasn't used in the EB timeframe. However, this does not mean it shoudn't be included. The LS started to appear after the Augustian reforms, in game the Augustian reforms can occur roughly hundred year to early. This means that the LS is a possibility within the EB timeframe.
I do however question it's superiority in comparison the LH. Since the Romans used very large shields and kept their formation, bodyarmor isn't so much of an issue. Besides LS is a logistic nightmare. Every smith can make and repair a LH but it takes a specialized facility to produce the LS.
The Lorica Segmentata was designed to withstand Dacian falxes, which has very little to do with the time of the Augustans. And by the way, the change from Lorica Hamata - Lorica Segmentata didn't happen over night. It took some time to adapt to it, and I think we're talking about mid 2nd century AD now.
Come on, just because the Augustians happen 100 years earlier, doesn't mean we should include stuff like that.
Historically, the Seleucids didn't conquer Nubia, but should we also just in case make an upgrade so they can ride pink flammable rhino's?
Well if the Augustian reforms can happen much earlier maybe partial adaption of the LS can happen earlier. Besides, only some of the legionaries would wear the LS. When a condition like five battles fought with Dacia is added it would be more realistic. This does require a new unit though. This would however take a unit slot which is unacceptable. The Romans have a lot of units allready. So in short, I agree with you. If only Trajanus lived a bit earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I must say that all this talking about the LS is over the top. There are more important things. The reason most people want them in is because Romans wear them in the movies. I can understand the pain of the team.
I sincerely doubt if the appereance of LS had anything to do with the Dacians and their falxes - already because A) it was coming into use quite a bit before the Romans started having any major Dacian trouble B) they'd had to deal with the similar, but due to its all-metal build probably even choppier, Thracian rhomphaia already in the Macedonian Wars centuries earlier...
The Dacians did inspire some modifications to helmets and the limited issuing of laminate arm-guards for first-line units though.
The question is why they started using it? I doubt the Romans used it just because they could. It probably had it's advantages in the field but I think the logistical drawbacks were far greater. What I don't understand is where they got the idea from. Maybe an emperor ordered research into a new armor.
The basic idea of the laminate structure was old news - it'd already been used for limb defenses by Achaemenid Persian heavy cavalry, and the Romans probably first encountered it on Seleukid cataphracts at Magnesia. I'd be willing to bet it was sometime after that it began forming part of some gladiator classes' panoplies.
Presumably some clever fellow eventually came up with the idea of adapting the concept into a corselet, but it wasn't until the reorganisation, consolidation etc. after Augustinus' takeover that the resources for such in practice tricky and expensive R&D became available; which also explains how such an expensive and logistically finicky item could begin to be issued to the troops.
Would it be wrong to draw the following conclusion?
It would have been possible for the Romans to develop the LS earlier. However the costs associated with it are so large that it would be madness. Especially considering the benefits are only minor. Only the later emperors where willing to pay such a high price. Maybe it had to do with prestige?
In this case I completely agree that there is no place for the LS in the EB timeframe.
lorica segmentata gives me itches every time i read the word:furious3:
EDIT
here you go
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/stor...slsanswer1.jpg
ahahah wonderful! :laugh4:
Though, I do wonder what an EB created LS legion with the dirty look other EB units have, would look like.
That is brilliant Gebeleisis. A balloon is in order I think... :balloon2:
Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gebeleisis
Did you make that picture? I should put that picture in the FAQ...
Whoops, forgot about the timeline!:dizzy2:
@Gaivs
Why is it that you think LS is ugky, I like LH but LS is the bomb.:inquisitive:
BTW, where is the picture of the M2TW legion unit at? I cant find it.
Don't mind me , just setting my watch by this thread .:vanish:
nah i did not make it :)
i found it here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=68
thx for the balloon dough :D
its my first:laugh4:
What is the purpose of a balloon? Is it like rep?
its 4 fun :)
It is pure randomness. Have one. :balloon:
Lorica Segmentata, which btw isnt its true name, we dont know what the Romans called it, possibly Lorica Lamina or something. The thing is, we get this whole Segmentata deal from Trajans column, but its widely accepted that his column is over stylized, probably out of simplicity to distinguish all Romans as one. So as such, we get an over representation of LS, where as in actual fact, Hamata was far more common than LS
if you wan't to know what a legionary c.100AD mostly looked like look at that romanian monument (ada...whatever)-anything but LS and attic helms.
*Ibrahim goes off to look at it again*
it's "adamclisi tropaeum".
i think we can solve both problems,make lorica segmentata(:dizzy2: i hate the name already) a gold armour upgrade to the legionaries,that can be made only in uber blcksmiths that come around the year ~-10, +15,maybe some guys can get the romans evolve faster in technology?
we can do that dont we?:idea2:
How about you go and requrest the mod in the EB mod forum.
isnt this the one?:inquisitive:
I guess it can be done, but it assumes that LS was indeed an upgrade over lorica hamata. That is debatable, in fact one of EB's Roman experts argues it was a downgrade. And, as yet, the magnitude of the upgrade cannot be modded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gebeleisis
well i may think its not necesarily to upgrade,like make a special small blacksmith type of building that allows to upgrade it?
Oh Gebel.! why are you so eager for the LS? like I said, look up the adamclisi tropaeum and look at romans at the time LS was supposedly at the hight of it's use-again, anything but LS is on it (it's a war memorial set up by legionaries in Dacia, and it's quite realistic for a crude bas relief). here's the link to one legionary from there:
http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranis...es/falx_03.jpg
Why do people dislike the LS so much? If its at the end of the time period then it is what it is right? Trajans column depicts the roman Legionaries wearing lorica segmentata and auxilia wearing the hamatata. So what would you get, 15 turns or something if they include it historically?
LS armor IS superior for comfort due to the design, The weight is distributed much better, alot of the weight is held by your hips.
Is it superior due to its design for piercing/arrow protection. The curved plates would deflect the force away from the impact point while chain just absorbs the impact. Chain offers good protection from slashing and blunt trama.
Thin chain is not very useful either(check out the history channel this week, they have some tests done) and to have be effective would require a much more elaborate design, very tight and thick, (see the link below), but it is very heavy and cumbersome.
Who wants to walk around all day with a heavy chainmail on, no thanks.
I would chose LS anyday.
http://www.legionxxiv.org/loricapage/
Because popular history think that legions should be professional, LS wearing bamfs from the 3rd century BC onwards.
Its superiority is debatable.
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
lol
well ibrahim im not a fan of LS but i toguht this way we could satisfy both sides,
us - cause it wont be in use
and the ls lovers who cant rant anymore,anyways,what are the plans for armour upgrades?:idea2:
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. You shouldnt let peoples disgust for something get in the way of historical accuracy.
"The currently recognised types being the Kalkriese (c. 20 B.C. to A.D. 50), Corbridge (c. A.D. 40 to A.D. 120), and Newstead (c. A.D. 120 to 250) types"
the above statement isnt mine, it was taken from websites that do reenactments. There are ALOT of different sources stating exactly this.
* Someone might say well it was found in 9ad on the rank and file as well as depicted, so it should be included in 9ad not 20bc.
These groups say 20bc for a reason. Plus Common sense will say that in order for the rank and file to get it issued to them it could not have been right off the blacksmiths anvil. Alot of sources say it was probobly created during the last century bc.
Now, As far as whats superior, its really not debatable. You can wear a much heavier suit of armor longer due to the weight distribution. Take a physics class and do the calculations yourself for the incoming force(im being serious too, get the pattern of the most common types of ls and chainmail and do the extensive math required((the romans used a 4 in 1 pattern btw, no evidence of 6 in1 or 8 in 1 ever)) check out " mail tests performed by Dr. Williams" and also the book "The Great Warbow". It also doesnt take a genius to understand that the incoming force impacting on an angled surface will cause much of the force to be redirected and not absorbed like the chainmail will.
you could always buy both armors and have a buddy of yours shoot arrows and throw spears at you, youll get a good feel for the comfort trying to dodge them too! :laugh4:
From a historical viewpoint of the EB mod itself, very few if anyone has ever played up to 20 BC in their Roman campaign. Therefore it is simply not worth the time, effort and unit slot, along with special building or "blacksmith" or whatever else would be required for the EB team to include the Kalkriese lorica segmentata, as has been stated many, many times. (I must admit, however, I would be tempted to play up to 20 BC for those LS units :P)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
/me load multiplayer EDU and plays with LS that way.
I agree, this is definitely true. Also M2TW allows for three different sets of armor. Maybe at a certain era, one could be for LS and the other two for LH seeing that it was not immediatley replaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
Here is another ballon.:balloon3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gebeleisis
That is a exellent idea!
look: as I have stated above, the LS was in use for quite a long time, but it is evident that it was actually rare: think about it:
1-the depictions are overwhelmingly in Italia (and most of them from rome)
2-most provincial (admittedly not all) show the overwhelming majority in chain mail (e.g: adamclisi)
3-no one knows what the roman name for the LS really was; shouldn't that tell anyone here something? they have a roman name for LH, LSq, and even LPlum, but no known contemporary name for the LS; if it was really that common, let alone standard issue, shouldn't it pop up in some history of the exercitus (army) somewhere? why doesn't anyone give 2 F's about it in the manuals and histories? because it was too rare & exotic to matter!:sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop:
what explains the preponderance of the LS in Italian carvings?2 things:
1-they wanted to tell one group from another (legionaries, Auxiliaris, and cav.)
2-maybe the LS was a parade armor, or artistic standard adopted to a reason known only to the sculpturers (like the romans in Attic helm on the Trajan column)
lastly: all archeological finds were dug up for the most part in Auxiliary forts/ sites (judging from what I have read)
Oh EB team! hope a member is reading-put that in the info on the cohors imperatoria
*Ibrahim dies*
This is incorrect, read below:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
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....
EB said they won't do this since units get a hard coded armor bonus. Maybe if the next patch changes that... if it comes out the team might consider using the armor system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemons
~:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Abokasee
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
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!!!!
Or even simpler, no LS in EB, End of the Story.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
While I understand the joke :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spendios
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
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
that was what my replay was aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
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.
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 Irb_the_Pictish_Berserker
Eh... did you just reference reenactors? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
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.
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 antisocialmunky
this is a really great idea, is something like that possible or are the variants hardcoded as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Remco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Rust on scale and main means replacing a ring or a scale... rust on plate... that's bad news.
Where is your proof of LS being less effective than roman mail and equal to scale?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
As to Roman mail being high quality, well I think the Celts would definately have something to say about that.