Lorica Segmentata

Hello and a Happy New Year to all

I was playing EB as the Getai and in a battle with the Romans I encountered a First Legionary Cohort and this gave me an idea. Most I bet would love to see the Lorica Segmentata in EB2 as would I so I have a small suggestion I know it requires a lot of work but the end result would be splendid

Can only the First Legionary Cohort be equipped with the Lorica Segmentata thus staying close to reality (quite late in the game not of large use because of the expenses of making such Armour) or can it be present only to the Praetorian Cohort (being an elite unit) I know the Praetorian Cohort saw little front line battle but (for me at least as a huge fan of this unit) it can still be used

and finally to rest my case we can safely say the Lorica Segmentata is a symbol of Rome in one way ore the other and personally I think it deserves its place in the game just for that

All the Best

Here you go:

Quote:

---

Q: Will there be Lorica Segmentata in EB2?
A: Lorica Segmentata was not widely used within the games time frame. Even though it could be argued that it was used to a minimal extent at the very end of the time frame the team has decided not to include any Lorica Segmentata in the official EB2 releases.

---

There hasn't been one of these in a while.

He's a link to the previous big big LS thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ica+segmentata

Quote:

---

Hello and a Happy New Year to all

---

And to you :-D

Quote:

---

Can only the First Legionary Cohort be equipped with the Lorica Segmentata thus staying close to reality (quite late in the game not of large use because of the expenses of making such Armour) or can it be present only to the Praetorian Cohort (being an elite unit) I know the Praetorian Cohort saw little front line battle but (for me at least as a huge fan of this unit) it can still be used

---

In EB's timeframe what we refer to as LS was not at all widespread, it would be a bit like having German late war units in a WWII game suddenly have H & K G3s.

Quote:

---

and finally to rest my case we can safely say the Lorica Segmentata is a symbol of Rome in one way ore the other and personally I think it deserves its place in the game just for that

---

In popular perception of history yes, but EB is exactly not that. EB is for those with real historical knowledge besides what you can get from watching THC and films like 300. LS belongs in RTW Vanilla IMO, let us nerds have things realistic.

Quote:

---

All the Best

---

To you as well, happy new year again.

Aw geez, not this **** again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX

Aw geez, not this **** again.

---

I know...I know...

people should read FAQ's for goodness sake, but hey, how many actually do?


anyways; nice sig, but poor grammar: it should be khaleefatu ul-islam (Caliph of islam), or al-khilaafatu ul-islaamiyyatu (the muslim caliphate).

now if you meant: "conflicts of islam", then its "khilafaatu ul-islaami".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

people should read FAQ's for goodness sake, but hey, how many actually do?

---

He did read the FAQ, but he wanted to suggest a way in which the LS could be included. However, we don't know with what units LS was associated in its early days. Giving it to the "elite" first cohort and praetorian units may not represent the truth. At least one EB member believes that LS was not an improvement, but a cheaper replacement for LH, so you would not expect it on elite units. (And yes, I know this is disputed. We've had discussions on this before: do a forum search if you wish to know more.)

Anyway, the Praetorian cohort was a front-line unit in its early days. I know they campaigned with Germanicus the Younger against Arminius.

Why not include this as an armorer upgrade, you can change the armor at the armorers right? (dot really know for sure) and then you could make a `late armor` armorer that can only be build from year X and later or something.

The lorica segmentata were included in a submod in EB1, this will probably be the case for EB2 as well.

And wow, a somewhat civil LS thread. Please don't slaughter newcomers, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Why not include this as an armorer upgrade, you can change the armor at the armorers right? (dot really know for sure) and then you could make a `late armor` armorer that can only be build from year X and later or something.

---

The OP must read your AAR skull, LS are known to causing nation wide riot in early days :clown:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=124946

And more seriously now, getting LS as an armour upgrade is allready told in long time ago by the EB team, with NO LS as answer...:yes:

I have an idea! You know how in M2TW soldiers within a unit can have different skins? You could have like 6 skins on a cohors preatoriani unit and have one of them be of lorica segmentata. There would be few enough men wearing it to make it historical. You could satiate the lust for LS and still be at least semi accurate.

Quote:

---

the team has decided not to include any Lorica Segmentata

---

So I guess this discussion is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius Augustus

semi accurate

---

... (words are not needed)

Europa Barbarorum is semi accurate(No offence EB-team).

There is only so much historically accurate stuff you can represent in a modification of computer game!

About the LS.. If you want it then make a minimod. There are M2TW mods that have roman units with LS so I suggest you to play them..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius Augustus

I have an idea! You know how in M2TW soldiers within a unit can have different skins? You could have like 6 skins on a cohors preatoriani unit and have one of them be of lorica segmentata. There would be few enough men wearing it to make it historical. You could satiate the lust for LS and still be at least semi accurate.

---

I would think the legionaries would be more standardised than that. In any case, the EB team doesn't exactly negotiate on something like this, and this probably isn't the first time this has been proposed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

Europa Barbarorum is semi accurate(No offence EB-team).

There is only so much historically accurate stuff you can represent in a modification of computer game!

About the LS.. If you want it then make a minimod. There are M2TW mods that have roman units with LS so I suggest you to play them..

---

EB is the best representation there is, but by necessity in order to actually have a playable game, there will be things in it that we do not know was the way EB depicts them. Mostly because we know very little about a lot of things and nothing of many. So the EB team has to compromise in order to get a product/game.

Thus, do not believe that EB is an accurate depiction of The Truth of Antiquity- that is a mistake too many here makes- EB is a damn good and well-researched product, but it is still a game. If you want to get a greater appreciation of both what the game depicts and the momentous task in front of the Team, read their sources.

Quote:

---

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance

---

, or

Quote:

---

Εν οίδα ότι ουδέν οίδα

---

, Socrates' words still apply to our existance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

I would think the legionaries would be more standardised than that.

---

Why ? They got issued what happened to be available, and no doubt further "customised" their kit within reasonable limits according to personal taste and preference. This happens even in modern armies, which actually have genuinely standardised mass-produced kits on a degree no pre-industrial military could really even understand.

Because that, just as the LS, is the public perception of it; Roman legionares were 300.000 identical clones in identical uniforms and equipment.

Watchman is right though, just look at pictures from Irak and Afghanistan. How much privately purchased or enemy equipment are our boys toting? Quite a lot- many Danes purchase boots privately for example, the AK seems to be pretty popular as well. Probably because of its reliability even when full of grit, sand, dust, etc- even though it cannot hit a barn, from inside the barn...

That is OT, but if you have a look at any soldier in any war, especially after a prolonged period of fighting when logistics starts to break down to some extent (yes it happens even for US, the masters of logistics) and issued equipment starts to wear out (that especially happens to our sophisticated Western equipment), you will notice lots of subtle changes in gear. The fighting man cares not a rat's arse for regulations, he cares for survival.

I guess I should possibly expect some assassins any second now:laugh4: but I'm on the same page with most people here (if not all) that are pro LS I still think it could be a good asset for the game but since I have very little experience in modding and doing what the Team does I can hardly rise up with pretensions and only to suggest and hope for the best really

To make it short great Team you guys are awesome call back the legions sent to deal with the instigator :beam: but I'm still pro LS as some of my fellow posters :smash:

All the Best

Don't worry. There is no problem with liking LS and, as you write, a case could be made for its inclusion. The problem is that this case had been made before. About a dozen times. And that's not counting the threads started by people who don't actually know when LS appears. Every suggestion in this thread (not just the OP) has been done to death.

So you understand why I get a bit tetchy when the subject is brought up again? There is a search function: please use it before starting a new thread.

Perhaps you should just say there there is a LS unit but don't actually put it in EBII and give a convoluted unlocking scheme for the reform ala the Wheat Sword

Maybe something about defeating the Batrix and stealing their time machine.

LS is already in the game, you only need to get theLS reform which occurs if you have

- At least 250 provinces
- An Amphitheartre in Terhazza and Dumatha
- And Terhazza must be a huge city
- year at least 15 AD or unconditional at 80AD

Also, this reform will enable the recruitment of: Flaming Pigs, Roman Ninjas, Zappelins, also, the 21th faction of Bartix will be unlocked.

No LS? But what will the recruitable gladiators wear?:wall:

I accept the view that LS is too rare to be worth depicting in the EB2 timeframe.

Its a pity because LS is so iconic, but like the Vanilla Egyptians and David Beckham's preferred boot, its not right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

He did read the FAQ, but he wanted to suggest a way in which the LS could be included. However, we don't know with what units LS was associated in its early days. Giving it to the "elite" first cohort and praetorian units may not represent the truth. At least one EB member believes that LS was not an improvement, but a cheaper replacement for LH, so you would not expect it on elite units. (And yes, I know this is disputed. We've had discussions on this before: do a forum search if you wish to know more.)

Anyway, the Praetorian cohort was a front-line unit in its early days. I know they campaigned with Germanicus the Younger against Arminius.

---

my bad.

well, either way, its more prudent not to have LS if that is the case.

i know about the early apearence of LS, but what about the reasons for it's manufacture? i mean, why were the romans incited to experiment with it? in example, the shape of the scutum varied and changed with the enemies faced, from more oval and curved edges when the romans fought sword equiped infantry, to more square shaped when they engaged missile weapons and spears. but what is the story behind the LS?

No one knows. Everyone has a different interpretation.

that is problemtic. had we known this we could rationalise it's earlier then in history developement, just as the Marian reforms can be rationalised by sume rushed acheavements (in game). or the way we can explain the reformed phalanx with the growing Roman thrat for the makedones.

And LS is rationalized in EB as a prototype armor not in common use during the EB time period that was rapidly phased out during the near collapse of the empire in the 3rd century because it was overly complicated.

Atleast that's what I've gotten out of the numerous threads that have come before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

No one knows. Everyone has a different interpretation.

---

Yep, like military hardware nowadays, there were prolly contractors, vendors, lobbyists and fanboys raving on about their products, so they may not even have had a consensus back then.

I have to admit harmata always looks a bit gritty (in a cool way, but still shabby), whereas segmentata is marvellous looking which might have helped promote it whether it was a better product or not.

if i was roman logistics officer i'd say the pros involve superior blunt protection, ease of manufacture (compared to hamata) and ease of transport, however maintenace in humid environement must have been hell :P

Its also supposed to be very uncomfortable to wear for extended periods of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarem

if i was roman logistics officer i'd say the pros involve superior blunt protection, ease of manufacture (compared to hamata) and ease of transport, however maintenace in humid environement must have been hell :P

---

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 bobbin

Its also supposed to be very uncomfortable to wear for extended periods of time.

---

Isn't all metal body armour, though ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Isn't all metal body armour, though ?

---

Yes but LS is supposed to be particularly so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.
Isn't all metal body armour, though ?

---

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

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.

---

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.

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 will

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

not

be in EBII, so why keep on?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paramedicguyer

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).

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.

https://i981.photobucket.com/albums/...4ca88copie.jpg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

so why keep on?

---

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:

either that, or they uncovered more evidence on the subject of LS.:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

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.

---

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

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.

---

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 bobbin

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.

---

Maybe you should read more about the sources of history books before rejecting my claims.
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.

Quote:

---

Maybe you should read more about the sources of history books before rejecting my claims.

---

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.

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: