dear all,
how come there are no units with this kind of protection in EB?
all other mods have them !?
best regards
Printable View
dear all,
how come there are no units with this kind of protection in EB?
all other mods have them !?
best regards
Large scale use of this type of armour started after game end. (EB covers periods from 272BC to 14 AD )
ok i see !! its a pitty that time is not extended then !! would make the mod more complete !!
Should extend further still because Varangian guards are awesome & EB won't be complete without them :clown:
Or sans sarcasm:
The Lorica Segmenta was only starting to come in about the time that the game ends ie its something that was around during Emperial Rome.
EB is about the period which witnessed the rise of Republican Rome & the Parthians, rise & fall of Baktria and Pontus, Germanic expansion and the decline of the Helenistic states Carthage and Celtic societies. (unless you are playing as one of the latter in which case its about the rise of that faction & decline of the others...)
Is there an historical reason for doing so, or do you just wish to have the iconic and aesthetically pleasing Lorica Segmentata in game? Don't worry about it, Hamata and Squamata are fair better armours (I love scale in particular - yummy, yummy eastern armour!).Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
Foot
This should be in the FAQ. It certainly is a frequently asked question.
Lorica Segmentata first comes into use, i.e. first shoulder pieces found, 9BC, it doesn't turn up again until 9AD and all in all it's pretty shoddy armour, though good protection against blunt trauma and arrows.
I agree with Puupertti. Place the answer on the FAQ (first post and in very large letters). Or better yet make a separate sticky on the main forum titled:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puupertti Ruma
"The reason Lorica Segmentata was, is and will be exluded from EB"
The only question asked more frequently is about the roman military reforms and that has thankfully already been included in the FAQ.
I watched a show on the History channel that depicted the toughness of this type of armor. This armor type was typically worn over top of a layer of chain mail and padding. A lot of time was spent on how the armor was fashioned and assembled but at the end they did a bunch of field tests firing a period ballista at the armor from about 50 feet away and although a human would most likely be knocked down and hurt the armor actually prevented a piercing type wound quite effectively. I would guess that they fired approximately 5 bolts of different sizes and point types and none of them actually pierced the padding. It was a real eye opener on the effectiveness of lorica segmentata against a piercing type wound but I wonder how effective it would be against a slashing or crushing type of attack. Any thoughts?
So you`re saying that the Segmentata was worn over a Hamata coat (along with padding)??Quote:
Originally Posted by Plebian#10
Hummm, interesting...
BTW, it`s a good idea to incluide the Segmentata issue on the F.A.Q. Thus, instead of writing endless posts answering the question, we can just send them to FAQ. :grin:
Cheers!!!
Segmentata-type laminate over mail sounds more like something you'd find on a late Parthian or Sassanid cataphract...
That said, armour of overlapping lames is pretty good judging by evidence. That type of Persian limb defense the Greeks called cheir in any case appears to have been regarded as a perfectly sufficient by its lonesome without any shield involved, even in leather-based versions... And this in a region where kopis-type choppers and axes were very popular sidearms. The Romans also used a derivative for their front-rankers during Trajan's Dacian wars to limit amputations from those nasty curvy swords, particularly the big bad falx.
It was also good enough to be included in late Medieval full plate armour around some joints, and the knee and upper leg defenses eventually turned into a single large "sleeve" of lames attached to the lower edge of the breastplate.
That's something like two thousand years of more-or-less continuous use in one place or other, topped by being accepted as part of some of the best body armour ever designed. I'd say that suggests it was a pretty darn solid design principle overall. :yes:
I could see a possibility in EB II of the augustan cohors having a guy in segmentata as part of the unit, but only a very few of them to give some extra unique-ness. Maybe after an armor upgrade or two also.
Surely wearing hamata and segmentata and padding would make movement quite difficult... Discounting the weight, the freedom of movement in the joints would be severely limited.
I think if you were shot by a ballista bolt, you probably wouldnt get up and walk away. Even if it cant pierce through, the force would mimic the effect of a crushing weapon, buckling the armour, breaking bones and damaging organs due to shock. The mail would offer little additional protection to that sort of damage. Not to mention if you dent armour over the torso, you cant breathe until you undent it or get it off. Which you probably cant do easily once its been damaged...
A friend of mine told me he had seen Segmentata chest plates with holes punched in them by spears and a ballista bolt is a definate, hell javalins would have a good chance of compromising that type of armour.
The biggest problem with Segmentata is the wear and tear issue, though new evidence suggests it was tinned, which would take care of the rust, but not the wearing on the leather or fittings.
I would love to see the segmentata, but when it's unhistorical, it's unhistorical.
Did the Romans use lorica segmentata in Teutoburg forest?
I love debates about segmented armor.
I think they pop up on a predictable basis.
I would say no to Segmentata in Teutoburg (c AD9).
One of the only big conflict that had lots of Segmentata would be the invasion of Dacia.
A balista bolt hitting you in the chest would put you out of the battle, if the armour stands you'll be thrown backwards and but pn the gound.
Also, you'd be luckly if the bolt hit your torso, not your head or legs.
A few shoulder plates have been found, no torso plates. It is possible that the shoulder plater were applied to mail and the laminated curiass came later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
If the game only goes up to 14 AD, wouldn't the Roman secondary expansion be unhistorical as well? Rome didn't reach its max territorial expansion until the 2nd century CE.
Secondary Roman expansion is supposed to represent the limits of Roman possible control, and you can fight after that date for as long as you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puupertti Ruma
Omg!!!!!!!!!!
Plz just put this in the FAQ before the EB team goes Attila on us!!!!!:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Side point/gripe, I find it odd that the Romans have no segmenta but those pesky Eleutheroi generals all seem to have nicked some from somewhere ~:flirt:
That's crappy vanilla skins for ya. :shrug:
The vanilla placeholder rebel general.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
It is hard to decide what the replacement general should look like. Since only one skin/model can be used for the rebel general, what would be appropriate for them? A general that might look good in Europe, would look silly if that general was leading Numidians in Africa or elephants in India.
Would it be possible to make the rebel general invisible/transparent?
I'd give him a normal sword, cavalry greaves and arm guards, chainmail, and one of those round iron helms with cheekguards that almost all upper tier cavalry have*thracian helm?*. Should fit in most places.
Well, anything that doesn't have segmenta shoulder pads would be a marked improvement :balloon2:
Segmentata has only a short use chronology, and is also restricted to a rather small part of the Roman army from what we can tell. It was, in all estimation, a rather bad form of protection. Easily susceptible to missile fire, blunt force trauma, etc, and is notoriously difficult to fabricate (you can't just order sheet metal in the ancient world).
That would make things look quite comical when he's the last one left and your soldiers are hacking away at nothing :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Ah. That's what happens if I don't think things through. :sweatdrop:
I wonder about that. Far as I can tell laminate seems to have been of the higher end of "overlapping bits" type armours, both in terms of technological requirements and protective effect. Laminate-structure cuirasses were among the "transitional" Medieval designs before solid breastplates became the norm, and for certain reasons were sometimes used instead of solid plate in very sophisticated and high-end harnesses later on as well. Similarly they were some of the most advanced forms of body armours the Japanese devised before the Shogunate era pretty much deep-froze all their military developement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
Certainly if you can get good results with bronze scale, it is difficult to see how large overlapping horizontal lames of iron or, better yet, steel would not do at least as well if not better. Leather and bronze types in any case seem to have been popular enough as limb defenses in Late Roman times.
'Course, the Romans may well have had some "teething problems" typical of complicated and somewhat experimental designs; the issues with the bronze hinges and such are testament enough of there having been some bugs to work out.
Wasn't it time consuming to put on and not worn with a padded undercoat to absorb shock?
Actually, there's good evidence that Segmentata protected you pretty well from true blunt trauma, i.e. no broken bones or internal injuries, it has been found all over the Empire, but in rather small quantities. That said, it contained a great deal of sheet iron which the Romans would probably have been keen on re-forging rather than chucking away, like their Iron helms.
The major drawbacks are manufacure, fitting, maintainance, reliability and the fact that in a battle the chances of your armour being servicable at the end are low.
It also rusts rather badly, but it does polish up rather nicely.
A friend of mine suggested it was used by artillery crews because it protects the body and shoulders just where a loose ballista arm would strike.
Another mosibility is that it was used by fast moving assault troops, because of the excellant weight-protection ratio.
Give me your quotes on this one please. From what I understand, Lorica segmentata was in use till early 3rd century. Also, in trajans column most of the soldiers aree represented in lorica segmentata. and being more susceptible to damage than mail is untrue. The overlaping layers would give tremendous resisence to damage and reduced weight. Maybe for blunt trauma it's true as I can see some logic in it but missile... ummm that just doesn't seem right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
Cheers...
Lorica Segmentata was in use from roughly 9AD to 200AD, compare that to mail, circa 350AD-1500AD or the Greek curiass, 1600BC-500AD+. Greaves, 1600BC-1800AD, or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAIOR
By contrast Lorica Segmentata has a life of 250 years at the absolute outside and rather than being improved it is if anything downgraded.
As far as missile weapons, specifically arrows and javalins, the plates are roughly 1mm thick on the chest and even overlapping the arrow hits one plate at one point. LS give a missile weapon a flat surface to hit, with mail the arrow has to break multiple rings in order to pierce the armour, which it quite often manage, in fairness.
To be fair mail is not much better, worse in some cases. Against blunt trauma Segmentata comes out on top but only because the armour absorbs the blow by deforming and that only works once in one place. Added to which there is a real danger of suffocation if the armour is compressed.
I would dissagree with Urnamma on it's effectiveness, it was effective, and light. Though most modern tests use either high quality iron, which is soft, or mild steel, which flexes. The reality is that Roman metalgury was fairly inconsistant, and often poor, particually in the post-Republican period. Despite it's effectiveness it is less comfortable, more cumbersome, more prone to random failure and generally more inconvenient. It also takes three minutes to put on vs 20 seconds for mail.
We're talking about an armour which could litterally break and become useless just before battle. In hot climate it will litterally rot off your body without a leather jerkin between your tunic and armour, it also suffers from heat transfer problems....
The list goes on, and on.
At the end of the day it's like any hi-tech military kit, great in barracks, horrible in the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mAIOR
It seems that mail was always dominant. The segmentata appears for about 200 to 250 years in which mail was still the main armour of the troops. Trajan's column was built to be visible from greater distances so the main reason for legionaries in segmentata is probably just to distinguish them from the auxilia.
Take a look at contemporary monuments like the Adamklissi metopes showing Traian's soldiers on campaign in Dacia (and probably built by the troops themselves), it shows nearly all legionaries in mail and it is much more to be trusted imho as it depicts all other equipment much better and corresponds with the finds we have.
Perhaps a Greek-looking general would be the best choice. A Greek rebel/mercenary warlord would fit in in most parts of the Eb map, with the exception of germany, northern Gaul, Britain and Western Iberia. All other regions it is quite plausible that the general might have some form of greek armour. More plausible than Lorica Segmentata, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
The reason Legions had mail armor isbecause of the mail armor endurance not quite it's effectiveness. Also, Lorica segmentata allowed a lot of flexibility even more than the Lorica Hamata as it was lighter. The roman metal work you talk, is inconsistent way after the lorica segmentata was abandoned. Also, if you talk about chain, I'll bring plate (the principle of lorica is plate armor) armor wich was the last tipe of armor and the most efective one. Also, armor in the late roman empire was ditched (not only segmentata but hamata as well being replaced by lighter tipes of mail or no armor at all) due to the increasing number of barbarians in the army and the change of tactics. This gave Roman infantry very small endurance while fighting heavy cavalry.
I believe in the end, Lorica Segmentata was eventually ditched because it's complexity and time consuming production. In order to support this, let me just mention the fact that the romans introduced several modifications to the armor in order to simplify it until they finaly ditched it. And Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, if you have three overlaping plates of 1mm (the ingenuity in the LS is this particular thing) gives 3mm protection. Gothic armor had 2mm. And, it was heavier. And missiles didnt work so well against Gothic armor. At least anything short of an arbalest or a mongolian bow with boadkin arrows. and still it might just not punch it.
Anyway, just my 2cents and sorry for the long post.
Cheers...
From experience I can tell you it restricts your arm movement and your ability to flex in back and waist.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAIOR
No, the fall in quality begins with the rise of Augustus, the Pompeii pattern Gladii are that shape partly to compensate for the lower quality of the iron, the shape of the blade increases durability.Quote:
The roman metal work you talk, is inconsistent way after the lorica segmentata was abandoned.
Mail was used without interuption for almost 2,000 years. Lorica Segmentata, while technically plate, is no relation to later forms of plate used by European horsemen.Quote:
Also, if you talk about chain, I'll bring plate (the principle of lorica is plate armor) armor wich was the last tipe of armor and the most efective one.
Armour was never entirely abandoned, however the reason for the reduction in use was the collapse of the Roman industrial complex, Late Imperial infantry are far more static than their forebears, with units staying in the same posting for centuries. This was a big part of the problem which led to the collapse of the Western Empire, the inability to move troops quickly.Quote:
Also, armor in the late roman empire was ditched (not only segmentata but hamata as well being replaced by lighter tipes of mail or no armor at all) due to the increasing number of barbarians in the army and the change of tactics.
You refer to the graduation from Corbridge A to B and the later Newstead pattern? You are correct, however these modifications also reduced effectiveness and flexability whilst increasing weight. They were partly to increase speed of repairs (replacing rivits with split pins) but the exibit and general degradation in quality as well. It is interesting to note that Lorica Segmentata comes into use as the Legions adopt fixed positions and dissapears as they once again become mobile.Quote:
I believe in the end, Lorica Segmentata was eventually ditched because it's complexity and time consuming production. In order to support this, let me just mention the fact that the romans introduced several modifications to the armor in order to simplify it until they finaly ditched it.
At no point do three layers overlap, in fact two layers barely overlap, if it were otherwise the armour would lose its remaining flexability.Quote:
And Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, if you have three overlaping plates of 1mm (the ingenuity in the LS is this particular thing) gives 3mm protection. Gothic armor had 2mm. And, it was heavier. And missiles didnt work so well against Gothic armor. At least anything short of an arbalest or a mongolian bow with boadkin arrows. and still it might just not punch it.
Anyway, just my 2cents and sorry for the long post.
Cheers...
I believe javalins will go through Gothic plate, as will longbow arrows at 20 paces and the longbow is not the most powerful of bows. In any case Gothic plate is steel Lorica Segmentata is iron
Oh come on guys not again, not again its like the 3rd time this S*T comes up since I've been here. :wall: :wall: :wall:
:thumbsdown:
hehe. (someone shouts) but what about lorica musculata?:juggle2:
Linothorax all the way!
Correction! I incorrectly stated that chain was worn under the lorrica segmentata but after going to the local library and aquiring some books on period armor I could find no reference to hammata being worn in conjunction with lorrica segmentata. Therefore I either misunderstood the what the author of that show was saying or it was wrong. I have tried to find that history channel episode but so far no luck. I apologize to all for making what appears to be an incorrect statement! I will continue to research this information.
Oh ? What's there to keep them from simply sliding over one another (to a certain degree) as was the standard for laminated armour from the start to the finish ? Not that a hip-lenght cuirass like that needs to be particularly flexible anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
"Gothic" plate would mean high-end Late Medieval full plate, I assume. Let's just say that by that point men-at-arms had abandoned shields as unnecessary baggage and heavy steel-stave crossbows were around the only things that could penetrate even lower-quality plate at any real distance with any real degree of reliability. Longbows, one of the catalysts for the developement of the fully articulated plate, were totally insufficient except at virtually point-blank ranges (with the obvious implications to the continued well-being of the archers) which is doubtless one reason they started falling by the wayside, although composite bows seem to still have been reasonably effective. Or at least those of the Ottomans seem to have accounted for quite a few fully armoured men in galley fights.Quote:
I believe javalins will go through Gothic plate, as will longbow arrows at 20 paces and the longbow is not the most powerful of bows. In any case Gothic plate is steel Lorica Segmentata is iron
This is one of the hottest threads about EB. Why no Lorica Segmentata?
Gotta ask it too. :grin:
:dizzy2:
"'Cause it's so next century."
Having manufactured a worn something of the like, I can say from experience that the plates restrict your torso movement in very annoying ways. If you look at how a human bends they bend along the the length of the torso. However, even with the flexibility of a curass built like that, it is still fairly restrictive. They slide but not by much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
It does however allow for good all around protection that is form-fitting, not bulky, and easy to make with decent flexibility(turning and bending a little). Its definately better than a giant plate on your chest.
However, like you said, flexibility isn't a particularly large issue. Kevlar armour with ceramic plate doesn't alow the user to bend much either. It hasn't been a huge issue in battle throughout history.
Well, I believe there's alot of misconception about steel in the Classical era. Most people say that steel was invented in the 18th century however this is untrue. In the 18th century people started to produce Steel in industrial quantities. Steel is a junction of iron and carbon so, not very hard to discover.
Now steel is believed to be around long before that. I don't know if Roman armor or weapons were steel I never read anything regarding that subject. But, finelly tempered iron can be tough as hell. And, as Watchman pointed, Longbow is way over rated. The best bow around is the composite bow eastern style. And, plate armor was always at advantage regarding chain. You said that from experience mail is more flexible. Can you assure us that the LS shirt you used was built on Roman standards? For you to have a Clue, a 16th century fully incased warrior had less weight on his shoulders than a British WWI soldier with full gear. So, they had plenty mobility as you can see. Now, LS in general I saw some schematics in a book I own and only 2 layers in fact overlap exept in the shoulders where you can have as much as 4 and the unshielded arm would be a much valued target as it would be the most xposed part of the body.
Cheers...
Europeans came up with a better furnace around the 1300s AD that, unlike the earlier ones, allowed the production of reasonably homogenous steel in reasonable qualities; plate armour would not have been viable otherwise. The earlier bloomeries just produced small amounts of steel as a side effect, and getting it out of the chunks of iron was a trick by itself. The edges of weapons and so on could be "built up" of such small bits and pieces, but making armour out of them was somewhat hopeless.
Now, there are of course other ways to temper iron into steel, and those were widely enough known and used. The trouble was that it was very difficult to control the processes closely enough to result in homogenous results in larger pieces (one reason why long swords were so much more expensive than short ones), and indeed even after the developement of tempered steel plate armour laminated animé cuirasses were sometimes used simply because it was by far easier to keep the metallurgy even across a single lame than an entire breastplate...
Mail is neat stuff, and its flexibility (comparable to that of heavy cloth AFAIK) kept it useful for joint protection and such even after as-such more efficient forms of protection (like solid steel plate) became available. Its downsides include a somewhat time-consuming manufacturing process, a certain inherent vulnerability to pointy stuff that can get right into the links, fairly hefty weight, and the blunt fact that by itself a shirt or hauberk will hang from the shoulders and as such burden them with more or less its entire weight. This can be partially mitigated by transferring some of the weight to the hips with a belt, but was nonetheless a bit of an insoluble problem. Stiffer forms of armour could be easier "wrapped" to the relevant body parts, spreading the load more evenly, or simply had better weight/protection ratios (like solid steel plate again - there were good reasons why that became the military norm as soon as economic considerations allowed), but as usual it was ultimately always a question of what facet you wished to emphasize and at what cost.
And not to forget, mail can be easilly torn and shred by a long weapon (espetially pole weapons). And I meant those processes of tempering iron (not sure you can call tempering into steel as steel was achieved previously when melting and forming the iron)... Anyhow, LS in my view was superior in terms of protection to LH and all the facts stated here lead to that opinion.
Cheers...
I dunno what the EB guys say but its my understanding that Carthage had furnaces of a type capable of producing quite significant amounts of at least high-quality Iron & with indication that it was pretty much good steel that was coming out of them.
Certainly the Romans were very careful to capture & put to work the metalsmiths of Carthago Nova.
Per definition steel is iron with carbon mixed in. There's no shortage of techniques to "inject" carbon into iron, or at least the surface layers anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAIOR
You'll have to wait for the EB guys or other more knowledgeable folks to supply the details, but aren't you confusing the issue with the baseline high quality of Iberian iron ore here ?Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urnamma
ehm....as far as i have read, your are only partially right.
a.
Certainly segmentata is not the best from protection. It´s protects only from hips upwards, certainly is not as flexible as mail and needs much more care to prevent from rusting.
b.
The protection from different weapons is debatable, given the fact that a roman soldier, especially a legionary, should have been hit by an enemies weapon rarely IF he can fight in his own manner => Shield covering from knee upwards to the chin.
c.
But i would disagree that it is used by a "rather small" part of the roman army.
Right, the mail armour was used in much larger amount than Segmentata.
But this takes into account that Auxiliaries only wears mail.
Leaving that fact out, i would suggest that at least 50% of the legionary infantry wore Segmentata.
This type of armour came into "regular" use in first half of 1st century AD and was in use at around 250AD...so ca. 200 years of use.
d.
As far as i´m informed, the Segmentata was introduced JUST BECAUSE it was pretty easy and fast to fabricate, though it perhaps wasn´t cheaper than mail.
You are right that sheet metal was uncommon in ancient time, because it has to be hammered (rolling was unknown).
but iron sheet metal was easier to hammer (if you know the right procedure) than cutting 30.000-40.000 iron/bronze rings. Assembly of the rings takes a lot of time also.
Some authors speak of 180h for the completion of a simple, short auxiliary mail shirt. Completing of a segmentata armour takes only around 60h.
additionally authors assume that a ancient segmentata weighs 4,5kg compared to 5,5kg+ for simple mail shirts.
the time factor outranks every other difficulty, as the increasing losses in battle had to be replaced in short time.
so all in all Segmentata armour was certainly lighter in weight, easier and faster to produce but might have less protection and needs more care from the soldier.
it makes it easier for the roman state to field the heavy infantry with an adequate level of protection and equipment.
Also, it was mainly worn by Praetorians and the Heavy Legions.Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
I skinned all my guys with modern body armor. Nothing quite says killing like a camo vest. You know they found evidence that the Romans had Interceptor body armor. It's true....I read it in the National Enquirer so it must be true. JK :wall:
http://world6.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=114017506
Watchman, you may or may not be right about javalins, someone told me they'd been hurling them at steel car doors and punching holes. As regards steel, the Romans are generally not considered to have crossed the threshold between carbonised iron and steel. My point about the layers was that there are never three layers overlapping in the same place. In fact you can sometimes see the legionaries tunic through the gaps at the back. The shoulders are different because they represent a second layer of armouyr over the main body in the same way manner as the doubling on mail does.
mAJOR, first off, break up your posts. You're giving me eye strain. Now, Lorica Segmentata is lighter than mail but weight is not everything. Mail has greater flexability and by and large one size fits all, though fitted is better. What do you mean "how do I know it was built on Roman standards"? if anything it was probably lighter and better made. Most serios reconstructions of period armour of any age tend to be lighter and over engineered.
Regarding the longbow I will only say it was the AK-47 of it's age and I think Watchamn would probably agree with me. Though obviously it was less "pick up and use."
Lorica Segmentata has been said to weigh "as little as 5.5kg" mail is generally quite a bit heavier. Additionally you are wrong to say mail can be "easily torn" Lorica Segmentata has lots of nice gaps and edges to hook a falx onto.
AngryAngelDD:
a. Pretty much true.
b. Best point made so far, armour is secondary.
c. 200 vs 2000+ years and half the Legions is only 25% of the total Roman army, if that. Auxilleries usually made up at least half the Roman military strength and they were full time soldiers.
d. It's not easier, it's faster but it requires a higher level of skill (Gallic/Germanic smiths) and the end result is a product which requires higher maintainance. It's also worth pointing out that a. thousands of mail shirts were languishing in Imperial Armouries when LS was introduced and b. Roman losses were rarely high in the Imperial period, except when the Romans lost.
Cata, there was never a "heavy" Legion, maybe heavy cohorts within a Legion.
Ultimately though none of this is relevant to EB, it's not in because it was only just invented and almost no one was using it.
ok you are right
the auxiliaries are at least 50% of the roman trained manpower.
what i had in mind is, that in a typical battle the Legions had the real job to do.
(yes i know there were battles, where legionaries even didn´t need to fight)
the legions shifted through the border regions as necessary while the auxiliar troops often were at the same place for much more years than a legion.
also many auxiliar troops don´t fight "permanently"....the legions do, because they are relocated often to the conflict areas (at least with vexillations)
therefore the Segmentata armour see pretty much battle time.
i dare to say, that certainly there were auxiliary mail shirts which never had seen a real battle.
the other way round i would say that hardly a segmentata can be found which was free from battle traces.
and you are right, that this is not relevant for EB, but a good discussion is also nice to see (and it helps some people to learn something about history :2thumbsup: )
The deployment of Auxilliaries and Legionaries varied. Certainly in the Flavian period in Britain we have concrete evidence that the Legions were in permenant bases while the Auxilleries were moved around quite a lot. After Constantine the situation reversed but in terms of EB and immidately after I would say the opposite of your statement was true. Legionary bases were static and designed to control key areas, many Legionaries did not see combat for years at a time. By contrast Auxilleries were posted in border regions and constantly sent out on patrol and to deal with local risings.
Remember that the Roman Legionaries were valued far more than their Auxillery bretheren and as such were only employed for major offensives or when the Auxilleries couldn't cut it.
Good plate had a habit of deflecting couched lances in full-tilt heavy cavalry clashes, which is yet another reason shields were ditched. Javelins could as well not bother trying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That'd no longer be segmentata, but one coming apart. Badly.Quote:
In fact you can sometimes see the legionaries tunic through the gaps at the back.
Flexibility isn't terrinly important in hip-lenght corselets anyway - you can do damn cartwheels wearing full plate, and I can quarantee that breastplate doesn't flex one bit. Most kinds of heavier body armours worn over the millenia barely flexed at all, and worked perfectly fine regardless - where the cloth-like suppleness of mail becomes useful is in the joints.Quote:
Mail has greater flexability and by and large one size fits all, though fitted is better.
Probably wouldn't. Besides the katana that one has to be the most over-hyped premodern military weapon - and most of the enthusiasts are quite unaware a bow not much short of the Welsh longbow was a required part of a militiaman's kit (atop a shield, spear, sword or axe and some armour) in medieval Scandinavia.Quote:
Regarding the longbow I will only say it was the AK-47 of it's age and I think Watchamn would probably agree with me.
I understand mail shirts of coverage comparable to the segmentata corselet tend to weigh in at the 10-15 kg range, depending on specific design details. One does recall the lorica hamata is very commonly described as being rather heavy anyway.Quote:
Lorica Segmentata has been said to weigh "as little as 5.5kg" mail is generally quite a bit heavier. Additionally you are wrong to say mail can be "easily torn" Lorica Segmentata has lots of nice gaps and edges to hook a falx onto.
Personally I rather fail to perceive where there would be a true eak point in the segmentata, save perhaps for the closure. Iron lames overlapping downwards don't seem to offer a very good "bite" for most weapons by what I know of it, and the shoulders for their part are reinforced against blows from above.
I defer to your greater wisdom. I'm certainly not going to build a set of Gothic plate to test it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Small gaps, between the shoulders and this particular set was fin structurally, it's owner keeps in in good nick.Quote:
That'd no longer be segmentata, but one coming apart. Badly.
It helps, certainly, but I do agree, it's not the most important factor. If anything the structure of LS causes extra problems because until the straps are broken in it tends to be very rigid around the shoulders.Quote:
Flexibility isn't terrinly important in hip-lenght corselets anyway - you can do damn cartwheels wearing full plate, and I can quarantee that breastplate doesn't flex one bit. Most kinds of heavier body armours worn over the millenia barely flexed at all, and worked perfectly fine regardless - where the cloth-like suppleness of mail becomes useful is in the joints.
He, he, Katana. What I meant was it was a cheap, reliable, and powerful weapon that every Welshman ans his sheep could afford. Rather like the AK being a cheap, reliable, and powerful weapon that every Afgan and his goat can afford. You dissagree?Quote:
Probably wouldn't. Besides the katana that one has to be the most over-hyped premodern military weapon - and most of the enthusiasts are quite unaware a bow not much short of the Welsh longbow was a required part of a militiaman's kit (atop a shield, spear, sword or axe and some armour) in medieval Scandinavia.
That sounds about right, the figure of 25lbs keeps popping into my head.Quote:
I understand mail shirts of coverage comparable to the segmentata corselet tend to weigh in at the 10-15 kg range, depending on specific design details. One does recall the lorica hamata is very commonly described as being rather heavy anyway.
Under arms as well, neck front and back and groin (depending on the hamata you are comparing.) Of course if you stay in formation and keep your shield up snone of that matters.Quote:
Personally I rather fail to perceive where there would be a true eak point in the segmentata, save perhaps for the closure. Iron lames overlapping downwards don't seem to offer a very good "bite" for most weapons by what I know of it, and the shoulders for their part are reinforced against blows from above.
Actually, a Falx could only snap onto a Segmentata in the closures. even if they used an upward blow, it'd be hard to hook on the segmentata.
Mail, is more flexible sure but, that flexibility also gives it a weakness that makes it proner to hooking and snapping. Also, could someone tell me if LH was riveted or hamered?
About LS showing the shirt beneath, I believe watchman answered that question.
Cheers...
Well, like I said, I saw it. I was untwisting the bauldric at the time so that it didn't catch on the back plates.
Ah, you meant the gaps around the joint and neck openings and so on. That's a different story of course, and over millenia there was always considerable amounts of armourer chutzpah dedicated to figuring out how to close those while still allowing for enough freedom of movement. Far as I know they still haven't worked out a solution that didn't compromise one thing or another...
Those also often tended to be very popular spots to aim for if your weapon couldn't actually penetrate the armour. I know a few interesting examples of this, but let's not digress too much.
Oh, in that sense. Yeah, wherever there was enough wilderness to hunt in (ie. that wasn't someone's private hunting reserve or somesuch) and even remotely suitable materials for crafting bows available the common folk more often than not both owned good bows a-plenty and were rather good shots with them. The northern forest belt was practically crawling with capable archers for nearly almost as long as humans dwelt there, and for example in Late Medieval if not even Early Modern Scandinavia the ability to draw a bow served as a mark of adulthood with all the associated rights and dues - it also long formed the basis for adminstrative census for taxation and so on.Quote:
What I meant was it was a cheap, reliable, and powerful weapon that every Welshman ans his sheep could afford. Rather like the AK being a cheap, reliable, and powerful weapon that every Afgan and his goat can afford. You dissagree?
The composite bow had a rather similar role wherever the prequisites for its manufacture were present, I understand.
Frankly, the historical aspect as well as the assumed fact that most people (including me) like the segmentata armor is that it's shiny and cool. In practicality, the reason for the development of segmentata armor was piercing weapons. If you look at Roman weapon development, what they were equipped with was essentially a counter to the most dangerous enemy that they were facing at any given time. Chain mail is a good counter against crushing attacks such as swords and hammers (Gauls & Celts) as it has flexible give so it doesn't dent. The farther east they went, the more they ran into composite bow wielding foot archers and cavalry. Thus segmentata, a rigid, polished (not just astethics, it was designed to improve deflection of attacks) armor was invented. Chain mail is not so great against arrows as it basically serves as 30,000 little round targets on your body while segmentata serves as a semi-impermeable barrier between you and the Almighty. Feel free to disagree, just a lot of years of military school talking. :whip:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mAIOR
The examples of Roman mail found so far were all whether riveted and welded or riveted and stamped, around 5mm in diameter.
Mail stops arrows well enough, at least at longer ranges. Although I'll readily admit I don't actually know what the main doctrine of the Armenian, Parthian, Sassanid etc. archers was...
Anyway, mail hauberks and large shields served the heavy infantry of the Crusader states well enough against Arab and Turkish archery, and for that matter that of said nations as well. So I sort of doubt that was the prime impetus behind the devlopement of the segmentata. Contact with cheir-type laminated limb defenses and the appreciation of the basic principle combined with developement of sufficiently mad ironworking skillz would sound more likely to me.
It's a nice theory but it doesn't stand up for two main reasons.
Segmentata seems to predominate in the West.
Segmentata is actually better at absorbing blunt trauma that mail but worse when dealing with missiles. The latter is probably due to the fact that, unlike mail, segmentata presents a rigid target to piece where mail + padded leather cushions the impact somewhat.
As to the construction of Roman mail, it is generally four rivited rings attached to one closed ring (or vice versa, depending on your perspective.)
When I think of the Romans I think of LS. People in the middleages forgot alot of stuff also, maybe that is the reason you dont see LS in medevil europe. I think LS and LH are both very good indeed. I think that LS was just cheaper that is why Rome went with it. I mean when i was in the army I learned one thing, Lowest Bidder makes everything. It dosent have to last forver it just has to be cheap and do its job atleast as well as what it is replacing. We can argue LH vs LS all day but in the end it was used by the legionaires because it was good. Ask any U.S. servicemen what he thinks of M16 off the record compared to M14. There are problems and the are good qualties too that is the kind of argument we have here. If EB went to 255AD then they would put it in(I hope they would). But EB just goes to 14AD and for that LH is mighty fine.
p.s.
I love the legion, and Lorica segmenta is my fav but hamata is a very very close second:yes:
Oh LS definately wasn't cheaper, it was just quicker. It's an interesting comparison you make with the M16 btw, given that weapon's early history.
thanks Phillipvs. Well there had to be atleast some advantage quicker could be it. i just love eb, it seems to draw some real passion and i dig that:2thumbsup:
Didn't the prime ingredient in most things' final prices come from the work hours skilled craftsmen needed to put into the production process ? AFAIK that was always a prime reason mail was so darn expensive, even if actually joining the darn links was largely just repetitive menial labour. Keeping that in mind, logically if segmentata was faster to make then the main thing that'd have kept it meaningfully more expensive would have been the need for more skilled labour, which tends to be harder to come by and generally more expensive.
This does not seem to stand up to what I know of armour. Logically, much like scale does, the smooth solid surface of the segmentata should primarily present something for incoming thingies to glance off of, nevermind now the impact-diffusion effect of the overlapping lames. Plus it's not like it would have been worn without some pretty decent padding underneath either; didn't the Romans have a standard-pattern garment for the job ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The problems mail has with pointy stuff come from the fact the point is practically certain to slip into a single ring, from where it can try to burst it from the inside and thus open the way for penetrating deeper. True to form armour-piercing arrowheads designed against mail have a distinctly needle-like appereance, for example. All said and done, mail isn't really at its best against pointy stuff which is doubtless one reason the "overlapping bits" design philospohy seems to have been somewhat dominant in archery-crazy parts of the world, even when the construction of mail was well known and mastered.
:2thumbsup: To start, I am not flaming anyone here. The eastern style composite recurve bow was incredible powerful. Surviving examples have been found to have a draw strength of upwards of 160 lbs. Compare that to the 80-140 lbs. of the Welsh longbow. Mounted archers carrying these weapons were an even bigger problem. Notably the Parthians were a difficult bunch. The 'Parthian shot' consisted of a mounted archer firing an arrow straight back over the rear of his horse at relatively close range. This presented a very precarious situation for a heavy Roman infantryman with two pila and a short sword. Mail presented decent protection against the arrows and bows of the northern barbarian tribes as they were of the typical European design (no recurve and usually made of a single piece of pliable wood with arrows that were meant to kill/maim rather than penetrate armor). This isn't to say that the barbarian tribes weren't dangerous or even relatively technologically advanced, just that more advanced missile development techniques were not available to them. On the other hand, the Eastern empires had the benefit of greater wealth and the access to advanced bowyer techniques (mainly due to mounted nomad tribes). Combine the cash and technological inovation/flexibility of an empire like Rome with a deeply ingrained archer tradition and hopefully you begin to understand what I'm talking about. The mainly Celtish/Briton tribes of western Europe strongly favored the sword and shield against which mail fared quite well (as far as I know, Rome adopted mail from the Celts). Even the Germanic tribes armory could be mostly countered by mail with the exception of the heavy axe. It wasn't until meeting the falx in eastern europe and later on the composite bow, that true armor change was initiated. It must be said that armor was not always meant to just stop injury, it was also expected to stop skin penetration as infection was probably alot more dangerous than a broken bone. I'm not sure if the easterners had bodkin type arrows but taking into consideration that most of their archery was adapted mainly for war and not just hunting, I suppose it's possible. Consequently, mail was rendered less effective than armour that could be made to deflect such attacks and it was a heck of alot heavier than segmentata. As far as mail during the Crusades, it was 800 years after Rome's fall and mail armor had evolved, not alot, but it did evolve. Double mail was common during that time as far as I know and and was just as flexible as regular mail and offered better protection, but it was even heavier. Feel free to diagree as always. :yes:
It was the mofo Rhineland smiths that made Segmentata possible, same with Imperial Gallic helms. Segmentata also requires more copper and tin than mail, which is usually just iron, unless the rivits are copper, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
You'd think wouldn't you? I'm just repeating what I've read. I think in might have to do with the plates being both large and thin, so they tended to buckle under less pressure. Lorica Segmentata seems to have been a deforming type of armour, actually designed to get busted up in combat, rather than the man wearing it.Quote:
This does not seem to stand up to what I know of armour. Logically, much like scale does, the smooth solid surface of the segmentata should primarily present something for incoming thingies to glance off of, nevermind now the impact-diffusion effect of the overlapping lames. Plus it's not like it would have been worn without some pretty decent padding underneath either; didn't the Romans have a standard-pattern garment for the job ?
True, like I said, no personnal experience here.Quote:
The problems mail has with pointy stuff come from the fact the point is practically certain to slip into a single ring, from where it can try to burst it from the inside and thus open the way for penetrating deeper. True to form armour-piercing arrowheads designed against mail have a distinctly needle-like appereance, for example. All said and done, mail isn't really at its best against pointy stuff which is doubtless one reason the "overlapping bits" design philospohy seems to have been somewhat dominant in archery-crazy parts of the world, even when the construction of mail was well known and mastered.
It's not like the individual scales in scale armour were exactly thick or tremedously strong either - heck, they were usually copper alloy anyway, if not leather. But the effect taken together was very much more than the sum of its parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Case in point would be the type of limb defense the Greeks termed cheir, again. Even in leather versions that was apparently regarded as a very good limb defense - good enough to render a shield unnecessary - in a part of the world crawling with powerful composite bows, heavy javelins, battleaxes, maces, kopis-type chopping swords and similar heavy-duty unpleasantness. Trajan's front-rank legionaires were famously issued with a metal derivative for their sword arms to counter the nasty Geto-Dacian curved blades.
As for deforming, meh. You typically want armour metal to retain a degree of springiness and flexibility, so it flexes and bends and rebounds instead of cracking (one reason why mail links were never of "hard" steel). Combined with the inevitable padding worn under all metal armour - already to keep the stuff from rubbing the soldier's skin off - the overlapping plates ought to be pretty good impact-absorbers, and while strong hits might well cause rather uncomfortable permanent deformation this is in any case rather preferable to getting your guts ventilated and the matter can be fixed in the unavoidable after-battle repairs. I understand a bigger problem was the fragility of the brass hinges and suchlike.
Well, as I said, I don't have an answer and in fact a lot of paper has been expended on how good LS was at stopping missiles. A lot seems to hinge on how you rig it and exactly what it's made of.
As to the buckles, as few months ago I went along to the local museaum here to talk about the Romans to some primary school children. The legionary we had had left his LS at home because it had broken that morning, so he was in mail instead.
Well, it was the "hangar queen" of body armour after all... :sweatdrop:
Heh, we did have a chuckle over that, he and I.
Actually, most eastern legionaires used cheir on their arms for added protection as well. Espetially after 100AD. I have a book called roman army from Hadrian to Constantine and they speak very highly of limb defense.
Also, to my knowledge, I agree with Watchman on this one. LS was probably rather good at stoping missiles as it could deflect some and the overlaping layers would seriously reduce the damage...
Just my opinion tough...
Cheers...