Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

**ray243** · 01-31-2009, 17:33

I do not mean depicting the Legionaires as unarmored. I mean depicting an 'unarmoured' unit of Legionaires wearing Hamata.

**MarcusAureliusAntoninus** · 02-03-2009, 19:47

First of all, there will be no LS in EBII. Unless someone finds some sort of revolutionary find of LS use in the second century BC, the team will stick to "No LS".

I understand what you are suggesting, and yes it is possible to do as you say.

However, armor upgrades are hardcoded to give +1 armor (nothing more, nothing less). Not to turn this into a LS debate (which will be closed if it does), but some people argue that LS actually provided less protection then LH.

Also, it hasn't been decided yet, but armor upgrades may be used for something other than armor upgrades and may not be available for this purpose.

**antisocialmunky** · 02-03-2009, 23:26

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

However, armor upgrades are hardcoded to give +1 armor (nothing more, nothing less). Not to turn this into a LS debate (which will be closed if it does), but some people argue that LS actually provided less protection then LH.

In the unit description it displays +1 but in the actual engine registers more than a +1 for many levels. If you look around, you can find the exact numbers. The only one I remember is that from unarmored to padded is +4.

**Macilrille** · 02-12-2009, 11:55

Well, I checked, and there were LS found at Kalkriese. That is 9 AD and thus concievably within EB timeframe if only just.

**Ludens** · 02-12-2009, 14:52

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Well, I checked, and there were LS found at Kalkriese. That is 9 AD and thus concievably within EB timeframe if only just.

Wasn't that just a single suit? The main argument against inclusion is not that it wasn't used, but that it wasn't common. One team member mentioned that even at the height of it's popularity, LH would still be used by many if not most legionaries, but I haven't seen the sources that back that up. Either way, unless a trove of LS is found and dated to EB's time-frame, we can assume it was uncommon in the period that concerns the mod.

**Macilrille** · 02-12-2009, 23:19

It is a single find yes, but others of its type has been found (known as the kalkriese Type), and it is not as if that much chainmail has been found at Kalkriese as i understand it. Dunno TBH, for I have not studied the find in detail.

**antisocialmunky** · 02-12-2009, 23:34

How about more Squamata? :-D

**ljperreira** · 02-13-2009, 07:40

Originally Posted by Ludens

Wasn't that just a single suit? The main argument against inclusion is not that it wasn't used, but that it wasn't common. One team member mentioned that even at the height of it's popularity, LH would still be used by many if not most legionaries, but I haven't seen the sources that back that up. Either way, unless a trove of LS is found and dated to EB's time-frame, we can assume it was uncommon in the period that concerns the mod.

Not even a whole cuirass, just a partial breastplate and shoulder guard. But the info is not derived by how many "suits" they found at Kalkriese, but how many "fittings" they found. Fittings are the plate hinges, strap and buckle hinges, tie hooks, etc. The plates of the Segmentata cuirass is made of iron, which is very corrosive, but the fittings are made from a copper alloy (such as brass or bronze) and resists corrosion. So, after 2000 years, the only parts they usually find are Segmentata fittings. "Kalkriese" style fittings have also been found at sites that predate the "Teutoburg" site, which could suggest that Loricas were used prior to AD 9 (late first century BC). And Kalkriese fittings have also been found in Britain, so that style is believed to have been used there during the early time frame of the invasion (most reenactors use the Corbridge style exclusively). But I wouldnt push the subject here, as far as arguing for the use of Segmentatas in EB 2, they will just shout you down. Trust me, Ive tried.

**Ludens** · 02-13-2009, 16:29

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of pre-Teutoburger LS finds. Can you give us the references?

I think though, that the fact it hasn't been mentioned before goes a long way to explaining why LS tends to get "shouted down". We've had about two dozen discussions on the inclusion of LS already, and this is the first time I hear of these finds. The people who suggest it generally don't do so because of the historical evidence, but because they simply want LS. Frankly, I am tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again, and I guess so is the team.