Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[ljperreira]

1. Actually, Mail is semi-self cleaning, because the rings rubbing together removes much of the rust, especially if you keep it oiled. You say you have "worn and fought" in your armour, have you passed the 100 hour mark yet? That is usually breakage point. We haven't even covered the problems with the leather breakages, not to mention field repair of combat damage.

2. You've missed the most important part, the 18g steel plate you bought. Actually making that plate consitantly , to 1/30", is a highly skilled job, hammering it and maintaining the quality is also difficult. Doing the same with modern-high quality steel is easy by comparison. The Rings in Hamata are also not all wire, closed rings in this period were made out of small hammered plates using a type of hole punch, a very simple job.

3. Actually, it is no longer a matter of opinion, a friend of mine forged the lames and made the mail, as the Romans did. The lames were considerably weaker, because they are so thin and iron is so poor.

1. Yes, you are correct about the mail being semi self-cleaning. But if the Legionaries are maintaining their Segmentata on a daily basis, like we do with our rifles and gear today, then there shouldnt be a problem.

2. The closed rings of the period were not only made by punching plate, but were also made using wire, then forge welding the ends. And as far as punching the rings being easy...you would have to hammer flat the same iron which was used in the Segmentata...which you said yourself was not an easy task, and then punching out approx. 5,000-8,000 rings. I dont call that easy at all. Also, some theorize that an amourer at the time would not have made his own sheet metal, that he would have bought the sheets premade in certain thicknesses like we do today.

3. As far as the iron being "so thin" and "so poor"....in no. 2 above you state that the plates are 1/30". Thats approx. 20 gauge. If you used this throughout the whole armour, then yes, it would be too thin. But, I'll let Mr. M. C. Bishop do the talking (again, from "Lorica Segmentata, Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour"). In reference to the quality of the iron: "Although it was long thought that the Roman army did not know how to form steel, or that where it did occur it did so accidentally, work by Dr. David Sim has shown that this was not the case and that deliberate hardening of the plates of lorica segmentata was regularly accomplished, so that it was closer to a modern mild steel that wrought iron and the term 'steely iron' may be more appropriate to describe it. The sheet metal was apparently deliberately produced with harder perlite on the outside, softer ferrite on the inside."
(chapter 9, paragraph 2)
and in the next chapter, in reference to the thickness: "Due to the fact that most lorica segmentata plates that are excavated are heavily corroded and can yield little by way of useful information on their original thickness, the occasional discoveries of uncorroded pieces (particularly from waterlogged deposits) are especially valuable. From these, it can be determined that the thickness of the ferrous plate used varied according to its position in the cuirass. Plates at the top, particularly those on the shoulders, seem invariably to have been thicker (1mm or more) than those employed on the girth hoops (around 0.7mm), presumably reflecting the perception of threat on the part of the armourers. The one likely example of a Kalkriese-type upper shoulder guard in fact shows a thickness closer to 3mm"

So the shoulder guards and breast/back plates should be 18 gauge or more, and the torso or girdle plates should be approx. 20 gauge.

With that being said, I think that your "friend" didnt take into consideration that the plates werent all 20 guage, and that the Romans had a way of hardening their metal that he/she wasnt aware of.....