Quote Originally Posted by ljperreira View Post
Usually these problems would occur due to normal wear and tear....but maintenance includes checking your gear for potential failures. In reference to your "muzzle" failure analogy, you wouldn’t be surprised by something like this if you had inspected your rifle thoroughly, I’m sure the compensator would have been loose (that would be funny though, you would be made the butt of many jokes by the guys for a while). On my Loricas I always check to see if any of the fittings are cracked, if the rivets are loose, if the metal looks stressed, etc. I would sure look foolish when I’m demonstrating Roman armor if the shoulder guards let go and the girdle plats end up around my ankles . But once again, I feel the need to remind you that the Hamata also had copper alloy fittings, such as hinges and what not, that could fail on you in the same way....
There is a big question mark over how much time a legionary had to do these checks, bear in mind that modern gear is in many cases hardier than the ancient equivelant, I believe Dan Peterson was the one who demonstrated that it's quite hard to know when the metal hook-and-eye fitting will fail, rather like the firing pin in your rifle. Unlike said firing pin, which I assume you can replace in under a minute, the armour is not simple to fix. Further, Peterson says that the interaction between iron and copper-alloy increases the rate of corrosion. As far as the hooks etc. on mail go, the shirt itself is all iron except for rivets. Worst case the shoulder-mantle has to be taken off, though you could probably do a quick fix with some boot-thongs.

Further, after dark the legionary would have no effective way to check his gear.

I only say its harder because actually punching the rings out is a very long, tiring, drawn out process. I mean, making chain mail, without riveting and punching out 10,000 rings, is a pain in the ace as it is. And yes, the chain mail as a whole is supposed to be flexible, but the individual rings are not supposed to be flexible, they have to be strong so they don’t bend and break (I’ve seen this happen), and that’s what I’m talking about.
Time and skill are two seperate rings, here we have 5,000 punched and 5,000 rivited rings. Also, the rings do need to be somewhat flexable, because they have to stretch under tension. Otherwise they snap.

Obviously, but whose to say that the examples found are examples of the best craftsmanship? The Segmentata fragments found in the Corbridge hoard have many flaws, and repairs....which may have been the reason why they were buried (disposed of). Maybe "the best" hasn’t been found yet.
I've seen the diagrams of the corbridge hoard, it's a cash of spares. If it were rubbish it would have been melted down or disposed of outside the fort, most likely. It would also have been stripped of all alloy fittings.

Anyhow, as I’ve said before, I also prefer chain mail. I don’t wear chain mail because even if I don’t punch out rings, and I don’t rivet the rest (making the process of Hamata construction much, much, easier), it would still be a whole lot quicker, and easier, and less stressful, to make the Lorica Segmentata, and I have personal experience in making both......and once again, the Segmentata was used for approx 250 years!!! The Romans must have believed the armor was worth keeping around.
Mail is used for upwards of 1,800 years, and the use of LS co-incides with the quietest period in Imperial history when many legionaries never even went on campaign. Proportionally LS is a historically unsuccessful armour which dissapears when the Empire in in turmoil.

Everything I’ve presented on this thread about the Lorica Segmentata has been backed up by well respected sources, and by personal experience making and using both types of armor. If you think that the fittings will randomly explode on you, that the plates would melt to liquid in the hot sun, that your random conjectures on the instability of the Segmentata proves that the archaeological findings are just the pipe dream of some idiotic scientist, so be it. I don’t care anymore. We are just going to go in the same circle as we have been going. My points of interest were: The Segmentata was used as early as 10 bc....the Segmentata was used for 250 years....the Segmentata was actually capable of protecting its wearer. Im not trying to make you like the armor...that I couldnt care less about.
Please, I'm suggesting no such thing. I am simply pointing out that the Segmentata is maintainance heavy, which you have admitted. You have not demonstrated that Legionaries had the time or means to maintain their armour, and you have ignored the fact that making the time would increase their overall workload. The only piece of information you have brought to bear is Mike Bishop's point that some armour was hardened.

This is true of Roman helms and swords as well, but analysis of swords in particular has shown that the gap between the best and worst swordswiths was huge, ranging from high-quality steel blades down to rank incompetance, and all appear to be service weapons.

To deal with your respons to K_raso, he made vallid points about worst case scenario. It is worth pointing out that people have been homping all over with both types of armour, wearing it wor weeks at a time, and that the consensus is that hamata is more reliable and comfortable.

As to the legionaries having armourers following them around, they did all that themselves, part of cutting down the supply train. We also know they had to buy their equipment and irrc LS was more expensive, though finding the citation for that would be hard.

Now, if you want to get into willy-waving, may I point out that I am a postgraduate at the second best university after Oxford in the UK for the study of archaeology, that I have contacts with serious experemental archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that I also have connection to the oldest re-enactedment group in the world, the Ermine Street Guard.

So I think I have some idea what I am talking about.