Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[ljperreira]

To be honest, I too prefer the Lorica Hamata. The only reason why Ive brought up the possible dates when the Segmentata was used is just for educational purposes, and to clear up any misconceptions as far as the dating is concerned. As far as I know, M. C. Bishop is a well respected historian, and a reliable source. But, with all that aside, even if you agree that the Segmentata would have plausibly been used as early as 10 BC, thats only the last 24 years of a 286 year long game. And as a few people have already pointed out, it is a rare thing to still be playing the game at that point. So spending the time and effort on the Segmentata would be a waste.....unless its made specifically for multiplayer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Could you explain your reasoning?

Put simply Segmentata fails some of the most important tests for military procurment.

It is dangerously maintainance heavy, the leather straps and metal fittings are highly prone to breakage, especially in hotter climes. In colder climes the iron bands are vulnerable to rust, which may be why tinned examples have been found; tinned armour would be must more expensive though.

In terms of raw materials hamata is cheaper because it uses much less copper, and no tin. Although segmented armour is quicker to make it requires a greater degree of skill, because forming iron lames is difficult to do without properly smelting the iron.

These problems mean that the protective benefit vs other forms of armour is dubious at best, and non-existant or negative at worst.

The two areas this armour wins out are in weight or against blunt trauma. For this reason it has been proposed as equipment for artillery crews, who saw little hand-to hand combat, but were vulnerable to breakage in their machines (flying ballista arms etc.).

[ljperreira]

Put simply Segmentata fails some of the most important tests for military procurment.

It is dangerously maintainance heavy, the leather straps and metal fittings are highly prone to breakage, especially in hotter climes. In colder climes the iron bands are vulnerable to rust, which may be why tinned examples have been found; tinned armour would be must more expensive though.

In terms of raw materials hamata is cheaper because it uses much less copper, and no tin. Although segmented armour is quicker to make it requires a greater degree of skill, because forming iron lames is difficult to do without properly smelting the iron.

These problems mean that the protective benefit vs other forms of armour is dubious at best, and non-existant or negative at worst.

The two areas this armour wins out are in weight or against blunt trauma. For this reason it has been proposed as equipment for artillery crews, who saw little hand-to hand combat, but were vulnerable to breakage in their machines (flying ballista arms etc.).

I would like to point out a few things that may make a bit of difference....

1. Maintainence: The iron in the hamata (chain mail) would be just as prone to rust as the iron in the Segmentata in colder climates, wouldnt you say? As disciplined as the Legionaries were I wouldnt be surprised if they cleaned and maintained their armour and weapons a couple times a day, just like we do in the modern military.
The fittings can, and did break (as seen in the "Corbridge hoard"), but the Hamata also used copper alloy fittings to hold the shoulder doubling to the shirt, as well as together in front. Also, remember that the cuirass is the 3rd line of defense for the Legionary. The first is his Gladius, the second is his shield. The idea is not to let the enemy get past these defenses. The fittings are not so bad as to break upon first usage. Ive worn and "fought" in my Segmentata and have not had a problem yet.

2. Skill and Cost: Once again, after actually making 3 Segmentatas, and attempting to make a riveted Hamata that contains approx. 10,000 rings (and quitting out of sheer boredom and frustration), the LABOR involved is considerately less with the Segmentata (though the fittings can be a pain in the Ace). I make both armours completely by hand (hand made fittings, hand cut and shaped plates, etc). When I want to make a Segmentata, I visit my local Steel supplier and buy a sheet of cold rolled 18g steel. For the Hamata, I usually but a roll of 14g steel wire (or Galvanized wire, using vinegar to remove the gavanization). In ancient times, wire was made by drawing iron through a draw plate, a labor intensive and time consuming process in its own right. Then of course there comes the coiling to make rings, annealing the iron, riveting and welding the rings shut, and so on (once again, 10,000 or more rings). Plate iron was made by heating and hammering flat a piece of iron into plates, then trimming and shaping, annealing as you go. As far as skill goes, theres required quite a bit to be able to rivet 16g or 14g rings that have an inner diameter of 3/8". There is no skill required to anneal, you just heat the metal until its just red hot, then allow the metal to slowly cool. As far as cost goes, both armours require a certain amount of iron, both require a copper alloy for fittings (though the Segmentata requires more), but the Hamata is much more time consuming and labor intensive. So, I think they would both equal out in the end.

3. Protection: We can go on all day about which one would protect you better, it would just be a matter of opinion. But the Segmentata was used from 9 BC to the late 3rd century AD. Thats approx. 250 years. There must have been some benifit to using it.

Who claimed that the Lorica was only used by Artillery? And what eveidence is there to support this?

[antisocialmunky]

It is theorized that the shoulder guards are designed to reduce kick if the soldier is hit by the torsion arm of a ballistae. I can't cite it for you but it came up in another LS topic.

[ljperreira]

It is theorized that the shoulder guards are designed to reduce kick if the soldier is hit by the torsion arm of a ballistae. I can't cite it for you but it came up in another LS topic.

If only members of the artillery sections used the Lorica Segmentata, then why does Trajan's column and a multitude of other similar monuments show the common infantryman wearing it? Besides archaeology and period writings, art is very important to tying the pieces together, and cannot be excluded as a source.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm just repeating what I heard.

[Elmetiacos]

Why are people obsessed with lorica segmentata? I just don't understand.

[Macilrille]

Because,
1. It looks cool.
2. It is the "image" or "brand" ingrained in us from childhood when we think Roman legionaire.

[ljperreira]

Why are people obsessed with lorica segmentata? I just don't understand.

I would suggest reading all the above posts before commenting, because you would find the answer to that question.
At this point we are not debating on wether the Segmentata should be used in the game, because its already been established, quite a few times, that the usage would only be at the last 24 years or so of the game, and therefore pointless to add in. What we are discussing is when the Segmentata would have been used, and by whom. This is such a hot subject because neither is known for certain.

What I dont understand is when someone doesnt like the direction a thread is going, why they feel the need to express this. If you dont like the topic, then move on. You dont have to read it, you can just find something else to read. I felt that an we were having an intellectual conversation, and youre comments added nothing to this. Of course I cant tell you not to post....on the other hand, why a topic starts like this when there are so many threads covering the same thing (including the FAQ), ill never know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would like to point out a few things that may make a bit of difference....

1. Maintainence: The iron in the hamata (chain mail) would be just as prone to rust as the iron in the Segmentata in colder climates, wouldnt you say? As disciplined as the Legionaries were I wouldnt be surprised if they cleaned and maintained their armour and weapons a couple times a day, just like we do in the modern military.
The fittings can, and did break (as seen in the "Corbridge hoard"), but the Hamata also used copper alloy fittings to hold the shoulder doubling to the shirt, as well as together in front. Also, remember that the cuirass is the 3rd line of defense for the Legionary. The first is his Gladius, the second is his shield. The idea is not to let the enemy get past these defenses. The fittings are not so bad as to break upon first usage. Ive worn and "fought" in my Segmentata and have not had a problem yet.

2. Skill and Cost: Once again, after actually making 3 Segmentatas, and attempting to make a riveted Hamata that contains approx. 10,000 rings (and quitting out of sheer boredom and frustration), the LABOR involved is considerately less with the Segmentata (though the fittings can be a pain in the Ace). I make both armours completely by hand (hand made fittings, hand cut and shaped plates, etc). When I want to make a Segmentata, I visit my local Steel supplier and buy a sheet of cold rolled 18g steel. For the Hamata, I usually but a roll of 14g steel wire (or Galvanized wire, using vinegar to remove the gavanization). In ancient times, wire was made by drawing iron through a draw plate, a labor intensive and time consuming process in its own right. Then of course there comes the coiling to make rings, annealing the iron, riveting and welding the rings shut, and so on (once again, 10,000 or more rings). Plate iron was made by heating and hammering flat a piece of iron into plates, then trimming and shaping, annealing as you go. As far as skill goes, theres required quite a bit to be able to rivet 16g or 14g rings that have an inner diameter of 3/8". There is no skill required to anneal, you just heat the metal until its just red hot, then allow the metal to slowly cool. As far as cost goes, both armours require a certain amount of iron, both require a copper alloy for fittings (though the Segmentata requires more), but the Hamata is much more time consuming and labor intensive. So, I think they would both equal out in the end.

3. Protection: We can go on all day about which one would protect you better, it would just be a matter of opinion. But the Segmentata was used from 9 BC to the late 3rd century AD. Thats approx. 250 years. There must have been some benifit to using it.

Who claimed that the Lorica was only used by Artillery? And what eveidence is there to support this?

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.

[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.....

[lobf]

So your buddy made some armor, and you deduce that no Roman could have made anything better?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

We are talking about sudden catastrophic failure of metal fittings, it's like the muzzle falling off your rifle without warning. It's the equivelant of your kevlar vest ripping when you go to put it on, or the buckles cracking on your belt kit.

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.

It is easier, the same way scale is easier to make than plate. The smaller the piece the better the quality control. Also, with mail you are looking for greater flexibility, rather than just hardness.

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.....

Well, when the doctoral thesis is published we can both read it, until then I take him at his word. One thing he did was shot the girdle hoops full of holes with a Parthian bow, results not impressive.

More to the point, quality control accross the Empire does not seem to have been consistant, the best LS does not necessarily reflect the norm. Overall, mail seems to have been easier to get right.

[-Praetor-]

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.

Perhaps the Legionaires didn't had the time to maintain their segmentata on a daily basis. You are comparing normal service conditions with campaign conditions. In campaign one does not control the time, and the soldier may not have the conditions to give the segmentata its 100 hour check, let alone repair it. It was highly probable that in highly stressfull conditions (when the armour was needed the most) the legionary was too busy marching at forced pace, setting up camp, on guard duty, patrolling, pursuing defeated enemies, being pursued in turn, etc. In periods when the armour was most needed such as the climax of a campaign, you most probably didn't had the time to service your segmentata, and just had to trust to Mars that it didn't fall off while putting it during an ambush, or in the middle of a combat.

You can use a hamata for days or weeks without fear of it falling apart, you can march for several days and be in combat conditions for weeks and you can be confident that half your armour won't fall off because some fatigued leather strips cut themselves from over use.

It's not a matter of being diligent or not, it was a matter of battlefield conditions. In garrison duty, with all the logistical equipment requiered to service it, the segmentata rules. In a war of movement, it definitively doesn't.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So your buddy made some armor, and you deduce that no Roman could have made anything better?

oh, Lobf. you are half the reason I read the EB and EB 2 forums....

[Megas Methuselah]

In garrison duty, with all the logistical equipment requiered to service it, the segmentata rules. In a war of movement, it definitively doesn't.

Wow, a bit of an over-statement there.

[ljperreira]

We are talking about sudden catastrophic failure of metal fittings, it's like the muzzle falling off your rifle without warning. It's the equivelant of your kevlar vest ripping when you go to put it on, or the buckles cracking on your belt kit.

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....

It is easier, the same way scale is easier to make than plate. The smaller the piece the better the quality control. Also, with mail you are looking for greater flexibility, rather than just hardness.

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.

More to the point, quality control accross the Empire does not seem to have been consistant, the best LS does not necessarily reflect the norm. Overall, mail seems to have been easier to get right.

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.

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.

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.

[satalexton]

...~_~a just face it mate, LS will NEVER make it's way into EB2

[ljperreira]

Perhaps the Legionaires didn't had the time to maintain their segmentata on a daily basis. You are comparing normal service conditions with campaign conditions. In campaign one does not control the time, and the soldier may not have the conditions to give the segmentata its 100 hour check, let alone repair it. It was highly probable that in highly stressfull conditions (when the armour was needed the most) the legionary was too busy marching at forced pace, setting up camp, on guard duty, patrolling, pursuing defeated enemies, being pursued in turn, etc. In periods when the armour was most needed such as the climax of a campaign, you most probably didn't had the time to service your segmentata, and just had to trust to Mars that it didn't fall off while putting it during an ambush, or in the middle of a combat.

You can use a hamata for days or weeks without fear of it falling apart, you can march for several days and be in combat conditions for weeks and you can be confident that half your armour won't fall off because some fatigued leather strips cut themselves from over use.

It's not a matter of being diligent or not, it was a matter of battlefield conditions. In garrison duty, with all the logistical equipment requiered to service it, the segmentata rules. In a war of movement, it definitively doesn't.

Ok, this is what I’m talking about. Nothing in this post refers to facts. Everything stated is complete conjecture. Are you going to have me believe that you’ve taken both armors on campaign??!! You’ve ranged, on foot and in armor, the highways and byways of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Britain, and wherever the heck else just to come back here and tell me with complete certainty that the Lorica Segmentata is complete junk? Because that’s the only way you’re going to convince me you know what you’re talking about. How do you know, or I know, how the Romans dealt with broken armor and equipment in the field? Do you have any evidence that the Legionaries didn’t have any time to repair the equipment, or that they didn't have armorers following the Legions? Because what could go wrong with the Segmentata could also go wrong with your Balteus, your caligae, a saddle, your helmet, your gladius, and whatever else you can throw in. And I can go on all day with "what ifs".....but it doesn’t prove anything, its facts we are striving for. The fact is, you, and others, don’t like the Segmentata because you believe its just Hollywood mumbo jumbo. But, according to historians and archaeologists, the armor was actually used, and for a good stretch of time. If you don’t like that, then that’s on you.

[Mediolanicus]

Ok, this is what I’m talking about. Nothing in this post refers to facts. Everything stated is complete conjecture. Are you going to have me believe that you’ve taken both armors on campaign??!! You’ve ranged, on foot and in armor, the highways and byways of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Britain, and wherever the heck else just to come back here and tell me with complete certainty that the Lorica Segmentata is complete junk? Because that’s the only way you’re going to convince me you know what you’re talking about. How do you know, or I know, how the Romans dealt with broken armor and equipment in the field? Do you have any evidence that the Legionaries didn’t have any time to repair the equipment, or that they didn't have armorers following the Legions? Because what could go wrong with the Segmentata could also go wrong with your Balteus, your caligae, a saddle, your helmet, your gladius, and whatever else you can throw in. And I can go on all day with "what ifs".....but it doesn’t prove anything, its facts we are striving for. The fact is, you, and others, don’t like the Segmentata because you believe its just Hollywood mumbo jumbo. But, according to historians and archaeologists, the armor was actually used, and for a good stretch of time. If you don’t like that, then that’s on you.

IIRC this is true.

But those same historians and archaeologists also conclude that segmentata never was the prevalent armor type on the Roman battle field AFAIK.

[ray243]

IIRC this is true.

But those same historians and archaeologists also conclude that segmentata never was the prevalent armor type on the Roman battle field AFAIK.

However, I thought that Trajan's column basically give us the impression that the Segmentata is a ideal armour that Romans wore? That is represent the ideal armour for the Roman army?

[Ludens]

However, I thought that Trajan's column basically give us the impression that the Segmentata is a ideal armour that Romans wore? That is represent the ideal armour for the Roman army?

Ideal? Not necessarily. Presumably, the artist used LS to better distinguish the legionaries from the auxiliaries. On the Adamclissi Meteopes, which celebrate the same campaign, many legionaries also use chain mail.

Thanks for the answers, PVC and ljperreira.

[ljperreira]

As far as I know its impossible at this time to say how many Legionaries used the armor, or who specifically used it. There is some evidence that Legionaries were required to buy their own kit (weapons, armor, and accoutrements), the money being deducted from their pay. If this is true, then the Legionary may have had to choose between the Hamata, Squamata, and Segmentata. Maybe, because the Segmentata was easier to make, it was cheaper to buy, and therefore some penny pinching Legionaries bought it for that reason. Who knows? We can theorize all day but we will only know for sure when definite evidence is found, until then.......

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't worry guys, once EBIII for ETW is made, the unlimited unit creation will allow every single possible unit to be created, including LS soldiers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

I appreciate you guys posting all this knowledge and continuing another LS debate. Its really informative to those of us who only see the monthly LS request threads.

[ljperreira]

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.

I haven’t because it would be total conjecture on my part, something I try to avoid. As to "workload", I’m sorry to compare to the modern military, but today most commanders couldn’t care less how long the job took, as long as it got done (at least that goes for the Marine Corps, I cant speak for any of the other branches).

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.

Once again, his points were pure conjecture, without sources or references, its hard for me to take that seriously.

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.

Then why mention it? If you can't cite references then its pointless. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I cant just believe something based on the fact that you said it....

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.

Umm, ok, good for you. This doesn’t change a thing. And, who’s "willy-waving" (whatever the heck that means)? Did I brag or mention anything about myself? All I’m saying is that, like every other type of academic study, you cant present what you call fact without citing sources. Trust me, I would be more willing to take you for your word if you gave me sources.....

Wait a minute!!! Deosn't the Ermine Street Guard use the Lorica Segmentata?!

[Ludens]

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.

This doesn't exactly convince me you are right.

[Pontius Pilate]

I think this is because (at least in the U.S.) alot of people are of British decent, and have no interest in reenacting anything that has nothing to do with Britain (my brother-in-law is Scottish and he's like that).

um, what? is there any evidence to back this up?

[ljperreira]

Well, its just one possible reason why the majority of Roman Legion reenacting groups wear the Lorica Segmentata, and portray the invasion of Britain in 43 AD. Ive spoken to many people in the process of trying to recruit for Legio XXI, and many of them lose interest when I tell them weve decided to portray Legionaries stationed in Germany, and not Britain. This goes for other types of Living History stuff that ive done as well (such as Medieval). Not everyone is like this, of course. I usually hesitate on participating in anything thats not related to Portuguese or American history myself, so I understand where theyre coming from.