Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[geala]

Hehe, another segmentata discussion, and a very good one imho with useful information without too much ira et studio. Thank you.

My opinion to segmentata in EB: not at all worth the effort because of the invention in the late 1st c. BC.

My opinion to segmentata in general: an armor which offered very good protection superior to mail and scale and at the same time had acceptable comfort. So here I'm more with ljperreira.

I'm not a specialist for the Roman time (ok, I'm not a specialist for anything ) and I don't reenact Roman soldiers (I reenact Greek soldiers) but I have some connections to Roman reenactors. The argument about the comfort comes from reenactors I know who wear the armor quite often.

As far as I know there are many findings of segmentata pieces spread over the whole Roman world, more than for mail (which is coincidence and has nothing to say). The conclusion is allowed at least that it was an often used armor in a certain timeframe.

It was the time in which the Roman army was in its most professional state and the Roman empire was economically and politically very strong. They didn't have to survive desperate wars and so had time, funds, resources and leisure to invest in the best for their heavy battle infantry. Later on that changed and simpler but still good armor was used again. That was often the same in later time, the very best for the individual was only used in certain circumstances.

I'm not of the opinion that segmentata offered worse protection compared to mail. That rigid armor is superior against blunt trauma is self explaining. Even with padded backing mail is clearly worse. Mail can also catch spikes and can be penetrated more easily. One of plates greatest benefits is the deflection of weapons points. I don't think that the physics of armor changed so much from antiquity to the medieval times. Why if mail was so superior or sufficient in itself did the medieval warriors adopt additional rigid defences from the 12th c. onwards? Defences which by the way looked first very similar to Roman segmented plate armor. Why did warriors who could afford it and were in the thick of the fray wear more and more plate defences in the later middle ages and no longer padded mail? Because plate is lighter and offers better protection and is in some aspects more comfortable to wear compared to heavily padded mail. The great advantages of mail were the unrestricted movement and the relatively simple (although time consuming) manner of fabrication. Mail is a very good armor. But for heavy battle infantry (and cavalry) a plate armor may be better in some aspects.

So my conclusion is that the Romans were no fools when they developed the segmented plate armor and used it as long as the material and political circumstances allowed.