Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?? We are not discussing why they didnt invent something new, we are discussing why they used the Segmentata when there was perfectly good technologies already available, called the Hamata and Squamata. So its about existing technologies, not advancing technologies. And, may I remind you that there was technological advances at this time, though they may be considered small in comparison to today. In reference to the Segmentata specifically, the earliest form is known today as the Kalkriese type A Lorica, followed by the Kalkriese type B, the Corbridge types A and B, and the Newstead version (and of course others we may not know about yet). Each Segmentata is a vast improvement over the last. So the 250 year statement does apply, because for 250 years the Segmentata was used when, as I said above, there already was versions of armor that some feel was superior to the Segmentata. The discussion here is why they used the Segmentata for 250 years when there was other technologies available, amongst other things.

Sorry, how is Newstead an improvement? Dan Peterson, who knows more about putting soldiers in armour than anyone else, pointed out about 10-15 years ago that Newstead is inferior in very way save speed of construction.

Also, Zak, thoughts on the maintainance arguement?

[Zaknafien]

I definately agree that soldiers will do the bare minimum they can get away with. Squad, section, and platoon leaders arent omnipotent nor omnipresent, and many of them as well are also as lazy as the next guy (or girl, as we are all human). I personally find my military experience has given me great insight to the armies of the past, especially in the way we analyze archaelogical finds. From the way the military is portrayed in media and film, any of us who have served know that there are numerous errors, some of them glaring. Imagine, if you will, that archaeologists 2,000 years from now salvage a DVD movie of our western militaries and use that as part of their evidence for a book or something. Also, in Iraq today we are using 4 different sets of personal body armor. They all look very similar to the untrained eye, and an unbiased observer might think they are the same thing.

P.S--VT Marvin-- Thanks for the well wishes, its great to be back. And sadly no, I probably wont be continuing any AARs..maybe until EB II at least.

[ljperreira]

Sorry, how is Newstead an improvement? Dan Peterson, who knows more about putting soldiers in armour than anyone else, pointed out about 10-15 years ago that Newstead is inferior in very way save speed of construction.

Also, Zak, thoughts on the maintainance arguement?

As we have mentioned above the Segmentata's weakness is its fittings. The Newstead Lorica solves this problem to a degree by making larger and stronger fittings, as well as getting rid of the reliance on leather straps. The breast and back plates, as well as the girdle plates, overlap each other and "lock" into place using stronger cast lacing loops. To some this makes the Newstead version a better Segmentata, to others maybe not, its just a matter of opinion. You can read more about the Newstead at the Legio XX site.

I definately agree that soldiers will do the bare minimum they can get away with. Squad, section, and platoon leaders arent omnipotent nor omnipresent, and many of them as well are also as lazy as the next guy (or girl, as we are all human).

It depends on the unit, or branch of service. If you belong to a rabble, an undisciplined group of wannabes who just signed up for the benefits, then I would agree with you. But if you join an organization that takes its job seriously, and doesn’t tolerate laziness or sloth, then you’re dead wrong. My experience in the Marine Corps taught me that if squad leaders were not omnipotent, then they were pretty darn close. Of course, you always have that 10%, as we used to say, but those guys were always pulling the shite details, so to speak. I would like to think that the Legionaries constituted the more disciplined classification, but that’s just my opinion, and couldn’t be proven or disproven without traveling back in time.....

Also, in Iraq today we are using 4 different sets of personal body armor. They all look very similar to the untrained eye, and an unbiased observer might think they are the same thing.

I agree, I dont believe all Roman Legionaries used the same type of armor (anyways, I think that what you are trying to say). As I mentioned above there is some evidence that the individual Legionary had to purchase his own armor and equipment, so it would make since that he would choose whatever he was willing to pay for (and how fancy the decorations were). This is why most Roman legion reenacting groups encourage a bit of variety, and why at some archaeolgical sites both the Segmentata and Hamata are found.

[Ludens]

It depends on the unit, or branch of service. If you belong to a rabble, an undisciplined group of wannabes who just signed up for the benefits, then I would agree with you. But if you join an organization that takes its job seriously, and doesn’t tolerate laziness or sloth, then you’re dead wrong. My experience in the Marine Corps taught me that if squad leaders were not omnipotent, then they were pretty darn close. Of course, you always have that 10%, as we used to say, but those guys were always pulling the shite details, so to speak. I would like to think that the Legionaries constituted the more disciplined classification, but that’s just my opinion, and couldn’t be proven or disproven without traveling back in time.....

The marines are something of an elite unit, while your average legionary was just a salaried grunt, so I am not sure if they are comparable. For example, in "In the Name of Rome", Goldsworthy writes that when Corbulo was preparing for his Armenian campaign, he found that some of his legionaries had actually sold their armour. That does not speak of a high regard for their equipment. IIRC the Eastern provinces were considered as easy spots, so this may not be representative. But the degree of combat readiness probably varied over time and space.

[antisocialmunky]

The marines are something of an elite unit, while your average legionary was just a salaried grunt, so I am not sure if they are comparable. For example, in "In the Name of Rome", Goldsworthy writes that when Corbulo was preparing for his Armenian campaign, he found that some of his legionaries had actually sold their armour. That does not speak of a high regard for their equipment. IIRC the Eastern provinces were considered as easy spots, so this may not be representative. But the degree of combat readiness probably varied over time and space.

That's not too different from what happened in the Chechnyan war where there were instances of Russian troops selling weapons and armor to the enemy for food.

And the armor thing reminds me of the Battle of Adrianople where some of the legionaires elected to go into battle without their armor thinking it would be an easy win.

[ljperreira]

For example, in "In the Name of Rome", Goldsworthy writes that when Corbulo was preparing for his Armenian campaign, he found that some of his legionaries had actually sold their armour. That does not speak of a high regard for their equipment. IIRC the Eastern provinces were considered as easy spots, so this may not be representative. But the degree of combat readiness probably varied over time and space.

I applaud you’re use of references. I have Goldworthy's "The Complete Roman Army", but I haven’t read "In the Name of Rome". I’ve read the review and now this book is next on my reading list.

The Legionaries selling their armor is funny to me. It reminds me of the movie "Heartbreak Ridge" where Stitch Jones sells his Kevlar helmet (or loses it, I cant remember) and shows up with an old steel pot helmet. I can only imagine what type of trouble those Legionaries got into when Corbulo found out.....

A thought struck me today as I took a lunch break at work. There are many monuments, carvings, what not that show the Lorica Segmentata, such as Trajan's Column (of course). I agree that the Legionaries were probably all portrayed with the Segmentata so that the non-military civilian type can tell the difference between Legionary and Auxilia units. But herein lies the key.....the common populace must have known what a Segmentata was, in order for them to be able to recognize the Legionary wearing it. Sort of like today when an Armored car company paints a knight in armor on the side of the truck. It is recognizable enough for even those who haven’t seen real medieval armor to appreciate its meaning. An armor that was not worn, or unpopular, would not have garnered so much respect....anyways, its just a thought.

Once again, I don’t believe the Segmentata should be included into the campaign mode of EBII. But, with this being said, I wish I knew how to mod my own game (not enough time and too lazy to learn ). Why has nobody made a game for Rome from, say, 20 AD-220 AD? With the wars in Germania, the invasion of Britain, and so on, I think this would be fun to do. Yes, this is a bit off topic, but would cure EB's Segmentata woes.....

[Ludens]

I applaud you’re use of references. I have Goldworthy's "The Complete Roman Army", but I haven’t read "In the Name of Rome". I’ve read the review and now this book is next on my reading list.

Well, it's more popular history than real history, but I found it a good introduction to the subject.

An armor that was not worn, or unpopular, would not have garnered so much respect....anyways, its just a thought.

Absolutely. It must have been associated with legionaries, and uniquely with legionaries, for it to be displayed as such. But that doesn't really tell us much. For all we know, LS was the preferred armour on the parade ground, but was only used for specialized duty on the battlefield.

Why has nobody made a game for Rome from, say, 20 AD-220 AD? With the wars in Germania, the invasion of Britain, and so on, I think this would be fun to do.

Because it falls between the two most exciting periods of Rome's history? That said, didn't Roma Surrectum or Res Bellicae cover this period?

Don't worry about the LS. Someone will make an unofficial submod for it soon enough.

[Zaknafien]

It depends on the unit, or branch of service. If you belong to a rabble, an undisciplined group of wannabes who just signed up for the benefits, then I would agree with you. But if you join an organization that takes its job seriously, and doesn’t tolerate laziness or sloth, then you’re dead wrong. My experience in the Marine Corps taught me that if squad leaders were not omnipotent, then they were pretty darn close. Of course, you always have that 10%, as we used to say, but those guys were always pulling the shite details, so to speak. I would like to think that the Legionaries constituted the more disciplined classification, but that’s just my opinion, and couldn’t be proven or disproven without traveling back in time.....

i do not buy this at all. the USMC is just like any other infantry outfit. The Rangers are the same. Special forces guys are even worse. People are people no matter where you go. The USMC is full of stupid teenage kids just like the 10th Mountain division and the 3rd Ranger BN. Im not knocking the Marines, Im saying the propaganda of elite units is usually not all its cracked up to be.

[ljperreira]

i do not buy this at all. the USMC is just like any other infantry outfit. The Rangers are the same. Special forces guys are even worse. People are people no matter where you go. The USMC is full of stupid teenage kids just like the 10th Mountain division and the 3rd Ranger BN. Im not knocking the Marines, Im saying the propaganda of elite units is usually not all its cracked up to be.

I dont appreciate being called a liar. I served as an infantryman in the Marine Corps, and I figure the guys I served with are anything but stupid. All you have to do is read a little history of the Corps, and you will see that your offensive words are hollow. I am not a recruiter, so I have no reason to spread propoganda. If you have some facts to share about the Lorica Segmentata, or any other related Roman armor, then share it. But I will have to ask you to abstain from insulting the Marine Corps and the men I served with.

[Zaknafien]

im not denigrating the Corps. Im pointing out the historic truth that propaganda is usually greatly exaggerated or simply outright untrue. Of course the history of the Corps is glorious, it was written by us. Same thing as the history of WWII for example which leaves out all the bad parts. History is subjective, human nature is not. And certainly you do have a reason to spread propaganda, you were a member of a a small group of people, and it is in your intrests to defend them as unique and special. You're not the only veteran here though, by any means. The point of this, is that popular histories are most often incorrect, and anything that most people believe is usually a lie.

[antisocialmunky]

i do not buy this at all. the USMC is just like any other infantry outfit. The Rangers are the same. Special forces guys are even worse. People are people no matter where you go. The USMC is full of stupid teenage kids just like the 10th Mountain division and the 3rd Ranger BN. Im not knocking the Marines, Im saying the propaganda of elite units is usually not all its cracked up to be.

I understand what you're saying... However, for you own sake I'm not sure what your first language is but any point you were trying to make is overshadowed by the tone of your statement. Most United States military personel are not teenagers nor particularly intellegence deficit. According from censuses conducted during this decade: The average age for the Marines is 19. The average age of Army members is 28. The average age for Rangers is 24. The average military member has atleast one child.

Take into account the fact that many of the younger guys are there so they can get an education and you can probably see why some people would see your remarks as incendary and baseless. Especially if it were someone like the child of a 30-year-old man currently on active duty.

[Ludens]

I understand what you're saying... However, for you own sake I'm not sure what your first language is but any point you were trying to make is overshadowed by the tone of your statement. No matter how many times I read it comes over as highly disrespectful. :-\

I second that. It's irrelevant and borderline offensive. Stick to the subject of discussion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I dont appreciate being called a liar. I served as an infantryman in the Marine Corps, and I figure the guys I served with are anything but stupid. All you have to do is read a little history of the Corps, and you will see that your offensive words are hollow. I am not a recruiter, so I have no reason to spread propoganda. If you have some facts to share about the Lorica Segmentata, or any other related Roman armor, then share it. But I will have to ask you to abstain from insulting the Marine Corps and the men I served with.

I resnt your tone, I did not compalin when you denegrated every other infantryman in the world as "lazy" and only out "for the benefits".

Both Zak and I have made the same point, that the soldier will do the bear minimum to stop himself getting killed.. This is not being "lazy" it is conserving evergy, not to mention the oil and flannel used to clean you weapon, whatever you use to waterproof your boots etc.

I have known soldiers who have found ways of doing very little work in the field, some of those tricks are very clever, all save time and energy and none are "lazy" or stupid".

Further, I have known soldiers to spend an extra $200 on a reliable pair of boots (i.e. German) that they know do not need as much TLC as the British pattern.

My arguement, therefore, is that if LS is maintainance heavy, and mail is not, LS is unlikely to be especially popular, particually if it is more expensive. On the other hand, you have effectivel made another point about LS. The armour's high mainainance requirements would keep soldiers occupied in barracks.

[ljperreira]

I resnt your tone, I did not compalin when you denegrated every other infantryman in the world as "lazy" and only out "for the benefits".

My arguement, therefore, is that if LS is maintainance heavy, and mail is not, LS is unlikely to be especially popular, particually if it is more expensive. On the other hand, you have effectivel made another point about LS. The armour's high mainainance requirements would keep soldiers occupied in barracks.

I would ask that you re-read that post. I have not "denigrated every other infantryman in the world", as a matter of fact, I didn’t even specify any soldiers in particular. All I said was that IF you belong to a rabble, and so on, then I would agree. Its up to you to decide if the shoe fits.
Also, my tone was in response to "Zaknafien" specifically targeting me (in effect calling me a propagandist and a liar), the service in which I served, and the men that I served with. Also, I didnt call anyone stupid, those were Zaknafien's words.

As far as how unpopular, or high maintenance, the LS was, or as to the maintenance schedule of the Legionaries (or lack thereof), I will once again ask you to provide proof in the form of sources or references. And no, your own merits regarding education and your connections dont count, unless youve written a book that I can quote. As I’ve said before, if you intend for me to take you seriously, prove your points with evidence!

My only objective on this topic was to point out that the Romans themselves didn’t consider the LS as pure junk. That it was used a bit longer than most believed. And that the LS made a good armor for the time, even though we all know that chain mail won out in the long run (the reasons we can only guess at). I guess what I’m trying to get at is it doesn’t matter what we think about the Segmentata. Our opinions as to whether the Armor is ugly, or useful, or too high maintenance, or easy to maintain, or what not, has no bearing on history. The only opinions that matter concerning the LS is the opinion of the Legionaries and Legion commanders. The length of time the Segmentata was used, the decent amount of archaeological evidence concerning its use, and the artwork of the time specifically showing Legionaries wearing the armor (almost exclusively), leads me to believe that the general outlook on the Lorica Segmentata by the Romans themselves was favorable.....

But, with that said, I will be happy to continue debating this. So my next statement, or argument, is this: The Legionary helmet (i own a reproduction Gallic type C, which I consider one of the most beautiful helmets of its period) is made of the same iron as the LS would have been made from......so, to make a long story short, if its good enough for your head, then why not for your torso, since its less likely to get hit than your head......

[geala]

When Zaknafien called many members of the USMC and other forces "stupid teenagers" that is no insult imho, at least not for the units mentioned. It just points to the fact that most teenagers are "stupid" in some sense (no other way possible) and the teenagers in the USMC are surely no exception. I remember we were also more or less "stupid teenagers" during our service time. BTW when I read too much about elite forces superhuman deeds I always imagine one attack (units and nations are of no importance here) of the *insert certain elite commando force* in Greece on a *x-country* staff which was repelled by the stunned typewriter guys and cleaning personal. I'm still waiting for a movie about it.

But in my opinion this even backs up ljperreiras arguments about LS: if even elite unit personal is lazy and negligent like normal soldiers but both often managed to care for their equipment and did their job with it (and they did and do also now) than surely also the Roman soldiers -elite or not- (who have specialised armour and weapons smiths to their aid) were able to care for their LS, even under sometimes bad light conditions.

So I still think, LS was more or less a successful and protective armour (if though hard to maintain) in a period of a strong and wealthy state without wars which endangers the mere existence of the state.

To the helmet argument: there were/are not exactly the same requirements. You have to be able to move with the body and the more restriction the worse. Movement of the head is different. The head is also only bone and soft armour not nearly as capable to protect compared to hard armour. Beside the weigth it does not really matter wether the helmet is rigid or soft. On the body this matters. Mail does not hinder your movement (except from it's extraordinary weight), a great advantage. Nevertheless a rigid body defence has some great merits, too.

I get the feeling when I try a -crude- overview over armour history that the most professional soldiers, if they could afford and had the choice, more or less tended to go to rigid defences to back up or replace soft defences like mail or scale. This is relatively clear for the medieval period, a time from which we have much better informations than from antiquity. This alone makes me more a supporter of LS.