Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
If the camp was attacked in the night, then the Roman soldiers would have plenty of time to put on their armor - given that the camps, even in the field, were well fortified and there was ALWAYS a night watch, and usually cavalry patrols as well.
A good point but the fact remains that if the camp could not be defended then the pallisade could be breached relatively quickly and if it takes three minutes to get suited up rather than just under two thats an issue.

Segmentata is hardly loud, so your sound argument has no real bearing. Dogs were not common in Roman warfare and in any case any dog that was afraid of the sound of friendly armor was not a suitable war dog.
Its louder than mail and it has been shown that rapid movement will cause noise, which would alert emeny dogs.

Legionary archers and slingers were invariably auxiliaries or in auxiliary units, and if they wore armor, they usually wore chain mail, which is satisfactory for protection against ranged enemies. Legionaries proper possessed very large shields which were sufficient protection against enemy projectiles, and so allowed them to wear segmentata, which was better for close-quarters battle.
There is a grave steele, irrc from Northern Britain, which refers to a Legionary archer. It is considered quite odd but it suggests that the Legions may have had some form of organic ranged troops, much as they had organic cavalry. As I said before, segmentata is good for blunt trauma, there are chests plates that have simpley been punched through by spears. Those platers were only 0.7mm in thickness anyway.

I would like to know where you got those numbers. In any case, broken mail is certainly more difficult to fix than segmentata because 1) the rings must fix exactly or else the suit will be deformed and 2) riveting mail is very time-consuming and tedious process. Believe me, I've made it - its hard on your hands. Segmentata looks more complicated but is structurally much simpler. Also, they were brass or bronze, not copper - and the fact that helmets were commonly made of brass or bronze even once iron was figured out testifies that clearly there was faith in those metals.
From an archaeologist who specialises in Roman Military History and living archaeology. It doesn't take into account battle damage, bear in mind that general wear and tear would be of greater concern in many provinces. The fittings were copper, as meterological analysis has now shown, it is thought that removing the brass rivit was too time consuming. I got that from the Ermin Street Guard, in case you were wondering.

Lugging around zillions of tiny little iron rings for mail... or simply some larger segmentata brass fittings? In a worst-case scenario, having to melt down an enemy's helmet to replace the segmentata fittings also seems easier than having to make a bunch of iron chains. I've already mentioned that segmentata is easier and cheaper to make (meaning you'd be more likely to have spares), and in any case, Roman logistics were generally so far ahead of everyone else's that it would hardly matter what you had to schlep...
As mail gives I would have thought it was less likely to to break in battle, as oppossed to the leather straps, which are quite prown to snapping in general and I would have thought when put under presure, say from a sword blow, more so. In general I would expect you could come out of a battle with your mail intact, not so Lorica Segmentata, it would have to have all its straps checked again.

A clear advantage mail has over segmentata is that mail, by its structural nature, is less prone to rusting because of the rubbing action of the rings. Then again, any competent legionary would be mindful of his equipment.
More durable and easier to clean, I'm glad we agree on something.


Well of course they didn't like to wear it - they're officers, not lowly infantry! They needed to be easily identifiable in a battle, which was why they wore crests or animal skins, had different shields, and - yep, might wear different armor. Again, like I've said before, mail is more expensive and more difficult to make than segmentata, and arguably more aesthetically pleasing, so it would be more prestigious to wear it. The same applies to signifers or cornicens wearing lorica squamata (plate armor), which militarily was not as satisfactory as either mail or segmentata, but was certainly very attractive and flashy - not to mention more complicated and expensive. Consider the muscle cuirass as well. Naturally inflexible and quite uncomfortable on a horse, it was worn because it looks distinctive and heroic. If we are to believe Vegetius, centurion armor and helmets were often silvered - a useless military gesture, but powerful social one.
That arguement holds much less for Centurians. If Lorica Segmentata was better for close combat they would have worn it, as they would have worn the armour which provided the best chance of survival.

The Scale armour could have been Lamella or Lorica Squamata, which is ribbed and fixed to a mail backing such armour is significantly better than anything else Roman infantry wore, though heavier.

The garment you are thinking of is the subarmalis, which is in various forms worn under all armors; one of its main purposes is to simply stop the armor from dirtying up your tunic. It could be made of most anything - linen, leather, wool - and would no more wear away the leather linings of a lorica segmentata than your tunic would, and probably less so because the segmentata is rather sturdy around your chest. Subarmali for segmentata also needed less padding than those for hamata or squamata.
I stand corrected on the last point, although the evidence for its existance is patchy. I admit that I was guessing there and on reflection I can't really back it up. Besides that such a garment would negate the advantate of Segmentata.

You are correct that for the lower body hamata and squamata offer more protection, but they weren't as long as you seem to suspect - just below your groin at most, typically. This could actually be a bad thing - movement might be a bit more restricted, it was quite possible for it to be slapping you in your testicles if you ran (uncomfortable, to say the least?), and it would probably just be yet more strain on the soldier's legs. In any case, whatever armor you wore Roman soldiers did not generally wear leg or groin armor, mainly because your shield was there already, but also because against Rome's enemies that wasn't really a big issue; a barbarian was much more likely to swing at your head than your calves, so you might as well save those few extra pounds and save some energy. This is not to say that legionaries couldn't wear greaves if they desired them and bought them of their own volition, and centurions, of course, wore greaves - but, again, more as a badge of rank.
Modern indications suggest that "balls and eyes" are the things soldiers are most worried about and I doubt that has changed.

Please do not take my rebuttals as attacking you, but attacking your opinions, which, while bringing up several interesting points, simply do not seem to face up to the facts.
In point of fact thins is the only part of your post I find offensive.