Augustinian Reforms

[The Spartan (Returns)]

No, it's not.

you dont like mine?

[NeoSpartan]

After the death of Emperor Commodus in 192 AD, the Roman empire began its slow decline.

It was during this slow decline that the Roman Heavy Infantry began to decline. 1st Lorica went out the window, the shild was made smaller, the sword was changed, the pila was tossed, etc. In the end the Roman Infrantryman end up with a helment, an oval shield, a spear, NO/LITTLE ARMOR and a Spatha (replacing the Gladuis).

Also during this time Cavalry, specially Heavy Gothic cavarly, started to gain prominance over the heavy infantry.

Quote by Wigferth Ironwall:
"As to plate, Lorica Segmentata is not "plate" as plate is solid, and has far more in common with the cuirass of the hoplite and the Heratoi's armour, or for that matter the armour of Roman officers. In essence its like having a shield on your chest, Lorica Segmentata works by dissipating through multiple layers and crushing to spread impact"

Sorry buddy what you are doing here ur messing with the Definition of a Plate, and nothing more. Lorica Segmentata IS plate armomr (same as the Cuirass, and the later Plater Armor used in Medieval times). The difference is that Lorica Segmentata employes SEVERAL plates instead of just 2 (front and back).

Qoute by Foot.
"But if it was such a great technological advance then why did it cease from use? If it had all these great qualities then why did they keep using mail, if mail was more expensive, took longer to make etc. But it was mail that lasted through the centuries not LS, that is a question that must be answered also.

Foot"

The knowledge of how to do it was lost, as well as the knowledge for interior pluming, aqueducts, stone roofs, arches, etc. etc. It was all "rediscovered" in the centuries following the Dark Ages. Exept plate armor used Riveted Plates instead of Leather to allow the wearer to move.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

After the death of Emperor Commodus in 192 AD, the Roman empire began its slow decline.

It was during this slow decline that the Roman Heavy Infantry began to decline. 1st Lorica went out the window, the shild was made smaller, the sword was changed, the pila was tossed, etc. In the end the Roman Infrantryman end up with a helment, an oval shield, a spear, NO/LITTLE ARMOR and a Spatha (replacing the Gladuis).

Yes, thankyou, I'm aware of all that. However the Lorica Segmentata dissapears around the time of Commodus' death and the decline does not begin until after the death of Septimus Severus. Or rather the final decline does not begin until then. In point of fact the Roman military had been in decline from the time of Marius.

Sorry buddy what you are doing here ur messing with the Definition of a Plate, and nothing more. Lorica Segmentata IS plate armomr (same as the Cuirass, and the later Plater Armor used in Medieval times). The difference is that Lorica Segmentata employes SEVERAL plates instead of just 2 (front and back).

It is not plate armour in the same sence as a breast and back plate, it opperates on different principles and the various plates are only 0.7mm thick. In point of fact it is never considered to be "plate" in the same sense as a breastplate, it is usually considered to be more closely related to scale, because it operates on the same basic principle.

Qoute by Foot.

"But if it was such a great technological advance then why did it cease from use? If it had all these great qualities then why did they keep using mail, if mail was more expensive, took longer to make etc. But it was mail that lasted through the centuries not LS, that is a question that must be answered also.

Foot"

The knowledge of how to do it was lost, as well as the knowledge for interior pluming, aqueducts, stone roofs, arches, etc. etc. It was all "rediscovered" in the centuries following the Dark Ages. Exept plate armor used Riveted Plates instead of Leather to allow the wearer to move.

When does anything akin to Lorica Segmentata re-appear, or anything like it?

[Tyfus]

The knowledge of how to do it was lost, as well as the knowledge for interior pluming, aqueducts, stone roofs, arches, etc. etc. It was all "rediscovered" in the centuries following the Dark Ages. Exept plate armor used Riveted Plates instead of Leather to allow the wearer to move.

He has a point the dark ages were called the dark ages for a reason. Alot of stuff was forgotton probably including the knowledge of how to make certain types of armour

And although exact dates are debated it is pretty much agreed that the roman empire began its decent long before 200 AD.

[Reverend Joe]

you dont like mine?

It's a bottomless pit!

(Well, effectively, anyway.)

[NeoSpartan]

you dont like mine?

I GOT TO THE END!!!! (as u can tell I am bored as hell today )

[NeoSpartan]

When does anything akin to Lorica Segmentata re-appear, or anything like it?

Only a LOT more advanced. Using Rivited Plates:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

rcross, I realize much knowledge was lost, what you don't seem to grasp is that Lorica Segmentata disappears well before 217 AD, which is the point between the death of Caracalla and the rise of Domitian. Prior to 217 AD the Empire was intact and although there had been four years of Civil War recovery would have been complete in a decade even under a merely competent leader. Caracalla was the last Emperor to die of natural causes, bar one, for the next seventy five years. This is when the Empire fragments and the Legions really begin to break down.

NeoSpartan, you seem to be intent on not listening.

That picture is of full plate armour, it is essentially the same type of armour as Alexandros' Companions wore. It functions by placing a solid barrier between you and the blow. Lorica Segmentata functions by absorbing the flow, precisely because it is not solid. By yielding it dissipates the force throughout the armour, so that you are cushioned from the force.

The two are in no way related. Gothic plate is related to the Hellenic plate armours worn by Greek Cavalry and Roman officers.

If you actually look up the definition of plate armour you will find that is usually contains the word solid, LS does not fall under the definition

[Grimmy]

Pretend it's 2000 years from now.
Just out of curiosity, what do y'all suppose the accepted "truth" would be about US armed forces and their uniform/equipment if the "evidence" found through archeology is the Vietnam War memorial statue at DC?

That US soldiers may have routinely gone into battle with no clothing on their upper bodies, except for a vest of padded armor? That they were issued or wore no protective head gear except some form of soft cloth hat?

Assuming the statue survives intact (unlikely) what would be the academic truth accepted about the weaponry? Some went into battle almost totally unarmed? Those with the heavier weapons went into battle with a single belt of 100 rounds or so wrapped around their chests?

What theories do you suppose would win in the academic cult of personality to become the truth that explains that? Large cadres of supply runners must have kept a constant ferry of bullets coming from the trucks that had to be close? That they took turns running back to get more ammo as they shot theirs up in a sort of round robin?

Since reenactors base their outfits and actions upon the generally accepted academic truths of the period they want to portray, how do you think they might decide is the best answer?

I obviously have no clue about whether or not lorica or any other form of armor was used by whom or when. My only contention, and pet peeve, is how often academic truth tends to be as much a product of intellectual inbreeding and adherence to a cult of personality based around a favored author or professor with often laughably little real evidence.

I am not attempting to label anyone here or elsewhere as stupid or in any way be insulting. I am merely pointing out an all to often overlooked issue when strong personalities get involved in attempting to win debate over the realities of ancient days when by the very nature of the beast, the evidence is at the very best sketchy and always incomplete.

[NeoSpartan]

Dude, seriusly....It looks like you Really like Mail Armor, but....

U know what???? I am just gonna be straight with you dawg.
1-) Lorica Segmentata is a more effective type of armor than Mail. (period)
2-) Lorica Segmentata is composed of METAL PLATES, joined by leather straps, and the slight overlaping of these plates gives the wearer MOBILITY without compromising PROTECTION.
3-) Comrade Alexeo: Has just provided us with 1st HAND ACCOUNTS, of ACTUAL USAGE and PREFORMANCE of Lorica Segmentata and Mail.

Yet u still choose not to accept these points brought up and decide to refute them with:
A-) A plate is a SINGLE LARGE PEACE OF METAL THAT DOESN'T BEND.
B-) Still insiting that the in Lorica Segmentata LEATHER will break.
C-) Only saying that Lorica Segmentata was good for preventing blunt Trauma.
D-) Still using the FICTISIOS event that a Roman Camp might be overrun buy UNDETECTED enemy soldiers.
E-) And other stuff like "Lorica Segmentata functions by absorbing the blow, precisely because it is not solid" Say What??? (so is it a liquid, gas, or plasma?)

Dude, seriusly...Read and understand what Comrade Alexeo said. And do research on your own and you will see.

Remember when doing research you should be able to Distinguish between CREDIBLE Sources and NOT so credible.
Best examples of Credible sources:

CREDIBLE SOURCES
1-) Primary Source Documents
-Basically an object/book/paining/soundrecording/etc from the time period being studied:
For Example:
A peice of armor excavated, painting/books made during the time period being researched, etc

2-) Secondary Source Documents
-Interpretations/Studies/Experiments made by Acredited Organisations/Groups/Individials that were made using Primary Source Documents.
For Example:
A history book detailing and explaining the use/types of Armor during Ancient and Medieval times. These books MUST HAVE a WORKS CITED page and the end (or biggining) showing where the author/s got that information from.

NOT SO CREDIBLE:
Forums, google.com, a web-page made by JoeSmoe called www.LoricaSegmentataIsTheBest.com, a Book WITHOUT a Works Cited page, etc...

[Fondor_Yards]

He has said more then once he uses the Ermine Street Guard as his source. Read his posts again. Since they are the best roman reactors, I would trust them when they say the leather will break and such. Comrade Alexeo never disputed the fact segmentata is worse vs stabbing weapons, so it's not it more effective. Chances are you will be fighting a man with a spear not a club.
How well did you read this thread?

E-) And other stuff like "Lorica Segmentata functions by absorbing the blow, precisely because it is not solid" Say What??? (so is it a liquid, gas, or plasma?)

No it is not a solid piece of metal, which is what he said. It's a group of metal pieces held together by straps.
Yes, segementata is in fact, made out of plasma. This roman secert let them simply run into enemy forces and burn them alive.

[Trithemius]

He has said more then once he uses the Ermine Street Guard as his source. Read his posts again. Since they are the best roman reactors, I would trust them when they say the leather will break and such. Comrade Alexeo never disputed the fact segmentata is worse vs stabbing weapons, so it's not it more effective. Chances are you will be fighting a man with a spear not a club.
How well did you read this thread?


No it is not a solid piece of metal, which is what he said. It's a group of metal pieces held together by straps.
Yes, segementata is in fact, made out of plasma. This roman secert let them simply run into enemy forces and burn them alive.

Time to stop this thread...



IT'S FAR TOO SILLY

[orwell]

That confused man won't halt anything, we need....
*cue proper music*

Emo Hitler

[Trithemius]

That confused man won't halt anything, we need....
*cue proper music*
Emo Hitler

Rubbish. Who won the war anyway? ;)

[orwell]

Rubbish?! Why, if I had access to any of my old hdd's I would have a illustrated reply. Right now I'll leave mere text to hold the line while I hopefully can give horses to otherwise mounted men for the calvary charge that is a PoS SATA controller card.

[Fenrhyl]

I'll just add my grain of sand.

Lorica segmentata is inferior to mail armor for the following reasons :

1) A fault in armor at he shoulder joints from up headed blows coming from the face and from the sides.

2) Piercing blows coming diagonally onto the chest will be caught in the gutter formed beetwen two plates and led directly into the vertical jointing conveniently place right in the middle of the chest in a vertical way (OMG !) So to speak, this armor is just giving spears and gladii a highway to the sternum and all those delicate things hidden behind.

3) In close combat, a dagger can be sunk between two metal girdles with ease. More so because the overlappings are opened facing downside. The most powerfull and dangerous dagger blows are dealt upwards. You don't need any other explanation.

4) I so hope re-enactors are not serious about leather or linen ties to hold the armor together exposed at the front of the armor, right in the middle of the chest. If this is a real historical detail (i found nothing about this) then two daggers thrusts in close cobmat are enough to losen the whole armor. What a joke !

5) The joining at the front of the armor (again...) is also a weak spot against strong cleaving blows coming downwards from above the head.

This armor is basically a piece of swiss cheese. Still better than no cheese at all, but i don't understand how someone that can afford a chainmail suit would rather wear a lorica segmentata. I, as a sword wielder, would n

In the other hand mail is heavier but offers tremendous protection against piercing blows (when used with a gambeson or subarmalis) and slashing blows. Lorica hamata, like any kind of mial, offers no weak spot when it is well made. the only way to bypass it is to break it or to blugeon its wearer till he drops to the ground.
Furthermore, all contemporary autors insist on the excellent degree of protection from arrows given by the chainmail/underpadding combination. Accounts of soldiers walking back from the frontline with more than 20 arrows stuck in their armour, asking for help in order to get rid of those and to return into the fray, are frequent. The same accounts can be read from crusade chroniclers (joinville for example) both christian and muslim. That says something about the credit one can give to such accounts since both sides agree about this point.
It should be noted that thin metal bands offer far less resistance to thrusting. This is because the chainmail/underpadding combination acts as a pillow protected by an iron fabric. The chainmail itself does prevent the blow from penetrating this combination but the real absorbtion is realized by the underpadding. Since the chainmail is flexible and mobile around the body it accompanies the blow while it is cushioned by the underpadding. One ring may break but no more. Sword slashes area treated the same way.

All in all, pretending that the LS is superior to the LH while it is easier to produce is in complete opposition by the fall in disuse of this defensive weapon while the roman empire still possessed all its power. The ancients were struggling with a constant lack of ressources both in materials and manpower, allways looking for sulotions to this problem. Had the LS been the wonderfull tool of life saving you depict it would never had been forgotten. LH, chainmail would. And that all the more true in a time of crisis when you need to adequate cost and efficiency. Assuming that the romans discarded a better tool that costed less in favor of a worse one that costed more is just assuming that the empire was run by dickheads. From a re-enactor, that's hilarious.

So, to answer Neospartan :

1) Thank you for this brilliant demonstration.
2) There is no way a bunch of articulated plates and metal girdles can give more mobility than a chainmail. That has to do with the way the body is articulated and the way chainmail acts as a second skin while the plates and girdles act as box that allows movement. Like said above, the gaps between the plates are weak spots. 1 gap = 1 weak spot. Please count the number of weak spots the LS shown earlier has... A chainmail has no weak spots. So long for the "no protection loss" myth.
3) I can provide you with 3 first hand accounts about the value of renaissance full harnesses in combat from people praticing it (and giving real blows in tourneys.) None of them will agree with the two others. So long for relying on live actions reenactement to establish truths.

A) That's exactly that. It must not bend, never, NEVER. If it does it can prevent its wearer from moving an arm or from breathing. Plates possess a measure of elasticity but their goal is to dissipate the blow primarily through the surface of the armour and secondarily from elasticity. But it must not bend significantly. To realize this, plates were beaten to give them more density. Various steps of eating ad cooling were also practiced in order to give them resilience. You don't want a plate armor to be bendable.

B) It will break. Hell, Even silk that is more resilient and can't rot breaks (tha's from an armoursmith living in britanny.) Leather will break, and break fast when put under great stress. Any people that rides horses will tell you that there is a great deal of work involved in keeping the leather parts of the harness in good shape. And those are not beaten repeatedly in battle.

C) I did not read this. I read better than LH for protection from blugeoning blows. LS is obviously better against piercing or slashing than fabric or bare skin. I say it is inferior to LH when it comes to piercing and slashing.

D) Fictitious ? Like you have a sufficient knowledge of antiquity's accounts and sources to say it never happenened. Too bad it did, and several times, along the limes (both european and asian.) How do you think those barbarians could pass through it without any warning ? flying ?

E) Use resilient instead of solid. The key element of lorica segmentata is bendability, not resilience. 0.7 mm is not resilient. You can punch through it with a nail and your bare hands. A dagger, a spear, a sword, a pick will do that too.

I respectfully suggest you gain some insight about armour mechanics before becoming any more aggressive. Comparing a lamellar armor like the lorica segmentata to a plate armour like a gothic ribbed full harness was really the demonstration that you don't know what you are speaking about.

PS : french knights used lamellar armour. The ones who did were those unable to buy a real chainmail or plate broigne (first plate armors were evolution from scale armors : hard plates sewn on leather backings.) The word lamellar comes from the french word "lamelle" (lamellar armour = armure lamellaire) that can be defined as "a long, narrow and thin object." The same word is used for the pieces that are comprised in the LS.

PPS : a chainmail can last centuries if properly greased and repaired. I don't know of any other kind of armour that can.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Someone posted a link to this thread on the 'Roman Army Talk' forum - one of the best resources on the net for informed discussion about the archaeology and reconstruction of Roman arms and armour. I won't repeat their comments, but let's just say they weren't polite.

And rightly so - this thread represents one of the worst examples of armchair expertise and over-stated opinions presented as 'fact' I've seen in a long time.

Firstly, to argue that either mail or segmentata is inherently 'superior' to the other is flat out silly. The Roman army used both (and yes, it used both at the same time) because both were effective armour. Segmentata was more effective against blunt force trauma and could be mass produced more quickly. Mail required less maintenance, was more comfortable, was easier to store and transport, was 'one size fits all' (more or less) and had a longer useful working life. If one was inherantly superior to the other, we'd see one die out and the other survive. We don't. We see western legions equipped in segmentata and their eastern equivalents equipped in mail.

Secondly, the idea that segmentata dropped out of use because of some vast decline in the Empire's production capacity is a myth and it's definitely not supported by the evidence. The disappearance of segmentata was accompanied by other changes in the equipment of the Roman army. These changes seem to reflect a corresponding change in tactics in response to new challenges on the battlefield.

Those on this thread defending segmentata as some kind of 'uber-armour' have wildly overstated the supposed disadvantages of mail. Mail was the most commonly used form of armour in the whole of pre-Modern history, so the idea that it was too heavy, too expensive etc etc is plain silly. Similarly, those who are defending mail have wildly overstated the disadvantages of segmentata. It wasn't the ultimate-super-amazing armour that some armchair fanboys imagine, but statements like ' you couldn't carry your shield on your back while wearing segmentata' are flatly wrong.

Both forms of armour had their advantages and disadvantages, which is why the Roman army used both at the same time. Neither was the ultimate amazing armour of fanboy imagination.

[Trithemius]

Thank you!

I hope this succeeds where my Monty Python references have failed.

[Geoffrey S]

I'm presuming you mean this, ThiudareiksGunthigg? Just so people know what it is you're referring to.

Though in the spirit of debate, what I'm curious about is why LS went out of fashion after the romans, whereas mail armour was still used. Is it a case of limited resources being pooled at the top end of hierarchies, where they'd get the best armour?

One thing to bear in mind in any case is that although LS may have been inferior in some ways to LH, it was easier to mass-produce. The reason this is important is that lower quality armour is preferable to no armour at all, and the faster production would allow more legionaries decent protection in the field. The infrastructure of the empire would allow a greater proportion of the troops to be allocated such equipment, which would be a marked advantage against other peoples.

[Trithemius]

The above list can also be used to guess why segmentata was phased out. This occurred arond the same time that the state was taking over control of the fabricae. Mail has many advantages that the state would find favourable and if mass production techniques dropped the cost of mail down so that it was comparable to segmentata, the state would have no reason to continue segmentata production.

The above quote is from that other forum. I am curious about the dates to which he refers, and also what kind of data is available on Roman manufacturing processes; as someone keen on archival studies are there resources like this for the Republic and Empire?

[Ebusitanus]

If anybody wants REALLY to know something about the real field tested differences between the Lorica Hamatta and the Segmentata he could start by checking out this place dealing precisely with the great inacuracies said here:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtop...293&highlight=

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

Heard about this thread over on the Roman Army Talk board, and figured that since photos and information from my website are being posted here (that's a *good* thing!), I might chip in. I am Matthew Amt, founder and Commander of the Twentieth Legion, based in the Washington DC area. I don't want to proclaim myself as an "expert" on the topic, but I have some experience, and can contribute a few tidbits that seem to have been missed. Hopefully I didn't read through this discussion too hastily!

To start off with, the lorica segmentata was certainly in use during the reign of Augustus. The earliest known finds date to around 10 BC, so it must have been in use at least a little before then. Several indisputable pieces have been found at the Teutoberg Forest battle site at Kalkriese, so it was solidly in use by 9 AD.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/kalklor.html

The latest types of lorica segmentata date to about 225 AD or so. Again, it's very hard to put an exact date on that, and it undoubtedly faded out of use over a number of years.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/lorica.html
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/newstlor.html
http://www.loricasegmentata.org/

There have been LONG discussions on several boards over just why the lorica segmentata went out of use. Suffice it to say that it does *not* seem to be simply a matter of "lost technology" or the decline of the Empire in general. Some of those who know more about the Late Empire than I do have maintained that the army of the 3rd century was just coming to its height in several ways, not degrading at all. It was much larger than in the first century, yet still clearly well trained and disciplined. And the third century is technically the first time that Roman troops are outright issued their armor, and that armor is being made at centralized factories around the Empire (not in smaller local workshops or in the forts themselves as in the first and second centuries). So it's possible that mail took over completely partly because it is much easier to mass produce in sizes that will fit all the troops. But we honestly don't know for certain, and should not act as if we have all the answers.

About the lorica segmentata itself, there are indeed some girdle plate pieces (the bands that encircle the torso) that are 0.7 mm thick. However, that is the minimum thickness known. The collar sections and shoulder guards are typically thicker, around a mm or so--I believe the original Newstead breastplate is a good 1.2 mm, if I'm remembering correctly. (It is analyzed in an article in the Proceedings of the Roman Military Equipment Conference from a good 15 years ago.) However, I'm a little puzzled by folks who say that a spear will go right through even a 0.7 mm segmentata plate! Certainly no piece of armor is proof against everything, but I really doubt that most spear thrusts are going to penetrate iron that thick (or thin!). There are lorica plates that have holes, but those that I've seen just don't seem to be battle damage. Now, I'm not about to stand there in a lorica that thick and just allow a raging barbarian to plant a two-handed pike or battle axe on me to prove the point! Battles were not like that, however, and usually armor was considered more than adequate if it kept off all the nicks, chips, slices, and half-hearted jabs that would be very common. Many of those could kill you quickly or slowly if you had no protection, so even thin metal was worth it.

There seems to be much concern over the gaps between the plates of a lorica. Those at center front, caused by the angle of the breastplates, are indeed annoying, while they are common on reconstructions, it seems they were not a problem on the originals. Most repros get a lot of angled stress on the straps and buckles, since they are always riveted solidly in place horizontally and vertically. But the original pieces never show this kind of stress, so their plates must have hung vertically, not at an angle. The problem is that this is a very complicated part of the armor to build properly, and I think we don't understand all the complexities. Changing any dimension has all kinds of unforseen repercussions! Shoulder padding makes a big difference as well. But even if there were little gaps here and there, I wouldn't worry about them. The largest is no bigger than your finger, really, and if you are good enough with a spear to hit that, you're much more likely to strike at the neck or face! If these little gaps really seem like a problem, you're more than welcome to not wear armor at all, eh? (Oh, and I left the scarf off in that photo, so that it would not obscure the armor.)

Likewise, the external leather straps are no big deal. The chances of one getting cut are very remote, and the armor will not fall off even if they are cut.

The idea of thrusting a blade up between the plates is no good either, I'm afraid. I do it to myself all the time, in fact! The dagger has to go in vertically, and it simply slides up flat inside the plates, not even tearing my subarmalis or tunic. And in order to do that, you'd have to be inside my shield--again, much better to go for the groin or throat, at that range.

Keep in mind that a man wearing this armor is not going to stand and let you get these ideal shots at him, in any case. He'll be charging with his left side forward, shield up, with only his eyes showing between helmet and shield rim. In the resulting melee, sure, there may be more opportunities to connect, but the whole idea of armor is to limit the attacker's options. IF you get a perfect, full-force, square-on hit, it MIGHT go through the armor, but it might not! Wanna bet your life on it? Or just go for one of the unarmored spots? That's going to apply to the vast majority of combat. There are always exceptions and exceptional circumstances, but there's no point in trying to plan for all of them.

In fact, a philosophy I came up with is that armor is given to soldiers for two reasons: So that they'll have something heavy to wear; and So they'll have something to clean. Every once in a great while, they might get into a situation where someone might take a prod at them with something sharp, and the armor could keep that from hurting the wearer, but that's purely a side effect!

Obviously, that's a little facetious, but not entirely. For all we know, the great benefit of the lorica segmentata was simply that it could be polished up to look good, and that the soldiers could always be kept busy with polishing their brass fittings.

Wigferth, I have the feeling that most experienced armor people would indeed classify the lorica segmentata as a type of plate armor. They might call it "segmented" or "articulated", and they would certainly not confuse it with later medieval Gothic or other plate armor. But I do think "plate" of some sort is what they'd mostly think. I was a little perplexed by your explanation of how lorica plates absorb impact, and I confess I haven't gone back and re-read it. But with a lorica plate or any other larger one, the weapon hits the metal, and the force of the blow is spread over a larger area. On a large plate it might simply be spread over the whole chest, while on a lorica it might be spread to other plates that the first one overlaps. But it seems to me that the general effect is the same, the weapon and its impact don't get through entirely to the wearer. Bottom line, it works. (Usually!) There is obviously a lot of complicated physics going on, but I'm not a physics person. Just fair warning that you may be on lonely ground in your definition of "plate".

WAS the lorica segmentata unreasonbly complicated and a pain in the gluteus to maintain? You bet! People seemed concerned about the leathers, which will indeed get sweaty and rotten and break. But in the time that it's taken me to break 3 internal leathers, I've busted 5 of the 8 main hinges, 2 strap and buckle fittings, and 3 hooks. And like most other reconstructions, the brass fittings on my lorica are actually significantly THICKER than the originals! Darn things broke all the time, and it was probably just day-to-day wear and tear that did it, not necessarily battle damage. It's starting to look like anyone who got issued a lorica that wasn't new got a mix of different sections that pretty much fit together and had plenty of repairs. But for two and a half centuries, that just doesn't seem to have bothered the Romans enough to do much about it! The latest versions of the lorica are MORE ornate than the first ones! Honking big fancy hinges, brass edgings on the plates, pearled edges on fittings, etc. It's nutty.

There also seems to be a little too much faith in the endurance of a shirt of mail. Great stuff it definitely is, but it's surface area makes it MORE prone to rust than a lorica segmentata. The chafing action of mail does make it somewhat self-cleaning, but only to a certain extent. That chafing also means that your oil or grease coating is wearing off. And it means that the rings are constantly wearing and rubbing against each other, and after a few years that will make them thinner! I can't really tell you how long a shirt might last in more or less constant use, but it can't be as much as a century. The only comparison I can think of is the British soldier's musket of the 18th century. It was supposed to last 12 years in regular service, but they generally wore out after only 6 years because the constant cleaning thinned the barrels! Mind you, this would apply to a lorica segmentata as well, but I have a feeling that disintegrating fittings and leathers would be a terminal problem long before the metal wore thin.

There does seem to be some debate about the metallurgy of rivets. Bishop and Coulston's book "Roman Military Equipment" says that rivets tend to be 10 to 15 percent zinc, while other folks have claimed only 5 percent. It certainly varied, and all we can really say is that it tended to be a lower zinc content than the fittings (which ran around 20 percent, very general ballpark). This was more likely just to make them a little easier to install. If they were really concerned about removing them, they would have found a better way to put the darn thing together in the first place! Copper rivets are noticeably softer than brass, but they are definitely strong enough to do the job. Removing a brass one doesn't really take any longer than removing a copper one--it's a pain either way!

I'm a little curious as to why folks think that a lorica segmentata can not be worn on horseback? I haven't actually tried it (INFANTRY!!), but I can sit astride a bench or chair in a horseman-like manner while wearing mine, without any problem. It's flexible, yes? It doesn't go down to where my legs bend. Yes, lorica parts are indeed found on sites that are presumed to be auxiliary forts. But it is only an assumption that any garrison was homogenous, and there is at least some evidence that any fort could have both auxiliaries and legionaries posted in it at the same time. Many other armies through the centuries have mixed different units in a garrison, and we have no real reason to believe the Romans didn't do that. On the other hand, there is also reason to suspect that the line between "legionary" and "auxiliary" equipment was blurrier than we used to think, so it's entirely possible that some auxiliaries were wearing lorica segmentata. Complicated issue, and as always we simply don't know enough to be sure.

The noise of any armor was usually not an issue. With thousands of men marching along, the dust cloud would be visible for miles, hours before the army came within earshot. There are accounts of troops muffling their armor and noisy bits for some special operation, but those are not the norm.

Oh, someone also though that you can't sling your shield on your back while wearing a segmentata. Well, I've done it, and so have many other people, though there is much debate over the best way to do it.

Using the experience of reenactors in a discussion like this is obviously a good thing. Just be forwarned that we don't all agree! We go through the same or similar situations and come up with completely different conclusions, all the time! We'll cheerfully bicker for hours about the relative merits of mail versus segmentata, why one and not the other, why who when what how, you name it. The Ermine Street Guard is the oldest Roman unit in existence, but there is a growing number of other very respectable groups out there, some of whom are breaking new ground in experimental archeology and living history. All I can say is, keep listening to all of them, and be prepared to run into new facts that ruin all your theories! (I love it when that happens!)

Hopefully I've done more than question the answers, here! As a final word, much as I like my lorica, I am deeply baffled by it. Folks ask me why they didn't scrap it for mail, and I simply don't have an answer. Nor can I say why they ditched it in the 3rd century! It's a brilliant and frustrating piece. And yes, any good mailshirt IS more comfortable! But 26 years ago, it was the look of the lorica segmentata that got me started on Roman reenacting.

Feel free to hit me with any questions, though you might want to email me directly in case I don't get back to this forum very soon.

Enjoy, and Valete,

Matthew Amt, aka Quintus, Legio XX

mamt AT lrcm DOT usuhs DOT mil

[Corinthian Hoplite]

In my humble opinion the segmentata has three advantages over the hamata:
1-The pauldrons(shoulder guards), those are more effective than anything that has been created prior to the middle-ages.
2-It's lighter.
3-It looks better (in my opinion).

Disadvantages:
1-Weak against stabs(particularly of spears).
2-Requires constant maintenance.
3-Hard to repair.

Conclusion: Both have advantages and disadvantages so.....it's up to the person to decide wich one to wear.

Peace

[Markus_Aurelius]

Wow this thread has gone off topic since my first post......

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At this point I think I should explain my somewhat, shall we say, fanatical, defence of mail. Its just that we get posts every other week it seems about how LS is the greatest thing since fermented grain and how it should be in the mod. I got sick of it, snapped, and instead of the usual, "It wasn't actually that great, they weren't really using it yet." I went overboard.

At this point I would like to acknowledge my mistakes.

1. I was wrong about the date of introduction, that said I don't believe the armour would have been in widespread use then. Having gone back and rechecked my books I think I got my mental "ball park" figures the wrong side of 0 AD. OOPS.

2. I misspoke about the way the Lorica Segmentata absorbs damage. What I was trying to illustrate was that Gothic plate was radically different. Perhaps I took it a bit too far there..... I should have been more clear about the fact that they both dissipate the damage around the armour, albeit in a slightly different way.

3. Okay, so I picked the thinest girdle plates to illustrate my point, so shoot me.

4. I confess I went a bit overboard with some my statements. I would like to make the following ammendments.

A. You can wear a shield on your back, however the plates can rub away the lining on the shield on a long march, which is quite a problem.

B. I did not make clear that copper rivits were actually better, because they were easier to replace, that was my intent.

C. At no point did I intend to actually say that LS was useless and after my full-force first blast I did mitigate it somewhat with the second paragraph. In-fact I acknoledged the superioety of LS in deally with blunt trauma throughout. I now go on record as retacting the statement "Its the worst armour ever."

D. The spear anecdote, which is what it is, comes from a friend and you would have to take it up with him. I would think it highly possible with a two-handed thrust, but not certain.

E. 100 years would be an outside figure for mail endurance, with good care and maintainance. Theoretically, of course, mail could last forever if you replaced all the rings.

5. Ultimately I got carried away. As a result I was too forceful in my statements and reading them back they do sound arrogant, they also have typing errors, which change the meaning of some of them, see above.

--------------------------------------------------

With that out of the way:

NeoSpartan: I am a second year degree student studying Classics and English at Exeter University. I am also a member of the Devon Archeological Society, the University Archeological Society and the Council For British Archeaology. My particular interest is the Roman Army in Britain.

So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, because while I don't know everything I know a great deal.

[Matthew Amt]

Ave, Wigferth!

Very graciously done! My respect for you has grown. But you'll never make it as a professional historian--they NEVER apologize or retract statements, hee hee!

On your point #1, I pretty much agree!

--A. Honestly, I haven't done any long-range marching. The lengths of time I've spent with my shield slung have been relatively short, but didn't seem at all uncomfortable. No idea about the potential for damage, it's certainly possible. Might be a problem with a mailshirt rubbing the shield, as well, though--think giant Brillo pad... (Try a quick rub on your car!)

--D. Fair enough. I wouldn't want to stand still and let someone give me a full-force two-handed thrust with a spear or pike. But spears were usually one-handed weapons. The Macedonian pike had pretty much died out in the 2nd century BC, and I don't think the two-handed Persian cavalry kontos was around just yet.

--E. Hah, well a lorica segmentata will survive for ever if you keep replacing the plates, leathers, and fittings! Fair is fair, eh?

I realize you're not "giving up the fight" and don't expect you to, but again, thanks for being gracious about it.

Corinthian Hoplite, I'm still curious about the idea that the lorica segmentata is "weak against stabs (particularly of spears)". Can you give me some particular concerns? It's especially ironic since "common knowledge" long maintained that MAIL was vulnerable to thrusts and that plate far superior in that regard. We now know that mail is not nearly as "weak" as we used to think, but it's odd to see the argument doing a complete 180, as it were.

Valete,

Matthew

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ave, Imperator!

(I think thats appropriate, since you trump the lot of us.)

Mathew, have you read: The Roman Legions Recreated in Colour Photographs by Daniel Peterson?

A: Its a really good book, the first one I seriously read infact. He details several living history experiments. The conclusion there was that mail isn't a problem for a shield on a long march, but LS is.

D: Were such a thing to happen I think I'd rather wear mail. I can be fairly certain the mail won't break. I can think of plenty of instances when a barbarian would go for a two handed thrust, once you stuck a pilum through his shield for instance.

E: True, but you no mail lasts longer anyway.

As to my ability to retract statements. I have serious problems with the way knowledge is compartmentalised and entrenched these days. I find that anyone who is unwilling to alter his position is usually ignorant, in direct proportion to his stubbornness.

Oh, and for anyone who is reading this from the other boards. I find your willingness to look down on us lesser mortals quite amusing.

[Markus_Aurelius]

I personally believe the mail would have been better as it did last a significantly longer time than the Segementata did, but, this thread has nothing to do with Segementata or mail. These arguments are getting absolutely know where, but i urge you to start your own thread and continue your arguments there if you wish to keep arguing...

[QwertyMIDX]

--D. Fair enough. I wouldn't want to stand still and let someone give me a full-force two-handed thrust with a spear or pike. But spears were usually one-handed weapons. The Macedonian pike had pretty much died out in the 2nd century BC, and I don't think the two-handed Persian cavalry kontos was around just yet.

The 2-handed kontos was in use well before the introduction of LS, although obviously not by the Romans themselves. Still, even though romans spent a good amount of time stabbing each other it would be the arms of their opponets that would be the issue. The Parthians certinly were using the kontos against romans soliders before the introduction of LS, but perhaps this is just another reason LH remained the standard armor in the east while LS became more and more common in the west.

[Reverend Joe]

If you continue this conversation,

Jesus will eat a baby.


Please, think of the babies.