Augustinian Reforms

[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.