lorica segmentata

[Geoffrey S]

Ah. That's what happens if I don't think things through.

[mucky305]

I skinned all my guys with modern body armor. Nothing quite says killing like a camo vest. You know they found evidence that the Romans had Interceptor body armor. It's true....I read it in the National Enquirer so it must be true. JK

http://world6.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=114017506

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Watchman, you may or may not be right about javalins, someone told me they'd been hurling them at steel car doors and punching holes. As regards steel, the Romans are generally not considered to have crossed the threshold between carbonised iron and steel. My point about the layers was that there are never three layers overlapping in the same place. In fact you can sometimes see the legionaries tunic through the gaps at the back. The shoulders are different because they represent a second layer of armouyr over the main body in the same way manner as the doubling on mail does.

mAJOR, first off, break up your posts. You're giving me eye strain. Now, Lorica Segmentata is lighter than mail but weight is not everything. Mail has greater flexability and by and large one size fits all, though fitted is better. What do you mean "how do I know it was built on Roman standards"? if anything it was probably lighter and better made. Most serios reconstructions of period armour of any age tend to be lighter and over engineered.

Regarding the longbow I will only say it was the AK-47 of it's age and I think Watchamn would probably agree with me. Though obviously it was less "pick up and use."

Lorica Segmentata has been said to weigh "as little as 5.5kg" mail is generally quite a bit heavier. Additionally you are wrong to say mail can be "easily torn" Lorica Segmentata has lots of nice gaps and edges to hook a falx onto.

AngryAngelDD:

a. Pretty much true.

b. Best point made so far, armour is secondary.

c. 200 vs 2000+ years and half the Legions is only 25% of the total Roman army, if that. Auxilleries usually made up at least half the Roman military strength and they were full time soldiers.

d. It's not easier, it's faster but it requires a higher level of skill (Gallic/Germanic smiths) and the end result is a product which requires higher maintainance. It's also worth pointing out that a. thousands of mail shirts were languishing in Imperial Armouries when LS was introduced and b. Roman losses were rarely high in the Imperial period, except when the Romans lost.

Cata, there was never a "heavy" Legion, maybe heavy cohorts within a Legion.

Ultimately though none of this is relevant to EB, it's not in because it was only just invented and almost no one was using it.

[AngryAngelDD]

ok you are right
the auxiliaries are at least 50% of the roman trained manpower.

what i had in mind is, that in a typical battle the Legions had the real job to do.
(yes i know there were battles, where legionaries even didn´t need to fight)

the legions shifted through the border regions as necessary while the auxiliar troops often were at the same place for much more years than a legion.

also many auxiliar troops don´t fight "permanently"....the legions do, because they are relocated often to the conflict areas (at least with vexillations)

therefore the Segmentata armour see pretty much battle time.
i dare to say, that certainly there were auxiliary mail shirts which never had seen a real battle.
the other way round i would say that hardly a segmentata can be found which was free from battle traces.




and you are right, that this is not relevant for EB, but a good discussion is also nice to see (and it helps some people to learn something about history )

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The deployment of Auxilliaries and Legionaries varied. Certainly in the Flavian period in Britain we have concrete evidence that the Legions were in permenant bases while the Auxilleries were moved around quite a lot. After Constantine the situation reversed but in terms of EB and immidately after I would say the opposite of your statement was true. Legionary bases were static and designed to control key areas, many Legionaries did not see combat for years at a time. By contrast Auxilleries were posted in border regions and constantly sent out on patrol and to deal with local risings.

Remember that the Roman Legionaries were valued far more than their Auxillery bretheren and as such were only employed for major offensives or when the Auxilleries couldn't cut it.

[Watchman]

Watchman, you may or may not be right about javalins, someone told me they'd been hurling them at steel car doors and punching holes.

Good plate had a habit of deflecting couched lances in full-tilt heavy cavalry clashes, which is yet another reason shields were ditched. Javelins could as well not bother trying.

In fact you can sometimes see the legionaries tunic through the gaps at the back.

That'd no longer be segmentata, but one coming apart. Badly.

Mail has greater flexability and by and large one size fits all, though fitted is better.

Flexibility isn't terrinly important in hip-lenght corselets anyway - you can do damn cartwheels wearing full plate, and I can quarantee that breastplate doesn't flex one bit. Most kinds of heavier body armours worn over the millenia barely flexed at all, and worked perfectly fine regardless - where the cloth-like suppleness of mail becomes useful is in the joints.

Regarding the longbow I will only say it was the AK-47 of it's age and I think Watchamn would probably agree with me.

Probably wouldn't. Besides the katana that one has to be the most over-hyped premodern military weapon - and most of the enthusiasts are quite unaware a bow not much short of the Welsh longbow was a required part of a militiaman's kit (atop a shield, spear, sword or axe and some armour) in medieval Scandinavia.

Lorica Segmentata has been said to weigh "as little as 5.5kg" mail is generally quite a bit heavier. Additionally you are wrong to say mail can be "easily torn" Lorica Segmentata has lots of nice gaps and edges to hook a falx onto.

I understand mail shirts of coverage comparable to the segmentata corselet tend to weigh in at the 10-15 kg range, depending on specific design details. One does recall the lorica hamata is very commonly described as being rather heavy anyway.

Personally I rather fail to perceive where there would be a true eak point in the segmentata, save perhaps for the closure. Iron lames overlapping downwards don't seem to offer a very good "bite" for most weapons by what I know of it, and the shoulders for their part are reinforced against blows from above.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Good plate had a habit of deflecting couched lances in full-tilt heavy cavalry clashes, which is yet another reason shields were ditched. Javelins could as well not bother trying.

I defer to your greater wisdom. I'm certainly not going to build a set of Gothic plate to test it.

That'd no longer be segmentata, but one coming apart. Badly.

Small gaps, between the shoulders and this particular set was fin structurally, it's owner keeps in in good nick.

Flexibility isn't terrinly important in hip-lenght corselets anyway - you can do damn cartwheels wearing full plate, and I can quarantee that breastplate doesn't flex one bit. Most kinds of heavier body armours worn over the millenia barely flexed at all, and worked perfectly fine regardless - where the cloth-like suppleness of mail becomes useful is in the joints.

It helps, certainly, but I do agree, it's not the most important factor. If anything the structure of LS causes extra problems because until the straps are broken in it tends to be very rigid around the shoulders.

Probably wouldn't. Besides the katana that one has to be the most over-hyped premodern military weapon - and most of the enthusiasts are quite unaware a bow not much short of the Welsh longbow was a required part of a militiaman's kit (atop a shield, spear, sword or axe and some armour) in medieval Scandinavia.

He, he, Katana. What I meant was it was a cheap, reliable, and powerful weapon that every Welshman ans his sheep could afford. Rather like the AK being a cheap, reliable, and powerful weapon that every Afgan and his goat can afford. You dissagree?

I understand mail shirts of coverage comparable to the segmentata corselet tend to weigh in at the 10-15 kg range, depending on specific design details. One does recall the lorica hamata is very commonly described as being rather heavy anyway.

That sounds about right, the figure of 25lbs keeps popping into my head.

Personally I rather fail to perceive where there would be a true eak point in the segmentata, save perhaps for the closure. Iron lames overlapping downwards don't seem to offer a very good "bite" for most weapons by what I know of it, and the shoulders for their part are reinforced against blows from above.

Under arms as well, neck front and back and groin (depending on the hamata you are comparing.) Of course if you stay in formation and keep your shield up snone of that matters.

[mAIOR]

Actually, a Falx could only snap onto a Segmentata in the closures. even if they used an upward blow, it'd be hard to hook on the segmentata.
Mail, is more flexible sure but, that flexibility also gives it a weakness that makes it proner to hooking and snapping. Also, could someone tell me if LH was riveted or hamered?

About LS showing the shirt beneath, I believe watchman answered that question.


Cheers...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, like I said, I saw it. I was untwisting the bauldric at the time so that it didn't catch on the back plates.

[Watchman]

Ah, you meant the gaps around the joint and neck openings and so on. That's a different story of course, and over millenia there was always considerable amounts of armourer chutzpah dedicated to figuring out how to close those while still allowing for enough freedom of movement. Far as I know they still haven't worked out a solution that didn't compromise one thing or another...

Those also often tended to be very popular spots to aim for if your weapon couldn't actually penetrate the armour. I know a few interesting examples of this, but let's not digress too much.

What I meant was it was a cheap, reliable, and powerful weapon that every Welshman ans his sheep could afford. Rather like the AK being a cheap, reliable, and powerful weapon that every Afgan and his goat can afford. You dissagree?

Oh, in that sense. Yeah, wherever there was enough wilderness to hunt in (ie. that wasn't someone's private hunting reserve or somesuch) and even remotely suitable materials for crafting bows available the common folk more often than not both owned good bows a-plenty and were rather good shots with them. The northern forest belt was practically crawling with capable archers for nearly almost as long as humans dwelt there, and for example in Late Medieval if not even Early Modern Scandinavia the ability to draw a bow served as a mark of adulthood with all the associated rights and dues - it also long formed the basis for adminstrative census for taxation and so on.

The composite bow had a rather similar role wherever the prequisites for its manufacture were present, I understand.

[L.C.Cinna]

Also, could someone tell me if LH was riveted or hamered?
Cheers...

The examples of Roman mail found so far were all whether riveted and welded or riveted and stamped, around 5mm in diameter.

[mucky305]

Frankly, the historical aspect as well as the assumed fact that most people (including me) like the segmentata armor is that it's shiny and cool. In practicality, the reason for the development of segmentata armor was piercing weapons. If you look at Roman weapon development, what they were equipped with was essentially a counter to the most dangerous enemy that they were facing at any given time. Chain mail is a good counter against crushing attacks such as swords and hammers (Gauls & Celts) as it has flexible give so it doesn't dent. The farther east they went, the more they ran into composite bow wielding foot archers and cavalry. Thus segmentata, a rigid, polished (not just astethics, it was designed to improve deflection of attacks) armor was invented. Chain mail is not so great against arrows as it basically serves as 30,000 little round targets on your body while segmentata serves as a semi-impermeable barrier between you and the Almighty. Feel free to disagree, just a lot of years of military school talking.

[Watchman]

Mail stops arrows well enough, at least at longer ranges. Although I'll readily admit I don't actually know what the main doctrine of the Armenian, Parthian, Sassanid etc. archers was...

Anyway, mail hauberks and large shields served the heavy infantry of the Crusader states well enough against Arab and Turkish archery, and for that matter that of said nations as well. So I sort of doubt that was the prime impetus behind the devlopement of the segmentata. Contact with cheir-type laminated limb defenses and the appreciation of the basic principle combined with developement of sufficiently mad ironworking skillz would sound more likely to me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a nice theory but it doesn't stand up for two main reasons.

Segmentata seems to predominate in the West.

Segmentata is actually better at absorbing blunt trauma that mail but worse when dealing with missiles. The latter is probably due to the fact that, unlike mail, segmentata presents a rigid target to piece where mail + padded leather cushions the impact somewhat.

As to the construction of Roman mail, it is generally four rivited rings attached to one closed ring (or vice versa, depending on your perspective.)

[sgsandor]

When I think of the Romans I think of LS. People in the middleages forgot alot of stuff also, maybe that is the reason you dont see LS in medevil europe. I think LS and LH are both very good indeed. I think that LS was just cheaper that is why Rome went with it. I mean when i was in the army I learned one thing, Lowest Bidder makes everything. It dosent have to last forver it just has to be cheap and do its job atleast as well as what it is replacing. We can argue LH vs LS all day but in the end it was used by the legionaires because it was good. Ask any U.S. servicemen what he thinks of M16 off the record compared to M14. There are problems and the are good qualties too that is the kind of argument we have here. If EB went to 255AD then they would put it in(I hope they would). But EB just goes to 14AD and for that LH is mighty fine.
p.s.
I love the legion, and Lorica segmenta is my fav but hamata is a very very close second

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh LS definately wasn't cheaper, it was just quicker. It's an interesting comparison you make with the M16 btw, given that weapon's early history.

[sgsandor]

thanks Phillipvs. Well there had to be atleast some advantage quicker could be it. i just love eb, it seems to draw some real passion and i dig that