lorica segmentata

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The reason Legions had mail armor isbecause of the mail armor endurance not quite it's effectiveness. Also, Lorica segmentata allowed a lot of flexibility even more than the Lorica Hamata as it was lighter.

From experience I can tell you it restricts your arm movement and your ability to flex in back and waist.

The roman metal work you talk, is inconsistent way after the lorica segmentata was abandoned.

No, the fall in quality begins with the rise of Augustus, the Pompeii pattern Gladii are that shape partly to compensate for the lower quality of the iron, the shape of the blade increases durability.

Also, if you talk about chain, I'll bring plate (the principle of lorica is plate armor) armor wich was the last tipe of armor and the most efective one.

Mail was used without interuption for almost 2,000 years. Lorica Segmentata, while technically plate, is no relation to later forms of plate used by European horsemen.

Also, armor in the late roman empire was ditched (not only segmentata but hamata as well being replaced by lighter tipes of mail or no armor at all) due to the increasing number of barbarians in the army and the change of tactics.

Armour was never entirely abandoned, however the reason for the reduction in use was the collapse of the Roman industrial complex, Late Imperial infantry are far more static than their forebears, with units staying in the same posting for centuries. This was a big part of the problem which led to the collapse of the Western Empire, the inability to move troops quickly.

I believe in the end, Lorica Segmentata was eventually ditched because it's complexity and time consuming production. In order to support this, let me just mention the fact that the romans introduced several modifications to the armor in order to simplify it until they finaly ditched it.

You refer to the graduation from Corbridge A to B and the later Newstead pattern? You are correct, however these modifications also reduced effectiveness and flexability whilst increasing weight. They were partly to increase speed of repairs (replacing rivits with split pins) but the exibit and general degradation in quality as well. It is interesting to note that Lorica Segmentata comes into use as the Legions adopt fixed positions and dissapears as they once again become mobile.

And Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, if you have three overlaping plates of 1mm (the ingenuity in the LS is this particular thing) gives 3mm protection. Gothic armor had 2mm. And, it was heavier. And missiles didnt work so well against Gothic armor. At least anything short of an arbalest or a mongolian bow with boadkin arrows. and still it might just not punch it.
Anyway, just my 2cents and sorry for the long post.


Cheers...

At no point do three layers overlap, in fact two layers barely overlap, if it were otherwise the armour would lose its remaining flexability.

I believe javalins will go through Gothic plate, as will longbow arrows at 20 paces and the longbow is not the most powerful of bows. In any case Gothic plate is steel Lorica Segmentata is iron

[Watchman]

At no point do three layers overlap, in fact two layers barely overlap, if it were otherwise the armour would lose its remaining flexability.

Oh ? What's there to keep them from simply sliding over one another (to a certain degree) as was the standard for laminated armour from the start to the finish ? Not that a hip-lenght cuirass like that needs to be particularly flexible anyway.

I believe javalins will go through Gothic plate, as will longbow arrows at 20 paces and the longbow is not the most powerful of bows. In any case Gothic plate is steel Lorica Segmentata is iron

"Gothic" plate would mean high-end Late Medieval full plate, I assume. Let's just say that by that point men-at-arms had abandoned shields as unnecessary baggage and heavy steel-stave crossbows were around the only things that could penetrate even lower-quality plate at any real distance with any real degree of reliability. Longbows, one of the catalysts for the developement of the fully articulated plate, were totally insufficient except at virtually point-blank ranges (with the obvious implications to the continued well-being of the archers) which is doubtless one reason they started falling by the wayside, although composite bows seem to still have been reasonably effective. Or at least those of the Ottomans seem to have accounted for quite a few fully armoured men in galley fights.

[antisocialmunky]

Oh ? What's there to keep them from simply sliding over one another (to a certain degree) as was the standard for laminated armour from the start to the finish ? Not that a hip-lenght cuirass like that needs to be particularly flexible anyway.

Having manufactured a worn something of the like, I can say from experience that the plates restrict your torso movement in very annoying ways. If you look at how a human bends they bend along the the length of the torso. However, even with the flexibility of a curass built like that, it is still fairly restrictive. They slide but not by much.

It does however allow for good all around protection that is form-fitting, not bulky, and easy to make with decent flexibility(turning and bending a little). Its definately better than a giant plate on your chest.

However, like you said, flexibility isn't a particularly large issue. Kevlar armour with ceramic plate doesn't alow the user to bend much either. It hasn't been a huge issue in battle throughout history.