lorica segmentata

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Watchman]

Didn't the prime ingredient in most things' final prices come from the work hours skilled craftsmen needed to put into the production process ? AFAIK that was always a prime reason mail was so darn expensive, even if actually joining the darn links was largely just repetitive menial labour. Keeping that in mind, logically if segmentata was faster to make then the main thing that'd have kept it meaningfully more expensive would have been the need for more skilled labour, which tends to be harder to come by and generally more expensive.

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.

This does not seem to stand up to what I know of armour. Logically, much like scale does, the smooth solid surface of the segmentata should primarily present something for incoming thingies to glance off of, nevermind now the impact-diffusion effect of the overlapping lames. Plus it's not like it would have been worn without some pretty decent padding underneath either; didn't the Romans have a standard-pattern garment for the job ?

The problems mail has with pointy stuff come from the fact the point is practically certain to slip into a single ring, from where it can try to burst it from the inside and thus open the way for penetrating deeper. True to form armour-piercing arrowheads designed against mail have a distinctly needle-like appereance, for example. All said and done, mail isn't really at its best against pointy stuff which is doubtless one reason the "overlapping bits" design philospohy seems to have been somewhat dominant in archery-crazy parts of the world, even when the construction of mail was well known and mastered.

[mucky305]

To start, I am not flaming anyone here. The eastern style composite recurve bow was incredible powerful. Surviving examples have been found to have a draw strength of upwards of 160 lbs. Compare that to the 80-140 lbs. of the Welsh longbow. Mounted archers carrying these weapons were an even bigger problem. Notably the Parthians were a difficult bunch. The 'Parthian shot' consisted of a mounted archer firing an arrow straight back over the rear of his horse at relatively close range. This presented a very precarious situation for a heavy Roman infantryman with two pila and a short sword. Mail presented decent protection against the arrows and bows of the northern barbarian tribes as they were of the typical European design (no recurve and usually made of a single piece of pliable wood with arrows that were meant to kill/maim rather than penetrate armor). This isn't to say that the barbarian tribes weren't dangerous or even relatively technologically advanced, just that more advanced missile development techniques were not available to them. On the other hand, the Eastern empires had the benefit of greater wealth and the access to advanced bowyer techniques (mainly due to mounted nomad tribes). Combine the cash and technological inovation/flexibility of an empire like Rome with a deeply ingrained archer tradition and hopefully you begin to understand what I'm talking about. The mainly Celtish/Briton tribes of western Europe strongly favored the sword and shield against which mail fared quite well (as far as I know, Rome adopted mail from the Celts). Even the Germanic tribes armory could be mostly countered by mail with the exception of the heavy axe. It wasn't until meeting the falx in eastern europe and later on the composite bow, that true armor change was initiated. It must be said that armor was not always meant to just stop injury, it was also expected to stop skin penetration as infection was probably alot more dangerous than a broken bone. I'm not sure if the easterners had bodkin type arrows but taking into consideration that most of their archery was adapted mainly for war and not just hunting, I suppose it's possible. Consequently, mail was rendered less effective than armour that could be made to deflect such attacks and it was a heck of alot heavier than segmentata. As far as mail during the Crusades, it was 800 years after Rome's fall and mail armor had evolved, not alot, but it did evolve. Double mail was common during that time as far as I know and and was just as flexible as regular mail and offered better protection, but it was even heavier. Feel free to diagree as always.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't the prime ingredient in most things' final prices come from the work hours skilled craftsmen needed to put into the production process ? AFAIK that was always a prime reason mail was so darn expensive, even if actually joining the darn links was largely just repetitive menial labour. Keeping that in mind, logically if segmentata was faster to make then the main thing that'd have kept it meaningfully more expensive would have been the need for more skilled labour, which tends to be harder to come by and generally more expensive.

It was the mofo Rhineland smiths that made Segmentata possible, same with Imperial Gallic helms. Segmentata also requires more copper and tin than mail, which is usually just iron, unless the rivits are copper, of course.

This does not seem to stand up to what I know of armour. Logically, much like scale does, the smooth solid surface of the segmentata should primarily present something for incoming thingies to glance off of, nevermind now the impact-diffusion effect of the overlapping lames. Plus it's not like it would have been worn without some pretty decent padding underneath either; didn't the Romans have a standard-pattern garment for the job ?

You'd think wouldn't you? I'm just repeating what I've read. I think in might have to do with the plates being both large and thin, so they tended to buckle under less pressure. Lorica Segmentata seems to have been a deforming type of armour, actually designed to get busted up in combat, rather than the man wearing it.

The problems mail has with pointy stuff come from the fact the point is practically certain to slip into a single ring, from where it can try to burst it from the inside and thus open the way for penetrating deeper. True to form armour-piercing arrowheads designed against mail have a distinctly needle-like appereance, for example. All said and done, mail isn't really at its best against pointy stuff which is doubtless one reason the "overlapping bits" design philospohy seems to have been somewhat dominant in archery-crazy parts of the world, even when the construction of mail was well known and mastered.

True, like I said, no personnal experience here.

[Watchman]

You'd think wouldn't you? I'm just repeating what I've read. I think in might have to do with the plates being both large and thin, so they tended to buckle under less pressure. Lorica Segmentata seems to have been a deforming type of armour, actually designed to get busted up in combat, rather than the man wearing it.

It's not like the individual scales in scale armour were exactly thick or tremedously strong either - heck, they were usually copper alloy anyway, if not leather. But the effect taken together was very much more than the sum of its parts.

Case in point would be the type of limb defense the Greeks termed cheir, again. Even in leather versions that was apparently regarded as a very good limb defense - good enough to render a shield unnecessary - in a part of the world crawling with powerful composite bows, heavy javelins, battleaxes, maces, kopis-type chopping swords and similar heavy-duty unpleasantness. Trajan's front-rank legionaires were famously issued with a metal derivative for their sword arms to counter the nasty Geto-Dacian curved blades.

As for deforming, meh. You typically want armour metal to retain a degree of springiness and flexibility, so it flexes and bends and rebounds instead of cracking (one reason why mail links were never of "hard" steel). Combined with the inevitable padding worn under all metal armour - already to keep the stuff from rubbing the soldier's skin off - the overlapping plates ought to be pretty good impact-absorbers, and while strong hits might well cause rather uncomfortable permanent deformation this is in any case rather preferable to getting your guts ventilated and the matter can be fixed in the unavoidable after-battle repairs. I understand a bigger problem was the fragility of the brass hinges and suchlike.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, as I said, I don't have an answer and in fact a lot of paper has been expended on how good LS was at stopping missiles. A lot seems to hinge on how you rig it and exactly what it's made of.

As to the buckles, as few months ago I went along to the local museaum here to talk about the Romans to some primary school children. The legionary we had had left his LS at home because it had broken that morning, so he was in mail instead.

[Watchman]

Well, it was the "hangar queen" of body armour after all...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Heh, we did have a chuckle over that, he and I.

[mAIOR]

Actually, most eastern legionaires used cheir on their arms for added protection as well. Espetially after 100AD. I have a book called roman army from Hadrian to Constantine and they speak very highly of limb defense.
Also, to my knowledge, I agree with Watchman on this one. LS was probably rather good at stoping missiles as it could deflect some and the overlaping layers would seriously reduce the damage...
Just my opinion tough...

Cheers...