lorica segmentata

**sgsandor** · 04-25-2007, 04:50

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** · 04-25-2007, 11:02

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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** · 04-25-2007, 14:38

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** · 04-25-2007, 15:02

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 04-25-2007, 15:21

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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** · 04-25-2007, 18:21

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.