Quote Originally Posted by ljperreira View Post
Ok, this is what I’m talking about. Nothing in this post refers to facts. Everything stated is complete conjecture. Are you going to have me believe that you’ve taken both armors on campaign??!! You’ve ranged, on foot and in armor, the highways and byways of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Britain, and wherever the heck else just to come back here and tell me with complete certainty that the Lorica Segmentata is complete junk? Because that’s the only way you’re going to convince me you know what you’re talking about. How do you know, or I know, how the Romans dealt with broken armor and equipment in the field? Do you have any evidence that the Legionaries didn’t have any time to repair the equipment, or that they didn't have armorers following the Legions? Because what could go wrong with the Segmentata could also go wrong with your Balteus, your caligae, a saddle, your helmet, your gladius, and whatever else you can throw in. And I can go on all day with "what ifs".....but it doesn’t prove anything, its facts we are striving for. The fact is, you, and others, don’t like the Segmentata because you believe its just Hollywood mumbo jumbo. But, according to historians and archaeologists, the armor was actually used, and for a good stretch of time. If you don’t like that, then that’s on you.
IIRC this is true.

But those same historians and archaeologists also conclude that segmentata never was the prevalent armor type on the Roman battle field AFAIK.