Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Usually these problems would occur due to normal wear and tear....but maintenance includes checking your gear for potential failures. In reference to your "muzzle" failure analogy, you wouldn’t be surprised by something like this if you had inspected your rifle thoroughly, I’m sure the compensator would have been loose (that would be funny though, you would be made the butt of many jokes by the guys for a while). On my Loricas I always check to see if any of the fittings are cracked, if the rivets are loose, if the metal looks stressed, etc. I would sure look foolish when I’m demonstrating Roman armor if the shoulder guards let go and the girdle plats end up around my ankles . But once again, I feel the need to remind you that the Hamata also had copper alloy fittings, such as hinges and what not, that could fail on you in the same way....

There is a big question mark over how much time a legionary had to do these checks, bear in mind that modern gear is in many cases hardier than the ancient equivelant, I believe Dan Peterson was the one who demonstrated that it's quite hard to know when the metal hook-and-eye fitting will fail, rather like the firing pin in your rifle. Unlike said firing pin, which I assume you can replace in under a minute, the armour is not simple to fix. Further, Peterson says that the interaction between iron and copper-alloy increases the rate of corrosion. As far as the hooks etc. on mail go, the shirt itself is all iron except for rivets. Worst case the shoulder-mantle has to be taken off, though you could probably do a quick fix with some boot-thongs.

Further, after dark the legionary would have no effective way to check his gear.

I only say its harder because actually punching the rings out is a very long, tiring, drawn out process. I mean, making chain mail, without riveting and punching out 10,000 rings, is a pain in the ace as it is. And yes, the chain mail as a whole is supposed to be flexible, but the individual rings are not supposed to be flexible, they have to be strong so they don’t bend and break (I’ve seen this happen), and that’s what I’m talking about.

Time and skill are two seperate rings, here we have 5,000 punched and 5,000 rivited rings. Also, the rings do need to be somewhat flexable, because they have to stretch under tension. Otherwise they snap.

Obviously, but whose to say that the examples found are examples of the best craftsmanship? The Segmentata fragments found in the Corbridge hoard have many flaws, and repairs....which may have been the reason why they were buried (disposed of). Maybe "the best" hasn’t been found yet.

I've seen the diagrams of the corbridge hoard, it's a cash of spares. If it were rubbish it would have been melted down or disposed of outside the fort, most likely. It would also have been stripped of all alloy fittings.

Anyhow, as I’ve said before, I also prefer chain mail. I don’t wear chain mail because even if I don’t punch out rings, and I don’t rivet the rest (making the process of Hamata construction much, much, easier), it would still be a whole lot quicker, and easier, and less stressful, to make the Lorica Segmentata, and I have personal experience in making both......and once again, the Segmentata was used for approx 250 years!!! The Romans must have believed the armor was worth keeping around.

Mail is used for upwards of 1,800 years, and the use of LS co-incides with the quietest period in Imperial history when many legionaries never even went on campaign. Proportionally LS is a historically unsuccessful armour which dissapears when the Empire in in turmoil.

Everything I’ve presented on this thread about the Lorica Segmentata has been backed up by well respected sources, and by personal experience making and using both types of armor. If you think that the fittings will randomly explode on you, that the plates would melt to liquid in the hot sun, that your random conjectures on the instability of the Segmentata proves that the archaeological findings are just the pipe dream of some idiotic scientist, so be it. I don’t care anymore. We are just going to go in the same circle as we have been going. My points of interest were: The Segmentata was used as early as 10 bc....the Segmentata was used for 250 years....the Segmentata was actually capable of protecting its wearer. Im not trying to make you like the armor...that I couldnt care less about.

Please, I'm suggesting no such thing. I am simply pointing out that the Segmentata is maintainance heavy, which you have admitted. You have not demonstrated that Legionaries had the time or means to maintain their armour, and you have ignored the fact that making the time would increase their overall workload. The only piece of information you have brought to bear is Mike Bishop's point that some armour was hardened.

This is true of Roman helms and swords as well, but analysis of swords in particular has shown that the gap between the best and worst swordswiths was huge, ranging from high-quality steel blades down to rank incompetance, and all appear to be service weapons.

To deal with your respons to K_raso, he made vallid points about worst case scenario. It is worth pointing out that people have been homping all over with both types of armour, wearing it wor weeks at a time, and that the consensus is that hamata is more reliable and comfortable.

As to the legionaries having armourers following them around, they did all that themselves, part of cutting down the supply train. We also know they had to buy their equipment and irrc LS was more expensive, though finding the citation for that would be hard.

Now, if you want to get into willy-waving, may I point out that I am a postgraduate at the second best university after Oxford in the UK for the study of archaeology, that I have contacts with serious experemental archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that I also have connection to the oldest re-enactedment group in the world, the Ermine Street Guard.

So I think I have some idea what I am talking about.

[antisocialmunky]

I appreciate you guys posting all this knowledge and continuing another LS debate. Its really informative to those of us who only see the monthly LS request threads.

[ljperreira]

You have not demonstrated that Legionaries had the time or means to maintain their armour, and you have ignored the fact that making the time would increase their overall workload. The only piece of information you have brought to bear is Mike Bishop's point that some armour was hardened.

I haven’t because it would be total conjecture on my part, something I try to avoid. As to "workload", I’m sorry to compare to the modern military, but today most commanders couldn’t care less how long the job took, as long as it got done (at least that goes for the Marine Corps, I cant speak for any of the other branches).

To deal with your respons to K_raso, he made vallid points about worst case scenario. It is worth pointing out that people have been homping all over with both types of armour, wearing it wor weeks at a time, and that the consensus is that hamata is more reliable and comfortable.

Once again, his points were pure conjecture, without sources or references, its hard for me to take that seriously.

As to the legionaries having armourers following them around, they did all that themselves, part of cutting down the supply train. We also know they had to buy their equipment and irrc LS was more expensive, though finding the citation for that would be hard.

Then why mention it? If you can't cite references then its pointless. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I cant just believe something based on the fact that you said it....

Now, if you want to get into willy-waving, may I point out that I am a postgraduate at the second best university after Oxford in the UK for the study of archaeology, that I have contacts with serious experemental archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that I also have connection to the oldest re-enactedment group in the world, the Ermine Street Guard.

Umm, ok, good for you. This doesn’t change a thing. And, who’s "willy-waving" (whatever the heck that means)? Did I brag or mention anything about myself? All I’m saying is that, like every other type of academic study, you cant present what you call fact without citing sources. Trust me, I would be more willing to take you for your word if you gave me sources.....

Wait a minute!!! Deosn't the Ermine Street Guard use the Lorica Segmentata?!

[Ludens]

Now, if you want to get into willy-waving, may I point out that I am a postgraduate at the second best university after Oxford in the UK for the study of archaeology, that I have contacts with serious experemental archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic, and that I also have connection to the oldest re-enactedment group in the world, the Ermine Street Guard.

This doesn't exactly convince me you are right.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This doesn't exactly convince me you are right.

It's not meant to, I was merely making a point.

ljperreira, I'm afraid conjecture is the historian and re-enactor's stock-in-trade.

Consider this, regarding mainainance. Practicality and daylight determine the time the legionary has to complete all his tasks once he arrives at camp and has actually built the camp itself. If he runs out of time tasks will simply be elft undone when he turns in for the night.

[ljperreira]

ljperreira, I'm afraid conjecture is the historian and re-enactor's stock-in-trade.

Consider this, regarding mainainance. Practicality and daylight determine the time the legionary has to complete all his tasks once he arrives at camp and has actually built the camp itself. If he runs out of time tasks will simply be elft undone when he turns in for the night.

True, so very true. But, as a reenactor, I try to keep the conjecture to a minimum. If I do have to state a theory, or what not, I make sure its known that its just an educated guess, at best.

For me, the big selling point is the fact that the Segmentata was used for 250 years. I know Ive mentioned this already a few times, but I really think this is an important fact. I try to picture anything that the modern military has used in the past and present.....the U.S. hasnt even been around for 250 years!! 234 years ago we were using smooth bore muskets, tricorn hats, wool uniforms, etc. The steel pot helmet our soldiers used in WWII only lasted about 45 years, having been replaced in the mid '80s by the kevlar helmet I wore in the Marine Corps. I have two pot helmets (one dated 1943 and the other from the Vietnam war era), and I think they are just as uncomfortable as the Kevlar helmet. Can it be said that because it was replaced by the kevlar that it wasnt any good? Sure, it was a bit heavier, and the kevlar probably protects you a little better, but that doesnt mean the pot helmet is complete junk. My point is, its hard for me to accept that an armor that was used for a period longer than my country has even been in existance, let alone in comparison to any amount of time weve used any of our own combat gear since becoming a country, could be half as bad as some try to claim. I hope any of that makes since. Anyhow, to each his own I guess.
As far as maintanance time, its been the same for any professional fighting force. We had to maintain our rifles, mortar systems, vehicles, personal equipment, etc. It didnt matter if youd been on ops for months, or a 20 mile hike all night, the gear still had to be cleaned and maintained before we can call it a day. And when youre in the field its even more important, because you want to make sure your weapons and equipment are going to continue working for you, we didnt stop cleaning our rifles just because we had only gotten 2 hours of sleep and was patrolling or doing fire missions all day and night. Even on ship we cleaned our rifles and other weapons at least 2 or 3 times a day.

[geala]

Hehe, another segmentata discussion, and a very good one imho with useful information without too much ira et studio. Thank you.

My opinion to segmentata in EB: not at all worth the effort because of the invention in the late 1st c. BC.

My opinion to segmentata in general: an armor which offered very good protection superior to mail and scale and at the same time had acceptable comfort. So here I'm more with ljperreira.

I'm not a specialist for the Roman time (ok, I'm not a specialist for anything ) and I don't reenact Roman soldiers (I reenact Greek soldiers) but I have some connections to Roman reenactors. The argument about the comfort comes from reenactors I know who wear the armor quite often.

As far as I know there are many findings of segmentata pieces spread over the whole Roman world, more than for mail (which is coincidence and has nothing to say). The conclusion is allowed at least that it was an often used armor in a certain timeframe.

It was the time in which the Roman army was in its most professional state and the Roman empire was economically and politically very strong. They didn't have to survive desperate wars and so had time, funds, resources and leisure to invest in the best for their heavy battle infantry. Later on that changed and simpler but still good armor was used again. That was often the same in later time, the very best for the individual was only used in certain circumstances.

I'm not of the opinion that segmentata offered worse protection compared to mail. That rigid armor is superior against blunt trauma is self explaining. Even with padded backing mail is clearly worse. Mail can also catch spikes and can be penetrated more easily. One of plates greatest benefits is the deflection of weapons points. I don't think that the physics of armor changed so much from antiquity to the medieval times. Why if mail was so superior or sufficient in itself did the medieval warriors adopt additional rigid defences from the 12th c. onwards? Defences which by the way looked first very similar to Roman segmented plate armor. Why did warriors who could afford it and were in the thick of the fray wear more and more plate defences in the later middle ages and no longer padded mail? Because plate is lighter and offers better protection and is in some aspects more comfortable to wear compared to heavily padded mail. The great advantages of mail were the unrestricted movement and the relatively simple (although time consuming) manner of fabrication. Mail is a very good armor. But for heavy battle infantry (and cavalry) a plate armor may be better in some aspects.

So my conclusion is that the Romans were no fools when they developed the segmented plate armor and used it as long as the material and political circumstances allowed.

[Ludens]

As far as maintanance time, its been the same for any professional fighting force. We had to maintain our rifles, mortar systems, vehicles, personal equipment, etc. It didnt matter if youd been on ops for months, or a 20 mile hike all night, the gear still had to be cleaned and maintained before we can call it a day.

Except that the Romans didn't have electrical lights by which to clean it, so they couldn't do it after sunset. That's what PVC is arguing. I quite agree with your other argument, though. It must have had some benefit if the Romans used it for so long.

[antisocialmunky]

They had fire. Its not the most reliable light source but it is light.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Firstly, you can't really inspect gear by naked firelight, you can't get the flame close enough. Even if the Romans had some sort of reflector (no evidence of which I know of) it would still be nearly impossible. So, the Roman soldier must do all his complex work in daylight, leaving pretty much just eating and sharpening of weapons to camp-fire time.

geala, I'm not convinced on the comfort or protection stakes.

For starters, segmentata is neither rigid nor plate armour, it is more properly overblown scale armour. Unlike medieval horsemen, legionaries are not wearing high-quality multi-layered armour. The average warrior was wearing mail and a coat-of-plates. By the time they get up to just plate the technology for producing reliable steel is miles ahead of Rome.

The best segmentata is not even quite mild steel and it's protective qualities are dubious at best.

As far as comfort goes, while mail is heavier, a certain amount of the weight can be taken by the waist-belt and overall the armour is less constricting. A friend of mine has said that, given the choice, he would rather spend a week in mail than LS because after he takes his mail off he's fine in an hour, LS not so much.