Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

And, interestingly, suppose that the soldier could somehow get the light sufficiently close enough by means of reflectors or otherwise: consider then that fire has a widely different colour spectrum from sun light, even the common watt bulbs of today do not match the intensity or spectrum of sunlight. In short: the legionary can't see half by fire-light of what he can see during the day due to the fact that the higher frequencies are under-represented (resulting in near-black for things that used to be blue).

[geala]

I think you should not overestimate the "light and see" problem. They could see enough for some hundred years. But I have to concede that maintenance of the segmented armor would have been surely not a pleasure.

@ PV Calicvla: I never wore a segmented armor, so I can say nothing about it's comfort from own experience. Your friend can. I can only imagine that comfort depends very much on how exactly the armor fits the individual.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, that's another problem with Segmentata, it has to be well fitted.

[ljperreira]

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.

Once again, the modern infantryman cant use light of any kind at night, because it would give his position away. But we were still expected to keep our 782 gear and weapons clean and serviceable. And we didnt have all day to do it (way too busy closing with and destroying the enemy and such).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Once again, the modern infantryman cant use light of any kind at night, because it would give his position away. But we were still expected to keep our 782 gear and weapons clean and serviceable. And we didnt have all day to do it (way too busy closing with and destroying the enemy and such).

Your belt kit is made out of synthetic webbing, unlikely the snap under stress, your body armour won't suffer from random failure of it's fittings, which aren't made of bronze.

THe analogy between modern and ancient is bad in most respects, in some it works. Soldiers will generally do the bear minimum of work to stop themselves getting killed, for instance.

[ljperreira]

Your belt kit is made out of synthetic webbing, unlikely the snap under stress, your body armour won't suffer from random failure of it's fittings, which aren't made of bronze.

THe analogy between modern and ancient is bad in most respects, in some it works. Soldiers will generally do the bear minimum of work to stop themselves getting killed, for instance.

The U.S. Marine Corps has high standards concerning the Marine's upkeep of his gear and weapons. We are not allowed to "do the bear minimum of work", all of our equipment is inspected by the team leader, squad leader, section leader, what have you....good luck to the Marine who fails.
And yes, you’re equipment can suffer from random failure....I’ve had it happen to me on a few occasions. Usually I would agree that comparing a modern infantryman to his ancient counterpart is wrong, but in this case its a simple matter of gear serviceability and the upkeep of it, which is the same whether you’re talking about a Pugio or a Bayonet.

I would also like to point out something I've been intending to add to my comments but keep forgetting......there is proof that the Legionaries made quick fixes in the field, relating specifically to the fittings. The Corbridge hoard has a couple such fixes here, and here. These examples show that after the hinge failed, the plates were riveted directly to each other, which may prove that a failure of this type doesn’t have to be a considerable setback.
I think that the only thing you would lose at that point is a small amount of comfort. I’m going to try this out on one of my own Segmentatas', because I don’t think it would really make much difference.