Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[ljperreira]

Its ugly imho, would rather die then wear that piece of crap.

Give me good, time tested Hamata any day.

I doubt that, given the choice between any form of armor or no armor at all, I believe you would chose the armor......

Because wrapping myself in reptiles doesn't seem very protective.

The Lorica Squamata (scale armor) was used by many different people throughout history (from ancient to medieval). The overlapping plates provided a bit more flexibility than rigid plate armor, at the same time as providing the protection from blunt force trauma that plate armor gives you.

All in all, each form of armor has its benifits and drawbacks. None of us could really know what those are unless we personally use them in full on, life or death combat situations. Real experience doesnt include playing a video game or even reenacting. Definate conclusions on our part without real life experience is just personal opinion, and cannot be counted as any form of fact. Comfort and vanity go to the wayside when you are trying to protect your own life......

[Rilder]

The Lorica Squamata (scale armor) was used by many different people throughout history (from ancient to medieval). The overlapping plates provided a bit more flexibility than rigid plate armor, at the same time as providing the protection from blunt force trauma that plate armor gives you.

(Yes I know what you meant :p )

Aka I was trying to make a joke, Squamata is an order of Reptiles.

On Topic,
I just don't see why people care about late roman empire armor so much. Then again I loose interest with Roman history after the christians appear.

[ray243]

Aka I was trying to make a joke, Squamata is an order of Reptiles.

On Topic,
I just don't see why people care about late roman empire armor so much. Then again I loose interest with Roman history after the christians appear.

It's all about the packaging, and the reason why so many hollywood designers love to modify historical armour to look as cool as possible.

People don't care about what happened in that era, they care about how cool history can be.

[Zaknafien]

for what its worth, there are reasons 'the LS was used for 250 years'. Thats kind of a a false argument for your point, its as if you said, "but the sword was used for 3000 years". the rate of technological advancement in a society is the result many factors, the most important of those being food supply, security, and personal independence. The Romans simply did not have the professional class of sufficient size to spark any real technological revolution as the modern west did in the past 250 years. the reason we get a rapid stream of new technology and inventions these days is because we have an entire large segment of the population that does not have to work and is supported by others so that they have time to think about things, as well as enjoying protections from others stealing their ideas through patent law.

[ljperreira]

The Romans simply did not have the professional class of sufficient size to spark any real technological revolution as the modern west did in the past 250 years.

What?? We are not discussing why they didnt invent something new, we are discussing why they used the Segmentata when there was perfectly good technologies already available, called the Hamata and Squamata. So its about existing technologies, not advancing technologies. And, may I remind you that there was technological advances at this time, though they may be considered small in comparison to today. In reference to the Segmentata specifically, the earliest form is known today as the Kalkriese type A Lorica, followed by the Kalkriese type B, the Corbridge types A and B, and the Newstead version (and of course others we may not know about yet). Each Segmentata is a vast improvement over the last. So the 250 year statement does apply, because for 250 years the Segmentata was used when, as I said above, there already was versions of armor that some feel was superior to the Segmentata. The discussion here is why they used the Segmentata for 250 years when there was other technologies available, amongst other things.

[V.T. Marvin]

Sorry for being totally off-topic, but I just have to say big HELLO TO ZAKNAFIEN - I am glad to see you here again after a long time. Great to know that you are alive and hopefully safe and soud as well. Welcome back to civilian life and I pray that they will not send you oversees any time soon.

P.S. - I still have your "Primus Inter Pares" AAR bookmarked as "my favourite" but I do not dare to hope that you might want to continue it. I am sure that you must be more than busy enough with EB II (besides the RL)!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?? We are not discussing why they didnt invent something new, we are discussing why they used the Segmentata when there was perfectly good technologies already available, called the Hamata and Squamata. So its about existing technologies, not advancing technologies. And, may I remind you that there was technological advances at this time, though they may be considered small in comparison to today. In reference to the Segmentata specifically, the earliest form is known today as the Kalkriese type A Lorica, followed by the Kalkriese type B, the Corbridge types A and B, and the Newstead version (and of course others we may not know about yet). Each Segmentata is a vast improvement over the last. So the 250 year statement does apply, because for 250 years the Segmentata was used when, as I said above, there already was versions of armor that some feel was superior to the Segmentata. The discussion here is why they used the Segmentata for 250 years when there was other technologies available, amongst other things.

Sorry, how is Newstead an improvement? Dan Peterson, who knows more about putting soldiers in armour than anyone else, pointed out about 10-15 years ago that Newstead is inferior in very way save speed of construction.

Also, Zak, thoughts on the maintainance arguement?

[Zaknafien]

I definately agree that soldiers will do the bare minimum they can get away with. Squad, section, and platoon leaders arent omnipotent nor omnipresent, and many of them as well are also as lazy as the next guy (or girl, as we are all human). I personally find my military experience has given me great insight to the armies of the past, especially in the way we analyze archaelogical finds. From the way the military is portrayed in media and film, any of us who have served know that there are numerous errors, some of them glaring. Imagine, if you will, that archaeologists 2,000 years from now salvage a DVD movie of our western militaries and use that as part of their evidence for a book or something. Also, in Iraq today we are using 4 different sets of personal body armor. They all look very similar to the untrained eye, and an unbiased observer might think they are the same thing.

P.S--VT Marvin-- Thanks for the well wishes, its great to be back. And sadly no, I probably wont be continuing any AARs..maybe until EB II at least.

[ljperreira]

Sorry, how is Newstead an improvement? Dan Peterson, who knows more about putting soldiers in armour than anyone else, pointed out about 10-15 years ago that Newstead is inferior in very way save speed of construction.

Also, Zak, thoughts on the maintainance arguement?

As we have mentioned above the Segmentata's weakness is its fittings. The Newstead Lorica solves this problem to a degree by making larger and stronger fittings, as well as getting rid of the reliance on leather straps. The breast and back plates, as well as the girdle plates, overlap each other and "lock" into place using stronger cast lacing loops. To some this makes the Newstead version a better Segmentata, to others maybe not, its just a matter of opinion. You can read more about the Newstead at the Legio XX site.

I definately agree that soldiers will do the bare minimum they can get away with. Squad, section, and platoon leaders arent omnipotent nor omnipresent, and many of them as well are also as lazy as the next guy (or girl, as we are all human).

It depends on the unit, or branch of service. If you belong to a rabble, an undisciplined group of wannabes who just signed up for the benefits, then I would agree with you. But if you join an organization that takes its job seriously, and doesn’t tolerate laziness or sloth, then you’re dead wrong. My experience in the Marine Corps taught me that if squad leaders were not omnipotent, then they were pretty darn close. Of course, you always have that 10%, as we used to say, but those guys were always pulling the shite details, so to speak. I would like to think that the Legionaries constituted the more disciplined classification, but that’s just my opinion, and couldn’t be proven or disproven without traveling back in time.....

Also, in Iraq today we are using 4 different sets of personal body armor. They all look very similar to the untrained eye, and an unbiased observer might think they are the same thing.

I agree, I dont believe all Roman Legionaries used the same type of armor (anyways, I think that what you are trying to say). As I mentioned above there is some evidence that the individual Legionary had to purchase his own armor and equipment, so it would make since that he would choose whatever he was willing to pay for (and how fancy the decorations were). This is why most Roman legion reenacting groups encourage a bit of variety, and why at some archaeolgical sites both the Segmentata and Hamata are found.