Is it plausible to depict the Segmentata using armor upgrades?

[ray243]

Using the M2TW engine, you can actually depict the more advanced set of armour worn by your units. For example, a non upgraded unit may not wear any armour at all, however, if you bought some armour workshop and re-train those units, you can give them better armour.

This can be an accurate depiction as legionnaires do not wear that armour until the later part of the Roman empire, and that armour isn't that widespread.

So, by making the armour available when you have a high level armour workshop, you do not have so legionnaires wearing the LS, and you do have a chance to provide your troops with that armour until the late game period.

Even if you did manage to equip those units with the Lorica Segmentata, only a few legions can afford it.

Upgrades to a unit's armor are also depicted - a unit of unarmored spearmen upgraded to have leather armor will be depicted wearing it

So perhaps chain mail or lorica hamata will be worn by 'unarmoured' legionnaires, while Sementata will be worn by heavily armoured legionnaires?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This has been brought up many times, read the FAQ for the EB teams final statement on Segmentata use.

[Mediolanicus]

Using the M2TW engine, you can actually depict the more advanced set of armour worn by your units. For example, a non upgraded unit may not wear any armour at all, however, if you bought some armour workshop and re-train those units, you can give them better armour.

This can be an accurate depiction as legionnaires do not wear that armour until the later part of the Roman empire, and that armour isn't that widespread.

So, by making the armour available when you have a high level armour workshop, you do not have so legionnaires wearing the LS, and you do have a chance to provide your troops with that armour until the late game period.

Even if you did manage to equip those units with the Lorica Segmentata, only a few legions can afford it.

This all very possible and true, but I don't see what it has to do with EB.
It is also possible to add musket units to all the factions. MTW2 engine has them, and the whole of Europe used them at some point in history. But I don't see what that has to do with EB either...

[antisocialmunky]

The armor system is messed up and LS isn't going to be in the game. Just wait for a LS mod.

[Macilrille]

Or someone extending the game into AD which is where the LS was taken into use. By Legions who were, BTW ALWAYS armoured, no unarmoured Legioaires, ever. Auxilia often wore lighter armour, Legions heavier.

Cut and Paste from Wiki, whose Roman series of articles is not bad at all.
During the time of its use, it was modified several times, the currently recognised types being the Kalkriese, Corbridge and Newstead types. There was, however, a considerable overlap between these types in use and the Corbridge and Newstead types are often found at the same site (e.g. at Caerleon [Wales], Carnuntum [Austria], Carlisle [England] and Leon [Spain]). It is possible that there was a fourth type, a hybrid of the banded armour together with scale shoulder defences. However, this is only known from a badly damaged statue originating at Alba Julia in Romania. The currently accepted range for the use of the armour is from about 9 B.C. (Dangstetten) to the late 3rd century A.D. (Leon). However, similar armouring techniques were used during the 16th century, employing sliding rivets and this was known as anima. Introduced in the early 1st century AD, the armor saw widespread use during the period of 2nd-3rd centuries AD.

[ray243]

I do not mean depicting the Legionaires as unarmored. I mean depicting an 'unarmoured' unit of Legionaires wearing Hamata.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

First of all, there will be no LS in EBII. Unless someone finds some sort of revolutionary find of LS use in the second century BC, the team will stick to "No LS".

I understand what you are suggesting, and yes it is possible to do as you say.

However, armor upgrades are hardcoded to give +1 armor (nothing more, nothing less). Not to turn this into a LS debate (which will be closed if it does), but some people argue that LS actually provided less protection then LH.

Also, it hasn't been decided yet, but armor upgrades may be used for something other than armor upgrades and may not be available for this purpose.

[antisocialmunky]

However, armor upgrades are hardcoded to give +1 armor (nothing more, nothing less). Not to turn this into a LS debate (which will be closed if it does), but some people argue that LS actually provided less protection then LH.

In the unit description it displays +1 but in the actual engine registers more than a +1 for many levels. If you look around, you can find the exact numbers. The only one I remember is that from unarmored to padded is +4.

[Macilrille]

Well, I checked, and there were LS found at Kalkriese. That is 9 AD and thus concievably within EB timeframe if only just.

[Ludens]

Well, I checked, and there were LS found at Kalkriese. That is 9 AD and thus concievably within EB timeframe if only just.

Wasn't that just a single suit? The main argument against inclusion is not that it wasn't used, but that it wasn't common. One team member mentioned that even at the height of it's popularity, LH would still be used by many if not most legionaries, but I haven't seen the sources that back that up. Either way, unless a trove of LS is found and dated to EB's time-frame, we can assume it was uncommon in the period that concerns the mod.

[Macilrille]

It is a single find yes, but others of its type has been found (known as the kalkriese Type), and it is not as if that much chainmail has been found at Kalkriese as i understand it. Dunno TBH, for I have not studied the find in detail.

[antisocialmunky]

How about more Squamata? :-D

[ljperreira]

Wasn't that just a single suit? The main argument against inclusion is not that it wasn't used, but that it wasn't common. One team member mentioned that even at the height of it's popularity, LH would still be used by many if not most legionaries, but I haven't seen the sources that back that up. Either way, unless a trove of LS is found and dated to EB's time-frame, we can assume it was uncommon in the period that concerns the mod.

Not even a whole cuirass, just a partial breastplate and shoulder guard. But the info is not derived by how many "suits" they found at Kalkriese, but how many "fittings" they found. Fittings are the plate hinges, strap and buckle hinges, tie hooks, etc. The plates of the Segmentata cuirass is made of iron, which is very corrosive, but the fittings are made from a copper alloy (such as brass or bronze) and resists corrosion. So, after 2000 years, the only parts they usually find are Segmentata fittings. "Kalkriese" style fittings have also been found at sites that predate the "Teutoburg" site, which could suggest that Loricas were used prior to AD 9 (late first century BC). And Kalkriese fittings have also been found in Britain, so that style is believed to have been used there during the early time frame of the invasion (most reenactors use the Corbridge style exclusively). But I wouldnt push the subject here, as far as arguing for the use of Segmentatas in EB 2, they will just shout you down. Trust me, Ive tried.

[Ludens]

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of pre-Teutoburger LS finds. Can you give us the references?

I think though, that the fact it hasn't been mentioned before goes a long way to explaining why LS tends to get "shouted down". We've had about two dozen discussions on the inclusion of LS already, and this is the first time I hear of these finds. The people who suggest it generally don't do so because of the historical evidence, but because they simply want LS. Frankly, I am tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again, and I guess so is the team.

[ray243]

Well, most people like the LS because it looks cool, and don't care if it is historical or not. The reason I ask about LS is not because I want every soldier to look cool. I am asking if it is simply plausible to depict the fact that the LS is not widespread, but it was used by the Romans in limited amount.

I thought that with M2TW, it might be plausible to depict scneario where 1-2 cohorts wore LS, while others simply wore chain mail. It allows you to immerse yourself in battles, where some of your veteran cohorts managed to get the good stuff, while the more junior cohorts gets the normal stuff.

[oudysseos]

How many people actual play up til AD 9? That's 1124 turns into the game: it hardly seems worth it to put work into a feature for something that minor for our time period, since the resources for models and reforms etc. aren't infinite. There are other uses for upgrades that will be much more significant than a few Romans in LS.

Guys, the team has said time and again no LS (and by the way the Romans didn't even call it Segmentata- something the fanboys never seem to know). It's time to get over it already.

[mikil100]

How many people actual play up til AD 9? That's 1124 turns into the game: it hardly seems worth it to put work into a feature for something that minor for our time period, since the resources for models and reforms etc. aren't infinite. There are other uses for upgrades that will be much more significant than a few Romans in LS.

Guys, the team has said time and again no LS (and by the way the Romans didn't even call it Segmentata- something the fanboys never seem to know). It's time to get over it already.

What did they call it? I forget, remember seeing it somewhere.

[Ludens]

What did they call it? I forget, remember seeing it somewhere.

We don't know, actually. It may have been lorica laminata, but that could just as well refer to another type of armour.

I thought that with M2TW, it might be plausible to depict scneario where 1-2 cohorts wore LS, while others simply wore chain mail. It allows you to immerse yourself in battles, where some of your veteran cohorts managed to get the good stuff, while the more junior cohorts gets the normal stuff.

Possible, but prepare for a serious discussion with PVC about the effectiveness of LS. It may not have been an upgrade (in protective terms) over LH at all. The Romans themselves were never that enthusiastic about LS, since it never entirely superceded (or even outnumbered) chainmail.

[Macilrille]

LS is a rennaissance term we still use, just as we call chainmail... chainmail. And since the Roman name for it is unknown, what else would we call it?

I still think it deserves inclusion, but I guess it is all a matter of priorities.

[ljperreira]

Frankly, I am tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again, and I guess so is the team.

Which is why I said it isnt worth mentioning.....

Also, overall Roman reenacting groups dont wear the Lorica Segmentata strictly because they think its cool (though I know some do). The Segmentata is much easier to make in comparison to the Lorica Hamata (chain mail). Ive made 3 Segmentatas myself, but I hesitate to make the Hamata. Most Roman reenacting groups stress authenticity, such as Legio XX, and request you not use butted chain mail. Roman chain mail was made with alternating rows of solid rings and riveted rings, making it a very tedious and drawn out project. Keep in mind the fact that each shirt has anywhere from 8000-15000 rings. Thats a lot of riveting. Its much easier to be authentic wearing a Segmentata.
The Segmentata is also worn because the most popular Roman era to reenact is the invasion of Britain (AD 43). I think this is because (at least in the U.S.) alot of people are of British decent, and have no interest in reenacting anything that has nothing to do with Britain (my brother-in-law is Scottish and he's like that). My new Roman group is trying to break the mold though and weve decided to portray Legionaries in Germany prior to AD 40.

Kalkriese Lorica Source: Mr. Mike Bishop (Lorica Segmentata: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour) claims that the Kalkriese Lorica could have been used as early as 10 BC (here is a link to his website on the Segmentata: http://loricasegmentata.org/ clisk on "What is it", then choose "Kalkriese Type" towards the bottom. I hope this suffices.

[Ibrahim]

Which is why I said it isnt worth mentioning.....

Also, overall Roman reenacting groups dont wear the Lorica Segmentata strictly because they think its cool (though I know some do). The Segmentata is much easier to make in comparison to the Lorica Hamata (chain mail). Ive made 3 Segmentatas myself, but I hesitate to make the Hamata. Most Roman reenacting groups stress authenticity, such as Legio XX, and request you not use butted chain mail. Roman chain mail was made with alternating rows of solid rings and riveted rings, making it a very tedious and drawn out project. Keep in mind the fact that each shirt has anywhere from 8000-15000 rings. Thats a lot of riveting. Its much easier to be authentic wearing a Segmentata.
The Segmentata is also worn because the most popular Roman era to reenact is the invasion of Britain (AD 43). I think this is because (at least in the U.S.) alot of people are of British decent, and have no interest in reenacting anything that has nothing to do with Britain (my brother-in-law is Scottish and he's like that). My new Roman group is trying to break the mold though and weve decided to portray Legionaries in Germany prior to AD 40.

Kalkriese Lorica Source: Mr. Mike Bishop (Lorica Segmentata: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour) claims that the Kalkriese Lorica could have been used as early as 10 BC (here is a link to his website on the Segmentata: http://loricasegmentata.org/ clisk on "What is it", then choose "Kalkriese Type" towards the bottom. I hope this suffices.

what reenacting legion are you from? (If you are from one)

[Ludens]

Which is why I said it isnt worth mentioning.....

Perhaps it is if there is new evidence. I have quickly browsed the link you provided, and as far as I can see this is the only relevant passage (notes and references included):

Attempts to pinpoint the adoption of lorica segmentate by the Roman army have not, as yet, met with much success. These have included the Roman defeat at Carrhae in 53 BC and the revolt of Florus and Sacrovir in AD 21.(7) We now know that the Kalkriese form of the cuirass was in use as early as 9 BC, possibly by legio XIX,(8) and that it was present amongst legiones XVII, XVIII, and XIX when they were defeated in the teutoburgerwald debacle in AD 9, so it had clearly been adopted well before AD 21 (Fig.10.1). It is a type of armour provides defence against downward blows with long swords, a style of combat favoured by various Iron Age European peoples, so any notion that it was invented to counter the perceived superiority of Parthian archery in the east seems unlikely.

7. Carrhae: BRIZZI, 1981, 198; Florus and Sacrovir: BISHOP & COULSTON, 1993, 85
8. As indicated by finds from Dangstetten (BISHOP, 1998, 12)

G. Brizzi, ‘L’armamento legionario e le guerre partiche’, Critica Storica 19, 177-201
M.C. Bishop & J.C. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, London
M.C. Bishop, ‘The development of “lorica semgentata”: recent advances and old work re-assessed, Arma 10, 10-14

So the way I see it, the assertion that LS was in use around 9 BC is based on a single publication by the same author. However, I cannot find the publication on the internet or in the my universities library. Can someone with access to this Arma journal check it out?

[The General]

Uargh, what's with the LS obsession?

Never bloody understood it, m'self.

[ljperreira]

Perhaps it is if there is new evidence. I have quickly browsed the link you provided, and as far as I can see this is the only relevant passage (notes and references included):



So the way I see it, the assertion that LS was in use around 9 BC is based on a single publication by the same author. However, I cannot find the publication on the internet or in the my universities library. Can someone with access to this Arma journal check it out?

"Lorica Segmentata, Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour" look under Chapter 4: The Kalkriese Type" page 23, paragraph 3.
"It was only after the initial publication of the Kalkriese breastplate that it became possible to identify similar items from other sites. Moreover, the other loose fittings from the Kalkriese excavations made it possible to isolate a second variant, and again comparison with finds from other sites showed that its components had been known - but not recognised - for some time."
And on para. 4: "The earliest pieces so far identified come from Dangstetten (Germany) and date to around 9 BC (3) and these appear to have been exclusively of type A (with double-riveted buckles attached to leather straps). Other sites with a known Augustan presence - such as Vindonissa (Windisch, Switzerland) and Strasbourg (France) - have produced similar buckles or sub-lobate hinges, whilst fittings belonging to the type B cuirass have even been found in Britain (at Chichester and Waddon Hill), showing that it continued in use until after AD 43."

3. FINGERLIN, 1986, Abbn.268.1, 285.5, 448.1; 1998, Abb.681.2
(Gerhard Fingerlin 1986: Dangstetten I. Katalog der Funde (Fundstelle 1 bis 603), Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 22, Stuttgart)

Armamentarium look at Dangstetten (Germany)

According to M. C. Bishop the the assertion that LS was in use around 9 BC is based on archaological evidence.

what reenacting legion are you from? (If you are from one)

A few fellow history nuts and I are just starting Legio XXI Rapax, in central California. Our gear list has been growing pretty quickly and soon we should have enough "Legionaries" to start attending events. Ive also had contact with Legio X Fretensis (in the Bay Area) and Legio IX Hispana (SoCal), but not only are their clubs portraying the British invasion, but their events are a bit out of the way. The going has been a bit slow because two of our full time members are deployed to Iraq......and the others havent gotten their kits together yet. In the mean time ive given a couple of school presentations and I attend Medieval/Celtic fairs in my kit. Ive gotten a lot of positive responses from those I talk to, so this season im going to try to recruit.

[antisocialmunky]

Uargh, what's with the LS obsession?

Never bloody understood it, m'self.

Honestly, I find that chainmail is more practical...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...because it's really hard to make a lamallar bikini.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe the earliest possible find is 23 BC, the god of Roman Armour, Mike Bishop is very reliable. You'll notice the second volume there is an exhaustive catalogue of finds.
Regardless, it's shoddy stuff and it's not going in because clever legionaries didn't use it.

[oudysseos]

Munky, I'm with you on that one!

[anubis88]

Lol haven't been on the forum for almost a year now, and the last thing i remember was some people trying to prove that Lorica Segmentata should be in EB....

I mean LOL! Someone should run a program which would automaticly ban a user that uses the LS word

[Ludens]

"Lorica Segmentata, Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour" look under Chapter 4: The Kalkriese Type" page 23, paragraph 3.

Blast, I read the chapter but overlooked that bit. Thanks for pointing it out. Good luck with your re-enactment group!

I believe the earliest possible find is 23 BC, the god of Roman Armour, Mike Bishop is very reliable. You'll notice the second volume there is an exhaustive catalogue of finds.
Regardless, it's shoddy stuff and it's not going in because clever legionaries didn't use it.

Could you explain your reasoning?

I mean LOL! Someone should run a program which would automaticly ban a user that uses the LS word

I am tired of this discussion as well, but punishing people is going a bit far. After all, if even the history channel gets it wrong we cannot expect the average person to know this, and as ljperreira points out, it did exist in EB's time-frame.

[antisocialmunky]

You could just make a unit limit = 1 LS parade unit for the lulz. I might just do that after EB II is out.