Sir Cunningham, personal anecdotes make for poor evidence in an argument (especially on the internet) because all we have to go on it is the trust of your word. You tell us that you've seen LS effectiveness firsthand, but one of us could easily say we have seen mail and scale's effectiveness firsthand. I'm not saying you give any reason to doubt your word but it's just the nature of things online - we can't take anyone's abstract claims to authority (such as in a historical debate someone going "I'm a history major" and then implying we should give his words greater weight just because of that claim) as proof. For those historians and authors and archaeologists we can receive as authorities, it's not just because of their title or position but because the evidence points to them being involved, well-researched individuals.
Belatedly, a point I meant to make last night:
Trajan's Column can be a case of "Be careful what you wish for":However the LS was in std. use for about 250-300 years, and esp. against the Dacians & Britons
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Invoking the MC Bishop officer again:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
MC Bishop addresses the protective quality of the LS fairly succicntly in this passage. Note that it's not some sort of vunderweapon capable of making a legionary invulnerable: [Page 83-84]
Page 73 presents an interesting belief that an Arlon relief depicts LS shoulders with Mail shirts - there is some debate about the accuracy of the relief. However I think that's interesting to note, given it plays to the argument of the LS shoulders being the most effective piece.Experiments have shown how easy it is to penetrate the sort of ferrousplates used in lorica segmentata, whether it be with a falx or a catapult bolt, but it is clear that the de-sign ethos behind the cuirass was never intended toprovide full protection from such threats. Func-tionally, defence was concentrated against thedownward blow from an ordinary straight-edgedsword, hence the emphasis on defence in the shoul-der region, where the shoulderguards either turnedthe blow outwards and away from the neck or, as-sisted by the flange of the helmet neckguard, caughtit on the out-turned or rolled edge of the collar sec-tion. The thickness of upper shoulderguards(particularly the Kalkriese-type examples) onlyserves to underline the primacy placed upon the roleof the upper units in the defence of the individual.The girth hoops, on the other hand, served to deflectstray blows sideways and downwards and, as such,did not need to be as thick as the upper components.The curving shape of the plates would have helpedthe lower units deflect direct stabbing blows, butsince few of Rome’s enemies used such fighting tech-niques (it is unlikely that the armour would bedesigned with a view to combat in civil wars, where other segmentata wearers using a sword for stabbing might be encountered), this would not normallyhave been a concern to the soldier
Regarding the point you made about LS being more frequently found than mail: Page 81
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Manufacturing: Page 78-79
1) Ideally suited to production line method, with unskilled and semi-skilled labourers, finally completed by a skilled armourer.
Personally I think the conclusion that "The Later Roman Empire was too poor/too in trouble to produce LS" is a rather messy and ambiguous conclusion. Coincidences are precarious ground to stand on for historical argument - the Christianization of the Empire corresponded with its decline but that doesn't causate its fall.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
==================================================================================
Conclusions from the MC Bishop piece:
1) LS's explicit strength against mail/scale is against downward strikes to the shoulder. There is no noted superior strength against arrows, thrusts, or non-downward strikes compared to mail/scale.
2) LS has an explicit weakness vis-a-vis mail/scale in its inherent fragility of parts.
3) LS is explicitly advantaged in much lighter weight to mail/scale.
4) Author considers the overabundance of LS archaeological pieces to mail/scale may be because of that fragility vis-a-vis mail/scale's endurance in day to day use.
5) LS was effective despite this fragility and was 'popular enough' to see continued use for around 3 centuries.
6) It was not some sort of wonderweapon, it was not 'vastly superior to the mail and scale in every way'. It is superior against downward strikes, lighter, but also much more fragile and prone to breaking pieces
That's not bad for either of our positions. It means the LS would be superior against Germanic barbarians with a penchant for downward-slashing and in siege situations like Judaea or Dacia. But it also means the LS had a major drawback (it's fragility) and outside of downward attacks was on equal footing with scale and mail. And that we really can't say how prevalent it was based on the evidence available, so our conclusions are bound to differ.
Last edited by Ahiga; July 04, 2012 at 01:24 PM.
First of all great post Ahiga .
I must say I agree with you on almost all you say (that confirms my theory that roman steel plates were not very resilient or "capable of resisting an energy heavy impact"), but I am not really convinced about it being less resistent to arows as a plate of steel even if fragile should hold an arrow ( exept from composite bows, big italian crossbows and maybe longbows) if not trown from few meters.
Speaking of barbarians in Roman Army, its clear that barbarians started to be recruited by romans even before the Empire ( counting only regular formations not mercenaries) and that military service granted citizenship, but the non citizens could only join Auxilia units initially while legions were restricted to citizens so almost only italics and few individuals. I don't know exactly when this practice became obsolete, maybe during the 3rd century crysis but I frankly don't know .
"There is no ugly woman, there is only too few Vodka" - Oleg Pouzanov (ex Soviet fencing team coach)
The Marian reforms will probably be connected to the tech tree.
In this matter all CA has to do is to take a close look in RSII.
Otherwise i doupt if CA will create a product better that RSII!!!
TGC in order to continue its development seak one or more desicated scripters to put our campaign scripts mess to an order plus to create new events and create the finall missing factions recruitment system. In return TGC will give permision to those that will help to use its material stepe by step. The result will be a fully released TGC plus many mods that will benefit TGC's material.
Despite the mod is dead does not mean that anyone can use its material
read this to avoid misunderstandings.
IWTE tool master and world txt one like this, needed inorder to release TGC 1.0 official to help TWC to survive.
Adding MARKA HORSES in your mod and create new varietions of them. Tutorial RESTORED.
Outclassed certainly yes my friend, lorica hamata was used for more than 1000 years by Romans (until 1453 for certain) and for the reasons brilliantly addressed in the following post.
Excellent post +rep
From my research in Roman armors i was surprised from the evaluation of LS and other types of armor.
LS was used less than any other type of armor because in terms of overall evaluation it lacked the combination of effectiveness and easy repairability LH and L squamata had.
Moreover the evolution of klivanion lamellar armor showed that there were other armor types who had similar features but lasted in the test of time.
(lammellar klivania were used for almost 1000 years)
Quem faz injúria vil e sem razăo,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Năo vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
Luís de Camőes
Steel plate requires quite a bit of technology and infrastructure. If you have that infrastructure, plate armor can be very cheap. If you don't, you are out of luck. Mail takes a lot of time, but any decent blacksmith can make it. Mail is essentially one-size-fits-all, since it conforms to the body. Mail isn't as good against thrusts or arrows as plate, but it isn't as bad as some people assume it to be. Mail also lasts a long time, and could be passed down from father to son and whatnot.
Lorica Squamata is the one that most fascinates me. Why do you say that it outclasses Segmentata? I don't know much about scale and how it compares to mail or segmented armor.
From what I have read Lorica Squamata was used by Romans along with Lorica Hamata for centuries because the combination of overall protection, repairability and endurance made it overall better than LS.(I repeat overall evaluation, in strict terms of protection i have not doubt that LSegmentata may offered a superior protection from certain types of blows)
Lorica Squamata has a history of evolution in the Roman armory and a enduring the test of time.It was used along with LSegm. but unlike it, Squamata continued to be part of Roman armory for centuries.
Take a close look in the metopes of the monument, you will see legionaires wearing LH and LSquamata all over the place
Quem faz injúria vil e sem razăo,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Năo vence; que a vitória verdadeira É saber ter justiça nua e inteira-He who, solely to oppress,Employs or martial force, or power, achieves No victory; but a true victory Is gained,when justice triumphs and prevails.
Luís de Camőes
Interesting post I wonder does its fragility matter if you are fighting in a formation, you could imagine that with shields the blows would need to come over the top hence the advantage of having the better protection for the shoulders and with less weight during a prolonged battle it would give a distinct advantage over mail.
Ahiga,
Please note that MC Bishop does not say anywhere that Lorica Segmentata was on equal footing with the Lorica Hamata or Lorica Squamata when it comes to protecting against thrusting or hacking attacks. Mr. Bishop simply notes that the LS was designed with an emphasis on maximum protection around the shoulder area, which makes good sense when considering that enemies mostly had to attack over the Roman shields to get to the person behind.
Furthermore ofcourse bolts from a ballista would've easily penetrated a LS, heck I wouldn't trust a medieval suit of Gothic armour to withstand that, so that doesn't really tell us much. Likewise the tip of a hard hitting Falx could pierce straight through a Roman helmet (hence the introduction of the helmet reinforcement bars), so again it comes as no surprise that this weapon could've penetrated the ferrous plates of the LS.
However as pr. first hand experience the LS provides great protection against thrusting attacks by swords or spears as-well as arrow shots, and while not impervious to all such attacks it is definitely superior to chain mail. As mentioned I've seen it myself first hand, and I've honestly read no reliable source that challenges this either, MC Bishop included. It would be absolutely fantastic however if some active reenactors could do some similar tests and then record it on video. That way we can let the results speak for themselves. It should be possible to arrange
As for the fragility of the LS, well naturally fittings can come loose with time, and it is a complicated piece of kit, so yeah it was probably more fragile in the long run, again proving it was more difficult to maintain than chain mail. As for the "trash litter" theory, I can't say I really agree much with this; A more plausible reason why so many fittings are found can also be due to the fact that many times the iron plates have simply been lost to time and rusted away, leaving behind only the brass fittings.
Last edited by Sir. Cunningham; July 04, 2012 at 09:05 PM.
“Carpe diem! Rejoice while you are alive; enjoy the day; live life to the fullest; make the most of what you have. It is later than you think.” - Horace 65 BC
before 1 A.D. there has been at least 2 huge changes in roman military organisation.
the first one was from maniples ( hastati, princeps, triarii) to proto cohorts, which is how the RS2 starts as Rome. i believe those were introduced when Hannibal invaded italy (not sure though).
the last one was introduced by Marius at (100 B.C.??), when he standarised the army and started having actual legions.
and i think this is another one, the change from those proto legions to named and numbered legions. at this time, the roman equipment should get better, as well as a much organised roman legion.
what do i want to say with all this? i want certain technologies that can be researched after a specific moment. eg: when you change to the the first cohorts (during hannibal), you unlock a new type of technologies to be researched, such us testudo formations or something like that. do you get me?
also, something that could trigger the periods change, is when you had researched all those technologies from that period. the technologies turn should spend a lot of time to represent the time that those changes took place.
this could also happen with other factions (improoving their equipment, politics, economy, etc)
LOS PIOJOS
TODO LO DEMAS NO ES NADA
ROCK NACIONAL
Lorica Segmentata was made out of iron plates iirc, not steel. The Romans didn't have a standardized metallurgical industry and was able to produce iron in far greater quantities.
Plate is easy and cheap to produce today because of industrial machinery that can pump out pressed metal plates. Today, chainmail would be difficult and time consuming to produce.
However back then, chainmail required far less skill to produce whereas plate required a far more advanced level of skill. I'd say for that reason chain would be cheaper than LS.
"easily penetrated chainmail" ?
It sounds like that mail was made from historically inaccurate butted mail, instead of historically accurate riveted mail. Here's a test where multiple types of long swords couldn't penetrate the chains of chainmail with stabs:
Last edited by Intranetusa; July 04, 2012 at 11:03 PM.
This. Often re-enactors tend to use butted chain mail because it is cheaper. Riveted mail can for the most part withstand penetration from a sword thrust, especially with a padded shirt underneath.
Most butted maile today is steel not soft iron. Steel maile cannot absorb shock/stress because of the hardening process. The best maile was made from soft iron (and riveted) as it will coil/bend around the object not piercing but getting trapped in the iron preventing extraction in some cases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_yTQUvJRf0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpdob...ailpage#t=180s
Last edited by Enyalios; July 05, 2012 at 12:39 AM.
Modern steel less stress/shock absorbant thansoft iron ?! How should this work? The rings will deform more easily.
I do not know where all this "wonder maille" wave does come from, with a lot claims like that no medieval weapon can penetrate chainmail.
And I do no trust those Youtube videos, they often not actual weapons but replicas, and some blows look rather half hearted.
Sure, riveted mail is very good against slashing attacks, but even with proper padding blunt-force trauma is inevitable.
Do not forget that back than the quality of iron/steel was not comparable with modern steel, and that by a big margin.
this.
Soft iron can't be used to make armors as it would deform itself and when iron or steel deform itself it becom more hard to penetrate but more fragile, plus iron with too much carbon become ferrite that its completely useless for dinamic uses as is fragile as glass and iron wih too few carbon sucks.
You must use steel to make protections with iron, in ancient times the first in the west to recognize that they were making something different from iron by smelting it were the roman that made quite good steel, for the time standard, by oxygenating it with blowns of hammer and other means. Its also false that a chain mail depend less on steel quality as if you know how chains are made nowdays you know that its not a really simple process, a single weak ring can destroy all the chain.Again mail is more common due to its relatively simple production process and average good quality, but a plate armor, as LS was a plate armor, will always protect more from all damage type, the only real danger was that metallurgy was not sufficently advanced to make resilient steel plates so lorica Hamata was probably a more reliable defence even if less ( not much less as pointed out) effective.
This said, I want LS in game because I want to have the possibility of see high imperial legionaries conquering the world in shiny armors .
"There is no ugly woman, there is only too few Vodka" - Oleg Pouzanov (ex Soviet fencing team coach)
I like the way legions are in Roma Surrectum 2, where some have the higher end armor and some do not, and each legion has its own unique feature (different color tunic, different shape helmet, etc..) but you can still easily tell that they are legions and that they are roman.
War is peace.
That's pretty spot on. There's no way maile could match the protective qualities of the LS while it was in good condition. Other than that maile was comfortable and easy to use and repair. The protective qualities of the LS like medieval Japanese armor would decline badly with lack of repair.
Proculus: Divine Caesar, PLEASE! What have I done? Why am I here?
Caligula: Treason!
Proculus: Treason? I have always been loyal to you!
Caligula: [laughs insanely] That IS your treason! You're an honest man, Proculus, which means a bad Roman! Therefore, you are a traitor! Logical, hmm? Ha, ha, ha!