Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

[Durendalv2]

So you're saying the Romans are going to melt down tens if not hundreds of thousands of sets of perfectly good hamata chainmail armor and reforge them as segmentata?

Melting down perfectly good armor that has been tried and trued for centuries in a time consuming and expensive process and remake them as an armor that is only marginally better but a lot more expensive to produce and maintain.

That would be a total waste of time, energy, and money. It would be absolutely silly to do such a thing

If they're coming off a dead guy (damaged), or are rusted (I don't think a set of mail lasted 500 years...), then I think it's a safe assumption that the iron was reforged. Just my two cents.

[wulfgar610]

I don't know, I can't say for sure.



The Chinese did indeed concieve a large blast furnace at around 600 BC infact (misremembered the exaxt period), but naturally all they used it for was to make cast iron. It was making continuous iron plate armour of meaningful quality that was the problem, for which you not only needed a special blast furnace and but also the metallurgical know how not generally believed to exist in the west until the middle ages.

Iron smelting wasn't a problem though, the Hittites started doing that in the late Bronze age.

I suspect 600 BC Chinese iron casting may be a communist myth. Their swords were still bronze at the time of the First Emperor.

The Hittites didn't smelt iron, they like all the ancient peoples used the bloomery process. That it they heated iron ore to red hot and hammered it, removing impurities in the process until relatively pure wrought iron was left.

If a communist party hack thinks they found an iron smelter, what they found was more likely used for bronze.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Chainmail has a far greater surfact area than LS. The chains may have a greater thickness, but overall it has a much larger surface area - and that causes faster corrosion.

You do realize that makes zero sense right ? Naturally thinner metal objects corrode faster than thicker objects, that is basic metallurgic knowledge really, and quite logical too.

Trajan's Column is the main pictorial source for LS armor. And iirc, LS armor was mainly found in certain locations of the Roman empire - namely Britain and Dacia.

Trajans collumn is far from the only iconographic depiction of LS in use by the Roman Legions, that you are not aware of this speaks volumes really. Also LS has been uncovered all over the Roman empire, including in Britain, Romania (Dacia), Germany, France & Spain etc.

Besides archaeology, chain and scale have far more references to it than just a single monument.

Besides archaeology ?? As already mentioned several times by now archaeology suggests that the LS was likely more numerous within Legions than the LH in the 0-250 AD time frame. And again LS is depicted not just on Trajans collumn in Rome but on a wealth of other monuments dating from the period, as mentioned the fact that you don't seem to know that speaks volumes.

The fact that the Adamclisi Tropaeum doesn't show any LS armor at all meant that it wasn't that common. If it was so common that it overtook mail and scale as you claim, then all monuments would've portrayed the majority of soldiers wearing LS.

False logic. The exact same can be argued about Trajan's Collumn, which is when archaeology becomes the deciding factor, and archaeological evidence happens to be in much stronger support of Trajan's Collumn than the Adamclisi Tropaeum. Not really surprising considering the huge amount of detail present on Trajan's collumn.

So you're saying the Romans are going to melt down tens if not hundreds of thousands of sets of perfectly good hamata chainmail armor and reforge them as segmentata?

Melting down perfectly good armor that has been tried and trued for centuries in a time consuming and expensive process and remake them as an armor that is only marginally better but a lot more expensive to produce and maintain.

First of all the LS was not just marginally better, it was a significant improvement in protection, esp. against the Dacians. Secondly yes ofcourse they would re-melt the thousands of pieces of old used mail that otherwise would've just corroded away in stores, they weren't prestine sets of armour anymore.

Hence the material was needed to manufacture new armour that would last for another campaign. This was common practice even in the medieval ages where metal was in much higher supply, and contrary to what you claim, not doing it would've been a downright waste.

I would disagree. Auxiliaries and legionaries aren't really that much different - they were often equipped in the same way. Hollywood stereotypes Roman legionaries as having all the best equipment with auxiliaries only having the leftovers. I'd say due to the benefits of mail in terms of cost/production/maintenance, the surplus of mail, and other qualities of mail, it would still be the main form of armor for legions and auxiliaries alike.

All I will say is that I choose to rely on the overwhelming archaeological and iconographical evidence available to us today.

[Sir. Cunningham]

I suspect 600 BC Chinese iron casting may be a communist myth. Their swords were still bronze at the time of the First Emperor.

The Hittites didn't smelt iron, they like all the ancient peoples used the bloomery process. That it they heated iron ore to red hot and hammered it, removing impurities in the process until relatively pure wrought iron was left.

If a communist party hack thinks they found an iron smelter, what they found was more likely used for bronze.

The wealth of sources makes this a worthwhile read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ous_metallurgy

[Intranetusa]

You do realize that makes zero sense right ? Naturally thinner metal objects corrode faster than thicker objects, that is basic metallurgic knowledge really, and quite logical too.

Greater surface area = greater permeation of corrosive elements and greater oxidation

It's quite logical.

Trajans collumn is far from the only iconographic depiction of LS in use by the Roman Legions, that you are not aware of this speaks volumes really. Also LS has been uncovered all over the Roman empire, including in Britain, Romania (Dacia), Germany, France & Spain etc.

Reread the post. I said "main" source of depiction. And I said "mainly found in" because the other
areas did not discover LS in large quantities relative to Britain and Dacia.

main, mainly =/= only

Besides archaeology ?? As already mentioned several times by now archaeology suggests that the LS was likely more numerous within Legions than the LH in the 0-250 AD time frame. And again LS is depicted not just on Trajans collumn in Rome but on a wealth of other monuments dating from the period, as mentioned the fact that you don't seem to know that speaks volumes.

Actually, I have never read any archaeologist who have said LS was used more than chainmail for legionaires. Give me a link.

False logic. The exact same can be argued about Trajan's Collumn, which is when archaeology becomes the deciding factor, and archaeological evidence happens to be in much stronger support of Trajan's Collumn than the Adamclisi Tropaeum. Not really surprising considering the huge amount of detail present on Trajan's collumn.

Incorrect. I'm not arguing scale is the dominant form of armor, so my statement would be logical. You're arguing that LS was the dominant form of armor. The fact LS wasn't even shown in some monuments shows your statement is false.

My argument would only be illogical if I'm saying scale was dominant, which it is not and which I never said.

First of all the LS was not just marginally better, it was a significant improvement in protection, esp. against the Dacians. Secondly yes ofcourse they would re-melt the thousands of pieces of old used mail that otherwise would've just corroded away in stores, they weren't prestine sets of armour anymore.

First of all, it would make more sense to simply repair chainmail armor, since it was easily repairable. And why would they let it corrode in stores? Every legionaire was already equipped with chainmail that he would be using on a daily basis. Chainmail is self cleaning since wearing it scrapes away the rust. Again, there is no reason to melt down chainmail to remake it as LS when chainmail was a perfect fine tried and true armor for centuries.

Second of all, it was better protection against blunt force, and probably marginally better against stabs. This was at the expense of taking away groin and thigh coverage that chainmail provided. It was also time consuming to put and required another person to help you wear, which can be disastrous during time-crucial seconds of an ambush or other situations. LS is also difficult to repair in the field, whereas chain is simply to repair. And this isn't even going into the economic disadvantages of LS armor.

All I will say is that I choose to rely on the overwhelming archaeological and iconographical evidence available to us today.

I have not read anything that claims LS was used more than hamata for legionaries. If you have, then link me to it.

[wulfgar610]

The wealth of sources makes this a worthwhile read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ous_metallurgy

Thanks for that Sir Cunningham.

Western historians debate whether bloomery-based ironworking ever spread to China from the Middle East. Around 500 BC, however, metalworkers in the southern state of Wu achieved a temperature of 1130°C. At this temperature, iron combines with 4.3% carbon and melts. The liquid iron can be cast into molds, a method far less laborious than individually forging each piece of iron from a bloom. This technology would be known in Europe from early medieval times on.[29]
Cast iron is rather brittle and unsuitable for striking implements. It can, however, be decarburized to steel or wrought iron by heating it in air for several days. In China, these ironworking methods spread northward, and by 300 BC, iron was the material of choice throughout China for most tools and weapons. A mass grave in Hebei province, dated to the early third century BC, contains several soldiers buried with their weapons and other equipment. The artifacts recovered from this grave are variously made of wrought iron, cast iron, malleabilized cast iron, and quench-hardened steel, with only a few, probably ornamental, bronze weapons.

I think this all smells of nonsense.

Here's another source that claims the earliest hard evidence of Chinese iron smelting is from the Han dynasty.

A point is how large these castings are. If they used a method similar to the crucible clay packets of wuze steel, then they will be pretty small. Wuze steel billets weighed in around 200 to 300 grams.

• 1500 B.C.-Wrought iron is discovered in the Near East.
• 600 B.C.-The first cast iron object, a 600-lb tripod, is cast by the Chinese.
• 233 B.C-Iron plowshares are cast.
• 200 B.C.-Oldest iron castings still in existence are produced during the Han Dynasty.

http://afsbirmingham.org/wp/?page_id=89

The first signs of large scale bast furnaces that could pour large pieces of iron are in the middle ages.

[Naisho]

I must say I am leaning towards the same opinion. The only reason I at all consider the possibility is because I know the chinese experimented with cast armour already in 500 BC, so perhaps the Greeks did as-well. The key word here is "experimented" though, as cast iron armour would've proven unsuitable for combat, something who'ever made the armour incl. the chinese, soon would've found out.

The only known instance of cast iron in europe that I know of occurred in one of the Scandinavian countries. But they A: didn't know what they had and B: didn't have a blast furnace to recreate it.

I suspect 600 BC Chinese iron casting may be a communist myth. Their swords were still bronze at the time of the First Emperor.

The Hittites didn't smelt iron, they like all the ancient peoples used the bloomery process. That it they heated iron ore to red hot and hammered it, removing impurities in the process until relatively pure wrought iron was left.

If a communist party hack thinks they found an iron smelter, what they found was more likely used for bronze.

It was my understanding that the Chinese did in fact have a blast furnace in the B.C period. In southern China if I am not mistaken.

I do know for certain that they did have cast iron before Europe.


Now think we should predicate a couple of things with plate armor. Wide scale use and adoption was likely impossible. And not for the reasons previously put forwards.


Large scale plate production didn't begin until the introduction of the blast furnace in europe. The occurrences of maille drastically shifts from the 12th century to the 16th century with full plate armor being issued to common foot soldiers. (of course at their expense)

With a bloomery it is just too difficult to produce large scale plates as it can only produce iron (or if they know what they are doing steel) in small batches at a time. While a blast furnace is able to produce continuously.

I really think that is the problem. Not the preference of one style over another but the lack of supply. It is easier to buy 1kg of iron to make into rings than to buy 5kg of iron to make into a 3 or 4 small plates.

It likely was too heavy of a drain on wrought iron supply.

Pattern welding (for example) uses small iron rods to produce a larger sized weapon. Which also happens to fall out of favor when around the same time as the introduction blast furnaces interestingly enough.

[wulfgar610]

This was at the expense of taking away groin and thigh coverage that chainmail provided.

I'll have to differ on this one. Roman cavalry tended to have maile that covered the thigh, but illustrations of Roman infantry right into Byzantine times show maile or similar only going slightly below the waste, the thighs being protected by peturges of the leather muscle cuirass.



I'll agree with you that there is no certainty that LS was the majority armor for legionaries. The heyday of the LS was from the mid 1st century to the mid 2nd, when the requirement to provide military security was at its lowest.

The renewal of heavy warfare like that with the Marcomanni may have revealed the maintenance liabilities of the LS leading to its abandonment.

The advantage with maile is it holds up in bad conditions. It's like comparing the AR-15 with the AK-47, it every respect the AR is the better gun except the AK can be relied on to fire under the worst conditions. An inferior gun that will shoot is better than a superior one which is jammed.

[wulfgar610]

It is easier to buy 1kg of iron to make into rings than to buy 5kg of iron to make into a 3 or 4 small plates.

It likely was too heavy of a drain on wrought iron supply.

Actually the entire LS only weighed about 9 Kg. Considering that the LS used something like 24 pieces, none of the plates would be over 500 grams.

[Intranetusa]

Thanks for that Sir Cunningham.
I think this all smells of nonsense.
Here's another source that claims the earliest hard evidence of Chinese iron smelting is from the Han dynasty.

Why is it nonsense? Your own source says that the first iron casting was in 600 BCE by kingdoms in China. I'm sure there are pictorial, written, etc forms of evidence for iron casting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._in_China#Iron

Furthermore, your source is inaccurate or more likely outdated about the earliest cast iron artifact. The earliest cast iron artifacts are actually from the Zhou era around the 5th century BCE.

"The world's earliest cast iron artifact is from the tomb in Luhe County, Jiangsu, dated to the early fifth century BC, discussed in chapter 2, section 2.2, above."

http://tinyurl.com/7ckr6pw

[Intranetusa]

If they're coming off a dead guy (damaged), or are rusted (I don't think a set of mail lasted 500 years...), then I think it's a safe assumption that the iron was reforged. Just my two cents.

The Octavian Anthony War was around 30 BCE. So that's not 500 years, but more 30 years from the first use of the LS, and 100-200 years from the height of the LS.

Reforged and repaired as more chainmail, yes. Hundreds of thousands of perfectly fine armor completely melted down and recast into something else? Unlikely.

I'll have to differ on this one. Roman cavalry tended to have maile that covered the thigh, but illustrations of Roman infantry right into Byzantine times show maile or similar only going slightly below the waste, the thighs being protected by peturges of the leather muscle cuirass.

That's not a lorica segmentata armor. That's a cavalryman wearing scale or lammellar with leather strips dangling from the waist. The LS I've seen either has no groin protection, or has a few measly strips of leather dangling in front of the groin that serves more decorative purposes if anything.

The actual lorica hamata armor extended below the waist to the thighs. LS stops at the waist.

The advantage with maile is it holds up in bad conditions. It's like comparing the AR-15 with the AK-47, it every respect the AR is the better gun except the AK can be relied on to fire under the worst conditions. An inferior gun that will shoot is better than a superior one which is jammed.

An unsuitable comparison. The advantages of mail isn't just it holding up in bad conditions. It was easier & faster to wear, was one-size fits all, easier to produce & repair, cheaper to produce & repair, easier to maintain, and provided almost the same level of protection as LS.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Greater surface area = greater permeation of corrosive elements and greater oxidation

It's quite logical.

And yet uncovered fragments of LH are nearly always in better shape than uncovered pieces of LS. So once again, no.

LH fragments:


Entire suits of LH found in Britain:

Reread the post. I said "main" source of depiction. And I said "mainly found in" because the other
areas did not discover LS in large quantities relative to Britain and Dacia.

main, mainly =/= only

And yet plenty of pieces have been found elsewhere...

Actually, I have never read any archaeologist who have said LS was used more than chainmail for legionaires. Give me a link.

Try Peter Connolly. Heck even MC Bishop doesn't rule it out.

Incorrect. I'm not arguing scale is the dominant form of armor, so my statement would be logical. You're arguing that LS was the dominant form of armor. The fact LS wasn't even shown in some monuments shows your statement is false.

What ?? By the same logic I could claim that since LH isn't shown on some monuments then that means it wasn't in mass use. Come on man, you are insulting my intelligence now.

My argument would only be illogical if I'm saying scale was dominant, which it is not and which I never said.

First of all, it would make more sense to simply repair chainmail armor, since it was easily repairable.And why would they let it corrode in stores? Every legionaire was already equipped with chainmail that he would be using on a daily basis. Chainmail is self cleaning since wearing it scrapes away the rust. Again, there is no reason to melt down chainmail to remake it as LS when chainmail was a perfect fine tried and true armor for centuries.

A suit of chain mail isn't a forever lasting piece of equipment, it wears and it corrodes with time. Do you honestly believe that the Romans would repair & re-use every old shirt of mail in an endless circle throughout time ?!

Ofcourse the suits which had reached the end of their useful lifetime would've been melted down and used to make new equipment. It was done in the middle ages and it most certainly also was in ancient Rome.

Second of all, it was better protection against blunt force, and probably marginally better against stabs.

The LS didn't just provide excellent protection against blunt trauma, but using the same metals the LS would've provided significantly better protection against stabs as-well, esp. in regards to all strikes outside of a direct 90 deg angle which would've just glanced off.

This was at the expense of taking away groin and thigh coverage that chainmail provided. It was also time consuming to put and required another person to help you wear, which can be disastrous during time-crucial seconds of an ambush or other situations. LS is also difficult to repair in the field, whereas chain is simply to repair. And this isn't even going into the economic disadvantages of LS armor.

First of all the LS was likely often carried with thick leather or cloth strips (Pteruges) protecting the groin and upper thigh area, extending much further down than the typical LH. These strips were also usually part of the arming vest (Subarmalis) worn under the LS as padding.

[Slipz]

Oh, you'll certainly not see me claim they're undefeatable, after all my people's ethnogenesis is even based in part on defeating those very knights with their militia-based armies.
Success depends on being able to form a good charge, having no obstacles and a whole slew of other factors. But the stereotypical Western knights' charge when executed correctly was extremely powerful, both in actual damage delivered as well as being a blow to morale. And a successful charge was what I was talking about.

A Roman legion under proper leadership and knowing what to expect could certainly at the very least try to counter a charge. But even if they do that, they'll still have to contend with a warrior elite that's armoured from head to toe + the rest of their soldiers who are variably armed and armoured.
Certainly defeatable, but it won't be a cakewalk.


Oh, I remember why I never venture into the general forums any more, everyone still believes in myths and thinks they're an expert.
For starters you might wont to drop the notion that medieval armies were "rabble mercenaries peasants".

I did write that there were exeptions, Also why do you have to throw insults? And come on face it, Even the proffesional medieval soldiers with a few exeptions werent as far as I know trained as hard as a Roman Legion was.

Some expert wikipedia copypaste ---

The most common infantry throughout the early medieval period were peasants and commoners who were obliged to fight for the local lord, due to their place in the feudal system. They were usually unarmoured and fought either with simple agricultural tools such as axes, forks and flails, or with a spear and shield. In some circumstances they were expected to bring and maintain their own equipment. At other times they were outfitted by the lord or king they fought for. These men were essentially conscripts and as such their discipline, morale and fighting ability varied greatly. Generally those fighting to protect their homeland were far more motivated than those that were fighting abroad. As the Medieval period progressed however with its constant warfare, this pattern began to change, The growth of urban centres opened up new sources of infantry recruits, particularly men with skills in fighting.

-----

Im pretty sure they count as rabble when compared to a Roman Legion from the Roman "hay day".

[wulfgar610]

That's not a lorica segmentata armor. That's a cavalryman wearing scale or lammellar with leather strips dangling from the waist. The LS I've seen either has no groin protection, or has a few measly strips of leather dangling in front of the groin that serves more decorative purposes if anything.

The actual lorica hamata armor extended below the waist to the thighs. LS stops at the waist.

I know its not LS, I'm not referring to LS. I'm referring to the consistent history that metal Roman infantry armor didn't extend below the waist to cover the thighs no matter what it was.


Ok, then why does Trajan's column portray the LH as short. The figure on the extreme left reveal a LH that hardly extends below the waist.

There's a difference between people's medieval fetish for longer maile and fact that Roman infantry wore short maile shirts right into the Byzantine era. So the the claim that the LH gave greater coverage for infantry is pure bollocks.

[Intranetusa]

I know its not LS, I'm not referring to LS. I'm referring to the consistent history that metal Roman infantry armor didn't extend below the waist to cover the thighs no matter what it was Ok, then why does Trajan's column portray the LH as short. The figure on the extreme left reveal a LH that hardly extends below the waist.
There's a difference between people's medieval fetish for longer maile and fact that Roman infantry wore short maile shirts right into the Byzantine era. So the the claim that the LH gave greater coverage for infantry is pure bollocks.

All I see is a bunch of people, Dacian and Roman alike, fighting half naked ...which only supports the idea that Trajan's Column is a bullcrap propaganda piece.

And yes, the Roman lorica hamata did extend down to cover the groin and part of the thighs. You need to google better pictures of the lorica hamata chainmail.



M. C. Bishop on Trajan's Column:

"ICONOGRAPHIC
Representational evidence for lorica segmentata is not abundant and what does exist is not very reliable, by and large. Part of the problem lies in the heavy reli-ance that has to be placed upon metropolitan propaganda monuments, given the absence of rele-vant provincial funerary reliefs...

However,the Column is deceptive and its at-tention to detail should not be mistaken for accuracy:mistakes like segmental plates sculpted to resemble the texture of mail should counsel caution against invest-ing too much trust in it, and it is probably safest to interpret the Column reliefs as ‘impressions’, rather than accurate representations,of the sort of segmental armour the sculptors would have seen in Rome...

The reliefs on the column of Marcus Aurelius(Fig.2.3), erected at some point in the 2nd century AD, are heavily influenced by Trajan’s Column and, conse-quently, greatly simplified in applied detail and of evenless use in the study of segmental body armour...

The 1st-century AD Rhineland infantry tomb-stones are of little help, since the few that do depict some sort of armour show mail..."


Lorica Segmentata I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour by M. C. Bishop p. 9-10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lorica-Segmentata-Volume-I-A-Handbook-of-Articulated-Roman-Plate-Armour"]http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lo...n-Plate-Armour[/URL]

Basically, Trajan's Column = inaccurate propaganda piece and lorica segmentata was rarely depicted.

[Intranetusa]

And yet uncovered fragments of LH are nearly always in better shape than uncovered pieces of LS.

Depends.


Let's say even if what you say is true, who actually says LS is more commonly found than LH?

And yet plenty of pieces have been found elsewhere...

Found more than LH?

Try Peter Connolly. Heck even MC Bishop doesn't rule it out.

Which book? What chapter? The last thing I read before today from Bishop iirc was the auxillaries also wore segmentata.

Speaking of M. C. Bishop:

"ICONOGRAPHIC
Representational evidence for lorica segmentata is not abundant and what does exist is not very reliable, by and large. Part of the problem lies in the heavy reli-ance that has to be placed upon metropolitan propaganda monuments, given the absence of rele-vant provincial funerary reliefs...

However,the Column is deceptive and its at-tention to detail should not be mistaken for accuracy:mistakes like segmental plates sculpted to resemble the texture of mail should counsel caution against invest-ing too much trust in it, and it is probably safest to interpret the Column reliefs as ‘impressions’, rather than accurate representations,of the sort of segmental armour the sculptors would have seen in Rome...

The reliefs on the column of Marcus Aurelius(Fig.2.3), erected at some point in the 2nd century AD, are heavily influenced by Trajan’s Column and, conse-quently, greatly simplified in applied detail and of evenless use in the study of segmental body armour...

The 1st-century AD Rhineland infantry tomb-stones are of little help, since the few that do depict some sort of armour show mail..."


Lorica Segmentata I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour by M. C. Bishop p. 9-10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lorica-Segmentata-Volume-I-A-Handbook-of-Articulated-Roman-Plate-Armour"]http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lo...n-Plate-Armour[/URL]


So yeh, Trajan's Column = inaccurate propaganda piece and lorica segmentata was rarely depicted.

What ?? By the same logic I could claim that since LH isn't shown on some monuments then that means it wasn't in mass use. Come on man, you are insulting my intelligence now.

Except LH has far more references to it throughout the ages and far more depictions. The LS has a more limited time frame and then was no longer used, which lies the problem. So you really can't directly compare LS and LH in terms of 2nd century depictions.

A suit of chain mail isn't a forever lasting piece of equipment, it wears and it corrodes with time. Do you honestly believe that the Romans would repair & re-use every old shirt of mail in an endless circle throughout time ?!...Ofcourse the suits which had reached the end of their useful lifetime would've been melted down and used to make new equipment. It was done in the middle ages and it most certainly also was in ancient Rome.

I do expect it to last at least decades with care and last one or two centuries if they maintain it by repairing or replacing old rings. Even if they melted down half their chainmail armor after the Roman civil wars, they would've still had more than enough armor to equip all of their legionaires in hamata chainmail.

You cannot deny the sheer quantity of lorica hamata chainmail in existence at the end of even the 1st century BCE. You can't expect the Romans to melt down half of their tried and true armor, let alone most of them.

The LS didn't just provide excellent protection against blunt trauma, but using the same metals the LS would've provided significantly better protection against stabs as-well, esp. in regards to all strikes outside of a direct 90 deg angle which would've just glanced off.
First of all the LS was likely often carried with thick leather or cloth strips (Pteruges) protecting the groin and upper thigh area, extending much further down than the typical LH. These strips were also usually part of the arming vest (Subarmalis) worn under the LS as padding.

The vulnerability of chainmail to stabs is overblown and vastly misconstrued due to the inaccurate and stereotypical use of butted mail armor in recreations compared to historically accurate riveted armor.

Chainmail does provide good protection against stabs from spears and swords. All but the heaviest or the sharpest weapons are stopped by the rings (in which case the sharp point passes through the loops in the chain without breaking the chain).

Considering how LH armor is thinner than the chains, I would say the stabbing protection against LH was probably better, but certainly not "significantly" better.

I would rely on metal to protect my privates rather than only relying on a few strips of leather:

[Durendalv2]

Which book? What chapter? The last thing I read from Bishop iirc was the auxillaries also wore segmentata.

Peter Connolly mentions in "Greece and Rome at War" that lorica segmentata use extended beyond the legionaries and into the aux. corp and that most of the evidence comes during the second half of the 1st century.

Except LH has far more references to it throughout the ages and far more depictions. The LS has a more limited time frame and then was no longer used, which lies the problem. So you really can't directly compare LS and LH in terms of 2nd century depictions.

Apart from Thucydides and Xenophon, ancient historians are vague with their military description and often tend to be very dramatic.

I do expect it to last at least decades with care and last one or two centuries if they maintain it by repairing or replacing old rings. Even if they melted down half their chainmail armor after the Roman civil wars, they would've still had more than enough armor to equip all of their legionaires in hamata chainmail.

You cannot deny the sheer quantity of lorica hamata chainmail in existence at the end of even the 1st century BCE. You can't expect the Romans to melt down half of their tried and true armor, let alone most of them.

I don't deny the quantity, but if armor came around that offered better protection and maneuverability, I'd want it and I want my soldiers to use. So if theirs a glory-hungry general seeking victory, I'd use lorica segmentata. When lorica segmentata becomes prevalent is when the legions numbered over 100,000 men (beginning of the 2nd Century), more than the late Republican armies. I don't think chainmail would be serviceable after more than 200 years because of rust.

The vulnerability of chainmail to stabs is overblown and vastly misconstrued due to the inaccurate and stereotypical use of butted mail armor in recreations compared to historically accurate riveted armor.

Chainmail does provide good protection against stabs from spears and swords. All but the heaviest or the sharpest weapons are stopped by the rings (in which case the sharp point passes through the loops in the chain without breaking the chain).

Considering how LH armor is thinner than the chains, I would say the stabbing protection against LH was probably better, but certainly not "significantly" better.

I agree, having an army euqipped with chain-mail is a luxury, but what makes lorica segmentata better primarily is that it's weighs over 6 pounds (3 kg) less than mail. Then the maneuverability kicks in etc.

I would rely on metal to protect my privates rather than only relying on a few strips of leather:

If I had a preference, I'd use cataphract armor, being covered head-to-toe in scale armor and a spanglehelm would be the equivalent to a Roman tank

[wulfgar610]

All I see is a bunch of people, Dacian and Roman alike, fighting half naked ...which only supports the idea that Trajan's Column is a bullcrap propaganda piece.

And yes, the Roman lorica hamata did extend down to cover the groin and part of the thighs. You need to google better pictures of the lorica hamata chainmail.
.

So I see, actual illustrations from ancient Rome are bullcrap and modern reenactments medieval mail fashion sense fetish is the truth.

Early Roman soldiers were armored that way because they fought to win, to bash the hell out of the enemy. The area their armor was designed to protect was the upper body that was exposed to danger. They didn't turn around and wave their privates at the enenmy like Mel Gibson's Scots. Early Roman soldiers typically didn't fight defensively unless they really had to. Their technique was to press right into their enemy and keep pushing him until he turned flight. And the Romans seldom lost this way by dent of their vastly superior training. Romans seldom lost a stand up fight in the open against non-Roman opponents.

Your not interested in the facts, you're simply interested in your own fashion sense for armor. Which does seem to have been typical for Roman cavalrymen, whose thighs the ancient sources go on tell us, was an area for the footman to attack.

Considering how LH armor is thinner than the chains, I would say the stabbing protection against LH was probably better, but certainly not "significantly" better.

If somebody could show me how easy it is to push a blade through 9mm of cast hardened iron?

[Intranetusa]

Your not interested in the facts, you're simply interested in your own fashion sense for armor...

"You're."

And this has nothing to do with fashion sense. You need to distinguish between a historically accurate monument and an impressionist propaganda monument. The Romans didn't go into battle naked without armor like the monument depicts. And the monument isn't even accurate in its depiction of LS either (see below).

Modern reenactments are based on pictorial and archaeological evidence. If you think Roman chainmail stopped at the waist then you are not very informed.

So I see, actual illustrations from ancient Rome are bullcrap and modern reenactments medieval mail fashion sense fetish is the truth.

So according to you, the Romans and Dacians fought half naked without even torso armor because that's what it shows on a Roman propaganda monument?



If you still don't believe me, take it from historian M.C. Bishop. He calls out the Trajan monument as totally inaccurate.

"ICONOGRAPHIC
Representational evidence for lorica segmentata is not abundant and what does exist is not very reliable, by and large. Part of the problem lies in the heavy reli-ance that has to be placed upon metropolitan propaganda monuments, given the absence of rele-vant provincial funerary reliefs...

However,the Column is deceptive and its at-tention to detail should not be mistaken for accuracy:mistakes like segmental plates sculpted to resemble the texture of mail should counsel caution against invest-ing too much trust in it, and it is probably safest to interpret the Column reliefs as ‘impressions’, rather than accurate representations,of the sort of segmental armour the sculptors would have seen in Rome...

The reliefs on the column of Marcus Aurelius(Fig.2.3), erected at some point in the 2nd century AD, are heavily influenced by Trajan’s Column and, conse-quently, greatly simplified in applied detail and of evenless use in the study of segmental body armour...

The 1st-century AD Rhineland infantry tomb-stones are of little help, since the few that do depict some sort of armour show mail..."


Lorica Segmentata I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour by M. C. Bishop p. 9-10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lorica-Segmentata-Volume-I-A-Handbook-of-Articulated-Roman-Plate-Armour"]http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lo...n-Plate-Armour[/URL]

Like I said before, Trajan's Column = inaccurate propaganda piece and lorica segmentata was rarely depicted.

If somebody could show me how easy it is to push a blade through 9mm of cast hardened iron?

Look up youtube videos of riveted mail. It's basically impossible to stab through.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Apart from Thucydides and Xenophon, ancient historians are vague with their military description and often tend to be very dramatic.

I don't deny the quantity, but if armor came around that offered better protection and maneuverability, I'd want it and I want my soldiers to use. So if theirs a glory-hungry general seeking victory, I'd use lorica segmentata.

If I was a power hungry general, I'd equip my troops with lorica hamata, because it was far better in cost-benefits ratio. If I was a Roman emperor and wanted to portray my men in shiny plate armor, I'd march them through the streets in segmentata.

When lorica segmentata becomes prevalent is when the legions numbered over 100,000 men (beginning of the 2nd Century), more than the late Republican armies. I don't think chainmail would be serviceable after more than 200 years because of rust.

Late Republican armies was actually the numerical height of the Roman military. The Octavian-Anthony War involved half a million legionaries. So that's almost 500,000 pieces of chainmail or scale armor...and not a single segmentata in sight.

I agree, having an army euqipped with chain-mail is a luxury, but what makes lorica segmentata better primarily is that it's weighs over 6 pounds (3 kg) less than mail. Then the maneuverability kicks in etc.

Well, I don't know if it'd be a luxury...considering chain was far more cost effective and easy to repair/maintain/etc as mentioned already. LS does indeed weigh less than mail, but the Roman hamata mail had a belt that helped distribute some of the weight around the waist. Add to the fact that mail allowed more freedom of movement and LS required padding so it doesn't chafe the skin (Bishop book) and I'd say LS doesn't have that much of an advantage in terms of comfort in wearing.

If I had a preference, I'd use cataphract armor, being covered head-to-toe in scale armor and a spanglehelm would be the equivalent to a Roman tank

Agreed. I'd also take a suit of lammellar and scale so I can be covered in head to toe in armor.

[wulfgar610]

Late Republican armies was actually the numerical height of the Roman military. The Octavian-Anthony War involved half a million legionaries. So that's almost 500,000 pieces of chainmail or scale armor...and not a single segmentata in sight.

Half a million legionaries? The Republican Century was 60 men strong, so at full strength the Republican legion was 3,600.

I don't recall there being 150 republican legions?
I think it was more like around 60 at the most, with none at full strength and many at only partial establishment.