Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

[Bel Riose]

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.

Those aren't Romans being depicted in that image but auxiliaries, as you can see from there use of clubs and an oval shield. Since during the time of Trajan the legionaries would still be using the rectangular scutum. Auxiliaries, while sometimes armed similar to the legionnaires would also be made up of peoples drawn throughout the empire who were armed in different ways.

Also it wasn't uncommon for the "barbarian" tribes to fight shirtless with only a shield and spear or sword. The shield for most of antiquity was the primary means of protection and armor was found only on those who could afford it, which in a tribal society like the Dacians would be noble and other men of high status.

And concerning this whole LS vs LH debate. From what I've read LH was most common in the first half of the 1st century AD, then LS slowly began to replace it, but LH made a resurgence again in the later half of the 2nd century AD along with other changes to the Roman army (the oval shield replacing the rectangular scutum being one)

[Intranetusa]

Those aren't Romans being depicted in that image but auxiliaries, as you can see from there use of clubs and an oval shield. Since during the time of Trajan the legionaries would still be using the rectangular scutum. Auxiliaries, while sometimes armed similar to the legionnaires would also be made up of peoples drawn throughout the empire who were armed in different ways. Also it wasn't uncommon for the "barbarian" tribes to fight shirtless with only a shield and spear or sword...

As you can see, almost everyone is depicted as being half naked without chest armor - including the Romans:
(Wulf's link)



I'm not doubting shirtless Dacians. My concern is:

1. Why are the Romans (legionaires or auxillaries) half naked?
2. The Wulf guy claims there is a Roman soldier wearing segmentata with leather frills somewhere in the picture.

Trajan's Column is a propaganda impressionist piece like I've stated previously.

Did you bother to read mine ?
EVERY ROMAN MONUMENT IS PROPOGANDA. Therefore none can be described as more accurate than the other, instead you have to look at them as a whole and use archaeology to back it up. And as mentioned, archaeology strongly backs up Trajan's Collumn and those alike, which indicates that LS was the primary type of armour used within the Legions during the period 0-300 AD. If one still can't accept that then he/she either has a problem putting two & two together or personal bias is getting in the way of objectivity.

Again, you didn't read mine again. It specifically says "METROPOLITAN PROPAGANDA MONUMENT"

Metropolitan = Large Urban CITY. MC Bishop was specifically referring to the monuments in ROME as propaganda. Bishop also points out that FUNERAL RELIEFS are more ACCURATE.

Bishop explicitly says that "provincial funerary reliefs" are more accurate than these propaganda monuments. The Adamclisi Tropaeum which portrays soldiers in scale is a provincial funerary relief. Trajan's Column on the other hand is a metropolitan propaganda column.

Let me repost the quote and bold in the keywords:

"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...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..."

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

Historical depictions and archeology strongly backs chainmail as the armor used by the majority armor used by both legionaires and auxillaries alike.

Also the only reason I even mentioned MC Bishop....

I have not read anywhere that says LS was used more than LH for legionaires. That is the entire point behind the findings.

I suggest you try reading the works of for example Peter Connolly or Graham Webster, which I see as much more reliable and logical in their conclusions, which are a lot more evidence based.
Specifically read pages 120-125 in Graham Webster's book The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D., where the archaeological finds & iconography are discussed, and again it is concluded that the LS most likely was the standard armour of the Legions during this period.

1. Since I don't have that particular book available, care to share a quote or two? A quote that specifically states that LS was used more than LH for legionaires.

2. "A" standard is not the same as "The" standard. You sure it didn't say "a standard armor" instead of "the standard armor" ?

Finally regarding the resistance of chain mail to stabbing attacks, it is clear you have never worn either chain mail or plate armour, cause then we really wouldn't have this discussion. The video on youtube where two guys stab at 15th century tech STEEL riveted mail has already been dismissed as in no way conclusive of anything; and that thanks to the silly platform they decided to strap their target onto not being stable enough, and as a result it absorbed almost all of the impact; significantly reducing the penetration potential of any strike...Fixed to a proper platform even 15th century tech riveted chainmail made of hardened steel can be pierced with a powerful stab, and if not the tip of the sword as mentioned often manages to go through, and thanks to the looseness of mail poke a hole in the target and then pull the mail with it into that hole = not nice, not nice at all!

And it's clear you've based your idea of mail on inaccurate butted mail by reenactors. Riveted chainmail isn't as weak and vunerable as you think. It was used for thousands of years well into the late middle ages for a good reason.

1. You were explicitly referring to 15th century steel chain mail:

Even 15th century tech hardened steel chain mail can be broken by a stab, as shown earlier in this thread.

2. Nowhere in the video does it say the chainmail is 15th century version of steel chainmail.

3. Did you not see how the sharper swords were actually BENDING when it struck the chainmail? The bending of the sword, especially the very sharp one, is a good indicator of how the chains resisted the sword. Even if he tied down the chain with heavier weights the sword would've simply bent further.

[wulfgar610]

I like how you conveniently ignore the 3 other cast iron artifacts, including iron blades that obviously aren't lumps of iron.

Do you even bother to read your own sources?

And I guess you've never heard of something known as chemistry, because you can determine the type of iron by the carbon content and the way it was forged through its structure.

Have you? Only one object is described as cast iron.

Figure 4. Iron artefacts which, in the view of Huang Zhanyue (1976: 67), are among the earliest found in China. The scale shows cm. 1. Scraper-blade from grave no. 52.826 at Longdongpo in Changsha, Hunan (Gu Tiefu 1954).
2. Scraper-blade from grave no. 12 at Deshan in Changde, Hunan (Yang Hua 1963).
3. Spade-cap from grave no. 314 at Shiziling n Changsha, Hunan (Changsha 1957: 66).
4. Lump of cast iron from grave no. 1 at Chengqiao in Luhe, Jiangsu (Wang Zunguo et al. 1965).
5. Bar of wrought iron from grave no. 2 at Chengqiao (KG 1974.2: 116ff).

Yes, according to you all archeology in China is communist BS. This includes all the Western archeologists who have corroborated the uncovered artifacts. I guess the National geographic documentary that talked about ancient Chinese blast furnaces means that National Geographic are a bunch of communists too.

And everybody in the iron age had iron smelting technology. What you're referring to is iron MELTING technology, aka iron casting.



That's funny, because weapons were made of iron even before the Han Dynasty:

That's true, over much of the civilized world. But in China the majority of weapons found up to the Han were bronze. Where as in Italy bronze blades had been absent for 400 to 500 years.

And the Romans were using bronze for helmets and armor well into the 1st century.

That's a big deal, bronze was still used for helmets at little as 200 years ago. Not for sword blades but!

[Durendalv2]

As you can see, almost everyone is depicted as being half naked without chest armor - including the Romans:
(Wulf's link)

I'm not doubting shirtless Dacians. My concern is:

1. Why are the Romans (legionaires or auxillaries) half naked?
2. The Wulf guy claims there is a Roman soldier wearing segmentata with leather frills somewhere in the picture.

Trajan's Column is a propaganda impressionist piece like I've stated previously.

I agree that's it's propaganda. But I can think of two reasons for the "half naked" legionaries:
1) it's a part depicting a "realistic" battle scene; Roman troops sometimes fought without armor. At the battle of Immae in 218 AD, both the praetorians and the legionaries of II Parthica were ordered to fight without armor, probably due to the heat (battle was a late civil war one, in Syria).
2) it's a part depicting heroic nudity, although highly unlikely. However, it's definitely an attempted to romanticize the war and Rome's allies.

Bishop explicitly says that "provincial funerary reliefs" are more accurate than these propaganda monuments. The Adamclisi Tropaeum which portrays soldiers in scale is a provincial funerary relief. Trajan's Column on the other hand is a metropolitan propaganda column.

Historical depictions and archeology strongly backs chainmail as the armor used by the majority armor used by both legionaires and auxillaries alike.

The author who said that tombstones are more accurate is absolutely correct. The gravestone of a Spartan legionary from II Parthica (the Spartan cohort) is depicted wearing lorica segmentata, circa 3rd century. While a gravestone for a centurion shows the classic traverse crested helmet and scale armor.

I have not read anywhere that says LS was used more than LH for legionaires. That is the entire point behind the findings.

I have, but they generally acknowledge that it was for a brief period of time.

And it's clear you've based your idea of mail on inaccurate butted mail by reenactors. Riveted chainmail isn't as weak and vunerable as you think. It was used for thousands of years well into the late middle ages for a good reason.

Thank you for not trusting reenactors 100%. I use to be one, and trust me, they cut corners on some things (although, I was in a group that tried to stay as accurate as possible). They're great for a general idea, but not academic work.

1. You were explicitly referring to 15th century steel chain mail:

2. Nowhere in the video does it say the chainmail is 15th century version of steel chainmail.

3. Did you not see how the sharper swords were actually BENDING when it struck the chainmail? The bending of the sword, especially the very sharp one, is a good indicator of how the chains resisted the sword. Even if he tied down the chain with heavier weights the sword would've simply bent further.

I'm not sure about the sword bending (I've never read that), but there's a reason why different weapons exist... especially the crossbow! I did read an account of Thorfinn, and Orkney Viking fighting the Scots in the mid 11th century absolutely massacring the Scots (it explicitly states their weapons were red). No doubt, the Scots wore little to no armor, it doesn't say if they wore chainmail though.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Again, you didn't read mine again. It specifically says "METROPOLITAN PROPAGANDA MONUMENT"

Metropolitan = Large Urban CITY. MC Bishop was specifically referring to the monuments in ROME as propaganda. Bishop also points out that FUNERAL RELIEFS are more ACCURATE.

Bishop explicitly says that "provincial funerary reliefs" are more accurate than these propaganda monuments. The Adamclisi Tropaeum which portrays soldiers in scale is a provincial funerary relief. Trajan's Column on the other hand is a metropolitan propaganda column.

Key word here is "Bishop says", and when he says that the provincial funerary reliefs are more accurate that's where he starts the speculating he is famous for, because truthfully he doesn't know, it is merely his opinion; and sadly for him archaeology doesn't back him up on this one. He ofcourse tries to explain this away with a trash litter theory regarding the LS, but again it is dubious speculation at best.

In short: Trajan's Collumn is no more propoganda than any other Roman monument, infact it seems to be one of the most realistic according to archaeological evidence, which really is the deciding factor.

Historical depictions and archeology strongly backs chainmail as the armor used by the majority armor used by both legionaires and auxillaries alike.

Are you kidding me, seriously? As mentioned countless times by now even MC Bishop acknowledges that LS is more frequently found dating from the 0-300 AD period than either LH or LSq. To contest this is either an attempt at trolling or a case of open denial.

I have not read anywhere that says LS was used more than LH for legionaires. That is the entire point behind the findings.

Behind what findings? Your own ? Alright, well read the books I referenced then.

1. Since I don't have that particular book available, care to share a quote or two? A quote that specifically states that LS was used more than LH for legionaires.

2. "A" standard is not the same as "The" standard. You sure it didn't say "a standard armor" instead of "the standard armor" ?

Page 124:

"The lorica segmentata was in use in the army during the invasion of Britain, since fragments of hinges, hooks and buckles are frequently found on forts of this date. It continued to be the standard legionary equipment up to the time of Trajan"

This is backed up by other historians such as Peter Connolly.

And it's clear you've based your idea of mail on inaccurate butted mail by reenactors. Riveted chainmail isn't as weak and vunerable as you think.

No, I know the difference between riveted chain mail Intranetusa, cause I've actually done sparring sessions in riveted chain mail. And let me tell you this: It bloody hurts to get hit in chain mail ! And this is even when subjected to the swinging slashes of a blunt sword where the guy wielding it isn't trying to deliberately hurt you. I can only imagine how much it would hurt, let alone how dangerous it would be, if I was to take a stab in chain mail. There's a good reason stabbing is completely disallowed in sparring!

Where'as in plate armour, you hardly feel a thing. And I wouldn't be overly concerned of a stab, unless it was from a halberd or poleaxe.

It was used for thousands of years well into the late middle ages for a good reason.

Yes, because it was old, easy to make cheap technology, and something you could use unskilled slave labour to manufacture in the thousands.

1. You were explicitly referring to 15th century steel chain mail:

2. Nowhere in the video does it say the chainmail is 15th century version of steel chainmail.

Look at the guys testing it, they are 15-16th century re-enactors, and the mail is clearly steel.

3. Did you not see how the sharper swords were actually BENDING when it struck the chainmail? The bending of the sword, especially the very sharp one, is a good indicator of how the chains resisted the sword. Even if he tied down the chain with heavier weights the sword would've simply bent further.

The sharper swords in the video were not meant to stab through armour, they were made for stabbing at the openings in the armour of the opponent, cause as you pointed out yourself they are too thin and flex too much to be effective at penetrating armour. The Roman gladius is an entirely different beast, it is both sharp, thick and rigid, it wont flex and as such with a proper thrust it has little issues against chain mail, something I've seen with my own eyes.

Furthermore as already mentioned, the unstable platform used in the video absorbs almost all of the impact, significantly reducing the potential for penetration.

For a more reliable test, again against 15th century tech riveted chain mail of hardened steel, check here: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131

And there's no chance the romans had mail that good.

[Pinarius]

As you can see, almost everyone is depicted as being half naked without chest armor - including the Romans:
(Wulf's link)

"half-naked" Romans? They are wearing close fitting mail shirts over a tunika and the typical feminalia (hlaf long pants) as the Roman horsemen of this era.

[wulfgar610]

"half-naked" Romans? They are wearing close fitting mail shirts over a tunika and the typical feminalia (hlaf long pants) as the Roman horsemen of this era.

I suspect the guys bare chested in long trousers are the Dacians, there's figures trying to dong each other. This appears to be a battle scene involving an ambush.

The typical Barbarian battle disposition was a shock charge usually from cover in the hope of catching the Romans off balance. Fighting the Romans on Roman terms would be suicide. Running about a lot may be the reason they were shirtless. However when Dacians are besieging Auxiliary forts they retain their shirts.

[fenir]

Intranetusa.

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.

Yes, but you are all missing the point. How is it made? What it is made from? Makes all the difference.

Iron ore, is never just Iron ore. Depends what trace elements are in it, the condition on being found is determined on what environment it was in, the extent of use, who made it.

In my opinion, I developed many year ago, Chainmail will most likely be found, because it can be contineously repaired by the wearer.
Whereas LS cannot, it needs a craftman.

But then thats not entirely correct, as we know from wounds and damage that the Roman Legions used both types at different times, and together.

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?

Athena, and nearly every nation in history did this at some point. Why not the romans? It's actually not unusual. Prussians did it against the French, and Russians, french against the British. Britian did it in world war 2. Most nations did it in WWI for artillery.

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

Actually it's cheaper than mining the ore, smealtering it, and transporting it, then forging, reworking it.
This way it cuts out over half the work, and 90% of the time labour expense.

It was cheaper to transport a ship load of grain from Gibraltar to Alexandria, than by cart 15 miles to Rome.

Understand the Varibles.

Originally Posted by Sir. Cunningham
Again there is no doubt that the majority of soldiers within the Roman army wore chain mail, but there is no guarantee that the majority of Legionnaires did in the 0-300 AD timeframe (maybe even further).

To be Honest, we actually dont know. lōrīca segmentāta would have been expensive, so would have been collected were possible. And if broken, maybe left, and then collected by peasants for making pots and such, chainmail is specific, so could be re used, repaired, and sold.
We have alot of evidence going both ways. At different times. In different places.
Graves hold alot of evidence, wounds and injuries tell us they used both, but trying to understand a clear cut time period could be the same as trying the same in the modern armies. Impossible without a colonoscopey.
On A side note, I tend to think they used both, and maybe in conjunction. Tho we do know lōrīca segmentāta came to the Romans before chainmail/lorica hamata .

Originally Posted by Sir. Cunningham
The Chinese did indeed concieve a large blast furnace at around 600 BC infact

Thats news to the rest of us. And how did they manage to create the blast? And what use did they have for a metal they have no history of using for another roughly 2-400 years?

Originally Posted by Intranetusa
I would disagree. Auxiliaries and legionaries aren't really that much different - they were often equipped in the same way

Actually we know from history, that the Axuilia were generally not equiped as a Roman Legion, unless fighting in that Legion. Legion are Heavy infantry, Axuilia are light troops or cavalry.
We know this from all evidence we have, they usually always had Mail, and/or leather.
Generally the Romans did as the british did, allowed the "natives" to keep their gear, with a few added extras.
Same as in the colonial period, "never give the natives artillery, least they think for themselves".
Remember, in boths cases, the "natives" are not entirely trustworthy.



lōrīca segmentāta:
As far as we know, was the most widely used Roman armour early to imperial age atleast. Possibly used in conjunction with some plate, and or scale, and or Hamata type added on.

As far as we know, only given to Legions. Not to axuilia. Why? Well difficult to maintain, and expensive.
Requires craftman, and industrial complex to make.
Extent of use, cannot be confirmed. Thought to be extensive as this works in with the Hastarii, Principii, Triarii concept of the Romans.

lorica hamata
Used extensively, cheaper than other types of armour, easily maintained, can be made quickly. No were near as good as lōrīca segmentāta, but cheap and ease, usually wins the day.
Cottage Industry. Does not require craftsman.

Is accepted that it was used in conjunction with lōrīca segmentāta, if you had the money. Extent of use, thought to be extensive, cannot be confirmed until 1st century AD.

Lorica squamata .
Actually found to be high maintaince, but cheap. Is generally a poor mans Laminated Armour.

Study done in Queensland Australia proved that scale armour isn't actually very good. But was used extensively by eastern tribes, Rus, Mongols et cetera...advantage over Laminated, lighter, usually made from animal parts, mostly harden leather.

Use extensive by non romans. Cottage Industry to craftsman depending on type.



Best of the lot. The most expensive, and most difficult armour.

Laminated Armour.
Many problems with this, because even wiki, god forbide i looked. Has it wrong.

90% of so called Laminated Armour, is actually scale armour. The picture in the top right hand corner, is also Scale armour. As I know where that is from.
And Laminated armour goes the otherway around and is not stiff.
Laminated Armour offers the most protection, greatest movement.

And the only main production of laminated armour from ancient to early middle ages, was the romans.

If you were wearing Laminated armour, I could charge you at full pace with a spear, and it would only knock you off your feet.
Heck it was only in the last 10 years we figured out how to make the ancient laminated armour after all this time.
Requires craftman, and Industrial complex to make it. Very expensive, Very technical. Very good.

Now you maybe able to understand why the romans had such success.
90% of the world didn't have the ability to even mass produce cooking pots, let alone military equip.

And an interesting fact. When the romans allowed non romans rights without duty, no such industrial ability was seen in the world for another 1400 Years.
Not until Portsmouth, Hampshire, England in the 1600's. It remained the worlds largest Industrial complex for 200 years, when Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool et cetera... took over.

Amazing isn't it.

Anyway, my lunch is over, got to get my lads workin.


Sincerely

fenir

[daelin4]

One of the links (e-book) in the Wikipedia article on the Lorica Segmentata (or "LS") gives a detailed description and analysis on the armour. To summarize what I gleaned from it:

1- LS plates were beaten from iron ingots
2- Fittings were particularly prone to wear and tear, including corrosion. Excavation of sites found a large supply of what seems to be replacement parts.
3- Construction was likely a assembly-line style of production, using semi-to-unskilled labourers for producing various pieces, with the assembly of the unit by craftsmen.
4- The design seems to imply that the development stimulus was geared towards protecting against downward strikes, and the author suggests that the primary opponents were the northern barbarians, particularly noted were the Dacians, and specific weapons noted was the falx.
5- Weight of LS compared to chainmaille was 5-8kg; the latter was listed as 8-9kg.
6- observation of excavated material suggest a great deal of maintenance was performed, usually on the field by its wearers.
7- The author lists it's time line to about 250 years.
8- The various sub-variants of LS are seen to be roughly chronological order upon each other (that is, variant A preceded and was replaced by variant B, and so on).

Overall the impression the author seems to give is that while it's performance compared to chainmaille was superior, significant drawbacks were particularly focused on critical components that, when damaged or otherwise failed, caused the armour itself to lose a lot of effectiveness (that is, if the armour's leather parts and fittings were worn out, it would likely fall apart in battle). So while the LS had superior protective quality, it's construction compromised it's durability.

Suffice to say, LS was not just a bunch of articulation steel plates. It was a bunch of articulating steel plates held together by fittings and leather straps. If these hard-points failed, the armour itself fails as it would fall off or start to expose the wearer to injuries from attacks to areas it was meant to protect.

While the LS offered superior protection quality, it was also more fragile. While chainmaille may have required extensive labour for construction and maintenance, the compromise to specific parts of the LS were far more amplified if not dealt with. Unlike LS, Hamata chainmaille did not rely exclusively on leather components for keeping the armour together- that role lies within the rings used.

1- LS ingredients are ingots for the plates and various metal parts, and leather for straps and under-coverage for certain variants. Hamata rings are derived from iron sheets and wire for respective ring types. The draback on the LS in this case would be it's far greater reliance on leather for its assembly and henceforth its effectiveness
2- Fittings seem to be the primary weaknesses to the LS. If fittings fail or break or otherwise damaged or worn, the LS as a whole suffers. A single damaged ring in chainmaille, however, does not offer a similar level of compromise.
3- Construction of LS required various specialized parts. There were large plates, smaller places, fittings, leather straps. Chainmaille armour requires far fewer types of parts.
4- If it is indeed true that the LS was designed to address certain combat situations and weapons, it's specialization contrasts with the more versatile chainmaille Hamata.
5- The reduced weight of the LS is arguably the biggest advantage over the Hamata, but one has to consider whether to fight with more fragile armour or to suffer the additional burden of an armour pattern less prone to part failure.
6- If you think about it, a bunch of rings being a little more rusted or worn out in a mesh shirt is not as problematic as broken leather straps or fittings that have fallen out of the LS armour. The latter occurrence has a far greater chance of rendering the armour effectiveness in its entirety. While maintenance of chainmaille may have been more time consuming, it demanded less specialization and expertise, specialized parts and thus would have allowed easier maintenance, even if it costed more time.

Book in question is this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lo...n-Plate-Armour

Random FYI: The book states that the ROmans likely did not use this name to address this armour, and may have used laminata or laminus or similar form.

[Sir. Cunningham]

daelin4,

You are quoting MC Bishop, who as already mentioned makes a lot of speculative conclusions, however he as-well has to admit the much higher frequency of finds of LS dating to the 0-250 AD period than LH. His trash litter theory is a rather cheap attempt to explain this away. He also fails to note that LS has been found dating all the way up to around 350 AD.

As to the fragility of the LS, one didn't have to worry about the armour keeping together in combat, as the leather straps were tough and most were protected by the plates themselves. It was over long periods of time that the LS required more maintenance, to make sure that the leather straps as-well as the brass fittings were kept in good condition. Chain mail pretty much took care of itself just by being worn, and as such required little to no maintenance.

Furthermore what made the LS a lot more expensive to field than chain mail wasn't the time it took to make the armour, but the technology needed to do so. To manufacture LS would require skilled labour, as only a skilled smith would've been able to manufacture the ferrous plates and many brass fittings, where'as you could use unskilled slave labour to manufacture chain mail.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Guys the trajan column depicts battle scenes made by an artist commissioned that was never in dacia , they most probably represented the barbarians from the told stories and descriptions plus e poils of war ... The omans by sightening and knowledge but he or tey used a dramatic iconography like giving muscles and torsion nt only to thenaked guys but also full armed ones ... Also the chainmail was washed out ouse was painted , the segmenta looks like a t shirt rathe. Than metal couse of te artistic. Representation ...

[HunterKYA]

With all this talk about armour, just how many types did the Romans themselves use. The ones I know of are listed below:


Lorica segementata - thin, laminated pieces of plate iron that provided excellent protection. First adopted around late 1st century BC, became increasingly commonplace by early 1st century AD, fell out of favor in later imperial period. Primarily used by legions stationed in the western Mediterranean and northern Europe, but could be seen throughout the empire.

Lorica hamata - coat of tight, interconnected iron rings, which provided good protection from slashing blows, weaker against piercing from spears, arrows, etc. Likely adopted from conflict with northern Celtic tribes between 3rd-4th century BC, used until end of imperial period in 5th century AD.

Lorica squamata - interleaved scaled armour that could be made of iron, bronze, or brass. Often worn by standard bearers and musicians, it was also known to be worn by centurions, cavalry troops, and auxiliary infantry. Similar to lamellar armour of later centuries.


Those are the only types of armour I could find that were commonly used by the Romans, throughout the republic and imperial periods, but certain there could be more. Now I wonder if CA would recognize this and incorporate each piece of armour, not solely the lorica hamata and lorica segmentata, as they seemed to do in Rome 1.

[gaulsЯus]

Lorica segmentata is from around the time of August, not 50 bc, more like 10 bc. There will be a tech tree and the reforms along with the armor change will certainly be a part of it.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Also plumata, squamata , musculata , Manica and some others and variations...

[jackwei]

Whatever happens it seems likely that Lorica Segmentata will play as main armour for the imperial legionaries in Rome II especially later in the campaign, however i am sure there will be legionaries from that period in chain mail too hopefully. I very much doubt CA will take will LS out of Rome II completely as it isn't as if LS didn't exist at all.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Whatever happens it seems likely that Lorica Segmentata will play as main armour for the imperial legionaries in Rome II especially later in the campaign, however i am sure there will be legionaries from that period in chain mail too hopefully. I very much doubt CA will take will LS out of Rome II completely as it isn't as if LS didn't exist at all.

There shouldn't be any main armour type unless you choose to make it so. If you would rather want a larger & cheaper but less well equipped army clad in chain mail then you should be able to take that route as-well.

The Lorica Segmentata provides the soldier with superior protection and stamina whilst still providing full flexibility, but it is more expensive to manufacture and maintain. As such a unit equipped with this armour (LS) should gain a benefit in armour & stamina, whilst their recruitment & upkeep cost should be higher in comparison to units equipped in chain mail.

An example:

160 men Legionary Double Centuria (Lorica Segmentata):
Recruitment cost: 230
Upkeep cost: 120
Attack: 15
Defense: 20
Armour: 8
Stamina: 10

160 men Legionary Double Centuria (Lorica Squamata):
Recruitment cost: 200
Upkeep cost: 100
Attack: 15
Derfense: 20
Armour: 6
Stamina: 9

160 men Legionary Double Centuria (Lorica Hamata):
Recruitment cost: 170
Upkeep cost: 80
Attack: 15
Defense: 20
Armour: 5
Stamina: 8


In comparison to Gallic swordsmen:

160 men Gallic Swordsmen (bare upper body):
Recruitment cost: 110
Upkeep cost: 40
Attack: 14
Derfense: 12
Armour: 0
Stamina: 12

160 men Gallic Swordsmen (chain mail):
Recruitment cost: 150
Upkeep cost: 60
Attack: 14
Defense: 12
Armour: 5
Stamina: 8

160 men Gallic Swordsmen (scale armour):
Recruitment cost: 170
Upkeep cost: 70
Attack 14
Defense: 12
Armour: 6
Stamina: 9

[Mithridates II the Great]

I think they should focus on the historical battles and make infantry as similar as possible and hope we don't see ridiculous units in Rome II .

[Kissaki]

The Lorica Segmentata was not introduced until the 1st century AD, and even then Lorica Hamata remained the primary armor type. Mail shouldn't be much weaker, either, because the only area where the LS is superior is shock absorption - which means less padding is necessary. Mail is superior in that it doesn't need maintenance and is much more flexible. Roman technology wouldn't allow for the production of high quality steel in large single pieces as in the LS.

So the lorica segmentata didn't exist? If it existed, then someone made it. If someone made it, then the technology certainly did allow for it.

One major advantage of the segmentata over maille is that while maille doesn't require much in terms of technology to make, it is very laborious to make. A single suit would take weeks to complete from a dedicated artisan, whereas strips of plate would not take nearly as long. Also, the strips that go into the segmentata aren't that large, and the helmet is much more complex than any one of those strips. If they could make steel helmets, they could make strips. The largest of those strips, if compacted together, shouldn't even be half a fist in size. The segmentata would be far easier to mass produce than the maille. If the expertise is at hand.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

So the lorica segmentata didn't exist? If it existed, then someone made it. If someone made it, then the technology certainly did allow for it.

One major advantage of the segmentata over maille is that while maille doesn't require much in terms of technology to make, it is very laborious to make. A single suit would take weeks to complete from a dedicated artisan, whereas strips of plate would not take nearly as long. Also, the strips that go into the segmentata aren't that large, and the helmet is much more complex than any one of those strips. If they could make steel helmets, they could make strips. The largest of those strips, if compacted together, shouldn't even be half a fist in size. The segmentata would be far easier to mass produce than the maille. If the expertise is at hand.

This is correct ,
as for the first Date Introduction is not from the First C AD , but from the late 1st C BC , in this time was introduced gradually , first as experimental armor then proven its worth was massproduced and spread to all leggionareis ...
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangste...ento_romano%29
Probably from the 20 BC on it could be easily be considered the beginning of its introduction ...
Also the metal strips were usually made of soft iron inside and steel outside a deliberate process called case hardening procedure . ( David Sim )

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

This is correct ,
as for the first Date Introduction is not from the First C AD , but from the late 1st C BC , in this time was introduced gradually , first as experimental armor then proven its worth was massproduced and spread to all leggionareis ...
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangste...ento_romano%29
Probably from the 20 BC on it could be easily be considered the beginning of its introduction ...

Thats what i learned too and it seems that the Armour was first used in the Conquest of the Alpes under Drusus and Tiberius. It is to assume that the armour was wearing in larger numbers after the recruiting of complete new legions or units after this Campaign which is one point where the standartization of the roman army could be startet.