Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 259

Thread: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

  1. #61
    B. W.'s Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    701

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by weirdoascensor View Post
    The Question is: when we advance in technology, e.g. The Marian Reforms, would the effect instantly transform the existing Legions? or do we need to pay an "upgrade this Legion" button? No...dont say we have to disband and retrain...one of the most important new Legion stack system purpose should be averting this very issue....
    Outstanding comment! I agree! It would be rediculous not to be able to upgrade existing units. That's one of the main problems with S2.

  2. #62
    Centurio Primus Pilus
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,419

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    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:
    However the LS was in std. use for about 250-300 years, and esp. against the Dacians & Britons
    Trajan's Column can be a case of "Be careful what you wish for":
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    http://books.google.com/books?id=gr0...column&f=false
    (Page 243) Legionaries are depicted ad nauseum in "Fatigue" scenes - building fortifications, cutting wood, claearing forests. They are depicted in combat in four scenes. Nonlegionaries are depicted in combat in fourteen scenes, and instances of non-combat work by nonlegionaries is both "less elaborate and more aggressive - slaughtering prisoners or burning villages".
    Explainations for why the Romans, in a propaganda piece in Rome, would depict their ostensibly non-roman auxilia as more virtuous and fighty than their Romanized legionaries are very difficult to come by. Given Trajan's column is stylistic we can't take that at its face value (suggesting legionaries almost never fought) but it does seem to illustrate something important. Similarly, it's a secondary literature conclusion but I would still note what Lendon does - the legionaries' armor evolved to provide more 'from above' protection. Their helmets got those signifigant neck protection, their shoulders received the segmenta's broad metal protection. Furthermore despite noting it's artistic limitations the author notes Josephus confirming "Legionaries did most of the building and auxiliaries most of the bravado".
    That challenges the assertion that the segmenta was somehow invaluable for fighting the Dacians in direct combat, unless we go with the assumption (supported by King Dain's notation of its presence among Limitanei) that the LS was found among non-legionaries.

    Invoking the MC Bishop officer again:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    1) [Page 98] he notes as Lendon does "it arguably provided the best available defence for the shoulders of an infantryman". Similarly "The chief weakness lay in the fragility of some of its components and the fact that it appears to have been designed with one principal enemy in mind - an enemy slashing downward with a blade". You can take that to mean the Dacian Falx or long sword of the Germans, but you can also take it to point to a protection from arrows/swords/stones from above in a siege.
    2) [Page 92] "Lorcia segmenta is something of an enigma: all the available archaeological evidence suggests that it was, in many respects, an extremly fragile form of defence." When the author questions "why did it last so long and why was change deemed necessary?":
    A) Cultural conservatism may be easily blamed, but he concludes there's more to it
    B) He challenges the assertion that the Dacian Wars motivated the LS or arm guard's emergence (as some have claimed) - "Arm defences were in use before the Dacian Wars".
    C) Again, the LS with helmet designs were designed to deflect downward blows.
    D) Suggests high shoulder protection and lighter weight than mail/scale were key advantages.
    E) Ultimately, the conclusion is "Our subjective impressions of its shortcomings [my camp and other's] cannot prejudice any assessment of its long-term effectiveness: LS clearly worked and, moreover, worked well [Your and other's camp]"
    I have not found a passage in his work concluding, as you and others have, that the LS was either vastly superior or even explicitly superior to scale or mail in protective qualities beyond the shoulders. It's noted benefits are much lighter weight, much greater shoulder protection. Its noted vulnerabilities is an apparent 'fragility'. This is by an author who we can fairly say is "Pro-LS".

    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]
    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
    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.

    Regarding the point you made about LS being more frequently found than mail: Page 81
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Indeed, attrition from‘normal’uselooksasif itmaybe one of the main reasons that lorica segmentata fittingsare such common finds on military sites of the 1st cen-tury AD. One suspects (but, given the limits of thearchaeological evidence, cannot prove) that the findsdrasticallyover-representtheuseof segmentalarmourin the Roman army: the frailty of segmental armour,comparedtothemuchgreaterintegrityof mail,meansit is very difficult for us to assess the relative propor-tionsof thesetypesof armourinuseatanyonetime.
    In this case the fraility of the LS means more bits and pieces are left around as trash, compared to the integrity of mail meaning short of battlefield conditions you aren't going to have individual mail or scale links falling off from natural wear and tear.
    He goes on to address "One of the greatest vulnerabilities revealed by re-enactors usage [albeit not a perfect marker for actual usage] is the internal leather on the girth hoops frequently failing. That's not a definitive case but it does add to the author's narrative about a major problem of the LS not raised hitherto in the topic: It's very fragile and complicated in lots of little parts.


    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: 

    1) For one regarding (as RNV notes) the "barbarization of the Roman Army" to blame - the Imperial Roman army was always filled to the brim with barbarians. Batavians and half-civilized Gauls and Iberians of old were transitioned to half-civilized Danubians or Rhinelanders and Isaurians and Batavians. The great strength of the legion was its civilizing/citizenizing prospects, being able to take in some half-tamed Germanic oaf and spit out a latin-speaking Roman nationalist when his recruitment, training and service was done. It's really only into the very late 4th century onward when you start getting barbarians recruited wholesale and officered by their own men that you have a 'barbarization' of the army - which wouldn't explain the earlier emergence of spathas and a conclusion that barbarization led to the segmenta's disappearance.


    ==================================================================================
    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.

  3. #63
    RNV's Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Regio Septima, Tuscia, Italia, Res Publica Romana
    Posts
    841

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    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 .

  4. #64
    Senshi
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southampton, UK
    Posts
    1,567

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Excellent post Ahiga!


  5. #65
    Sukauto
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    The Marian reforms will probably be connected to the tech tree.

  6. #66
    Dyēus's Avatar Cornicularius
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oppidum Ubiorum
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahiga View Post

    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.
    Yeah the Germanic tribes and their downward slashing spears...

  7. #67
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Dομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    17,970

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    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!!!

  8. #68
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    10,401

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir. Cunningham View Post
    Pre-existed ? Yes. Outclassed ? Most certainly no.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahiga View Post
    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":
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    http://books.google.com/books?id=gr0H_wr9J4wC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=soldier's+and+ghosts+trajan's+column&source=bl&ots=mS-Jo-_sD5&sig=io6-AFxhi-sH1ySaY-NgokW0yfs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mn30T8yDBOPJ6wG_xeTWBg&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=soldier's%20and%20ghosts%20trajan's%20column&f=false
    (Page 243) Legionaries are depicted ad nauseum in "Fatigue" scenes - building fortifications, cutting wood, claearing forests. They are depicted in combat in four scenes. Nonlegionaries are depicted in combat in fourteen scenes, and instances of non-combat work by nonlegionaries is both "less elaborate and more aggressive - slaughtering prisoners or burning villages".
    Explainations for why the Romans, in a propaganda piece in Rome, would depict their ostensibly non-roman auxilia as more virtuous and fighty than their Romanized legionaries are very difficult to come by. Given Trajan's column is stylistic we can't take that at its face value (suggesting legionaries almost never fought) but it does seem to illustrate something important. Similarly, it's a secondary literature conclusion but I would still note what Lendon does - the legionaries' armor evolved to provide more 'from above' protection. Their helmets got those signifigant neck protection, their shoulders received the segmenta's broad metal protection. Furthermore despite noting it's artistic limitations the author notes Josephus confirming "Legionaries did most of the building and auxiliaries most of the bravado".
    That challenges the assertion that the segmenta was somehow invaluable for fighting the Dacians in direct combat, unless we go with the assumption (supported by King Dain's notation of its presence among Limitanei) that the LS was found among non-legionaries.

    Invoking the MC Bishop officer again:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    1) [Page 98] he notes as Lendon does "it arguably provided the best available defence for the shoulders of an infantryman". Similarly "The chief weakness lay in the fragility of some of its components and the fact that it appears to have been designed with one principal enemy in mind - an enemy slashing downward with a blade". You can take that to mean the Dacian Falx or long sword of the Germans, but you can also take it to point to a protection from arrows/swords/stones from above in a siege.
    2) [Page 92] "Lorcia segmenta is something of an enigma: all the available archaeological evidence suggests that it was, in many respects, an extremly fragile form of defence." When the author questions "why did it last so long and why was change deemed necessary?":
    A) Cultural conservatism may be easily blamed, but he concludes there's more to it
    B) He challenges the assertion that the Dacian Wars motivated the LS or arm guard's emergence (as some have claimed) - "Arm defences were in use before the Dacian Wars".
    C) Again, the LS with helmet designs were designed to deflect downward blows.
    D) Suggests high shoulder protection and lighter weight than mail/scale were key advantages.
    E) Ultimately, the conclusion is "Our subjective impressions of its shortcomings [my camp and other's] cannot prejudice any assessment of its long-term effectiveness: LS clearly worked and, moreover, worked well [Your and other's camp]"
    I have not found a passage in his work concluding, as you and others have, that the LS was either vastly superior or even explicitly superior to scale or mail in protective qualities beyond the shoulders. It's noted benefits are much lighter weight, much greater shoulder protection. Its noted vulnerabilities is an apparent 'fragility'. This is by an author who we can fairly say is "Pro-LS".

    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.

    Regarding the point you made about LS being more frequently found than mail: Page 81
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    In this case the fraility of the LS means more bits and pieces are left around as trash, compared to the integrity of mail meaning short of battlefield conditions you aren't going to have individual mail or scale links falling off from natural wear and tear.
    He goes on to address "One of the greatest vulnerabilities revealed by re-enactors usage [albeit not a perfect marker for actual usage] is the internal leather on the girth hoops frequently failing. That's not a definitive case but it does add to the author's narrative about a major problem of the LS not raised hitherto in the topic: It's very fragile and complicated in lots of little parts.


    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: 

    1) For one regarding (as RNV notes) the "barbarization of the Roman Army" to blame - the Imperial Roman army was always filled to the brim with barbarians. Batavians and half-civilized Gauls and Iberians of old were transitioned to half-civilized Danubians or Rhinelanders and Isaurians and Batavians. The great strength of the legion was its civilizing/citizenizing prospects, being able to take in some half-tamed Germanic oaf and spit out a latin-speaking Roman nationalist when his recruitment, training and service was done. It's really only into the very late 4th century onward when you start getting barbarians recruited wholesale and officered by their own men that you have a 'barbarization' of the army - which wouldn't explain the earlier emergence of spathas and a conclusion that barbarization led to the segmenta's disappearance.


    ==================================================================================
    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.
    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)

    The Imperial Tagmatic Army Preview is out!!!!!




    TOTAL WAR HELLAS UNIT PACK V1.7 released-NEW MACEDONIAN,EPIROT PONTIC AND SELEUCID UNITS ARE HERE!!!!(CLICK)

    TOTAL WAR HELLAS SPARTA-ATHENS-PTOLEMIES AND BAKTRIANS released!!!! (click)

    "Wherever the art of medicine is loved, there is also a love of humanity".
    Hippocrates
    “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” Hippocrates
    "Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." Bertolt Brecht
    "The doctor sees all the weakness of mankind; the lawyer all the wickedness, the theologian all the stupidity." Arthur Schopenhauer
    "Nowadays historians generally agree that the Macedonian ethnos forms part of the Greek ethnos;hence they also shared in the common religious and cultural features of the Hellenic world"M.Opperman

    under the patronage of jimkatalanos
    .Proud member of the fellowship of CBUR project-TGC/proud member of East of Rome mod



    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não 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 Camões

  9. #69
    eighthgear's Avatar Shashu
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    Chain mail is extremely labor intensive to make. FFS, even full steel plate was cheaper than mail in the 1400's. Mail has always been an expensive type of armor, yet it was always common. I wonder why.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by neoptolemos View Post
    However the artists is correctly depicting lorica hamata, lorica squamata as well because these types of armor pre-existed and outclassed lorica segmentata
    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.

  10. #70
    neoptolemos's Avatar Breatannach Romanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seirios,a parallel space,at your right
    Posts
    10,401

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by eighthgear View Post
    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

    The Imperial Tagmatic Army Preview is out!!!!!




    TOTAL WAR HELLAS UNIT PACK V1.7 released-NEW MACEDONIAN,EPIROT PONTIC AND SELEUCID UNITS ARE HERE!!!!(CLICK)

    TOTAL WAR HELLAS SPARTA-ATHENS-PTOLEMIES AND BAKTRIANS released!!!! (click)

    "Wherever the art of medicine is loved, there is also a love of humanity".
    Hippocrates
    “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” Hippocrates
    "Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." Bertolt Brecht
    "The doctor sees all the weakness of mankind; the lawyer all the wickedness, the theologian all the stupidity." Arthur Schopenhauer
    "Nowadays historians generally agree that the Macedonian ethnos forms part of the Greek ethnos;hence they also shared in the common religious and cultural features of the Hellenic world"M.Opperman

    under the patronage of jimkatalanos
    .Proud member of the fellowship of CBUR project-TGC/proud member of East of Rome mod



    Quem faz injúria vil e sem razão,Com forças e poder em que está posto,Não 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 Camões

  11. #71
    Modestus's Avatar Sagittarius
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,430

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahiga View Post
    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":
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    http://books.google.com/books?id=gr0...column&f=false
    (Page 243) Legionaries are depicted ad nauseum in "Fatigue" scenes - building fortifications, cutting wood, claearing forests. They are depicted in combat in four scenes. Nonlegionaries are depicted in combat in fourteen scenes, and instances of non-combat work by nonlegionaries is both "less elaborate and more aggressive - slaughtering prisoners or burning villages".
    Explainations for why the Romans, in a propaganda piece in Rome, would depict their ostensibly non-roman auxilia as more virtuous and fighty than their Romanized legionaries are very difficult to come by. Given Trajan's column is stylistic we can't take that at its face value (suggesting legionaries almost never fought) but it does seem to illustrate something important. Similarly, it's a secondary literature conclusion but I would still note what Lendon does - the legionaries' armor evolved to provide more 'from above' protection. Their helmets got those signifigant neck protection, their shoulders received the segmenta's broad metal protection. Furthermore despite noting it's artistic limitations the author notes Josephus confirming "Legionaries did most of the building and auxiliaries most of the bravado".
    That challenges the assertion that the segmenta was somehow invaluable for fighting the Dacians in direct combat, unless we go with the assumption (supported by King Dain's notation of its presence among Limitanei) that the LS was found among non-legionaries.

    Invoking the MC Bishop officer again:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    1) [Page 98] he notes as Lendon does "it arguably provided the best available defence for the shoulders of an infantryman". Similarly "The chief weakness lay in the fragility of some of its components and the fact that it appears to have been designed with one principal enemy in mind - an enemy slashing downward with a blade". You can take that to mean the Dacian Falx or long sword of the Germans, but you can also take it to point to a protection from arrows/swords/stones from above in a siege.
    2) [Page 92] "Lorcia segmenta is something of an enigma: all the available archaeological evidence suggests that it was, in many respects, an extremly fragile form of defence." When the author questions "why did it last so long and why was change deemed necessary?":
    A) Cultural conservatism may be easily blamed, but he concludes there's more to it
    B) He challenges the assertion that the Dacian Wars motivated the LS or arm guard's emergence (as some have claimed) - "Arm defences were in use before the Dacian Wars".
    C) Again, the LS with helmet designs were designed to deflect downward blows.
    D) Suggests high shoulder protection and lighter weight than mail/scale were key advantages.
    E) Ultimately, the conclusion is "Our subjective impressions of its shortcomings [my camp and other's] cannot prejudice any assessment of its long-term effectiveness: LS clearly worked and, moreover, worked well [Your and other's camp]"
    I have not found a passage in his work concluding, as you and others have, that the LS was either vastly superior or even explicitly superior to scale or mail in protective qualities beyond the shoulders. It's noted benefits are much lighter weight, much greater shoulder protection. Its noted vulnerabilities is an apparent 'fragility'. This is by an author who we can fairly say is "Pro-LS".

    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.

    Regarding the point you made about LS being more frequently found than mail: Page 81
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    In this case the fraility of the LS means more bits and pieces are left around as trash, compared to the integrity of mail meaning short of battlefield conditions you aren't going to have individual mail or scale links falling off from natural wear and tear.
    He goes on to address "One of the greatest vulnerabilities revealed by re-enactors usage [albeit not a perfect marker for actual usage] is the internal leather on the girth hoops frequently failing. That's not a definitive case but it does add to the author's narrative about a major problem of the LS not raised hitherto in the topic: It's very fragile and complicated in lots of little parts.


    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: 

    1) For one regarding (as RNV notes) the "barbarization of the Roman Army" to blame - the Imperial Roman army was always filled to the brim with barbarians. Batavians and half-civilized Gauls and Iberians of old were transitioned to half-civilized Danubians or Rhinelanders and Isaurians and Batavians. The great strength of the legion was its civilizing/citizenizing prospects, being able to take in some half-tamed Germanic oaf and spit out a latin-speaking Roman nationalist when his recruitment, training and service was done. It's really only into the very late 4th century onward when you start getting barbarians recruited wholesale and officered by their own men that you have a 'barbarization' of the army - which wouldn't explain the earlier emergence of spathas and a conclusion that barbarization led to the segmenta's disappearance.


    ==================================================================================
    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.
    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.

  12. #72
    Sir. Cunningham's Avatar Centurio
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    448

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    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

  13. #73
    Sir. Cunningham's Avatar Centurio
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    448

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by eighthgear View Post
    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.
    Spot on.
    “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

  14. #74
    atila9000's Avatar Hastatus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    511

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    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

  15. #75
    Intranetusa's Avatar Aquilifer
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    379

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sir. Cunningham View Post
    And how huge a difference is it you're saying I claimed there was ?

    I've seen men stabbing, hacking and slashing at a suit of Lorica Segmentata, chain mail and scaled armour, and whilst a good thrust easily penetrated the chain mail, and came close against the LSq, it was almost impossible to stab through the 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.

  16. #76
    Enyalios's Avatar Sukauto
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    51

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    "easily penetrated chainmail" ?

    It sounds like that mail was made from historically inaccurate butted mail, instead of historically accurate riveted mail
    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.

  17. #77
    Dyēus's Avatar Cornicularius
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oppidum Ubiorum
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    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.

  18. #78
    RNV's Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Regio Septima, Tuscia, Italia, Res Publica Romana
    Posts
    841

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dyēus View Post
    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 .

  19. #79
    HappyGoodVibes's Avatar Centurio
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    439

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    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.

  20. #80
    wulfgar610's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,651

    Default Re: Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir. Cunningham View Post
    And how huge a difference is it you're saying I claimed there was ?

    I've seen men stabbing, hacking and slashing at a suit of Lorica Segmentata, chain mail and scaled armour, and whilst a good thrust easily penetrated the chain mail, and came close against the LSq, it was almost impossible to stab through the LS. Hacking attacks against the chain mail also indicated that it would've caused a lot of blunt trauma, making huge indentations into the clay torso (some hits definitely would've broken bone), whilst against the LS there was nothing serious to be seen on the clay torso, the plates effectively having dispersed the force of the impact over a wide area. The LSq however only did a tiny bit better than chain mail against blunt force attacks, there again being some rather large indentations into the clay torso.

    Finally against the slashing attacks the chain mail did great, but so did the LS & LSq.

    End conclusion: The Lorica Segmentata offers a rather significant increase in overall protection compared to both the Lorica Hamata and Lorica Squamata, whilst being lighter on top.
    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!

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •