a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

[JaM]

Just recently i bought a book about Roman Imperial Armor, written by J. Kaminski and D Sim. This book is full of information about manufacturing process needed to manufacture armors and shields, it also provided a whole new perspective on some things.

Lets go to the myth section - Lorica Segmentata - or more precisely as Romans called it - Lorica Laminata, was by any means not the best armor Roman Legionary could have. It was most likely introduced to reduce costs,as Roman Empire needed to buy all equipment to Legionaries. Laminata was quite simple to manufacture, and it provided relatively decent protection (for its weight) due to its face hardened plates. Btw, face hardening was a metallurgy technique thanks to which inner side of armor plate was composed of soft steel while outer was hardened. Surprisingly, this metallurgical technology was "reinvented" in 19.century, and in 20.century it was for example used by Germans as their main Metallurgical technology for tank armor. Anyway back to Laminata, it was relatively light armor, providing very good protection thanks to 1-1.5mm steel plates, yet it lacked in term of coverage. Overall, it was armor for standard Legionary, yet Veteran troops preferred Lorica Hamata, as it while heavier, was less restrictive, flexible and provided much better coverage of vulnerable areas (groin, arm pit, etc).

Lorica Hamata - there were several versions of it, usually using 4mm rivetted steel rings, but also bronze and iron rings were commonly used. High quality Hamata provided excellent protection against thrusts and slashes, yet it didn't provided protection against blunt force trauma. Usually, leather undergarment was used to increase the resistance of armor and provide some protection against blunt force. While heavier than Laminata, Hamata was very comfortable to wear, didn't restricted movement which was quite important in close combat. low blunt force resistance was not as critical due to every legionary using large shield to protect himself from it.

Anyway the armor with best protection ability of all, was called Lorica Squamata - scale armor made of 1mm plates, provided excellent protection, thanks to plates overlapping each other, which meant that only 10% of body was covered by single plate, 20% was covered by 4 plates, while majority of body was covered by 2 plates, giving layered protection of 2mm of steel, which was enough against practically any hand held weapon or arrows. additional benefit of it was that in case armor was hit by a weapon, kinetic energy of impact was transferred to all nearby plates, greatly reducing the impact energy. Yet, Squamata was quite heavy, about 30-40% more than Hamata ( Laminata was lightest of them) and was not as flexible as Hamata. It was also cheaper to manufacture than Hamata armor, therefore it practically replaced Laminata as a standard issue armor, yet was used together with Hamata practically until fall of Empire.


So, to sum it up, our today's portrayal of Roman Legionaries all dressed up in Segmentata armor is a bit innacurate. It was not the armor of Elite units, as many might think, on contrary, this armor was given to low quality troops, or even Auxilias. This is backed by archaeological findings, where Laminata was discovered in places which were known being occupied by garrison forces, instead of Legions.

So from game perspective, If there was some unit resembling "Armored Legionaries" it would most likely use Squamata armor instead, While Elite units like Praetorian Guards or Evocati Cohorts would use Lorica Hamata instead. To some degree having Praetorian Guard using Laminata is similar like seeing Napoleonic Old Guard Grenadiers dressed in uniform of Line Infantry.

[crawe1]

Very interesting. This I didn't know! To be honest, I've never liked the looks of Lorica Laminata - it just LOOKS cheap and tinny. Aesthetically, I far prefer the mail and scale armours, so good to know that they were also superior in quality.

[Maleventum]

in the monumet of Marcus Aurelius in Rome the Pretorians are clearly represented in lorica laminata, as the legionaries in the Trajan's coloumn with laminata-gladius-curved scutum ; instead auxilaries are represented with hamata-flat oval shield- hasta/spatha

[JaM]

Depends on which Trajan column you have in mind. Tropaeum Traiani for example shows legionaries in Hamata and Squamata only, while there is nobody dressed in Laminata. Tropaeum Traiani was built in 109 after defeat of Dacians by Trajan.

for example there are pictures of Legionary using Squamata and Manica (arm protection):



Overall Trajan column is considered more of a "artistic license" than real portrayal of Roman Army of the time, as other columns of the same time line doesn't show Laminata at all.

[RGA]

IMHO, that a kind of armour provided maximal protection does not mean it was invaribly used by elite troops. Comfortable to wear, flexibility, mobility, etc. also played crucial roles. Alexander the Great was painted wearing linothorax in the battle of Issus, despite the fact that bronze muscle armour offered much better protection.

I myself am a big fan of chain mail. I saw myself a replica of Roman cavalryman's chainmail in the Archeological museum in Frankfurt. What puzzled me was the lack of padding clothes betneath the armour, which was pretty popular during the Medieval age.

[JaM]

Padding was commonly used by Legionaries, in form of leather or linen undergarment. yet due to its structure, it didnt survived all these years.. same as Linothorax armor was never found and historians are not sure what exactly it was made of (hardened leather or really glued linen layers?)

[Maleventum]

Trajan column is not a mere artistic license, Apollodorus of Damascus followed the Roman army during the campaign so he saw the real aspect of both romans & their enemies, there are represented not only legionaries with both the 3 types of armours but also are represented light armours probably made in leather or linen.
I suggest to you this recent book: http://www.amazon.com/ARMS-ARMOUR-IM...pr_product_top

Arms and Armour of thr imperial Roman soldier by R. D'Amato

[GenericBrony]

That's a really interesting find! As a person who would like to know things but doesn't I always thought that laminata would have offered the best protection what with it being plates of metal. I suppose it's because of hollywood always dressing up the elite Roman units in laminata probably because its the most aesthetically 'intimidating' looking armor, just like how most people see a hoplite always wearing a bronze cuirass with a corinthian helmet.

[HuangCaesar]

Lorica Laminanta/Segmentata was reported in the Dacian Wars in the annihlation of Domitian's Legions. The Romans reported the Falx slicing right through it. Trajan's war maybye saw more use of Hamata and Squatmata due to Trajan's mass levy of troops, and the Hamata was less costly and the Falx is going through it anyway. It is believed a total of 13 Legions were mobilized to Dacia( 65,000) plus 150,000 Auxilia. Lorica Segmentata was no means unpopular many have been found. 1 have been found at Teutoburg I believe.

[TheTank]

From what I have read about laminata/segmentata the disadvantage of this type of armor is his high maintenance.
It was very vulnerable to rust and the leather strips that connected the armor plate's could also fail.
Mail armor more difficult to produce but easier to repair and maintain.
The friction by wearing the armor would remove most rust and according to a re-enactor friend of my a mailshirt can by cleaned by placing it in a sack with dry sand and moving the sack around for a while.

[JaM]

Lorica Laminanta/Segmentata was reported in the Dacian Wars in the annihlation of Domitian's Legions. The Romans reported the Falx slicing right through it. Trajan's war maybye saw more use of Hamata and Squatmata due to Trajan's mass levy of troops, and the Hamata was less costly and the Falx is going through it anyway. It is believed a total of 13 Legions were mobilized to Dacia( 65,000) plus 150,000 Auxilia. Lorica Segmentata was no means unpopular many have been found. 1 have been found at Teutoburg I believe.

Hamata was not lest costly. it was the most time consuming to produce of all armors used in Ancient times. It was popular for its flexibility, but it was the most costlier armor you could have,besides the custom made and ornamented Lorica Musculata which was used by high ranking officers.


Segmentata/Laminata was easy to produce, not that problematic to repair, but its maintenance was problematic, as it was vulnerable to rust.

[RGA]

Hamata was not lest costly. it was the most time consuming to produce of all armors used in Ancient times. It was popular for its flexibility, but it was the most costlier armor you could have,besides the custom made and ornamented Lorica Musculata which was used by high ranking officers.


Segmentata/Laminata was easy to produce, not that problematic to repair, but its maintenance was problematic, as it was vulnerable to rust.

The issue with maintenace should not be exaggerated. Rusting is a very slow process. And ancient soldiers had plenty of free time between marchings. It's not like 20th century when constant bombardment keeps soldiers to stay wake for days on end. And even so, they still manage to clean their rilfe frequently.

I suggest that the preference of elite troops for mail was for the comfort it brings. Lorica segmentata, accordings to some reenactors, causes a lot of pain and discomfort if worn for more than a few hours.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You're kidding right?

1. Lorica Segmentata:

Segmentata was first of all not called Laminata. The Romans had absolutely no name for this armor, they probably just called it Lorica. There is no Literary or Archaeological evidence of a name for it. Lorica Laminata was what we call Lamellae Armor and didn't come about in use by the Romans until the Late 3rd century AD. Second of all it did not reach 1mm in thickness, it was usually between 0.5 and 0.9 mm thick, soft (but face hardened) sheet steel. The advantage to Segmentata is that it easily absorbed blows, preventing internal trauma. The disadvantages is that it was hard to maintain and make, and had to be custom-fitted to a Legionary.

2. Lorica Hamata

By far this was the best armor ever invented, in the 3rd century BC by the Gauls. The Rings had an exterior diameter of 4-6mm (what the manufacturers say is 6mm is actually 9mm because they go by interior diameter) which meant it was dense and heavy, but provided excellent protection against any blow. It used alternating flat and riveted links, 4 links connected to every one link, and was impenetrable to anything short of a couched lance or Scorpio bolt, the former wasn't even invented until the 9th century so the principate Romans didn't have to worry. In the principae era and prior it had a doubler and was edged with leather. It covered the torso but had very short sleeves or no sleeves, and only barely covered the groin. In the 2nd century they opted for half sleeves and coverage down to the knee, and got rid of the doubler, and by 395 they were using full hauberks (Long sleeves and coveraged down to the knee). Chainmail provides superb protection, but it has no way of absorbing blunt force trauma, which can break bones or incapacitate. For this they also likely wore a padded undergarment called a thorocomachus which was about 1 cm thick and comprised mostly of linen or wool with an outer layer of goatskin or leather. It is time consuming to make (a skilled man can do it between 2 weeks and a month) but lasted several generations and was self-cleaning. This made it extraordinarily cost effective compared to plate armor.

3. Lorica Squamata

Lorica Squamata has some advantages, but it was not 1mm thick. The individual scales that made up Lorica Squamata usually ranged between 0.4 and 0.8mm thick, based on finds from Trier, Carlisle, and other sites. It wasn't as flexible but was more flexible than Segmentata, and from personal experience it provides excellent back support. It's not as effective in protection as chainmail, but distributes force evenly preventing internal trauma. Many Roman officers are depicted wearing Scale Armor, and it is likely they wore a variant called Lorica Plumata, which was an extrodinarily fancy combination of Scale and Chainmail found in Syria (and another one was found in britain) designed to reflect a light back at the enemy. The individual scales took the appearance of feathers (hence the name "plumata") and it was evidently very expensive.

4. Lorica Laminata/Lamellata

These are names for Roman Lamellar armor, similar to scale except that while scale is made of a series of metal plates on a series of leather thongs, Lamellar has a complete leather backing (although these methods are somewhat interchangeable). The Romans used Steel Lamellar adopted from the Sarmatians. These plates were as thick as segmentata plates (0.5-0.9mm) and sometimes overlapped, and sometimes they didn't, depending on the construction method. It became munitions armor for the Romans beginning in the 5th century AD and lasted in use until the 15th century AD. Its possible that some were made of leather (evidenced by a pair of thigh guards from Dura Europos' Tunnel 19) but this was always used over or underneath metal armor. Even the Huns likely discarded their bone lamellar for metal once they came into contact with the metal-rich areas of the Maetois, Caucasus, and Dacia.

5. Lorica Musculata

This is a very controversial one. Over the years many have tried to suggest this became leather munitions armor for the late Roman army, but this is not the case. There is absolutely no evidence of Leather Armor at all other than the aforementioned thigh guards at Dura Europos, and a set of leather horse armor in Karanis in southern Egypt. All the evidence points the only use of this armor is of it being made of Bronze and Iron, which was possible and evidenced by several finds of Bronze Musculata between the 5th and 3rd centuries BC, and two finds of Iron (The Vergina Tomb Cuirass and the Podromi Cuirass) musculata dating to the 4th and 3rd century BC. After that it seems to have continued in use by officers, but for the most part depictions of it were artistic liscence until the Notitia Dignitatum. The Notitia shows a few Iron Musculata cuirasses under the Comes Domesticorum and it is possible a few elite units may still have used it. It's also possible that these represented the Roman Lamellar Klivanion, which came into artistic use in the late 5th century AD and may have begun use as early as th elate 4th century AD.

All in all, the standard armor for the Legions from the 3rd century BC until the 15th Century AD was Lorica Hamata, or chainmail. Lorica Segmentata enjoyed a short period of extensive use from 14AD until around 300 AD, but never became the dominant armor type. Auxiliaries did not wear Segmentata because it was a cultural and idealistic differentientation between the Romans and their Perigrini, or non-citizen provincials. This distinguishment ended in the early 3rd century, and Segmentata began to be phased as it was no longer effective against new equipment being phased in, and was not cost-effective either. A suit of chainmail can last several generations of use, while Lorica Segmentata will only last a few years.

Members of the re-enactment community do not predominately use Segmentata, most of our Legiones use Hamata in their principate portrayals. Squamata probably would have been more common in the East because the manufacturers had been making it for the past 3000 years there, and the State Run Fabricae weren't implemented until the 290's AD.

[JaM]

3. Lorica Squamata

Lorica Squamata has some advantages, but it was not 1mm thick. The individual scales that made up Lorica Squamata usually ranged between 0.4 and 0.8mm thick, based on finds from Trier, Carlisle, and other sites. It wasn't as flexible but was more flexible than Segmentata, and from personal experience it provides excellent back support. It's not as effective in protection as chainmail, but distributes force evenly preventing internal trauma. Many Roman officers are depicted wearing Scale Armor, and it is likely they wore a variant called Lorica Plumata, which was an extrodinarily fancy combination of Scale and Chainmail found in Syria (and another one was found in britain) designed to reflect a light back at the enemy. The individual scales took the appearance of feathers (hence the name "plumata") and it was evidently very expensive.

from Roman Imperial Armor,by J. Kaminski and D Sim:
The thickness of several scales from Carlisle Hoard was measured. The average thickness was found to be 0.9mm with variation of +-0.02mm. This level of accuracy has been observed in other types of Roman armor and has been seen as an indication of the use of a mechanical process such as rolling,or a controlled use of a trip hammer. There is certainly an increased body of archaeological evidence that suggests that such equipment was used during the Roman period.

I've rounded it to 1mm, yet as you can see, based on this, Romans had a manufacture process that was quite accurate in creating plates of constant thickness.

regarding protection and coverage, here is how much plates overlapped, coverage of several plates is colored differently (11% covered by single plate and 21% by 2 plates.remaining by 4 plates):

1. Lorica Segmentata:

Segmentata was first of all not called Laminata. The Romans had absolutely no name for this armor, they probably just called it Lorica. There is no Literary or Archaeological evidence of a name for it. Lorica Laminata was what we call Lamellae Armor and didn't come about in use by the Romans until the Late 3rd century AD. Second of all it did not reach 1mm in thickness, it was usually between 0.5 and 0.9 mm thick, soft (but face hardened) sheet steel. The advantage to Segmentata is that it easily absorbed blows, preventing internal trauma. The disadvantages is that it was hard to maintain and make, and had to be custom-fitted to a Legionary.

This type of armor was not called by Romans just an "Armor/Lorica". It was composed of laminated plates - Lamina doesn't mean the same in English, in Latin Lamina means "plate". As i wrote before, Segmentata was 16.century name for Segmented armor composed of several plates, yet, Romans didn't used that name at all. calling it Lorica Laminata (Plate Armor) is more correct than calling it based on 16.century Spanish armor.

[HuangCaesar]

I don't understand how the Segmentata is cheaper. Creating curved plates is expensive in the Ancient world especially with Mild steel backed with Iron. Rings are easier to make articulated plates.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I cited several finds. You are correct in that the Carlisle finds averaged 0.9mm, but other finds were as thin as 0.5mm. This may have been the result of heavy polishing, like has been found on many Lorica Segmentata plates (some of which were as thin as paper).

However, the Romans did not call the Segmentata Lorica Lamina, Laminata, etc. They called it Lorica. The average soldier probably wouldn't have known what Hamata and Squamata were, and called it Lorica as well. Although the Spaniards did call segmented armor Segmentata, saying Laminata is no more accurate than saying Segmentata. Based on my knowledge of Roman culture and Latin, its more likely they called it Lorica Romana or "Roman Armor" as it was a way of publicly distinguishing between "Roman" and "Barbarian" soldiers. Lorica Armata is also more likely than Lorica Laminata.

Furthermore, I already stated Laminata was one of the terms used to describe metal Lamellar armor. I understand how Segmentata was constructed, I have plenty of friends who have made it before. In fact I think its possible it may have evolved from the 4-piece muscle cuirass (as I mentioned earlier in the Verginia Tomb find), but there is no evidence for it.

The problem with Scale armor is not its thickness, which does improve its protection, but the fact that in its construction it was very easy to break apart or off a layer of scales. They were suspended by rings on a metal thong - in proper reconstructions these rings are exposed on the exterior of the armor. A sword could knock a whole row of scales off if it hit the right place, let alone break the rings and wedge the scales apart. However, it is still more effective protection than Lamellar.

I don't understand how the Segmentata is cheaper. Creating curved plates is expensive in the Ancient world especially with Mild steel backed with Iron. Rings are easier to make articulated plates.

What makes it cheaper is that the Romans created large pieces of sheet steel (likely in the same way they made muscle cuirasses and helmets) and cut strips of metal out of them. That's not difficult to teach a slave to do, and a skilled man could churn one out probably once every few days, including fittings and leather.

But they're ridiculously expensive to maintain. Even with animal fat coatings to protect them from the elements, they will still rust in about 3 years or so. Brass fittings break or go missing often, requiring replacements.

On the other hand, chainmail cleans itself when used, and doesn't rust quickly because the steel has less surface area. The grinding of the links cleans rust off as well, and the links are easy to replace if broken.

[HuangCaesar]

Is there a source on its cheapness? Adrian Godsworthy in his book (I think) mentions how it was replaced due to its cost. If the cheapness was true due to simple "sheet metal" than European knights would be wearing plate armour early on instead of chainmail. Remember "plates" are not easy to make and very costly in metal. You are not simply taking a plate and strapping it on somebody, you have to manufacutre it to a certain lightness and curveture. The reason why chainmail is cheaper than plate in Middle Ages.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You have some excellent points. I'll have to look up a particular source, Dan Howard would know.

[JaM]

Is there a source on its cheapness? Adrian Godsworthy in his book (I think) mentions how it was replaced due to its cost. If the cheapness was true due to simple "sheet metal" than European knights would be wearing plate armour early on instead of chainmail. Remember "plates" are not easy to make and very costly in metal. You are not simply taking a plate and strapping it on somebody, you have to manufacutre it to a certain lightness and curveture. The reason why chainmail is cheaper than plate in Middle Ages.

No, Chainmail was always harder to procure. In early Republic it was reserved for richer men in Rome (Polybius described it to be used by men which had at least 10.000 denari), later it was taken over bronze muscular cuirasses even by Triarii. It was extremely manpower intensive to manufacture. You cant compare Roman Plate armor to Medieval Full Plate armors. Roman Plate was more like Banded Plate, as it was made of smaller parts it was much easier to make than large full body plates. Romans were quite skilled metalsmith's. They developed and used face hardening thousands of years before it was rediscovered again.. manufacturing small plates was nothing camp smith couldn't handle.. this is specifically mentioned in Roman Imperial armor book i mentioned in the original post.


extract from the book:

The Articulated lorica Segmentata conferred a number of advantages to wearer. It was relatively flexible and was highly effective in preventing penetrating hits. But it greatest advantage came with its comparatively rapid production time. With exception of Lorica Musculata the alternative body armor forms (Squamata and hamata) were far more time consuming to produce. Segmentata was based on relatively simple sheet metal work. The laminated strips could easily be produced and rapidly formed into shape. Furthermore with many more components squamata and hamata armor forms were more problematic to maintain.

Maintenance:

Every type of armor that is made from a number of strips of metal has huge advantage over plate amour, when repairs are necessary. Muscled cuirasses made from single piece of metal are rendered useless if they are heavily damaged, because the whole piece has to be discarded and new one made. With segmented armour, only damaged components need to be replaced. this makes it more economical. the metal thickness means that it can easily be cut to shape using shears and the various holes used for fixing can be made by punching. both are simple operations and require only a basic knowledge of metal when seriously damaged, but is as easy to repair in the field as lorica squamata.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

They're wrong about maintaining the armor. The sources say Segmentata was ridiculously difficult to maintain. Rivets and brass parts got lost or knocked off or broken all the time, and although you're right in that it was easy to put back together, it was not cost effective to maintain, especially considering the whole thing had to be replaced about every 5-10 years. They rust incredibly fast due to the large surface area of the sheet metal plates, which weren't as rust-resistant as true steel made with a blast furnace like in the 15th century.

The big issue is that it had to be custom fitted to the user, otherwise it caused problems when worn (tiring, chafing, other issues, I know from experience). Chainmail and scalemail don't have the same problems.

Also, when polybius states a man with "10,000 denarii" it does not mean it costed 1000 denarii, it probably only cost a few hundred at most and that was supplied by the state and taken out of the paycheck, so the soldier did not have to buy his own in the era we are discussing. The soldier got the armor for free and it was re-used over several generations (that is, if it could last several generations like chainmail or scale could).

But in Polybius time it meant a man worth 10,000 denarii in property (Animals, land, possessions, etc.), as well actual money.