a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

[JaM]

Still, nothing skilled smith in camp cant do in few hours... yet, to manufacture a full suit of Hamata took several days... in the end, single suit was composed of few thousands rings that needed to be put together..

During early Republic, all weapons and armor was owned by users. They could use whatever they manage to have. Richer men invested into Hamata, those who couldnt afford it, used Pectorales or nothing... Very rich men used custom made bronze musculata.. anyway after Cannae, Rome had to quickly replace lost army, they decided to procure weapons and armor for their soldiers. They even risen few legions composed of former slaves who got their freedom for enlisting..

Anyway equipping 5000 men with Chainmail was costly.. this is why they were looking for more cost effective armors. After three legions destroyed in Teutoburger forest, it was not the manpower that was the biggest impact.. but their equipment.. To quickly restore these legions Romans were forced to come with cheaper armors and Laminata was the answer (even though it was most likely used even before)

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You fail to realize how easy it was for the Roman machine to replace the equipment for 20,000 men. A skilled man can make a suit of Roman Lorica Hamata in 2 weeks to a month's time. (which would have taken closer 2 weeks, he did not wear a full Hauberk so there was less to put together).

The Romans had could have had ten thousand of these men all across the empire. In 2 months not only could they have had the equipment to field 20,000 soldiers, but also have it shipped there.

[HuangCaesar]

Its still hard to believe the Hamata is more expensive than the Seg. JaM say that it could not be compared to Medieval armour but you have to realize the size of plates is still massive and articulated. There is a reason why "Coat of Plates" which was the Medieval version of Segementata did not appear till the 1200s. Such large plates(which are heavier than Hamata) are hard to produce and hammer out. Linking together rings is easier that taking metal pieces(massive ones) and hammering them out to perfect body shape, making them articulated, and linking them together. Metal is expensive, archeological evidence shows the Seg to be made of both Mild steel and Iron.

[SD_Man]

Its still hard to believe the Hamata is more expensive than the Seg. JaM say that it could not be compared to Medieval armour but you have to realize the size of plates is still massive and articulated. There is a reason why "Coat of Plates" which was the Medieval version of Segementata did not appear till the 1200s. Such large plates(which are heavier than Hamata) are hard to produce and hammer out. Linking together rings is easier that taking metal pieces(massive ones) and hammering them out to perfect body shape, making them articulated, and linking them together. Metal is expensive, archeological evidence shows the Seg to be made of both Mild steel and Iron.

What costs more, interlocked (puzzle piece?) tin-foil armor or heavy duty chainmail rings? It aint easy to make circles.

[HuangCaesar]

What costs more, interlocked (puzzle piece?) tin-foil armor or heavy duty chainmail rings? It aint easy to make circles.

Proof it is it made of tin-foil? Modern research find it more better at defecting arrows.

There is a reason why Full Plate armor was invented AFTER chainmail. You don't just take piece of scrap metal and strap it to yourself.

[JaM]

Huang. Laminata cannot be compared to full plate. It was not full plate but composed of smaller plates. you are confusing things. Plus, Technology in Medieval times, was far behind the Roman level of Technology. Historians consider Renaissance to finally catch up with Roman state of development...

[HuangCaesar]

Thats my point.....until near Renissance, making plates were hard. Plates are still plates. I am pretty sure Medieval Full Plate is made up of small plates as well. Even there smaller plated breastplate the "Coat of Plates"(small plates) didn't come to Europe till the 1200s. Why? Cause produce sections of plates are expensive. Chainmail is cheaper and easier to maintain. Do you know the engineering capacity it takes to take a section of metal(very expensive) and fold it to perfect shape and articulation? Small plates are still plates. There is a reason Lorica Musculata got phased out, it was more expensive than Chainmail.

Seriously if the Segmentata was truly cheaper, the use of it would be more widespread. If I was barabrian peasant I would choose unconfortable over getting pierced by an arrow in leather arrow. Somebody mentioned how it was "cheaply made" by unskilled manufacturers.....hmm if that theory was true everyone would be wearing it!



You honestly think this is cheap? God the engineering capacity to curve those plates and make it perfectley fit over eachother.

[JaM]

Thats my point.....until near Renissance, making plates were hard. Plates are still plates. I am pretty sure Medieval Full Plate is made up of small plates as well. Even there smaller plated breastplate the "Coat of Plates"(small plates) didn't come to Europe till the 1200s. Why? Cause produce sections of plates are expensive. Chainmail is cheaper and easier to maintain. Do you know the engineering capacity it takes to take a section of metal(very expensive) and fold it to perfect shape and articulation? Small plates are still plates. There is a reason Lorica Musculata got phased out, it was more expensive than Chainmail.

Seriously if the Segmentata was truly cheaper, the use of it would be more widespread. If I was barabrian peasant I would choose unconfortable over getting pierced by an arrow in leather arrow. Somebody mentioned how it was "cheaply made" by unskilled manufacturers.....hmm if that theory was true everyone would be wearing it!



You honestly think this is cheap? God the engineering capacity to curve those plates and make it perfectley fit over eachother.

Yes, it is cheaper than manufacturing Chainmail. Chainmail required a lot more time to manufacture therefore it was costlier for a smith to make it.. Time is money.. if you have to spent 2 weeks making chainmail, imagine how many plate armors you would made in the same time? and 1200 AD is not Renaissance. Medieval Europe was nowhere near the technological level of Romans. Why are you comparing Roman Empire to some barbarian peasants?


It was not widespread, because it was not as effective as you think it was. it was fine protection against arrows, yet Romans had more protective armors to get much better level of protection. (Squamata)

[War lord]

If Mail was both cheaper and easier to maintain, why did the Legions bother with the Segmented Armour at all? I find the assertion that they suddenly decided to start making armour in such a unique and unprecedented style, for no real reason rather hard to believe.

According to various people here, LS was not very protective, at least less so then Mail or Scale, required a custom fit for the wearer, fell apart over the course of a single War season, and was difficult to repair.

If all of that was true, why would the Ancient World's premier Heavy Infantry force bother with it at all? Something isn't right.

[JaM]

it was not that hard to repair. you could easily replace damaged part on it. Latest archaeological findings of LS are especially interesting.. armors were found in areas where Legions didn't operated, only garrison forces. (findings in Spain, in area only garrisoned by Limitanei is mentioned by wiki)

Anyway, ifyou look at medieval period, Chainmail was not standard issue armor for some paesants.. it was used by knights who could afford it. with metallurgical advancements in early Renaissance it was possible to produce standard munition grade plate armor even for standard infantry which allowed armies to grow in size..during Medieval times only largest countries could afford armies bigger than 20000 men.

[HuangCaesar]

Yes, it is cheaper than manufacturing Chainmail. Chainmail required a lot more time to manufacture therefore it was costlier for a smith to make it.. Time is money.. if you have to spent 2 weeks making chainmail, imagine how many plate armors you would made in the same time? and 1200 AD is not Renaissance. Medieval Europe was nowhere near the technological level of Romans. Why are you comparing Roman Empire to some barbarian peasants?


It was not widespread, because it was not as effective as you think it was. it was fine protection against arrows, yet Romans had more protective armors to get much better level of protection. (Squamata)

No I was talking about that even when it wasn't Rennisance Europe, the Coat of plates(plate sections) was harder to make and rarer than chailmail.

[War lord]

it was not that hard to repair. you could easily replace damaged part on it. Latest archaeological findings of LS are especially interesting.. armors were found in areas where Legions didn't operated, only garrison forces. (findings in Spain, in area only garrisoned by Limitanei is mentioned by wiki)

Anyway, ifyou look at medieval period, Chainmail was not standard issue armor for some paesants.. it was used by knights who could afford it. with metallurgical advancements in early Renaissance it was possible to produce standard munition grade plate armor even for standard infantry which allowed armies to grow in size..during Medieval times only largest countries could afford armies bigger than 20000 men.

If we drop the idea that it required some sort of mega skilled engineering, it does make a little more sense. If you're garrisoning some desolate Limes fort in the :wub: of butt nowhere inferior, I imagine easy repair is a top priority. If you're wearing Mail and it takes a pounding, that's a heavy repair bill from a professional armourer. With Segmented plates you can do the repair work yourself.

[HuangCaesar]

My point is if barbrian peasants had the capability to make chainmail(which was very expensive) why not make the cheaper more protective LS? Get the point?

Seriously if the Seg was really that cheap, a less technologically advanced Europe would be more capable of producing it.(as they can still make chainmail)

And the Seg is easy to produce? You really its that simple to to take massive plates, heat the to a perfect tempeture for hammering, and hammer them them to a perfect articulation and shape? There is a reason the LS existed only when Rome was economically capable. Why? Because it was more expensive and more difficult to repair than the Hamata. If Seg breaks or dents, the piece has to be completey repaired(again plates are expensive). If Chainmail dents(which it cannot) or breaks, only the broken links need repair.

The Limes theory is flawed as all Legions would be border garrisons in Principate mostly.

The Lorica Segementata is more expensive.

lets see here:

Lorica Segemtata-
-more capable of deflecting arrows
-more capable of distrubinding trauma damage
-plates are historically more expensive and harder to repair
-articulating plates is even more expensive(Medieval Europe proves this)
-if plate dents, it has to be replaced
-rusts more
-used as propganda piece for Legion only
-only existed when Rome was economically strong.
-more bulkier, that means more metal
-archelogical evidence shows STEEL.

Lorica Hamata
-no way as strong as Medieval chainmail as some were lower gauze and made of bronze links
-less capable of providing against piercing damage
-less capable of providing against trauma damage
-doesn't rust as often
-to make rings is easier to make plates
-can't dent
-if broken only the links need repair, not a whole area that recieved damage.
-progandaly only for Auxilia units. Although propaganda is not true always, it says a lot. The Romans didn't regard their "tinfoil armour" lower than the Hamata.

The LS is more expensive. It is obvious. If your theory is true, then Medieval Europe can make Lorica Segementata since it can already make chainmail.

Chainmail is hard and tedious to make, but the maintence required for the Seg is crazy.

Think about it. Chainmail gets crushed by warhammer, it will not dent and sometimes not even break due to its flexiblity. If it does break the links get repaired that are broken. If Seg gets dented, the whole thing needs to be stripped apart, and another sheet of steel to replace the damaged area.

[War lord]

Not much point making armour that has a main selling point of easy replacement (while the metal required skill to forge, you can reshape bent plates and replace broken ones with spares easy enough) when the only people buying armour can afford multiple expensive Mail hauberks, and there's about 1000 of them in the entire Kingdom.

Your comparison is utter nonsense, the writings of someone who knows little about Armour and keeps confusing any plate armour with Medieval Gothic plate.

[JaM]

HuangCaesar: cheap doesn't automatically mean it is also simple to manufacture for everybody... You need certain level of technology, something barbarian peasants were not well known of... Plus, even Celt Chainmail was not standard issue... it was armor of nobility, so im not sure where did you came with idea its something a barbarian peasant would wear... mind you - Celt Nobility were quite rich, Caesar become the most wealthy men in Rome after he subdued Gaul..it was Gallic money that allowed him to become what he became.. without it he would be not able to finance lengthy war with Pompey...


Regarding that Limitanei theory - it is quite valid.. during late Roman Empire, Roman army was divided to border force "Limitanei" and mobile shock force called Comitatenses. Cemitatenses were the force that was used to fight, they were not used for guarding duties...


and from pure technical perspective, 0.5-0.8mm thick plate made of steel is not that effective as you might think...1.5mm bronze (used for Lorica Musculata) provided much better protection. 4mm rings thick 0.8mm would also provide much better protection due to their "layered" structure... you cant compare Segmentata to medieval armors, as those were usually 1mm thick, with renaissance plates getting thicker and thicker.. Only advantage Laminata would provide is better trauma protection, yet Squamata was even better. Segmentata had at the other side limited coverage, it didnt protected groin area at all.. as i said in my first post, Veteran troops prefered Hamata if they could get it.. or do you think Centurions would like to be using inferior armor?

[chris10]

They're wrong about maintaining the armor. The sources say Segmentata was ridiculously difficult to maintain.

and most important at all. Lorica Segmentata was individually fitted...thats why it was the most expensive armor.

Heavier body armour was standard, whether ring- or scalemail or the individually fitted lorica segmentata,
with a varied array of weapons (see pp. 58–63 above).

The great advantage of the lorica segmentata over other armor was that is was far less cumbrous than other protections while
providing the best protection against piercing and slashing damage for the most vulnerable body parts

After three legions destroyed in Teutoburger forest, it was not the manpower that was the biggest impact.. but their equipment.. To quickly restore these legions Romans were forced to come with cheaper armors and Laminata was the answer (even though it was most likely used even before)

Varus Legions were Segmentata equipped...the site of the battle has been narrowd down to a certain region in Germany and the only armor remains ever found in that area is Segmentata...
and in context with Augustus qoute "Varus, give me my Legions back..." it makes perfectly sense since their loss supposed an enormous blow to the state coffers due to the loss of tens of thousands of individually fitted Segmentata armor sets.

Regarding Segmentata found in Auxiliary forts or be common equipment among Auxiliary troops there is no consensus

And as we have already noted, lorica segmentata, once seen as purely legionary equipment, is frequently found
in auxiliary forts, which may imply either that auxiliaries did sometimes use it or that legionaries were often housed alongside auxiliaries.
All this suggests that it was quite normal for units (especially legions) to operate in sub-groups, both on campaign and in order either to garrison the many small fortlets known to us or to supplement the garrisons of larger forts. It is almost impossible to explain this fragmentation in detail.

In response to Maxfield’s contention (1986) that “lorica segmentata was available to auxiliary troops,” Bishop and Coulston 1993, 206–9 argue strongly that whilst legionaries were not necessarily all equipped with segmented armor in the principate, auxiliaries were definitely not equipped with it, and that there were differences between “legionary” and “auxiliary” equipment. The evidence, both literary and archaeological, is inconclusive, but given the absence of segmented armor in sepulchral sculptures, it was probably not as prevalent amongst legionaries as the sculptures on the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius imply.

As mentioned above, auxiliary troops typically may have fought with indigenous weapons and equipment at first, but as their service became regularized, so did their equipment. While a number of ancient sources characterize auxiliary infantry as lighter than legionaries (see below), helmets and armor (mail or scale rather than segmented) often were worn, and flat shields carried. Lighter javelins and a longer sword termed spatha were typical offensive weapons, and specialist units used bows. Trajan’s Column shows two differently equipped types of Roman infantry, long assumed to be legionaries and auxiliaries, the latter apparently wearing chain mail in contrast with the legionary lorica segmentata.

[JaM]

and most important at all. Lorica Segmentata was individually fitted...thats why it was the most expensive armor.

do you realize ANY smith can adjust you a simple strip of metal? it is not a rocket science...

Regarding Segmentata found in Auxiliary forts or be common equipment among Auxiliary troops there is no consensus

no there is not. They consider mixing legions with garrison force, yet they don't consider simpler solution - Laminata was not that special, as it was a munition type of armor... Auxilia used it, as well as garrison forces. it was not armor of elite units, and that is why it faded away. Squamata was more protective, Hamata was much better to wear and fight in.

[War lord]

Again, if LS is such an amazing wonder armour, why did it basically disappear from history after a certain time?

Surely the elite units of the empire would have kept wearing LS till the end of the empire if it were so light and gave such good protection?

[JaM]

The following numbers from Alan Williams's The Knight and the Blast Furnace show how much kinetic energy it takes for an arrowhead to penetrate plate at four different grades of quality:

1mm = 28/41/61/83 J
2mm = 88/131/193/263 J
3mm = 150/225/330/450 J


So, lets assume that Roman Steel was of a highest quality, which means 1mm would protect you against 83 joules of kinetic energy.. how much energy can stop 0.5-0.8mm plate? wont be more than 60 joules... Chainmail at the other side, could stop piercing hits with kinetic energy around 70 joules, slashing hits at 130 joules (or more)... so yes, Segmented plate is better against blunt force, yet, it is easier/or similar to penetrate by projectiles


Compare it to Squmata, where 68% of profile had at least 2 plates overlapping.. with 0.9mm thickness it gives you 1.8mm steel protection..

[chris10]

do you realize ANY smith can adjust you a simple strip of metal? it is not a rocket science...

No, but since your are a smith you surely will tell me...Do you realize what the term individually fitted means ?

Laminata was not that special, as it was a munition type of armor... Auxilia used it, as well as garrison forces. it was not armor of elite units, and that is why it faded away. Squamata was more protective, Hamata was much better to wear and fight in.

Nobody suggested it was an elite units armor but you blatantly ignore the three sources I qouted who suggest auxiliary did NOT use segmentata and you do not back your claims with something substantial..do you have any other books about the Roman Empire ?...if not I may can help you out with some 150 books or so...dunno exactly...just tell me what you want...city planning, army logistics, food processing,

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.

I did not say it was elite armor nor I insinuated it was...jumping from that basic assumption (it was not elite units armor) to the conclusion it was low quality troops and auxiliary armor is utterly ridicolous...what is the base of this argumentation...any sources ? confirmations ? ...

Again, if LS is such an amazing wonder armour, why did it basically disappear from history after a certain time?

errrr...getting some basic knowledge before engaging in historical discussion is of advantage...it dissapeared due to its high cost and difficult maintenance as already pointed out by somebody else...and still lorica segmentata is on the Arch of Constantine erected in 315 and segmentata has been found in spain and dated to 3rd century.

and btw a form of segmentata armor technique was still used during 16th century using sliding rivets and was know as anima armor