a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Umm... no. The concept that all that learning and knowledge was lost is entirely false. Read a book.

Also, I'm pretty sure its "Eastern Romans didn't follow."

[JaM]

Did I said ALL knowledge was lost? nope. I said that Europe matched Roman level of technological development during Renaissance. And I'm not talking just about metallurgy, but also about medicine, art,culture, construction, etc etc.. anyway, this thread was about Roman armor, if there is a need to talk about other things, i believe there is already a thread for it. (anyway good article about this can be found here: http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_r...technology.htm and http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_r...inventions.htm)

[chris10]

@Chris10
No there have been Chainmail links found at the Teutoberger wald. Like all roman armies, his troops used a mix of armor types, never a single type.

The Teutoburger Forest know as today wasnt even the place of the battle according to existing evidence...the most convincing thesis is that it took place at the feet of the Wiehen Hills opposite of the Teutoburg Forest Hillas on a strip which spans over 10 km and over a period of two days and on the third day the remaining legionarys crossed the Wiehen Hills and their last stand was supposed to be around the Kalkriese which is supported by an emormous amount of artifacts and coins, none dating later as 9 A.D and some even wearing Varus stamp.


Most recent (2012), most convincing, most exhaustive and most awesome german documentary of what happend and how it happend, including last archeological findings and conclusions...with the participation of the top german experts on the matter...
oh and sry...german only ...still awesome watch...I would watch it in spanish too...oh hey...wait I speak spanish too...ROFL...err...oh..chinese then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fcSJ...ature=youtu.be

btw 6 years after the battle during the revenge campaign roman legions under Germanicus came back to the place of defeat and Tacitus describes their findings in his work Germania...
Germanicus ordered his forces to burry the remains of their fallen and its not completely odd to expect that they have withdrawn possible remains of weapons and armors in order to recycle the metal to their weapons industry (which was common procedure as I said weapons production, maintencance and metal recycling was centralized for east and west respectively) which would explain only little findings or armor and bigger pieces of metal but still...the finding of the breast plate of a Lorica Segmentata at Kalkriese was proof that it existed at least one generation earlier than previously thought. The armor thickness is 2.3 mm per segment, upper shoulder guard and back were 1.5 mm and the rest 1.8 mm, this graduated thickness provided the best defense for the most vital organs, while ensuring overall weight savings while still giving excellent protection.
The Kalkriese breastplate was extraordinarily well-crafted, even to the point of being lined with thin brass piping thats why I said these armors where produced by professional armourers while the repetitive and monotonic chainmail ring knotting could be done by everybody and in fact was done by slaves which sheds a different light on the cost-benefit calculation especially when bearing in mind the need of custom fitting the segemtata after producing it.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You bring up some excellent points, but I should note that the Methods of production weren't centralized until the reign of Diocletian in the 290's. Prior to the establishment of the first two Fabricae, armor was manufactured by mass-production facilities owned by wealthy individuals, who had contracts with the military.

[chris10]

You bring up some excellent points, but I should note that the Methods of production weren't centralized until the reign of Diocletian in the 290's. Prior to the establishment of the first two Fabricae, armor was manufactured by mass-production facilities owned by wealthy individuals, who had contracts with the military.

From
The military fabrica and the production of arms in the early principate.
M.C.Bishop

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well Fabrica means workshop, I'm just saying that there weren't Government-run ones until the 290's. There were plenty of Privately owned Fabrica prior to that.

[chris10]

there you go... it was a military, hence a centralized effort, of recycling, maintenance and production and not private contractors and worked pretty much the same way as in the later period you mention...only difference maybe that no burocrat in Rome had a say as it worked on a province/army level...in short, there was no large scale private arms industry in the west but probably you are right..I elaborated poorly to point out the difference between the later period and the early imperial time

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Great stuff there, thanks for those references.

[chris10]

Great stuff there, thanks for those references.

You wellcome...and you are correct on the matter that private contracters were the main suppliers during the republican period but with the Augustus reform and the creation of a standing army stationed all over the mediterranean area this changed...

[War lord]

No, it was most likely stopped to be used because it didn't offered better protection than Squamata, and it didn't was as comfortable to wear as Hamata. Plus, its coverage was quite small, as it didn't protected goins and arm pit at all.


When added protection was needed Romans used this:









Lorica Hamata or Squamata, and Manica...

Which is a good point, Mail affords excellent protection, and with a belt apparently isn't all that heavy. So why bother with LS?

[daelin4]

I do not think it is any more correct to start calling segmented armour "Laminata", it will only provide further confusion. As far as I am concerned that is just another conjectural term.

As far as I am concerned, any advantages that segmented armour had over chainmail was probably not big enough to warrant large sweeping to the logistical structure the Romans had at that time. If chainmail worked just fine, the only real reason to go over to the segmented would be if your entire shirt was lost or destroyed, which probably never happened.

It is hard to imagine the Romans have a large centralized system of logistics, given that changes and conditions were often local. It is thus also hard to imagine that conditions that warranted some changes to the armour in the Dacian wars would also be applied to fighting conditions in Britain or in the East, conditions that more likely than not were different. Not to mention local sources that may have knowledge or expertise in particular designs that originated elsewhere.

If I was a legionary and my chainmail worked just fine and I knew how to maintain it, why should I ditch it and go for another set of armour I may not be familair with and may not be as useful or practical? I' rather just stick to my chainmail.

I think ultimately what happened was that the segmented armour became an idealized image of the Roman legionary, and wasn't much else. Legions may have even had only sections of their troops wearing the armour for particular situations, ie the front line forces. Apparently Macedonian pikemen had priority for the front lines being the best armoured while others behind may have worn less. This was probably just a matter of the best of a worst case though.

[JaM]

Naming convention is quite simple. Romans named their armor based on what they were build from (hamata, Squamata), or their look(Musculata). Really doubt they would call it Segmentata. Laminata was much more probable name due to the fact it was a plate armor, which to Latin translates as Lorica Laminata.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yeah but there is no literary record of a name for it, so until we come up with one all you're gonna do is further confuse the public. I'm a Reenactor and a Classicist, I know how little the public knows already. Even I learned more History from a Rome TW mod than I did from all of School.

@Daelin

That's more or less what happened. People get this misconceptualized Idea that if one Roman used it all Romans used it because we have a centralized system of Logistics with our military. The Reality is that it varied from region to region. The troops equipped for the Dacian wars were VERY different than the same ones equipped for the war against Parthia a few years later.

It's not until the Late Empire where a Legionnaire from Syria looks like a Legionnaire for Britain, and that's because the Romans used a higher volume of missile weapons at that time everywhere they went. Furthermore they were being supplied from the same central arms factories.

However, there is debate as to whether or not all Legionnaires wore armor. In the phalanx system it was based on personal wealth, same as with the Polybian Legion. In the Marian and Severan and Constantian Legions the Government supplied your equipment, however the Strategicon does record that only the front Ranks wore armor.

However the Strategicon was Byzantine and written in the 6th century AD.

[daelin4]

Naming convention is quite simple. Romans named their armor based on what they were build from (hamata, Squamata), or their look(Musculata). Really doubt they would call it Segmentata. Laminata was much more probable name due to the fact it was a plate armor, which to Latin translates as Lorica Laminata.

Probable =/= useful, in this case. Everyone knows exactly what we're talking about when the term Lorica Segmentata is used, even though it is clearly not the correct historical term. To start talking about a Lorica Laminata would be confusing as no one really associates that term with the former. Some books compromise by just saying "Roman segmented (or segmental) armour" after stating that the LS is a modern term.

One book I read some time ago, by M. C. Bishop and simply titled "Lorica Segmentata" Volume I-2, documents archeological fndings, and points out that there are at least four named variants of the segmentated armour pieces. The principle differences between all these type, according to the book, were largely inor, indistinguishable characteristics, namely where the loops hinges and buckles and other fittings were located. At a casual glance an uneducated viewer would probably assume them all to be identical types. The very fact that such small distinctions are made leads one to theorize that localized versions of this armour existed, likely far more than the ones discovered so far. This then raises the question of how far did the smiths create variations to the point where compatibility between parts were no longer possible...which then raises the further question of whether this made the segmental armour a problem more than a solution in terms of logistics; one set of armour used more hinges than another, while yet another uses more buckles, etc.

The first, the "Kalkries" type, named after its location in Germany, was apparently dated 9 AD, much earlier than was originally anticipated, so the author stated. It bears much similarity with another type, the "Corbridge" type found in Britain, which judging by the condition of it's find (the Corbridge Hoard, which among other things contained multiple sets of stashed segmental armour pieces) of which seems to be the basis for most reconstruction and movie costume designs. This type is distinguished from the first, if reconstructions are accurate or trusted, by it's line of hinges running along the rear where the plates meet. A third type is apparently found among the Corbridge Hoard, and varies slightly differently than the former; again if this is true, it only goes to show that variances among segmented armour was rather widespread, which may have made logistical considerations a problem, especially if the variations were major.
A hypothetical forth type, not based on archeological finds but rather on a relief sculpture, the so-called "Alba Iulia" type, of which the main difference is that the shoulders are protected by scales rather than segmented plates.

And these are just named types, there are other presumed subtypes of these ( Corbridge type B) and other speculative finds such as artwork where the shoulder plates were mail.

Given the tendency of localized production, maintenance and development of armour in the vastness of the Roman empire, even as early as it's days under Octavian, the existence (and inevitable growth in) multiple variations only makes the view of any uniformity among the legions anything but an impossible ideal.

Having looked over that book again, I find at a glance the segmented armour to be suitable largely for storage than other uses that would likely have taken precedence. Storage isn't exactly a priority for soldiers that may need to put on his armour quickly, to which the numerous loops that need to be tied (and I don't mean the kind that can be done in shoe laces, I mean a dozen different knots at the least) would prove time consuming, not to mention this is all assuming the armour is well-maintained and fittings have not failed. Overall I find the entire design to be a tad complicated and particular vulnerable points compromise the effectiveness of the rest of the entire armour, possessing a higher prone to failure than if chainmail was worn, which would have been simpler in it's design by comparison.

Even if the segmental armour proved potential, chances are conditions in the empire lacked opportunities for its teething problems to mature and troops figured it was easier to just live with mail armour.

A "mishmash" appaerance of multiple dostinguishing variations probably did not occur at the local (up to maniples/ cohort) level, but legions would probably have had more of one than the other, I presume that the older legions would have retained smiths that worked primarily and knew mostly chainmail and thus they'd feature those, provided legionaries from other regions that had them fitted with different armour sets. This retention and persistence of chainmail, and other types, probably limited the spread of the armour and also prevented it's ability to grow among the legions. I mean it is a rather novel development that practically no other contemporaries have developed. Segmented armour would have to be so supieror to any precedessors that adopting it and learning it's uses would have been a clear advantage. This meant more than combat performance.

[JaM]

If you look at the way how Roman Legionaries fought, their armor was fitted to match certain enemy. For example Squamata was excellent armor against slashing attacks, and very good against missiles, yet it was not as good against sword lower thrusts, as tip of sword could get under the scale. (lower thrust, was quite typical for Gladius). With LS, again, it was not armor optimized to face thrusting sword equipped enemy, as it didn't covered usual target zones at all (groin, armpit etc) - This might be one of the reasons why Hamata was so popular, and predominantly used during Civil wars - it was long enough to protect groin area, arm pits were covered by it, so its protection against Gladius thrusting attacks was quite good.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

There were several finds of Lorica, I'll expound a little upon it.

The Kalkriese-Type Segmentata was the first near-complete find of Segmentata. Prior to its find many pieces had been found but nobody was sure how exactly it fit together. The Kalkrise is different from other types in that it is held together in the back by a series of leather straps and ties, and is tied in the front with leather strips. It is dated to 9Ad

The Corbridge-A and Corbridge-B finds are similar to the Kalkriese, but have a different set of brass connections. Instead of being tied in the back with Leather strips, they use a series of Brass hinges to hold the two halves of the armor together. The Corbridge B also has several segmented bands to serve as chest protectors, rather than two steel plates. They are dated to about 45 AD


The Newstead is the fourth find, and all Segmentata after this one is of this type (with only slight differences). This version has no leather ties, front or back, and the steel segments overlap on the front to protect a series of brass hooks that tie the front of the armor together. Presumably on earlier models the problem was that the leather could be cut and the torso exposed. This dates to about 120 AD

The Alba Julia is a different one, it is only based on a statue. Yes, it is in theory possible that the Segmentata may have had Scale shoulder protectors. However, we have no evidence the Romans did it other than on the Alba Iulia, which may just be artistic liscence. The other problem with this particular variant is that it is interpreted as Leather Armor by many Italians (who seem to havea fetish with the concept of Romans wearing Leather). The reality is that the Romans did not use Leather Armor except with a case of Lamellar Thigh Guards from Dura Europos. Leather Segmentata did not exist and did not provide any protection if it did (because to make Hardened Leather thick enough to stop an arrow or sword it has to be heavier than metal armor.)

There have been subsequent finds of Segmentata, predominately in Spain, after the Newstead Type but almost the same as the Newstead. What we are witnessing is the evolution of Segmentata over a few centuries as new models are found to be more effective. The last find we have is one in Britain which dates Almost to the beginning of Constantine's usurpation.

It seems Segmentata was predominately used in Britain, Gaul, and Spain, although it is shown all across the empire. It was considered to be a very "Roman" armor and was used heavily as propaganda to differentiate a "Roman" army from a "Enemy" army.

[andrew881thebest]

how can you kill a legionary in lorica laminata covering all vital organs? this is my question. I mean, you can just stab his legs, but you will not kill him (not immediately). Or maybe you could try to hit the small part of face not covered by the steel of helm? i mean maybe they won simply for that reason, it is hard to kill a man in steel/iron armor covering almost al his body, and with a big heavy shield protecting him from arrows and direct attack.

[chris10]

how can you kill a legionary in lorica laminata covering all vital organs? this is my question.

Your question needs a bit of adjustment as the answer is not obvious ....we have to look at the general concept of warfare...the % of killed troops in battle is incredibly low compared to the number of fighting troops and it is almost considered of greater advantage to cause a large amount of injured troops as they are a liability to the enemy and bind valuable ressources.
The stated numbers of losses for ancient battles always will include those unable to continue to fight, injured, missed in action, runaways...well..literally everything and Iam almost positive that the bigger amount of casualties may be attributed to atrocities committed by the winner on the captured or surrendered enemy rather than being fatalities caused directly in battle action.

A small analogy may help us...the average fatality rate of infantry in battle during WWII was 10%...and that despite the fact that it was fought with firearms

Probable =/= useful, in this case. Everyone knows exactly what we're talking about when the term Lorica Segmentata is used, even though it is clearly not the correct historical term.

A moot point as almost every author of any and every importance level uses this term

[JaM]

It was considered to be a very "Roman" armor and was used heavily as propaganda to differentiate a "Roman" army from a "Enemy" army.

it was used like this in Trajan column only, and the second one risen due to same thing, doesn't contain it at all.. Tropaeum Traiani in Romania, doesn't have single LS portrayed...

[JaM]

how can you kill a legionary in lorica laminata covering all vital organs? this is my question. I mean, you can just stab his legs, but you will not kill him (not immediately). Or maybe you could try to hit the small part of face not covered by the steel of helm? i mean maybe they won simply for that reason, it is hard to kill a man in steel/iron armor covering almost al his body, and with a big heavy shield protecting him from arrows and direct attack.

If you look at losses during Civil wars, they were considerable even though Legionaries used Hamata. Most of the losses were caused when one side retreated, and only about 5% of losses were dealt in direct combat before rout occurred. Plate armor was quite effective against direct blows, yet due to low coverage, Legionaries would attack gaps this armor had.. Hamata provided much better coverage and protection against such attacks, anyway even Hamata didn't had 100% coverage... Yet i think if you put two cohorts against each other, with the same training, one in Hamata and other in Laminata, Hamata unit would most likely suffer less casualties.. Anyway if you out Hamata unit against Falx or any other heavy hitting polearm, Laminata would be better (even though Squamata would protect you a bit better due to overlapping scales)