Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

  1. #1

    Default Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    I've seen this topic debated to death with great passion with no end in sight, and it's indeed something has interested me. Most people think the primary reasons the contemporarily christened "lorica segmentata" appeared and then fell out of use were combat effectiveness, cost, maintenance, ease of production, standardization, and barbarisation of the military. In fact, I do not think any of these above reasons were the primary motivations for military commanders to introduce and subsequently abandon this distinctly early form of plate. I think the primary, there were of course many secondary considerations, was something entirely different and something I've yet to see discussed.

    I recently read a great thesis on the "fall of the Roman empire" and something that stood out was one phrase: "to go fight, sacrifice, and even die for Rome" was one of the most popular and successful advertisements in history. He compared it to Anqituities version of the popular Nike slogan in the '90s. He's right. During the principate, when we first see this armour appear, we also see other endearing nationalistic figures such as Eagle and Triumphant Arch which are still both deeply symbolistic of Western Civilization. Those very images have been so endearing that they've lasted until modern times.

    So if the Romans were nationalistic and militaristic, and at almost constant warfare for roughly four to five hundred years, then why do we assume that they don't know the effects of pride, individualism, and more specifically espirit de corps?

    Being a Roman soldier or Roman citizen was something of great pride. There they were, the light against darkness, civilization versus barbarisation, the eternal city and it's denizens fighting to bring their governance to the very world. In modern times uniforms, medals, flags, and even the very military machines they use (such as the m1 Abrams) are something of that military men, and even civilians, take great pride in. That's why several nations continue to have military holidays and parades. Again, if we take pride in our uniforms then why do we assume the Romans didn't?

    If maile and plate were roughly the equivalent, give or take, then I think the main accomodation would be the morale, the unit cohesiveness, the espirit de corps. They wanted to be different, they wanted to be civilized, they wanted to be Roman. To do that, they did that in every way they could that didn't sacrifice combat effectiveness, and to that end they were able to introduce this armour, one of the only times that the Romans didn't adopt something from an enemy. Centurions used maile and did everything they could to stand out from the standard legionnaire, and I think the legionnaires wanted to stand out from the enemies they were fighting. So the introduction happened and was in use until some time shortly after the Antonine plague decimated the Empire's population, much like the Black Death did Europe.

    It is at this point the Crisis of the Third Century occurred and Romans were no longer fighting barbarbarians, Africans, or Greeks but other Romans. It was legion versus legion for a hundred years of almost constant civil war, and when nations are at civil war we see nationalistic pride break down. Why was there a need to "stand out?" to "be different" when you were fighting your countrymen with the same equipment and standards? The armour falls out of disuse during this time, a time when after the Antonine plague the legions were reformed into Limitanei and Comitatenses. Barbarians were recruited en masse, and they used maile. Roman enemies used maile. Vegetius writes that there was a general breakdown in moral and effectiveness in the army, even though the late Roman Army did score some great victories I don't think they were as effective as that of the Principate. People frankly no longer had the same fervor as you even see the aquila disregarded during this period.

    Rome was no longer an expanding Empire fighting, plundering, and thriving against the outside world but merely trying to contain it. They weren't building extravagant new cities, opening new trade routes, they were merely trying to sustain the ones they had. It was during this time that we see maile standardized with the "segmentata" never to return. Being Roman was something granted to everyone in the empire. They were all citizens. It's arguable that sixth and successive century Byzantines never new about segmentata because it was never mentioned in surviving literature, there was a drastic breakdown in education after the Antonine plague through to the Dark Ages in the West, and there were unlikely any surviving examples. It was under these conditions that perhaps the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, and it's distinct armour, evententually faded away into history.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    an interesting commentary to be sure at the very least

  3. #3
    Linke's Avatar Hazarapatish
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,800

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    I see your point that the armor could have had a importance in showing off yourself, it thus makes sens eto depict the emperors own soldiers with it on various monuments if it has a symbolism more than being the most practical alternative. I don't think this observation negates the other videly discussed factors in any way though. I don't see why your reason would be the primary one, but it is certainly interesting. Very unusual is it for people to consider military equipment from a non-military perspective when that was often the reason for it's unusual looks.

  4. #4
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    He's been posting this on several different forums (including more than one on TWC) and has been corrected on numerous occasions.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    So the thesis is that Roman military equipment design was based on what looked cool in front of enemies?

    However, the segmented armor wasn't used during the expansion period of the Romans. By the time this armor was adopted, the Romans pretty much had conquered everything they were going to.

  6. #6
    Cesco's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    [deleted]
    Huic ab adulescentia bella intestina, caedes, rapinae, discordia civilis grata fuerunt ibique iuventutem suam exercuit

  7. #7
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    The Romans did "Romanize" their appearance, well into the 14th and even 15th centuries, but it was not the reason this armor fell out of use. Barbarization of the army, the lack of discipline theory, etc. etc. have all been overwhelmingly debunked since the 1990's.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    My belief is that it fell out of use because it never was that popular in the first place. For example, this column (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcom...la_Pioggia.JPG) depicting the Marcomannic Wars shows that chain maille was the most common armor. Trajan's column shows Segmentata, but this column shows a lot of exaggerations, like horses armored to the hoves.

    Also, the practical usefulness of this armor may be exaggerated by modern portrays. Segmentata is bulky. However, in the late Roman army, combat had evolved to something that is more open and less formation-based, which (in my personal opinion) also explains why shields were round rather square in the late period.
    Last edited by Aeratus; December 07, 2015 at 04:44 PM.

  9. #9
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    Also, the practical usefulness of this armor may be exaggerated by modern portrays. Segmentata is bulky. However, in the late Roman army, combat had evolved to something that is more open and less formation-based, which (in my personal opinion) also explains why shields were round rather square in the late period.
    This is utterly and completely untrue. Late Roman organization and combat was arguably more tightly packed and certainly more heavily based on formation and drill. The Strategikon is more than enough evidence of that.

    The reason why segmentata fell out of use was because:

    1. It had to be custom fitted to the soldier or otherwise was extremely uncomfortable to wear and use. The switch to mass-production by the government made this less and less ideal.

    2. It had a lot of small parts, brass hinges, etc. that required constant maintenance and repair. It also had a large surface area so it rusted more quickly than maille or scale.

    3. Maille and scale offered just as much protection, were more flexible and could cover more of the body, and were easier to manufacture. The same reason lamellar fell out of use in the 13th century was because the highly intricate and specialized design of the medieval Klivanion required a much more complex process of production and assembly than just punching and riveting thousands of little metal rings together.

    And there are probably a myriad of other reasons too.
    Last edited by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius; December 13, 2015 at 06:48 PM.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    Quote Originally Posted by cnv2855 View Post
    So if the Romans were nationalistic and militaristic, and at almost constant warfare for roughly four to five hundred years, then why do we assume that they don't know the effects of pride, individualism, and more specifically espirit de corps?
    I don't understand your statement.
    Romans were militaristic, at least the upper echelons of society, and a sense of tribalistic superiority over others certainly hung over at least some leading members. But the Romans have their fair share of non-Romans whom they admired at a cultural level, even if they were military rivals. They have a healthy respect for the Parthians and even Carthage due to their superior fighting record relative to other enemies, and the Greeks cannot be dismissed as barbarians if they were their cultural predecessors. So I don't see it as a sense of a belief in innate superiority, though at times I'm sure differences and exoticisms were exaggerated to justify having a form of us vs. them view on life.
    A sense of collective greatness certainly existed among Romans, even if it was largely among the upper social classes, but I see it more of a pragmatic dog-eat-dog mentality than one of ethnocentrism. Rome's historical heritage was rooted not just in war, but a war for survival, where enemies with an upper hand can mean the death and destruction of all a Roman lives for. For Romans it's either they rule the world and everything goes their way, or not and you're made subservient to someone else. Any Roman can invoke the name of Hannibal or Brennus as apocalyptic figures that nearby destroyed them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cnv2855 View Post
    Being a Roman soldier or Roman citizen was something of great pride. There they were, the light against darkness, civilization versus barbarisation, the eternal city and it's denizens fighting to bring their governance to the very world. In modern times uniforms, medals, flags, and even the very military machines they use (such as the m1 Abrams) are something of that military men, and even civilians, take great pride in. That's why several nations continue to have military holidays and parades. Again, if we take pride in our uniforms then why do we assume the Romans didn't?
    A few things to consider:
    1- Being a Roman soldier means you're already a Roman citizen, there were legal privileges for being one and for the upper classes were required for civil service. It is not so much something of great pride but something you were effectively born into. Yes you can buy citizenship and acquire it via meritorious service, but never to the same level as that enjoyed by those in political power, who were not only born into the top level but were also socially prominent and had political influence. Roman society was certainly not about equality.
    2- I doubt most legionaries, from the early hoplite days to the late Comitense legions, fought with the mind of bringing civilization and exporting Roman glory to the world. I'd think most of them fought because they either had to (for early legionaries it was a duty for citizens, and the pay was awful, almost extortionate when you consider who really profits from all the land gobbled up).
    3- Ballistic vests, not ceremonial uniforms and awards, are more comparable to segmented armour. Armour was also less, if simply not, a status symbol, else why would centurions keep to using what would be an older, inferior and "less Roman" form of body armour?
    4- If there were something legionaries were prideful of, it would be more everyday things like their caligulae (boot-sandals), of which I read were a pretty big deal and something of a conspicuous item among legionaries.
    5- At least one Osprey Book "Roman Military Clothing" characterizes short-sleeved tunics as the main item that set legionaries apart from civilians, and specifically notes that Julius Caesar in his younger days was criticized for wearing long sleeved tunics. So if there's something that compares military (and Roman) identified it would not have been armour, which frankly was hardly the everyday fatigue dress of Roman soldiers anyways- few soldiers would lug around such heavy amount of metal on their person on occasions where they didn't need to wear them. Uniform should not be considered the same as combat gear. Part of it sure, but no one walks around town wearing back, vest with armour and rifle outside of marching orders and while fighting.
    6- Connected to #5, Roman military trends and group identity =/= national identity, those not involved in everyday fighting are hardly going to clamour about the army's manner of equipment.
    7- If you want to easily set apart your men from others, you use things like coloured tunics, shields patterns, styled plumes or crests on your helmet, and standards of particular conspicuous design, not armour.

    Quote Originally Posted by cnv2855 View Post
    If maile and plate were roughly the equivalent, give or take, then I think the main accommodation would be the morale, the unit cohesiveness, the espirit de corps. They wanted to be different, they wanted to be civilized, they wanted to be Roman. To do that, they did that in every way they could that didn't sacrifice combat effectiveness, and to that end they were able to introduce this armour, one of the only times that the Romans didn't adopt something from an enemy. Centurions used maile and did everything they could to stand out from the standard legionnaire, and I think the legionnaires wanted to stand out from the enemies they were fighting. So the introduction happened and was in use until some time shortly after the Antonine plague decimated the Empire's population, much like the Black Death did Europe.
    These are interesting assertions, even when there is nothing to substantiate these opinions.
    I don't agree, armour served functional purposes, and I don't see a connection between (quality) armour and morale. You still got a helmet and shield, plus your training and your brain when it comes to fighting. Field battles were also rare compared to the hundreds of years of Roman conquest, and later rule, over foreign lands.
    You have no proof that soldiers back then desired to look different from others, even non-Romans, and expressed this with armour design. If it was practical then it was worth having. At best you can only say for the later period where there was segmented armour...but throughout most of Roman military history mail armour was predominant, and was among non-Roman enemies like Celts and Germans.

    Quote Originally Posted by cnv2855 View Post
    It is at this point the Crisis of the Third Century occurred and Romans were no longer fighting barbarians, Africans, or Greeks but other Romans. It was legion versus legion for a hundred years of almost constant civil war, and when nations are at civil war we see nationalistic pride break down.
    You will have to prove that in every civil war nationalistic pride, whatever that means, breaks down.

    Quote Originally Posted by cnv2855 View Post
    Why was there a need to "stand out?" to "be different" when you were fighting your countrymen with the same equipment and standards?
    I would say given the fact that your opponent's armies may be armed with same training and equipment, there would be even greater desire to
    1) look as Roman as possible for sake of legitimacy (that is, not ditch segmented armour since it's considered Roman)
    2) utilize the more practical method of setting yourself apart from enemies with the same equipment (you can keep the segmented armour design and just have differnt coloured tunics, or adopt new shield patterns or animal standards).
    Neither of which presume a breakdown of a particular armour design.
    So during a civil war where segmented armour was the result of a desire to set Roman soldiers apart from non-Romans, wouldn't both sides want to look as Roman as possible and attempt to demean the other's legitimacy? You'd do best to NOT itch the armour. But again, you don't keep impractical armour designs just because they look more Roman than other forms, which have been the Roman staple for a much longer period of time.

    In both cases, all you'd need to do is use different shield patterns. Legionaries are already trained to fight in the context of their own formations, so unless everyone had the exact same standard and shield patterns,

    Quote Originally Posted by cnv2855 View Post
    The armour falls out of disuse during this time, a time when after the Antonine plague the legions were reformed into Limitanei and Comitatenses. Barbarians were recruited en masse, and they used maile. Roman enemies used maile. Vegetius writes that there was a general breakdown in moral and effectiveness in the army, even though the late Roman Army did score some great victories I don't think they were as effective as that of the Principate. People frankly no longer had the same fervor as you even see the aquila disregarded during this period.
    You have no proof or even any real argument for a causal relationship between the apparent decline of this armour design and the events you list here.
    According to your logic, barbarians (citizens or just non-Roman citizens?) were the reason why the armour fell out of use, because barbarians cannot be allowed to utilize this sort of armour...but says who? This wasn't the only time that non-Romans (or at least non-citizens) served among the legions. There is also no proof that segmented armour was used exclusively among the actual legions and excluded the auxilia cohorts, of which numbered almost as much as the actual legions. If distinction by armour design, as either policy trend, then it stands to reason it would attract much more attention than the distinction of citizenship.

    Quote Originally Posted by cnv2855 View Post
    Rome was no longer an expanding Empire fighting, plundering, and thriving against the outside world but merely trying to contain it. They weren't building extravagant new cities, opening new trade routes, they were merely trying to sustain the ones they had. It was during this time that we see maile standardized with the "segmentata" never to return.
    I suppose you have a detailed argument that explains the link between these two?
    Maile was always the "standard" armour, not just among Romans but among many other peoples they fought. Why would the Romans all of a sudden device that what worked wasn't Roman enough and they needed to invent a new wheel to call it their own? Why didn't non-Romans try to do the same thing? Is this something that only "civilized" peoples do?
    In any case a reversion to maile would only indicate an issue with practicality than notions of nationalism. No one sticks to old inferior technology if they know there really is something better out there. Resistance comes only from ignorance or lack of confidence; American troops in the 60s didn't prefer M14s over the M16 because the former looked more American, they didn't prefer due to cartridge and unfamiliar weapon design concept...that changed once people actually used the new rifles, though the initial problems certainly didn't help with the process.
    I don't see how the Romans, or anyone, would act any different.

    In summary, your idea is interesting, but ultimately your statements don't have have anything to back them up. For example why would the Romans have such a strong notion of national identity in the first place, and why would it influence something such as what legionaries wore on the battlefield, to a stronger degree than what the armour would actually provide?

    I can pretty much guarantee you that in a hypothetical case of one nation's armies coming across clearly superior technology, they will adopt it whenever practical. This would include technology used and deployed by the enemy. Soldiers in both world wars use weapons from either other services or the enemy forces either because they ran our of weapons or ammunition for their own, or because they often proved more useful. Canadians preferred the Lee Enfield over their Ross rifle because the former is well known for being reliable and the latter was known for being crap. Germans in WW2 utilized Russian weapons when they fond them more useful- the Ppsh-41 for example was used in larger proportions than the German's MP40, and such captured guns in large abundance were suited to the Germans in Stalingrad's needs.
    The dumbest thing any sensible soldier can do is reject clearly superior hardware on the basis that it wasn't made in same country they came from. That's not how you survive. Roman technology and culture itself, as for many others, developed out of contact with outside groups, especially enemies. You'd have to prove that at some point the Romans suddenly decided they needed something that looks different from those Celts with their barbaric maile armour after centuries of using them with success.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius View Post
    He's been posting this on several different forums (including more than one on TWC) and has been corrected on numerous occasions.
    Got a few links?

  11. #11

    Default Re: Perhaps the primary factor to consider in the history of Lorica Segmentata and it's disappearance.

    Quote Originally Posted by daelin4 View Post
    You have no proof or even any real argument for a causal relationship between the apparent decline of this armour design and the events you list here.
    According to your logic, barbarians (citizens or just non-Roman citizens?) were the reason why the armour fell out of use, because barbarians cannot be allowed to utilize this sort of armour...but says who?
    Pfff. Roman fanboy.^^

    The barbarians, of course!
    There were a bunch of Germans, looked at that Roman armor, thought for a minute that it is a mockup and then they went: No, we're not gonna wear that. Yeah, we know you think it is great – but no.

    The Roman boys wanted to look shiny on the battlefield and impress the enemy by their looks, because of their nationalistic pride. That was very important to them.
    Just be a little more open minded for uh... outré ... cultures?!
    I like this thesis. More of this, please, anytime.


    *please imagine a nice twinkle smily here

Posting Permissions

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