Some questions about roman units

**Szun** · December 24, 2007, 10:28 AM

well first i noticed the late imperial legion has the same stats and cost as the marius legion(i did not check hidden stats), despite the cheaper banded armor (wich offers better protection too)
...and the biggest shield used by units of the time are displayed as shield 4.

That doesn't make much sense to me...

anyone like to comment on that so i can make sense of it?

**Admetos** · December 24, 2007, 12:16 PM

I guess you mean Lorica Segmentata by "banded armour", then I'm rather confused because there isn't any LS legionaries in EB. I can't see what else you mean by "banded armour" though...

**Ludens** · December 24, 2007, 12:19 PM

Banded armour? The Cohors Imperatoria uses chain mail like it's predecessor. In fact, it's practically identically equipped. The hidden stats do not differ either, so I guess the unit represents the transition from the Marian ad-hoc armies to a professional standing army, not any differences in training or fighting style.

As for the efficacy of lorica segmentata, which I assume you are referring to with banded armour, it's a recurring discussion on EB's Org forum. Basically, the argument runs that if it was better and cheaper than chainmail, why did a significant part of the legionaries, as well as most of not all centurions, still chose the latter?

**Szun** · December 24, 2007, 01:29 PM

the unitcard shows them as Lorica Segmentata not chain mail..so i asumed they had it?

I only know it was cheaper then the predesesors from varius discovery/history channel docos i saw.
Why centurios choose to use chain over LS i dont know...guess officers dont get to fight in hand to hand often?
afaik a centurio was a equivalent of a modern day sergant up to modern day captain in those day...e.g. "Primus centurio, prima cohortis " would be a legion commander right? (1st centurio of the 1st cohort) or close to it...

**Ludens** · December 24, 2007, 02:23 PM

That still doesn't explain the continued usage of the supposedly inferior chainmail. Why would the Roman army have equipped their soldiers with the expensive chainmail if a better and cheaper alternative was at hand?

I don't recall any unit card featuring a LS legionary. Could you post it on the forum, please?

**gaius valerius** · December 25, 2007, 06:46 AM

the very cool looking LS, one of the few true roman inventions and not, like the LH an adaptation from the celts, was indeed lighter than mail but just as flexible, it offered the soldiers better protection vs projectiles and swordblows.

so you wonder:damn, then why keep using chain? well simple, everything with a flip, also has a downside. the downside of the first LS was that it offered less protection for the upper arms and upperlegs. due to its many joints (to keep the segments together) it was very easily worn out. so repairs had to happen a lot. chainmail needs less repairs since constant friction for one makes that it doesn't rust. only with the 'Newstead-type' (end of the 1st century AD) they improve the LS by reducing the number of joints.

so though LS certainly was advantaguous, it wasn't an uberarmor and still needed perfection. so its logical that the LH was still being used.

**Ludens** · December 25, 2007, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

so you wonder:damn, then why keep using chain? well simple, everything with a flip, also has a downside. the downside of the first LS was that it offered less protection for the upper arms and upperlegs. due to its many joints (to keep the segments together) it was very easily worn out. so repairs had to happen a lot. chainmail needs less repairs since constant friction for one makes that it doesn't rust. only with the 'Newstead-type' (end of the 1st century AD) they improve the LS by reducing the number of joints.

Interesting information. Mind you, I am still not sure if the LS offered more protection: the metal wasn't that thick, nor was it very flexible, so a determined sword blow could have done major damage. Plate is generally very good at deflecting missiles though. If my theory is correct, you would expect LS mainly to appear in the archer-rich east than in the west.

**Sidus Preclarum** · December 25, 2007, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Szun

the unitcard shows them as Lorica Segmentata not chain mail..

err... really ?

**lt1956** · December 26, 2007, 06:40 AM

Basically the LS was good for the Impact hits from Barbarians and Dacians. There was probably MUCH more impact damage during Caesars time when they used LH. The LS was cheaper or atleast FASTER to make and supply an army of that size. The downside like was said was Repair and Rust but I work with armor as a Hobby and Chainmail will RUST even with Friction But it wont effect its performance. As to LS a simple problem could be the Soldiers had to constantly Polish their Armor for inspection which wouldnt be needed for Mail.

I am sure there were several Reasons, but none of them because it was BAD armour. Over all With a SWINGING blow downward on your sholders I would take Plate, because even with Mail you will Get cut, and the Romans were not using the full potential of Wool like the Medieval knights did.

This would explain WHY they used the Armour in the West so much and in the east chose Mail when possible, the heat would heat the plates badly whereas while mail will get hot it wouldnt be to the level of plate.

Lt

**Ludens** · December 26, 2007, 07:22 AM

I stand correct then.

**gaius valerius** · December 26, 2007, 09:04 AM

it is true that LS is to popular with enactors which is a downright shame. i still rather see al those enactors enacting caesars campaigns in LS then those friggin figurants in gladiator, the movie with the WORST ROMANS COSTUMES EVER (not to mention the vile rape of history), my god spartacus was much cooler. u suck russell crowe (except in LA Confidential)!

but to get to the point, yes LS is hyped to much. what to about it? read books