Lorica Hamata vs. Lorica Segmentata

[Kor Khan]

I've got a question for everyone here about Roman military history, and to a certain extent about military history in general:

After having used celtic-style chainmail for centuries, the Roman army under the emperors adopted the Lorica Segmentata, or banded mail. From what I have read about it, the reasons for the change were it's better protection, cheaper production and lightness (not sure about the last one). From what I can tell, it was all-round better than the older Lorica Hamata. Why then, did the Roman army change back to the good old chainmail during it's later years, and why was chainmail always more popular than banded mail, right up to the introduction of plate armour?
Did banded mail have some disadvantages that I don't know about, like being cumborsome or ineffective, which caused a return to chainmail? Was the technology lost? I'm interested in why European armies gave up an apparently newer, better technology in favour of a much older one.

And finally, a sort of By-The-Way question: What were the main differences between medieval plate mail and Roman banded mail?

[Shaun]

well i read a few sources saying that it was given up because it was too expensive and took too long to make, not sure though.

[John I Tzimisces]

well i read a few sources saying that it was given up because it was too expensive and took too long to make, not sure though.

Just expensive, hamata is very time consuming, but an idiot could make it. Segmentata is cheaper and easier to make but requires better materials and probably a better blacksmith.

[antaeus]

i am no expert on roman armour but i could throw a few guesses out there

- the later roman army was less roman than it was barbarian federates - maybe the armour just came with them - or it was simply made locally by manufacturers schooled in barbarian metalworking rather than roman... armour tended to reflect the makeup of a local legions soldiers even in early imperial times - i remember seeing something about a crocodile skin dress armour from egypt..

perhaps metalworkers were able to make finer lighter chain mail that superseeded segmented armour in flexability and coverage? certainly, i have seen some of the beautiful asian suits of armour in the royal armoury at leeds, and the chain mail in the turkish and mongolian armour in particular is amazingly fine, nothing like the thick heavy rings of the german and celtic suits. has anybody actually seen a physical comparrison of roman chain mail from the 4th century compaired to the 1st century?

also - i doubt that all legions used segmented armour even at the height of its use.

certainly after the end of rome - it was well into the 12th century before plated armour became commonplace in the west, and that wasnt because of the lack of skilled metalworkers. the reason will probably come out in posts to come which would be interesting.

[Kor Khan]

Yeah, I was just thinking that medieval and Roman plate armour were two completely different things. While the Lorica Segmentata consisted of metal straps sown onto leather, medieval plate started off in combination with chain, and ended up as a masterpiece of design, involving joints and chinks that allowed for movement, without any sort of "support" underneath it holding it in place.

[antaeus]

if anybody speaks italian better than me and google, this page looks interesting - as to explaining the origins of the segmentata... http://www.alfamodel.it/Sezioni/Evo_...ato_romano.htm

as a direct response to confronting parthian massed archers - segmented armour provides maximum protection from vollied arrows fired en masse - this is not how the saxons, franks and goths used archers - so maybe it was simply not needed any more.

i know other parts of the armour evolved specifically to face particular threats - like the helmet ridge (- to help prevent damage from dacian falx blows) theres no reason to suggest the segmentata would be any different.. .

[Princeps]

Lorica segmentata was almost as protective as the medieval chest plate. No bows of the time could penetrate it while swords also were not really effective against it.

So why did Romans appandon it?

It was waay to expensive for an Empire that had suffered civil wars, an economical disaster and raids.

1. Lorica segmentata required an experienced smith and good facilities while lorica hamata, although larborous, could be made by any slave.

2. Lorica segmentata required consant cleaning because it rusted very soon.

3. It was very complex and required an experienced smith to fix.

4. It was rather inflexible, and due to the lack of discipline in the late Roman army, no one would have worn it.

5. The segmentata had to be of the right size for the soldier and so; there had to be many different sizes of the armour.

[Kor Khan]

Yeah, thanks for the info, Princeps. The reasons you stated in your post certainly make sense. I guess it was just too hard to support a whole army wearing banded mail while the empire was falling apart.

[Pompeius Minus]

After having used celtic-style chainmail for centuries, the Roman army under the emperors adopted the Lorica Segmentata, or banded mail.

Actually they never abandoned chainmail. Chainmail and scale armour remained in use during the period when lorica segmentata was used.

Like others have said lorica segmentata was complicated and expensive to manufacture and maintain, and was probably abandoned for this reason. The same thing happened with the so-called Imperial Gallic and Imperial Italic helmet types, which were also replaced by less expensive versions.

[Freddie]

From the reasons stated its clear then that Lorica segmenta (like so much about Roman civilisation) was well ahead of its time.

I've read reports that troops found segmenta needed a lot of maintenance, and it was expensive to repair. This wasn’t a problem when the Empire was at its height in 2rd centary AD, but subsequent civil wars and economic decline meant there wasn’t the money or the numbers of skilled blacksmiths nor enough disciplined soldiers to warrant to continuation of its production. Europe wouldn’t see plate mail again until the late medieval period which was over a 1000 years latter.

[Pompeius Minus]

I'm not sure if lorica segmentata was really comparable to plate armour, or if it offered any big advantages over chainmail.

Basically chainmail protects well against cuts but less well against puncture wounds, such as those caused by spears or arrows. The hoplite bronze cuirass, which was comparable to plate armour, offered very good protection against spear thrusts (this was why the hoplites used it) but the penalty was weight and restricted movement. Lorica segmentata was articulated and thereby solved the movement problems, but the individual pieces were much smaller than a one-piece cuirass and would not have had the same ability to distribute or "suck up" the force of a blow or thrust.

The one area where I imagine lorica segmentata was clearly superior to chainmail is shoulder protection, especially from downward blows. Blows to the shoulders must have been quite common (mail shirts often had reinforced shoulders as well), so it was probably an important improvement. It would also have been superior against arrows, especially since some kind of padded vest was probably worn underneath.

Anyway, we mustn't forget that the until the appearance of medieval plate armour in the 1300s the shield remained probably the most important protection for the infantryman, and was meant to absorb most of the attacks.

[Freddie]

I'm not sure if lorica segmentata was really comparable to plate armour, or if it offered any big advantages over chainmail.

Basically chainmail protects well against cuts but less well against puncture wounds, such as those caused by spears or arrows. The hoplite bronze cuirass, which was comparable to plate armour, offered very good protection against spear thrusts (this was why the hoplites used it) but the penalty was weight and restricted movement. Lorica segmentata was articulated and thereby solved the movement problems, but the individual pieces were much smaller than a one-piece cuirass and would not have had the same ability to distribute or "suck up" the force of a blow or thrust.

The one area where I imagine lorica segmentata was clearly superior to chainmail is shoulder protection, especially from downward blows. Blows to the shoulders must have been quite common (mail shirts often had reinforced shoulders as well), so it was probably an important improvement. It would also have been superior against arrows, especially since some kind of padded vest was probably worn underneath.

Anyway, we mustn't forget that the until the appearance of medieval plate armour in the 1300s the shield remained probably the most important protection for the infantryman, and was meant to absorb most of the attacks.

The bronze cuirass was good in its day but you can't compare it to chainmail or lorica segmenta. Bronze is very soft (when compared to iron and steel) and is easily punctured by iron swords (as the Macedonians found out when they fought the Romans).

Lorica segmenta looks quite flimsy when you first see it but tests have been done using iron age weapons and it can absorb a tremendous amount of punishment from sword blows, arrow fire etc.

The other reason why it fell out of favour is because at the time segmenta was being used Rome was still expanding and was ideal for offensive campaigns. When the Empire looked to secure its boarders it had to chase away barbarian invaders from its boarders but by the time the army had arrived the invaders had rushed back over the boarders. Troops needed to be more mobile so lighter armour and smaller shield were introduced to make the army more adorable for defensive operations.

[ShangTang]

Hamata remained very popular even with when segmentata was at it's peak.

[Princeps]

Hamata remained very popular even with when segmentata was at it's peak.

Yes, mostly in the legions that were less active. Lorica segmentata was so expensive that it was not logical to give it all legionaries.

I'm not sure if lorica segmentata was really comparable to plate armour, or if it offered any big advantages over chainmail.

Actually it was probably the most protective armour untill the European plate armour. No bows of the time penetrated it, not even the Hun bow or Parthian bow. The Chain mail was not nearly as protective as the segmentata was. Segmentata could take more powerful strikes from axes and swords than the chain mail while no arrow could penetrate it. Chain mail could not protect from arrows, axes or thrusts in the same way as a ''solid'' armour could.

Bronze plate was soft and expensive.

[antaeus]

but people also forget, that there was a massive change in the structure of the roman army at the same timeperiod that the segmentata dissappeared too.

Diocletian and Constantine rearranged the army as we will see in BI. it changed from one with legions stationed around the borders - ready to fight, to one where there were no true legionaries... instead there was a mobile army floating around inside the empire, and weak border troops designed to slow down an invader rather than prevent their entry as the legions had done in the past. as well as this there was a larger and more diverse range of troops that required a more diverse set of weapons and armaments. the border troops were increasingly poorly trained and rarely even wore armour, while the new mobile army became focused on its cavalry arm.

in this environment, spending time and money on armour that was of lesser and lesser relevance to the 'modern' army (no matter how good it was), would be like our armies spending our governments money on say the Crusader artillery system - an impressive and quite formidable weapons platform that costs so much that its benifits are outweighed by its cost - and lesser systems will do the job - as the american military has already pretty much decided.

[MaximiIian]

AFAIK, Chainmail, aka Lorica Hamata, was heavier than the segmentata and provided less defense. Also, that the Lorica segmentata was about half the weight of the hamata and provided better protection, through the use of overlapping plates.

[Petronius]

As a note - Segmentata was so protective because it did not use essentially 'rigid' plate design, IE: inflexible metal plate which defended by its mere presence. Instead, because the iron was forged in a certain manner, it was 'soft' and had some give to it; a sword or spear stab will have pushed the armour against the main, but because it was flexible enough to give with the blow it wouldn't shatter or be pierced.