A Sneak Peek Preview of RESTITVTOR ORBIS

[pacco]

No problem, but you know the rules, right?
No permission (and noone asked me) = no public realise.

[julianus heraclius]

No problem, but you know the rules, right?
No permission (and noone asked me) = no public realise.

Understood

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Maybe someone accidentally made almost exactly the same boss?

[Julianus Flavius]

I've had a bit of a think, and maybe LS wasn't the best armour in all circumstances. I mean, it was obviously the most protective but in hot climates... and not to mentioned all those joints could rust and it'd be difficult to use on campaign.
What does everyone think of this?

[M. Licinius Ibeii]

I've had a bit of a think, and maybe LS wasn't the best armour in all circumstances. I mean, it was obviously the most protective but in hot climates... and not to mentioned all those joints could rust and it'd be difficult to use on campaign.
What does everyone think of this?

Definitely NOT the best armour in all circumstances. it only really works in close formation with very well disciplined troops - which is probably one reason why it gets dropped in the later C3.

Cassius Dio also specifically states that in 218, legionaries campaigning in Mesopotamia abandoned their LS because it was too hot and restricting to use in the climate. Can't remember the exact reference offhand.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Definitely NOT the best armour in all circumstances. it only really works in close formation with very well disciplined troops - which is probably one reason why it gets dropped in the later C3.

LOL what? Since when discipline influences armor? And what the are you basing that on.

Oh, and again, modern historians are starting to believe the LS was no better than mail in defense either - only against blunt trauma, a failing in mail which is reversed by proper padding.

[M. Licinius Ibeii]

LOL what? Since when discipline influences armor? And what the are you basing that on.

Oh, and again, modern historians are starting to believe the LS was no better than mail in defense either - only against blunt trauma, a failing in mail which is reversed by proper padding.

I think I have stumbled unwittingly into a long-running debate between the afficianados of LS & LH

Blatta, I'm no armour expert, but I'm basing my observations on the published work of Coulston and Robinson, and an unpublished article which Simon James was kind enough to lend me many years ago. The basic points are these:

Lorica Segmentata flourished between the late C1 and the early C3 - a period of less than 200 years. During that time, it was clearly the prestige armour of the Roman legionary (though the Tropaieum Traiani and other snippets of evidence suggest very strongly to me that it was never the ONLY armour legionaries used).
Why was it only used by Roman legionaries and not the auxilia? The likes of Coulston et al think it was down to battle tactics, and I tend to agree with them.

The Roman legionary had a very specific mode of fighting, which developed over several hundred years from the Samnite Wars of the early Republic to the Civil Wars of Caesar and Octavian. To summarise it simply: the legionary would throw his pila (which were NEVER designed to break on impact, incidentally, that was simply a by-product of the design which the Romans constantly tried to fix - see Connolly's excellent article on this), then he would set his shoulder at arm's length to his scutum and shoulder-barge his enemy, crowding him as much as he could whilst drawing his gladius with this right hand and either stabbing over the lip of the shield, or through the gaps between shields. It was a very particular form of close-order fighting which required stringent discipline - and for which Lorica Segmentata was very obviously designed.
Segmentata doesn't protect the thighs or the legs at all. Moreover, it has very prominent shoulder guards which make it excellent for close-order fighting behind a shield, but very cumbersome in open-order combat. This, coupled with the flanged neckguard of the Gallic helmet make it perfect for scutum-tactics, but not particularly useful for anything else.

Coulston has made a very strong case which argues that Lorica Segmentata began to die out in the mid-C3 as the use of the spatha and the open-order slashing type of combat it favours came into fashion. WHY this came into fashion is a subject which would take a whole PhD to discuss, but suffice to say that it is a combination of available manpower, greater use of barbarians, rampant inflation and a breakdown in the command-supply chain, along with the introduction of new troop types and new enemies to fight - not to mention the near-collapse of the Empire in AD 259.

So yes, the use of Lorica Segmentata is INEXTRICABLY linked to drill & discipline. Without it, Roman legionary tactics don't work (which is also probably why they start to phase out during the late C3). This is equally true of every other kind of armour and weaponry used in warfare, and if you don't understand that, you're starting from a very dodgy foundation. The linen armour and sarissa of the Macedonian phalangite is as much a product of the discipline of fighting in a Speira as the clibanaria armour and double-handed konto of a Sassanid cataphract is a product of the discipline of fighting in a heavy cavalry wedge - or the musket and bayonet of a British Redcoat is a product of the discipline of forming a 2-deep line of fire. Discipline and armour go hand in hand, and armour evolves to maximise its effectiveness within the discipline of the fighting style for which it is designed. Lorica Segmentata is no different in this respect to any other form of armour - it's just that the disciplined fighting style it was designed to optimise phased out of existence within 200 years of its invention, making LS obsolete.

[Sertorio]

I think I have stumbled unwittingly into a long-running debate between the afficianados of LS & LH

Blatta, I'm no armour expert, but I'm basing my observations on the published work of Coulston and Robinson, and an unpublished article which Simon James was kind enough to lend me many years ago. The basic points are these:

Lorica Segmentata flourished between the late C1 and the early C3 - a period of less than 200 years. During that time, it was clearly the prestige armour of the Roman legionary (though the Tropaieum Traiani and other snippets of evidence suggest very strongly to me that it was never the ONLY armour legionaries used).
Why was it only used by Roman legionaries and not the auxilia? The likes of Coulston et al think it was down to battle tactics, and I tend to agree with them.

The Roman legionary had a very specific mode of fighting, which developed over several hundred years from the Samnite Wars of the early Republic to the Civil Wars of Caesar and Octavian. To summarise it simply: the legionary would throw his pila (which were NEVER designed to break on impact, incidentally, that was simply a by-product of the design which the Romans constantly tried to fix - see Connolly's excellent article on this), then he would set his shoulder at arm's length to his scutum and shoulder-barge his enemy, crowding him as much as he could whilst drawing his gladius with this right hand and either stabbing over the lip of the shield, or through the gaps between shields. It was a very particular form of close-order fighting which required stringent discipline - and for which Lorica Segmentata was very obviously designed.
Segmentata doesn't protect the thighs or the legs at all. Moreover, it has very prominent shoulder guards which make it excellent for close-order fighting behind a shield, but very cumbersome in open-order combat. This, coupled with the flanged neckguard of the Gallic helmet make it perfect for scutum-tactics, but not particularly useful for anything else.

Coulston has made a very strong case which argues that Lorica Segmentata began to die out in the mid-C3 as the use of the spatha and the open-order slashing type of combat it favours came into fashion. WHY this came into fashion is a subject which would take a whole PhD to discuss, but suffice to say that it is a combination of available manpower, greater use of barbarians, rampant inflation and a breakdown in the command-supply chain, along with the introduction of new troop types and new enemies to fight - not to mention the near-collapse of the Empire in AD 259.

So yes, the use of Lorica Segmentata is INEXTRICABLY linked to drill & discipline. Without it, Roman legionary tactics don't work (which is also probably why they start to phase out during the late C3). This is equally true of every other kind of armour and weaponry used in warfare, and if you don't understand that, you're starting from a very dodgy foundation. The linen armour and sarissa of the Macedonian phalangite is as much a product of the discipline of fighting in a Speira as the clibanaria armour and double-handed konto of a Sassanid cataphract is a product of the discipline of fighting in a heavy cavalry wedge - or the musket and bayonet of a British Redcoat is a product of the discipline of forming a 2-deep line of fire. Discipline and armour go hand in hand, and armour evolves to maximise its effectiveness within the discipline of the fighting style for which it is designed. Lorica Segmentata is no different in this respect to any other form of armour - it's just that the disciplined fighting style it was designed to optimise phased out of existence within 200 years of its invention, making LS obsolete.

Plese Rep+ the man.
Either wrong or right is still a good post. I suport this opinion with my own. Mail easier to maintain and repair than LS.

[ray243]

Coulston has made a very strong case which argues that Lorica Segmentata began to die out in the mid-C3 as the use of the spatha and the open-order slashing type of combat it favours came into fashion. WHY this came into fashion is a subject which would take a whole PhD to discuss, but suffice to say that it is a combination of available manpower, greater use of barbarians, rampant inflation and a breakdown in the command-supply chain, along with the introduction of new troop types and new enemies to fight - not to mention the near-collapse of the Empire in AD 259.

I would really like to see the article or essay written by Coulston because this would really require a Ph.D level of thesis to defend such a view. Unless it is published by an academic press or in a peer reviewed journal, it is dangerous to accept the view of Coulston, even if he is one of the foremost expert when it comes to Roman armour.

Especially given that the current consensus among the academia is that the Empire weren't that close to collapse as we once thought.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Is there much archeological evidence for segmentata in the Oriens, I wonder? There is a general assumption in some circles that scale and chain were more common but I know of you actual validation for that. It would be interesting to find out!

[LaSalle.NL]

I can't wait for this mod. Please hurry. We will love you for it. Festina lente non.

[LaSalle.NL]

That would be the musket, Sir!

[Julianus Flavius]

I think the point that's being made is that the fundamental changes in organisation in the army (the Limitanei/Comitatenses/Palatina system) hurt the effectiveness of the legions as it seemed to reduce the standard of equipment, tactics and ability/training across the board. Also, to compare the retention of older equipment to taking a musket into battle today ignores the fact that many of the advancements made recently happened shockingly quickly, and that the overall technological advancements made in the period from 300-600 AD seemed to be rather limited, as far as I know. By that I mean there was no huge leaps forward (in fact, in Europa the reverse seems to have occured - it would be very interesting to see a fully equipped, trained and supplied Imperial Legion of Aurelian's time conquer somewhere like, say, Britannia) unlike these days, where owning a 10-year-old computer is odd and the device is likely to be archaic.
It also seems that the primary reason for the abandonment of Lorica Segmentata was the fact that it relied on a lot of maintenance, and when the old legions were broken down to border defence forces, there was simply no way for that armour to be maintained. Also, this decentralisation of the armed forces resulted in the increase in irregularities between units of the same rank and theoretically the same standard. Although hard to show in-game, some Limitanei units posted to the far corners of the Empire would look very different to those posted near major settlements.
So the question is, would the old tactics and organization (that includes training, logisitics and governmental structures) have continued to work had they been retained? I think so. Would the old equipment have continued to work? Perhaps. However, in the face of new enemies (the Huns and Persians especially) there would need to be changes. However, if the old systems of equipping legions continued, these changes need not be detrimental to the overall protection offered by armour and the harm to be inflicted by weapons, as the main problem was not so much one of the equipment being inferior but poorly looked after, with costs and effort saved at every opportunity.
The main problem, then, would be more of the civil/social issues. Although it's hotly contested wether the advent of monotheistic religions into mainstream Roman culture was beneficial or detrimental to the Empire, what is clear is that Constantine opened a Pandora's box when he went down the road to religious intolerance. Although he managed to reunite a fractured empire for a time, over time the civil strife such a move caused was no doubt detrimental. Many are swift to judge Constantine (indeed I have been known to do that occasionally...) but in reality I doubt he knew what would happen long-term with his religious reforms. However, the real problem surrounding him was his military reforms, and these are possibly the true reason for the Empire's decline and fall. Although the religious turmoil of his making was no doubt troublesome, the Romans were always a fickle crowd for a leader to please, so the renewed troubles were not anything new to the administration.
I'm getting a bit off topic here...
My point is, I think the reduction of use of the Lorica Segmentata, old legion tactics and all the rest is a symptom of a crumbling empire that can no longer maintain the high standard armed forces of earlier times. It was seen in pre-Roman Greece, where warfare had degraded to two phalanx lines lining up and duking it out, as opposed to the mixed-forces approach employed by Alexander, for example. Remember, Arminius went on record asking Valentinian to return to the old ways of training a legion and the old organisational structures instead of Constantine's way, suggesting the Romans of the time knew things were amiss in their army, but they lacked the impetus to do so, or those that could see the way things were headed were too few in number. Just the fact that there were legionaries going into battle without armour and sometimes without helmets should be evidence enough that standards were slipping. The first thing to go was the technologically-advanced, but hard-to-maintain Lorica Segmentata. Remember, armour like it was not seen again until the late middle ages, and even then only in the hands of the nobility. Next was the general standards of training and discipline, followed by all the other regressions.
That is not to say that the empire was doomed from the moment LS ended being standard issue; as Aurelian proved, one does not need a whole army with it to be effective. It's fine to equip soldiers differently in different conditions or for different duties! But it's not fine to cut down on armour that would be superior overall in a specific area or situation simply because it's too expensive. When you do, you know your empire's up the creek haha
Well, that's my 2 cents *sits back and waits for my argument to be torn limb from limb by the resident scholars here haha xD*

[Diocletianus]

Remember, Arminius went on record asking Valentinian to return to the old ways of training a legion and the old organisational structures instead of Constantine's way, suggesting the Romans of the time knew things were amiss in their army, but they lacked the impetus to do so, or those that could see the way things were headed were too few in number. Just the fact that there were legionaries going into battle without armour and sometimes without helmets should be evidence enough that standards were slipping. *[/QUOTE

Have you read Vegetius ?

You have written a very good answer, I must now bow to your knees . And where did you found all thoses exemples?

[Julianus Flavius]

I'll have to get back to you on that; the sources are mainly a variety of books I don't have access to anymore

[Emperor Caesar]

Well same here I wouldn't arm my legions in the east with LS I would arm with something that handles the heat better. What I am really trying to say is thatI would keep LS as the main armor but not every legion would have it. Plus when I talk about having a border guard and central reserve I would make the amount of border guard large enough to handle itself if the border was attacked and the legions would only be put into action if the enemy broke through. It would not be the same system that Constantine used. And I agree that the troops should be armed well and I would try to stop men from not having armor. When I wrote how I would arm my men it was just how the average troop would be armed but I would use other armies as I put in. And maybe having the Spatha/gladius combo would be smart but I would think that the glades would be better for close quarters because is shorter and can kill better at closer range while the Spatha would require more power to attack with but hey you never know.

[Julianus Flavius]

something that TW games don't represent well is that shields sometimes get broken, taken or whatever, and in the case of having no shield, a longer sword and gladius would be superior to a gladius and pugio

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Yes it might be impractical to give every man Lorica Segmentata, but every suit, even those of mail or whatever, would be made to the highest quality.

Reinforced mail hauberk with padding > Lorica segmentata.

[The_Nord]

Equipping the entire roman army with lorica segmentata and the finest mail available seems a tad expensive, don't you think?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Mail hauberk is more expensive, I agree.