Roman Infantry Armour (Rome II)

[Sir. Cunningham]

Now as we know the equipment of the Roman infantry changed a lot from 231 BC (start of the game) up until and throughout the Imperial era.

Around 100 BC the Marian Reforms brought forth the standardization of training & equipment within the Roman army, making sure each soldier was equally trained & equipped. The result was a highly skilled professional army the likes of which the world had never before seen.

Not long after, at around 50 BC (exact year is debatable), the Lorica Segmentata was introduced, a highly advanced type of segmented armour that provided the wearer with both superior protection & flexibility compared to all earlier types of armour. Now it is generally accepted that this type of armour had become standard equipment by around 100 AD, during the conflict with Dacia, however when should we be able research it in Rome II ? Should we be able to obtain it earlier or should advances in technology like these be restricted to certain time periods ?

Marian Imperial Roman Legionnaires ca. 100 AD:

[♔The Black Knight♔]

There will be various tech trees to choose from so it will prabably depend on your research rate.

Then again, we don't even know if they will have different period armors but we can hope.

[Gods999]

I bet Lorica Segmata will be in Rome 2 just like it was in Rome 1 because its a signature piece of equipment today when talking about the Roman military.

[Shneckie]

Of course it will be in the game.

[bobbin]

As far as we know it was never the standard armour at any point, chain mail was the most common armour for the period.

[Sir. Cunningham]

As far as we know it was never the standard armour at any point, chain mail was the most common armour for the period.

According to historian and specialist in roman equipment Peter Connolly it was standard alongside chain mail for about 300 years. The only reason it came out of use starting around 300 AD was due to the fact that it took longer and was more expensive to make than chain mail, not to mention that each piece was made to perfectly fit the individual, which was harder to achieve than with chain mail which was almost "one size fits all".

On the plus side the Lorica Segmentata provided the wearer with the same flexibility as chain mail, whilst offering far better protection and weighing only half that of the chain mail suit.

By 300 AD however the Roman Empire was finding it too difficult to train & equip every soldier to the standards of earlier periods, thanks to pressing financial problems and issues recruiting enough troops in occupied areas. As a result the Roman army slowly began to deteriorate in both training & equipment.

That having been said chain mail had always been a standard piece of kit, even during Rome's high point, where it was used én masse alongside the Lorica Segmentata from ~50 BC to ~250 AD (time period is again a subject of debate).

But who wore what ? The general concensus is that the auxilliary troops wore chain mail exclusively, whilst only the Legionnaires wore the Lorica Segmentata, albeit not all Legions were exclusively equipped with this and still made more use of chain mail. However some have suggested that the Lorica Segmentata was in exclusive use by a number of elite Legions only, esp. those fighting the Dacians & Britons, where the extra protection is thought to have been of greater value. (The "Manica" arm protection, shin plates & Lorica Squamata was also in great use during the conflict with the Dacians at ~ 100 AD)

Dacian Wars 100 AD:

[Ahiga]

I like and respect the late Peter Connolly a lot, but again, we can go around in circles by referencing secondary literature authors who produce more composite and nebulous works. He was one of us, very enthusiastic about history but I don't think he's a strong authoritative source - more an educated figure in the field but not a master. I've heard plenty of critiques about his conceptions and presentations - such as apparently arguing the carthaginians fought in a sarissa phalanx when most recognize that is not the case, or in my experience some presumptions with the Mycenaeans in his book about them and the Iliad. Furthermore his book is at least 20 years old and perhaps even 30 - a lot of research has gone on since then.

If you're going to argue from his position then you still have to tell us what primary resources are the foundation of those claims.

[Sir. Cunningham]

I like and respect the late Peter Connolly a lot, but again, we can go around in circles by referencing secondary literature authors who produce more composite and nebulous works. He was one of us, very enthusiastic about history but I don't think he's a strong authoritative source - more an educated figure in the field but not a master. I've heard plenty of critiques about his conceptions and presentations - such as apparently arguing the carthaginians fought in a sarissa phalanx when most recognize that is not the case, or in my experience some presumptions with the Mycenaeans in his book about them and the Iliad. Furthermore his book is at least 20 years old and perhaps even 30 - a lot of research has gone on since then.

If you're going to argue from his position then you still have to tell us what primary resources are the foundation of those claims.

Let us get a few things straight first:

1. I am not saying that the Lorica Segmentata was ever the lone standard across the Roman army
2. Chain mail was used throughout the history of the Roman empire (wether it was always the std. is debatable)

However the LS was in std. use for about 250-300 years, and esp. against the Dacians & Britons, according to most sources atleast. Not however as the lone standard ofcourse, and it is entirely possible that chain mail was more prevalent even at around the period 0-250 AD. However LS seems to have been the prefered type of armour used in certain areas, and it seems to have been the primary equipment of several legions. (Again not all)

One thing is for sure though, it was by far the most advanced & best type of armour available during the period of the Roman Empire, being light, flexible and strong, and as such it is therefore also fitting that most pieces date from the high point of the Roman Empire, around the time of and immediately after Augustus, where they could afford it. As for how widely it was used, that is debatable, but I think it logical that only the most experienced Legions were equipped with it, but this is ofcourse merely speculation.

[Ahiga]

Let us get a few things straight first:

1. I am not saying that the Lorica Segmentata was ever the lone standard across the Roman army
2. Chain mail was used throughout the history of the Roman empire (wether it was always the std. is debatable)

However the LS was in std. use for about 250-300 years, and esp. against the Dacians & Britons, according to most sources atleast. Not however as the lone standard ofcourse, and it is entirely possible that chain mail was more prevalent even at around the period 0-250 AD. However LS seems to have been the prefered type of armour used in certain areas, and it seems to have been the primary equipment of several legions. (Again not all)

One thing is for sure though, it was by far the most advanced & best type of armour available during the period of the Roman Empire, being light, flexible and strong, and as such it is therefore also fitting that most pieces date from the high point of the Roman Empire, around the time of Augustus, where they could afford it. As for how widely it was used, that is debatable, but I think it logical that only the most experienced Legions were equipped with it, but this is ofcourse merely speculation.

You need to provide better proof than just your words - you aren't an authoritative source, you're just another layperson like all of us here. That's not an insult, it's just the fact of the matter. Our words are cheap in historical arguments because it's easy for me to go "well this is the case because I said so", and for you to go "well this is the case because I said so".

Show us proof for why it was "the most advanced and best". Tests against spears or swords or arrows or whatever from researchers/historians.

Show proof to show that it was the "Primary equipment of several legions" - you're implying right there that it was the primary armor for an entire legion. Which I cannot find any reliable information to support, the idea that an entire legion could be uniformly equipped with the exact same armor for each and every man seems absolutely mad. If you can find some textual or achaeological evidence to explain how a legionary equipped itself, then that could support your claim.

[weirdoascensor]

The Question is: when we advance in technology, e.g. The Marian Reforms, would the effect instantly transform the existing Legions? or do we need to pay an "upgrade this Legion" button? No...dont say we have to disband and retrain...one of the most important new Legion stack system purpose should be averting this very issue....

[Wodeson]

I'd be tempted to tie it's use to the reforms of Augustus, so it becomes available once you win the civil war.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The Question is: when we advance in technology, e.g. The Marian Reforms, would the effect instantly transform the existing Legions? or do we need to pay an "upgrade this Legion" button? No...dont say we have to disband and retrain...one of the most important new Legion stack system purpose should be averting this very issue....

There was a gradual evolution into a homogenous army rather than one composed of varying qualities of soldiers. It took place over years, and maniples were called Hastati, Principes and Trarii into the late Principate. Marius simply popularized a general or the state paying for equipment, as his new poor soldiers couldn't afford it, and that led to his army becoming more homogenously equipped.

[Sol Invictus]

I think most of us can agree that all things being equal the Roman military would have fully equiped all Legions in LS if possible. Of course all things are rarely equal and it is cost that usually drives decisions. When Rome reached its height we see the arrival of LS and as it declined we start to see the LS disappear over time. Simple matter of cost and the Empires ability to afford that expense. The LS was not completely superior to LH but overall it was preferred for the better fit and missle protection, though it did provide less coverage below the waist. I have always found it intersting that the Centurions retained the LH through all periods and have never read any reason for this. Anyone have a clue about that?

[B. W.]

The Question is: when we advance in technology, e.g. The Marian Reforms, would the effect instantly transform the existing Legions? or do we need to pay an "upgrade this Legion" button? No...dont say we have to disband and retrain...one of the most important new Legion stack system purpose should be averting this very issue....

Outstanding comment! I agree! It would be rediculous not to be able to upgrade existing units. That's one of the main problems with S2.

[Manco]

Now it is generally accepted

No, it isn't.
Mail/lorica hamata was still widely used, likely even remaining more common at all times, in the lorica segmentata's heyday.

[Celsius]

I want the Roman armor to glisten so it can blind the ish out of those damn wannabe Carthaginians.

[Ahiga]

It's not something that can be solved in a single topic or post, but I have real doubts about the presentation of the legionary as an absolutely uniform clad "Stormtrooper like" force of almost automatronic soldiers. Secondary sources abound about how they were or weren't uniformly clad, and we'd run around in circles relying on that (not to mention you can find secondary sources that used to claim the segmenta was used in the republic, or even a turn of the century book by an esteemed military author I picked up that said the legionaries all used squamata - Scale armor!). I can cite two sources (re-enactor in the Legio XX I met, and my professor and author of "Soldiers & Ghosts" discussing Greco-Roman Warfare) arguing on behalf of a lack of absolute uniformality (at least in armor/helmet) and I am sure others can cite sources to the contrary.

So simply put - What is the primary, period evidence pointing towards a uniformality of legionary equipment. That every single legionary in a maniple/cohort or legion had the same armor, the same helmet, the same tunic color, or the same shield design. What are the literary, archeaological or visual depictions to support the idea of uniformly armed legions during the pre-Marian, post-Marian, and Imperial Legions. Also, How did the legionary get his equipment - both who paid for it and how he acquired it. Trajan's Column is not valid, as it uses an artistic license to distinguish legionary (Segmenta, Rectangular scutum) from auxilia (Mail, oval scutum). We get the century or so later Aurelian column completely dissolving that artistic license, too.

I know CA will go with color-coordinated troops given that's their gameplay choice. Perfectly fine with that, but I'd like to have the educated insight of those who know more than me help to clarify this issue. I am a firm believer against the fantasy of "Stormtrooper Legions" and would think uniform shields are likely, uniform tunics less likely, uniform armor is bollocks. I think people have an unnatural hard-on for the segmenta because of the love of "armor porn" and the idea that because it's pieces of solid plate it's somehow lightyears superior to mail or scale. It's also how we identify the legionary much like plate armor does for a knight. Subsequently you get people pushing the date of the armor back far beyond its actual usage because of that association.

I find the idea of fielding an army as well uniformed as a Napoleonic army in antiquity to be absolutely insane and from what I've seen the only proponents of that idea are either outdated perspectives from valid historical sources (who were just not privy to more recent revelations and archaeological research, given its an ongoing process especially for the abundant material on the Romans) or uneducated laypersons beholden to the "rule of cool" and nothing more.

[Barristan Selmy]

It's not something that can be solved in a single topic or post, but I have real doubts about the presentation of the legionary as an absolutely uniform clad "Stormtrooper like" force of almost automatronic soldiers. Secondary sources abound about how they were or weren't uniformly clad, and we'd run around in circles relying on that (not to mention you can find secondary sources that used to claim the segmenta was used in the republic, or even a turn of the century book by an esteemed military author I picked up that said the legionaries all used squamata - Scale armor!). I can cite two sources (re-enactor in the Legio XX I met, and my professor and author of "Soldiers & Ghosts" discussing Greco-Roman Warfare) arguing on behalf of a lack of absolute uniformality (at least in armor/helmet) and I am sure others can cite sources to the contrary.

So simply put - What is the primary, period evidence pointing towards a uniformality of legionary equipment. That every single legionary in a maniple/cohort or legion had the same armor, the same helmet, the same tunic color, or the same shield design. What are the literary, archeaological or visual depictions to support the idea of uniformly armed legions during the pre-Marian, post-Marian, and Imperial Legions. Also, How did the legionary get his equipment - both who paid for it and how he acquired it. Trajan's Column is not valid, as it uses an artistic license to distinguish legionary (Segmenta, Rectangular scutum) from auxilia (Mail, oval scutum). We get the century or so later Aurelian column completely dissolving that artistic license, too.

I know CA will go with color-coordinated troops given that's their gameplay choice. Perfectly fine with that, but I'd like to have the educated insight of those who know more than me help to clarify this issue. I am a firm believer against the fantasy of "Stormtrooper Legions" and would think uniform shields are likely, uniform tunics less likely, uniform armor is bollocks. I think people have an unnatural hard-on for the segmenta because of the love of "armor porn" and the idea that because it's pieces of solid plate it's somehow lightyears superior to mail or scale. It's also how we identify the legionary much like plate armor does for a knight. Subsequently you get people pushing the date of the armor back far beyond its actual usage because of that association.

I find the idea of fielding an army as well uniformed as a Napoleonic army in antiquity to be absolutely insane and from what I've seen the only proponents of that idea are either outdated perspectives from valid historical sources (who were just not privy to more recent revelations and archaeological research, given its an ongoing process especially for the abundant material on the Romans) or uneducated laypersons beholden to the "rule of cool" and nothing more.

Ill grab the armor porn bit for my sig

[Ahiga]

As long as it's not a picture of armor porn!

I found this source from the wiki page, so I can't testify to the authority of it. But it seems like a thoroughly well researched and much more up to date source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lo...n-Plate-Armour

1) He notes what is an obvious truth - the lobbyists for lorcia segmenta's abundance operate primarily from a single archaeological source - Trajan's Column. Likewise he addresses the artistic licensing of equipping every legionary and every auxilia in a clone fashion. [Page 9] - lobbyists for the segmenta erroneously believe that shorthand to be an accurate representation.

2) Marcus Aurelius' column is addressed on the same page. I forget the details of that column myself but I know when I looked at it earlier this year I found the shorthand method of Trajan's column was abandoned - I didn't see the rigid uniformality depicted.

3) Most importantly - Tropaeum Traiani Depictions [Romania - the author notes these provincial depictions (presumably by the legionaries themselves) more or less concurrent to the Dacian wars do not feature any lorica segmenta, only scale and mail. [Page 13]

4) Regarding use [Page 91] - the author notes that:
A) Fragments of Lorcia segmenta have been found at supposedly "auxiliary sites" - either they weren't fully auxiliary, or the auxiliaries also used segmenta.
B) No more evidence for Auxiliary usage of segmenta beyond those camp findings
C) Author argues it was primarily a legionary or praetorian armor.
D) HOWEVER: "This does not mean that legionaruies used it to the exclusion of other types, since there is ample evidence for the use of scale and mail amongst the legions throughout the Principate and arguably onto the Dominate, simply that it was a form of armor that seems mainly (on the limited evidence exclusively) to have been issued to the legions and the Praetorian Guard"

Said author is clearly a fan of it, but is able to recognize that while effective and useful it did not hold a monopoly on the legionary's equipment.

Short of someone providing evidence for a legion being able to equip a cohort or maniple or entire legion wholly in a single piece of armor, the evidence is wholeheartly in favor of a mixed panoply of scale mail and segmenta between legionaries.

[GeneralWolfe]

The Marian reforms will probably be connected to the tech tree.