a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

[chris10]

They're wrong about maintaining the armor. The sources say Segmentata was ridiculously difficult to maintain.

and most important at all. Lorica Segmentata was individually fitted...thats why it was the most expensive armor.

Heavier body armour was standard, whether ring- or scalemail or the individually fitted lorica segmentata,
with a varied array of weapons (see pp. 58–63 above).

The great advantage of the lorica segmentata over other armor was that is was far less cumbrous than other protections while
providing the best protection against piercing and slashing damage for the most vulnerable body parts

After three legions destroyed in Teutoburger forest, it was not the manpower that was the biggest impact.. but their equipment.. To quickly restore these legions Romans were forced to come with cheaper armors and Laminata was the answer (even though it was most likely used even before)

Varus Legions were Segmentata equipped...the site of the battle has been narrowd down to a certain region in Germany and the only armor remains ever found in that area is Segmentata...
and in context with Augustus qoute "Varus, give me my Legions back..." it makes perfectly sense since their loss supposed an enormous blow to the state coffers due to the loss of tens of thousands of individually fitted Segmentata armor sets.

Regarding Segmentata found in Auxiliary forts or be common equipment among Auxiliary troops there is no consensus

And as we have already noted, lorica segmentata, once seen as purely legionary equipment, is frequently found
in auxiliary forts, which may imply either that auxiliaries did sometimes use it or that legionaries were often housed alongside auxiliaries.
All this suggests that it was quite normal for units (especially legions) to operate in sub-groups, both on campaign and in order either to garrison the many small fortlets known to us or to supplement the garrisons of larger forts. It is almost impossible to explain this fragmentation in detail.

In response to Maxfield’s contention (1986) that “lorica segmentata was available to auxiliary troops,” Bishop and Coulston 1993, 206–9 argue strongly that whilst legionaries were not necessarily all equipped with segmented armor in the principate, auxiliaries were definitely not equipped with it, and that there were differences between “legionary” and “auxiliary” equipment. The evidence, both literary and archaeological, is inconclusive, but given the absence of segmented armor in sepulchral sculptures, it was probably not as prevalent amongst legionaries as the sculptures on the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius imply.

As mentioned above, auxiliary troops typically may have fought with indigenous weapons and equipment at first, but as their service became regularized, so did their equipment. While a number of ancient sources characterize auxiliary infantry as lighter than legionaries (see below), helmets and armor (mail or scale rather than segmented) often were worn, and flat shields carried. Lighter javelins and a longer sword termed spatha were typical offensive weapons, and specialist units used bows. Trajan’s Column shows two differently equipped types of Roman infantry, long assumed to be legionaries and auxiliaries, the latter apparently wearing chain mail in contrast with the legionary lorica segmentata.

[Rayjock]

I'm not a re-enactor and I've never worn any of these types of armor. This is an interesting discussion and I would like to focus on it from a medical standpoint (I'm a medical doctor). It seems to me that mail armor had the advantages of being flexible, straight-forward to repair and relatively easy to clean and keep rust-free. Disadvantages were its weight and possible tediousness of construction. With an undergarment, it seems to have been good against slashing weapons and piercing weapons such as swords, spears and arrows. However, I would question its effectiveness against "bashing" weapons, such as axes, war-hammers, big broadswords and the like. These weapons would have been used by the Germans. Mail doesn't distribute the force of such weapons as well as plate. Might the segmented plate armor have been developed for use against that type of fighting? It seems to have been uncomfortable to wear and a pain in the butt to maintain, and, unless "forced" to wear it, I might, as a Centurion, decline to wear it. However, its use against bashing weapons would greatly have reduced broken bones that would occur of the "bashee" were wearing mail. I also think that over time, especially as cavalry started to become more dominant, the cost and maintenance of the segmented armor would have become too significant and its use would have been phased out. Mail became the dominant form of body armor again for centuries, until the redevelopment of good plate armor in the Middle Ages.

[daelin4]

[QUOTE=Rayjock;14362384]However, I would question its effectiveness against "bashing" weapons, such as axes, war-hammers, big broadswords and the like. These weapons would have been used by the Germans. Mail doesn't distribute the force of such weapons as well as plate. Might the segmented plate armor have been developed for use against that type of fighting? It seems to have been uncomfortable to wear and a pain in the butt to maintain, and, unless "forced" to wear it, I might, as a Centurion, decline to wear it. We don't really know precisely why segmented armour was developed, one might speculate it was produced as a candidate for improved protection and it probably did, but only under stricter circumstances that did prevented mass-production. No point equipping your entire armed forces against a specific threat if only a few legions will end up being put into respective harm's way.

However, its use against bashing weapons would greatly have reduced broken bones that would occur of the "bashee" were wearing mail. I also think that over time, especially as cavalry started to become more dominant, the cost and maintenance of the segmented armor would have become too significant and its use would have been phased out. Mail became the dominant form of body armor again for centuries, until the redevelopment of good plate armor in the Middle Ages.

The thing is that when it comes to defense, a shield is the first line whereas the armour is the last. Even the poorest soldier wearing no armour can rely on a shield to avert lethal blows. This might explain the longevity of mail armour: whatever it can't do, a shield can be used. This might also explain why even after mail, shields remained.

[Archimonday]

[QUOTE=daelin4;14368245]

However, I would question its effectiveness against "bashing" weapons, such as axes, war-hammers, big broadswords and the like. These weapons would have been used by the Germans. Mail doesn't distribute the force of such weapons as well as plate. Might the segmented plate armor have been developed for use against that type of fighting? It seems to have been uncomfortable to wear and a pain in the butt to maintain, and, unless "forced" to wear it, I might, as a Centurion, decline to wear it. We don't really know precisely why segmented armour was developed, one might speculate it was produced as a candidate for improved protection and it probably did, but only under stricter circumstances that did prevented mass-production. No point equipping your entire armed forces against a specific threat if only a few legions will end up being put into respective harm's way.


The thing is that when it comes to defense, a shield is the first line whereas the armour is the last. Even the poorest soldier wearing no armour can rely on a shield to avert lethal blows. This might explain the longevity of mail armour: whatever it can't do, a shield can be used. This might also explain why even after mail, shields remained.

Shields remained because they are a weapon. Its sole purpose is not as a defense. You use a shield to attack an opponent. Considerable blunt force trauma can be delivered by using the edge of the shield, or the flat. You can use it to knock an opponent off balance, to trip him, and to create space between you and your opponent to give you opportunities to strike him. You would strike with your shield and sword at the same time, so while your opponent was defending against one, the other hit him.

This is why, for instance, in the Medieval Era, Dueling Shields were specifically designed. Two opponents would use specially designed shields in a duel, the idea was to knock your opponent down, and a specific number of downs would decide a winner.

[JaM]

Still, nothing skilled smith in camp cant do in few hours... yet, to manufacture a full suit of Hamata took several days... in the end, single suit was composed of few thousands rings that needed to be put together..

During early Republic, all weapons and armor was owned by users. They could use whatever they manage to have. Richer men invested into Hamata, those who couldnt afford it, used Pectorales or nothing... Very rich men used custom made bronze musculata.. anyway after Cannae, Rome had to quickly replace lost army, they decided to procure weapons and armor for their soldiers. They even risen few legions composed of former slaves who got their freedom for enlisting..

Anyway equipping 5000 men with Chainmail was costly.. this is why they were looking for more cost effective armors. After three legions destroyed in Teutoburger forest, it was not the manpower that was the biggest impact.. but their equipment.. To quickly restore these legions Romans were forced to come with cheaper armors and Laminata was the answer (even though it was most likely used even before)

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You fail to realize how easy it was for the Roman machine to replace the equipment for 20,000 men. A skilled man can make a suit of Roman Lorica Hamata in 2 weeks to a month's time. (which would have taken closer 2 weeks, he did not wear a full Hauberk so there was less to put together).

The Romans had could have had ten thousand of these men all across the empire. In 2 months not only could they have had the equipment to field 20,000 soldiers, but also have it shipped there.

[HuangCaesar]

Its still hard to believe the Hamata is more expensive than the Seg. JaM say that it could not be compared to Medieval armour but you have to realize the size of plates is still massive and articulated. There is a reason why "Coat of Plates" which was the Medieval version of Segementata did not appear till the 1200s. Such large plates(which are heavier than Hamata) are hard to produce and hammer out. Linking together rings is easier that taking metal pieces(massive ones) and hammering them out to perfect body shape, making them articulated, and linking them together. Metal is expensive, archeological evidence shows the Seg to be made of both Mild steel and Iron.

[SD_Man]

Its still hard to believe the Hamata is more expensive than the Seg. JaM say that it could not be compared to Medieval armour but you have to realize the size of plates is still massive and articulated. There is a reason why "Coat of Plates" which was the Medieval version of Segementata did not appear till the 1200s. Such large plates(which are heavier than Hamata) are hard to produce and hammer out. Linking together rings is easier that taking metal pieces(massive ones) and hammering them out to perfect body shape, making them articulated, and linking them together. Metal is expensive, archeological evidence shows the Seg to be made of both Mild steel and Iron.

What costs more, interlocked (puzzle piece?) tin-foil armor or heavy duty chainmail rings? It aint easy to make circles.

[HuangCaesar]

What costs more, interlocked (puzzle piece?) tin-foil armor or heavy duty chainmail rings? It aint easy to make circles.

Proof it is it made of tin-foil? Modern research find it more better at defecting arrows.

There is a reason why Full Plate armor was invented AFTER chainmail. You don't just take piece of scrap metal and strap it to yourself.

[Intranetusa]

What costs more, interlocked (puzzle piece?) tin-foil armor or heavy duty chainmail rings? It aint easy to make circles.

Necro-thread revival.

There is a misconception that chainmail is hard to make - it's actually simple to make. Chainmail is made from looping long metal wires around a pole or cylinder.

It took a lot of manhours to link and rivet each chain by hand, but technologically speaking, it was easy to make and didn't require that much skill. That's why chainmail has been used since 5th century BCE, and why it was the most common metal armor during Roman times through medieval Europe.

On the other hand, making metal plates, especially larger bands of metal plates as seen in the segmentata, is technologically more difficult. Your average soldier might be able to rivet together pieces of chain for his chainmail armor, but there is no way he could forge a piece of metal plate by himself. You needed skilled blacksmiths for that.

I think we're also being influenced and misled by our modern conception of producing metal plate - today, with technology and automation, mass producing metal plates is simple and easy. Chainmail is still hard to produce today because we still need to rivet/weld/link and piece together each chain by hand. Plate armor of almost any variety is easier and less time consuming to make than chainmail in today's world thanks to the ease of machinery making metal plates. That's not true for the ancient world, where metal plates (especially large plates) had to be created by skilled blacksmith. Repairs for plates required forging and hammer as well, whereas repairs for chainmail would've been easier since you're replacing individual links that got damaged.

[JaM]

Huang. Laminata cannot be compared to full plate. It was not full plate but composed of smaller plates. you are confusing things. Plus, Technology in Medieval times, was far behind the Roman level of Technology. Historians consider Renaissance to finally catch up with Roman state of development...

[Seydlitz]

Huang. Laminata cannot be compared to full plate. It was not full plate but composed of smaller plates. you are confusing things. Plus, Technology in Medieval times, was far behind the Roman level of Technology. Historians consider Renaissance to finally catch up with Roman state of development...

As a historian I must say : No.

In many areas the mideval era is beyond the Roman technology. Wheelbarrows, mills, land reclaiming, stirrups, deep plowing, horse harness.

Due to the term "dark ages" we have always thought it a universal retreat from civilisation, but it's not nearly as simple. The middle ages had their own dynamics

Also, something on sizing: Keep in mind Roman Legionairies were supposed to be overweight at the start of the campaign (fat as pigs) and due to the rigors get into shape. Thus the notion they had well fitted armor seems to be highly suspect. And that's perhaps a reason why lorica segmentata was popular: it's perhaps easier adjustable than a suit of chainmail (it's a guess from me, so take this with salt).

[andrew881thebest]

As a historian I must say : No.

In many areas the mideval era is beyond the Roman technology. Wheelbarrows, mills, land reclaiming, stirrups, deep plowing, horse harness.

Due to the term "dark ages" we have always thought it a universal retreat from civilisation, but it's not nearly as simple. The middle ages had their own dynamics

Also, something on sizing: Keep in mind Roman Legionairies were supposed to be overweight at the start of the campaign (fat as pigs) and due to the rigors get into shape. Thus the notion they had well fitted armor seems to be highly suspect. And that's perhaps a reason why lorica segmentata was popular: it's perhaps easier adjustable than a suit of chainmail (it's a guess from me, so take this with salt).

roman legionaries overweight? fat as pigs? please tell me sources. Thus seems so strange to me. I have always known that they were in constant training so I can hardly imagine them getting fat and lazy.

[Seydlitz]

roman legionaries overweight? fat as pigs? please tell me sources. Thus seems so strange to me. I have always known that they were in constant training so I can hardly imagine them getting fat and lazy.

I can't find the source just yet, but I'll find it. But fat does not equate lazy.

The reasoning is quite simple: It was seen as an efficient way to carry energy on campaign. By the time the campaign was under way the times would be extremely lean. soldiers would loose a lot of weight.

Marius did a lot to get rid of the bagage train, hence his preference for overfed soldiers at the start of the campaign.

[frenchyvinnie]

roman legionaries overweight? fat as pigs? please tell me sources. Thus seems so strange to me. I have always known that they were in constant training so I can hardly imagine them getting fat and lazy.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me too much, at least during peacetime, as seydlitz said.

For example, there is a debated theory among historians that gladiators themselves might have been frequently overweight on purpose. Not "sumotori fat", since too much weight would become a liability against a faster, more agile opponent, but still overweight. The reasoning behind this is that a subcutaneaous layer of fat would provide some measure if protection against swords and other sharp weapons. So gladiators might not have looked like the demi-gods we've seen on TV (I'm looking at you Starz ).
Keep in mind this is only a theory, and it is still hotly debated (especially since in most sculptures and engravings, gladiators are depicted as lean and muscular).

Anyway, back to legionnaires. Analysis of ancient roman camp sites has reveled some info about legionnaires' diet, and it was extremely rich in protein and lipids: meats were often fried or roasted (and served surprisingly frequently to the troops, when supply conditions allowed it), a lot of eggs, bacon, a lot of lentils (rich in protein), bread was often baked with honey, olives and dried fruits or nuts to be more nourishing, etc.
Nutritionists have assumed that even with a rigorous training regimen, this diet would inevitably lead to weight gains.

[HuangCaesar]

Thats my point.....until near Renissance, making plates were hard. Plates are still plates. I am pretty sure Medieval Full Plate is made up of small plates as well. Even there smaller plated breastplate the "Coat of Plates"(small plates) didn't come to Europe till the 1200s. Why? Cause produce sections of plates are expensive. Chainmail is cheaper and easier to maintain. Do you know the engineering capacity it takes to take a section of metal(very expensive) and fold it to perfect shape and articulation? Small plates are still plates. There is a reason Lorica Musculata got phased out, it was more expensive than Chainmail.

Seriously if the Segmentata was truly cheaper, the use of it would be more widespread. If I was barabrian peasant I would choose unconfortable over getting pierced by an arrow in leather arrow. Somebody mentioned how it was "cheaply made" by unskilled manufacturers.....hmm if that theory was true everyone would be wearing it!



You honestly think this is cheap? God the engineering capacity to curve those plates and make it perfectley fit over eachother.

[JaM]

Thats my point.....until near Renissance, making plates were hard. Plates are still plates. I am pretty sure Medieval Full Plate is made up of small plates as well. Even there smaller plated breastplate the "Coat of Plates"(small plates) didn't come to Europe till the 1200s. Why? Cause produce sections of plates are expensive. Chainmail is cheaper and easier to maintain. Do you know the engineering capacity it takes to take a section of metal(very expensive) and fold it to perfect shape and articulation? Small plates are still plates. There is a reason Lorica Musculata got phased out, it was more expensive than Chainmail.

Seriously if the Segmentata was truly cheaper, the use of it would be more widespread. If I was barabrian peasant I would choose unconfortable over getting pierced by an arrow in leather arrow. Somebody mentioned how it was "cheaply made" by unskilled manufacturers.....hmm if that theory was true everyone would be wearing it!



You honestly think this is cheap? God the engineering capacity to curve those plates and make it perfectley fit over eachother.

Yes, it is cheaper than manufacturing Chainmail. Chainmail required a lot more time to manufacture therefore it was costlier for a smith to make it.. Time is money.. if you have to spent 2 weeks making chainmail, imagine how many plate armors you would made in the same time? and 1200 AD is not Renaissance. Medieval Europe was nowhere near the technological level of Romans. Why are you comparing Roman Empire to some barbarian peasants?


It was not widespread, because it was not as effective as you think it was. it was fine protection against arrows, yet Romans had more protective armors to get much better level of protection. (Squamata)

[HuangCaesar]

Yes, it is cheaper than manufacturing Chainmail. Chainmail required a lot more time to manufacture therefore it was costlier for a smith to make it.. Time is money.. if you have to spent 2 weeks making chainmail, imagine how many plate armors you would made in the same time? and 1200 AD is not Renaissance. Medieval Europe was nowhere near the technological level of Romans. Why are you comparing Roman Empire to some barbarian peasants?


It was not widespread, because it was not as effective as you think it was. it was fine protection against arrows, yet Romans had more protective armors to get much better level of protection. (Squamata)

No I was talking about that even when it wasn't Rennisance Europe, the Coat of plates(plate sections) was harder to make and rarer than chailmail.

[BroskiDerpman]

Medieval Europe was nowhere near the technological level of Romans. Why are you comparing Roman Empire to some barbarian peasants?

There goes the rest of the credibility.

[JaM]

There goes the rest of the credibility.

Why is that so? Romans were technologically more advanced than Medieval nations.. It is well accepted fact that Europe matched the technical development of Romans at the time or Renaissance. Up until then, most of Roman/Greek knowledge was preserved in West only by few Christian monks, while a lot of books were just burned as heretical. Luckily Eastern Romans (Byzantine) didn't followed this crazy trend, otherwise we would have no literal evidence of Ancient culture..