a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

[War lord]

Sure you can't keep supplying it to the whole army, but one would think the Imperial Guard troops would still be issued "miracle armour". After all the "best overall compromise of protection, fatigue due to weight and individual mobility of the legionary" wouldn't just be completely abandoned... unless it wasn't that great.

Civilizations rarely forget something because it costs too much. Medieval knights didn't forget about Gothic plate because it cost too much.

[Mahgnus]

After all the "best overall compromise of protection, fatigue due to weight and individual mobility of the legionary"

Civilizations rarely forget something because it costs too much. Medieval knights didn't forget about Gothic plate because it cost too much.

Yeah b/c thats the most important thing for those imperial guards who often spearhead attacks and invasions into foreign hostile land instead of living the cush life in a city.

[JaM]

I posted you from what Laminata was made of, and what that steel can stop. it was not providing the best protection, on contrary, protection was comparable to other armors, while some even surpassed it considerably. Musculata Cuirass would provide much better protection (with 2mm thickness), yet we dont see Romans equipping Legions with Bronze plates.. Don Howard, when i asked him about Bronze Cuirasses, stated that Bronze Plate was as protective as Iron armor of the same weight..
And dont make me start again on Squamata which was gave far better protection than any armor of its time.

Anyway, bending a metal plate to a shape you need can be done even in field conditions, and any metalsmith could do it. It is not like they would have to send that armor to Rome just to get repaired.. Besides, every Legion had its own armorers who performed all the repairs themselves.

[JaM]

No, it was most likely stopped to be used because it didn't offered better protection than Squamata, and it didn't was as comfortable to wear as Hamata. Plus, its coverage was quite small, as it didn't protected goins and arm pit at all.


When added protection was needed Romans used this:









Lorica Hamata or Squamata, and Manica...

[War lord]

No, it was most likely stopped to be used because it didn't offered better protection than Squamata, and it didn't was as comfortable to wear as Hamata. Plus, its coverage was quite small, as it didn't protected goins and arm pit at all.


When added protection was needed Romans used this:









Lorica Hamata or Squamata, and Manica...

Which is a good point, Mail affords excellent protection, and with a belt apparently isn't all that heavy. So why bother with LS?

[chris10]

Wtf are you guys talking about ?....imperial guards ?...wrong forum and wrong period of time or wrong universe (cough,cough)...last time preatorians fought was with Maxentius against Constantine the Great in 312 A.D. then got disbanded by Constantine....end of story...they in fact had segmentatas...some other hamatas...just as shown at the Constantine Arch from 315 A.D...whats the fuss ?
Everything else here seems talking for sake of talking, semantics or talking out of the ass

Answers have been given...case closed

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

A Few points:

Here is an informative discussion about the effectiveness of Chainmail, including an article written by Dan Howard on the second page:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roma...chainmail.html

Contrary to popular belief, a single layer of 6mm exterior diameter rivited-flat link 4-in-1 mail can stop pretty much everything short of a Scorpio bolt. But the impact trauma will still kill you half the time, without a Subarmalis or Thorocomachus.

Lorica Segmentata is easy to make, I agree on that point. I can take the 20-guage mild steel sheet metal off the back of my washing machine, cut it into strips with some aviation snips, make brass parts out of some old tins, and put it together with leather and rivets. Alex Mattras of Legio XI Claudia has a guide to do it.

However, Lorica Segmentata is difficult to maintain. Providing it lasts until the end of a Soldier's service period, it has to be fitted to a new guy - which doesn't necessarily always happen. Brass parts get lost all the time, and without continuous care it rusts surprisingly easily. Think of how often they'd be wearing it in mud or rain. We've had our Seggies for 10 years in the loaner kits and they've only got a minor amount of rust, but that's because they're only used 3 times a year and have never been in the rain.

Squamata may be the thickest, but first you must remember how the force is going to be transferred. Even if it is 4mm thick in some places, an impact there is going to transfer to the links and rivets as the force moves across the armor's structure. Those links will break, and sometimes the leather thong holding up that row of scales breaks too. When you stab (like all swords back then were used for, the barbarians certainly did not pour out of the hills wildly slashing their spathas around) it wedges up inbetween the row of scales, and two things can happen: 1. It stops it, the back of the upper row of scales mounted will keep the sword's reinforced tip from getting in there and cutting the leather or breaching the metal. This is usually more likely. 2. It hits the links or shears the leather and punches right through it.

It's the same thing with the Late Roman Ridge Helmet - when you take a hit to the side of the head it doesn't punch through the sheet metal like most people think. The force gets transferred to the rivets holding the two halves of the bowl together along the ridge, and maybe 1-2 of those rivets will get sheared in half, but that sword isn't going to get through.

This doesn't happen with chainmail: you put chainmail on a concrete block and cut it, it will break sure. But if you put it on a padded gambeson on a person, the force distributes through the metal because its flexible. It's like that new bulletproof silk: the silk folds and absorbs the impact by trasferring the energy into the motion of the silk, stopping the bullet, but its going to break a rib when it does.

And the Late Roman Empire was very economically stable after the 3rd century crisis. The Solidus stabilized inflation and the new army system was smaller and more effective, cutting costs. It wasn't until 406 AD that things went to again.

@Chris10
No there have been Chainmail links found at the Teutoberger wald. Like all roman armies, his troops used a mix of armor types, never a single type.

@Broski Derpman
Exactly. Although I agree some knowledge was lost after the Fall of the West, it was preserved in the East Roman and Arab world, and the West invented plenty of new things while the Romans were missing.

For the border guards on the Rhine they didn't even notice their paycheck was coming from the Franks instead of the Romans.

[chris10]

@Chris10
No there have been Chainmail links found at the Teutoberger wald. Like all roman armies, his troops used a mix of armor types, never a single type.

The Teutoburger Forest know as today wasnt even the place of the battle according to existing evidence...the most convincing thesis is that it took place at the feet of the Wiehen Hills opposite of the Teutoburg Forest Hillas on a strip which spans over 10 km and over a period of two days and on the third day the remaining legionarys crossed the Wiehen Hills and their last stand was supposed to be around the Kalkriese which is supported by an emormous amount of artifacts and coins, none dating later as 9 A.D and some even wearing Varus stamp.


Most recent (2012), most convincing, most exhaustive and most awesome german documentary of what happend and how it happend, including last archeological findings and conclusions...with the participation of the top german experts on the matter...
oh and sry...german only ...still awesome watch...I would watch it in spanish too...oh hey...wait I speak spanish too...ROFL...err...oh..chinese then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fcSJ...ature=youtu.be

btw 6 years after the battle during the revenge campaign roman legions under Germanicus came back to the place of defeat and Tacitus describes their findings in his work Germania...
Germanicus ordered his forces to burry the remains of their fallen and its not completely odd to expect that they have withdrawn possible remains of weapons and armors in order to recycle the metal to their weapons industry (which was common procedure as I said weapons production, maintencance and metal recycling was centralized for east and west respectively) which would explain only little findings or armor and bigger pieces of metal but still...the finding of the breast plate of a Lorica Segmentata at Kalkriese was proof that it existed at least one generation earlier than previously thought. The armor thickness is 2.3 mm per segment, upper shoulder guard and back were 1.5 mm and the rest 1.8 mm, this graduated thickness provided the best defense for the most vital organs, while ensuring overall weight savings while still giving excellent protection.
The Kalkriese breastplate was extraordinarily well-crafted, even to the point of being lined with thin brass piping thats why I said these armors where produced by professional armourers while the repetitive and monotonic chainmail ring knotting could be done by everybody and in fact was done by slaves which sheds a different light on the cost-benefit calculation especially when bearing in mind the need of custom fitting the segemtata after producing it.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Umm... no. The concept that all that learning and knowledge was lost is entirely false. Read a book.

Also, I'm pretty sure its "Eastern Romans didn't follow."

[JaM]

Did I said ALL knowledge was lost? nope. I said that Europe matched Roman level of technological development during Renaissance. And I'm not talking just about metallurgy, but also about medicine, art,culture, construction, etc etc.. anyway, this thread was about Roman armor, if there is a need to talk about other things, i believe there is already a thread for it. (anyway good article about this can be found here: http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_r...technology.htm and http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_r...inventions.htm)

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You bring up some excellent points, but I should note that the Methods of production weren't centralized until the reign of Diocletian in the 290's. Prior to the establishment of the first two Fabricae, armor was manufactured by mass-production facilities owned by wealthy individuals, who had contracts with the military.

[chris10]

You bring up some excellent points, but I should note that the Methods of production weren't centralized until the reign of Diocletian in the 290's. Prior to the establishment of the first two Fabricae, armor was manufactured by mass-production facilities owned by wealthy individuals, who had contracts with the military.

From
The military fabrica and the production of arms in the early principate.
M.C.Bishop

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well Fabrica means workshop, I'm just saying that there weren't Government-run ones until the 290's. There were plenty of Privately owned Fabrica prior to that.

[chris10]

there you go... it was a military, hence a centralized effort, of recycling, maintenance and production and not private contractors and worked pretty much the same way as in the later period you mention...only difference maybe that no burocrat in Rome had a say as it worked on a province/army level...in short, there was no large scale private arms industry in the west but probably you are right..I elaborated poorly to point out the difference between the later period and the early imperial time

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Great stuff there, thanks for those references.

[chris10]

Great stuff there, thanks for those references.

You wellcome...and you are correct on the matter that private contracters were the main suppliers during the republican period but with the Augustus reform and the creation of a standing army stationed all over the mediterranean area this changed...

[daelin4]

I do not think it is any more correct to start calling segmented armour "Laminata", it will only provide further confusion. As far as I am concerned that is just another conjectural term.

As far as I am concerned, any advantages that segmented armour had over chainmail was probably not big enough to warrant large sweeping to the logistical structure the Romans had at that time. If chainmail worked just fine, the only real reason to go over to the segmented would be if your entire shirt was lost or destroyed, which probably never happened.

It is hard to imagine the Romans have a large centralized system of logistics, given that changes and conditions were often local. It is thus also hard to imagine that conditions that warranted some changes to the armour in the Dacian wars would also be applied to fighting conditions in Britain or in the East, conditions that more likely than not were different. Not to mention local sources that may have knowledge or expertise in particular designs that originated elsewhere.

If I was a legionary and my chainmail worked just fine and I knew how to maintain it, why should I ditch it and go for another set of armour I may not be familair with and may not be as useful or practical? I' rather just stick to my chainmail.

I think ultimately what happened was that the segmented armour became an idealized image of the Roman legionary, and wasn't much else. Legions may have even had only sections of their troops wearing the armour for particular situations, ie the front line forces. Apparently Macedonian pikemen had priority for the front lines being the best armoured while others behind may have worn less. This was probably just a matter of the best of a worst case though.

[JaM]

Naming convention is quite simple. Romans named their armor based on what they were build from (hamata, Squamata), or their look(Musculata). Really doubt they would call it Segmentata. Laminata was much more probable name due to the fact it was a plate armor, which to Latin translates as Lorica Laminata.

[daelin4]

Naming convention is quite simple. Romans named their armor based on what they were build from (hamata, Squamata), or their look(Musculata). Really doubt they would call it Segmentata. Laminata was much more probable name due to the fact it was a plate armor, which to Latin translates as Lorica Laminata.

Probable =/= useful, in this case. Everyone knows exactly what we're talking about when the term Lorica Segmentata is used, even though it is clearly not the correct historical term. To start talking about a Lorica Laminata would be confusing as no one really associates that term with the former. Some books compromise by just saying "Roman segmented (or segmental) armour" after stating that the LS is a modern term.

One book I read some time ago, by M. C. Bishop and simply titled "Lorica Segmentata" Volume I-2, documents archeological fndings, and points out that there are at least four named variants of the segmentated armour pieces. The principle differences between all these type, according to the book, were largely inor, indistinguishable characteristics, namely where the loops hinges and buckles and other fittings were located. At a casual glance an uneducated viewer would probably assume them all to be identical types. The very fact that such small distinctions are made leads one to theorize that localized versions of this armour existed, likely far more than the ones discovered so far. This then raises the question of how far did the smiths create variations to the point where compatibility between parts were no longer possible...which then raises the further question of whether this made the segmental armour a problem more than a solution in terms of logistics; one set of armour used more hinges than another, while yet another uses more buckles, etc.

The first, the "Kalkries" type, named after its location in Germany, was apparently dated 9 AD, much earlier than was originally anticipated, so the author stated. It bears much similarity with another type, the "Corbridge" type found in Britain, which judging by the condition of it's find (the Corbridge Hoard, which among other things contained multiple sets of stashed segmental armour pieces) of which seems to be the basis for most reconstruction and movie costume designs. This type is distinguished from the first, if reconstructions are accurate or trusted, by it's line of hinges running along the rear where the plates meet. A third type is apparently found among the Corbridge Hoard, and varies slightly differently than the former; again if this is true, it only goes to show that variances among segmented armour was rather widespread, which may have made logistical considerations a problem, especially if the variations were major.
A hypothetical forth type, not based on archeological finds but rather on a relief sculpture, the so-called "Alba Iulia" type, of which the main difference is that the shoulders are protected by scales rather than segmented plates.

And these are just named types, there are other presumed subtypes of these ( Corbridge type B) and other speculative finds such as artwork where the shoulder plates were mail.

Given the tendency of localized production, maintenance and development of armour in the vastness of the Roman empire, even as early as it's days under Octavian, the existence (and inevitable growth in) multiple variations only makes the view of any uniformity among the legions anything but an impossible ideal.

Having looked over that book again, I find at a glance the segmented armour to be suitable largely for storage than other uses that would likely have taken precedence. Storage isn't exactly a priority for soldiers that may need to put on his armour quickly, to which the numerous loops that need to be tied (and I don't mean the kind that can be done in shoe laces, I mean a dozen different knots at the least) would prove time consuming, not to mention this is all assuming the armour is well-maintained and fittings have not failed. Overall I find the entire design to be a tad complicated and particular vulnerable points compromise the effectiveness of the rest of the entire armour, possessing a higher prone to failure than if chainmail was worn, which would have been simpler in it's design by comparison.

Even if the segmental armour proved potential, chances are conditions in the empire lacked opportunities for its teething problems to mature and troops figured it was easier to just live with mail armour.

A "mishmash" appaerance of multiple dostinguishing variations probably did not occur at the local (up to maniples/ cohort) level, but legions would probably have had more of one than the other, I presume that the older legions would have retained smiths that worked primarily and knew mostly chainmail and thus they'd feature those, provided legionaries from other regions that had them fitted with different armour sets. This retention and persistence of chainmail, and other types, probably limited the spread of the armour and also prevented it's ability to grow among the legions. I mean it is a rather novel development that practically no other contemporaries have developed. Segmented armour would have to be so supieror to any precedessors that adopting it and learning it's uses would have been a clear advantage. This meant more than combat performance.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yeah but there is no literary record of a name for it, so until we come up with one all you're gonna do is further confuse the public. I'm a Reenactor and a Classicist, I know how little the public knows already. Even I learned more History from a Rome TW mod than I did from all of School.

@Daelin

That's more or less what happened. People get this misconceptualized Idea that if one Roman used it all Romans used it because we have a centralized system of Logistics with our military. The Reality is that it varied from region to region. The troops equipped for the Dacian wars were VERY different than the same ones equipped for the war against Parthia a few years later.

It's not until the Late Empire where a Legionnaire from Syria looks like a Legionnaire for Britain, and that's because the Romans used a higher volume of missile weapons at that time everywhere they went. Furthermore they were being supplied from the same central arms factories.

However, there is debate as to whether or not all Legionnaires wore armor. In the phalanx system it was based on personal wealth, same as with the Polybian Legion. In the Marian and Severan and Constantian Legions the Government supplied your equipment, however the Strategicon does record that only the front Ranks wore armor.

However the Strategicon was Byzantine and written in the 6th century AD.