a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

[JaM]

If you look at the way how Roman Legionaries fought, their armor was fitted to match certain enemy. For example Squamata was excellent armor against slashing attacks, and very good against missiles, yet it was not as good against sword lower thrusts, as tip of sword could get under the scale. (lower thrust, was quite typical for Gladius). With LS, again, it was not armor optimized to face thrusting sword equipped enemy, as it didn't covered usual target zones at all (groin, armpit etc) - This might be one of the reasons why Hamata was so popular, and predominantly used during Civil wars - it was long enough to protect groin area, arm pits were covered by it, so its protection against Gladius thrusting attacks was quite good.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

There were several finds of Lorica, I'll expound a little upon it.

The Kalkriese-Type Segmentata was the first near-complete find of Segmentata. Prior to its find many pieces had been found but nobody was sure how exactly it fit together. The Kalkrise is different from other types in that it is held together in the back by a series of leather straps and ties, and is tied in the front with leather strips. It is dated to 9Ad

The Corbridge-A and Corbridge-B finds are similar to the Kalkriese, but have a different set of brass connections. Instead of being tied in the back with Leather strips, they use a series of Brass hinges to hold the two halves of the armor together. The Corbridge B also has several segmented bands to serve as chest protectors, rather than two steel plates. They are dated to about 45 AD


The Newstead is the fourth find, and all Segmentata after this one is of this type (with only slight differences). This version has no leather ties, front or back, and the steel segments overlap on the front to protect a series of brass hooks that tie the front of the armor together. Presumably on earlier models the problem was that the leather could be cut and the torso exposed. This dates to about 120 AD

The Alba Julia is a different one, it is only based on a statue. Yes, it is in theory possible that the Segmentata may have had Scale shoulder protectors. However, we have no evidence the Romans did it other than on the Alba Iulia, which may just be artistic liscence. The other problem with this particular variant is that it is interpreted as Leather Armor by many Italians (who seem to havea fetish with the concept of Romans wearing Leather). The reality is that the Romans did not use Leather Armor except with a case of Lamellar Thigh Guards from Dura Europos. Leather Segmentata did not exist and did not provide any protection if it did (because to make Hardened Leather thick enough to stop an arrow or sword it has to be heavier than metal armor.)

There have been subsequent finds of Segmentata, predominately in Spain, after the Newstead Type but almost the same as the Newstead. What we are witnessing is the evolution of Segmentata over a few centuries as new models are found to be more effective. The last find we have is one in Britain which dates Almost to the beginning of Constantine's usurpation.

It seems Segmentata was predominately used in Britain, Gaul, and Spain, although it is shown all across the empire. It was considered to be a very "Roman" armor and was used heavily as propaganda to differentiate a "Roman" army from a "Enemy" army.

[andrew881thebest]

how can you kill a legionary in lorica laminata covering all vital organs? this is my question. I mean, you can just stab his legs, but you will not kill him (not immediately). Or maybe you could try to hit the small part of face not covered by the steel of helm? i mean maybe they won simply for that reason, it is hard to kill a man in steel/iron armor covering almost al his body, and with a big heavy shield protecting him from arrows and direct attack.

[chris10]

how can you kill a legionary in lorica laminata covering all vital organs? this is my question.

Your question needs a bit of adjustment as the answer is not obvious ....we have to look at the general concept of warfare...the % of killed troops in battle is incredibly low compared to the number of fighting troops and it is almost considered of greater advantage to cause a large amount of injured troops as they are a liability to the enemy and bind valuable ressources.
The stated numbers of losses for ancient battles always will include those unable to continue to fight, injured, missed in action, runaways...well..literally everything and Iam almost positive that the bigger amount of casualties may be attributed to atrocities committed by the winner on the captured or surrendered enemy rather than being fatalities caused directly in battle action.

A small analogy may help us...the average fatality rate of infantry in battle during WWII was 10%...and that despite the fact that it was fought with firearms

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.

A moot point as almost every author of any and every importance level uses this term

[andrew881thebest]

Your question needs a bit of adjustment as the answer is not obvious ....we have to look at the general concept of warfare...the % of killed troops in battle is incredibly low compared to the number of fighting troops and it is almost considered of greater advantage to cause a large amount of injured troops as they are a liability to the enemy and bind valuable ressources.
The stated numbers of losses for ancient battles always will include those unable to continue to fight, injured, missed in action, runaways...well..literally everything and Iam almost positive that the bigger amount of casualties may be attributed to atrocities committed by the winner on the captured or surrendered enemy rather than being fatalities caused directly in battle action.

A small analogy may help us...the average fatality rate of infantry in battle during WWII was 10%...and that despite the fact that it was fought with firearms


A moot point as almost every author of any and every importance level uses this term

your argument does not take into account battles where romans lost thousands or decades of thousands legionaries, and with "lost" i mean, "died". Carrae, for instance. So you do not answer my question. What you say can be valid in some cases where armies fled withouth having big casualties, but this happened to poorly trained armies not roman armies. They were disciplined to stay until the last man if they were ordered. Then you talk about wounded people, and problem is the same. How can you HEAVILY wound a man covered with iron/wood from head to feet? in holliwood movies they get us used to see romans stabbed, but could you really STAB a man with an iron armor 1 mm thick? so maybe they had other ways to kill them i cannot imagine. Maybe more than cutting it was the mass of the hit to do most damage, as with a club.

[GenTiberius]

your argument does not take into account battles where romans lost thousands or decades of thousands legionaries, and with "lost" i mean, "died". Carrae, for instance. So you do not answer my question. What you say can be valid in some cases where armies fled withouth having big casualties, but this happened to poorly trained armies not roman armies. They were disciplined to stay until the last man if they were ordered.

This is more of a mythical view of the Roman soldier than anything else. They did indeed run from battle and they didn't fight "fight to the last man". Sure, they were disciplined, but not to some super human extent.

[SD_Man]

This is more of a mythical view of the Roman soldier than anything else. They did indeed run from battle and they didn't fight "fight to the last man". Sure, they were disciplined, but not to some super human extent.

Yes I agree. Desertion levels were particularly high in the Roman army, those that didn't flee were too stupid enough to know that.

[daelin4]

A moot point as almost every author of any and every importance level uses this term

If you meant Lorica Segmentata, then it actually proves my point. How many of these authors will respond to the words "Lorica Laminata" with "Oh yeah that's totally synonymous with Lorica Segmentata!" ?
Which sort of goes to show why it's not a good idea to just change from one term to another.

I assume the OP got this from the book he cited, so perhaps a few quotations on the subject would reveal more as to the reasoning behind the arguments as to this term's authenticity? All I can find are "it is possible..." remarks.

That the depiction of segmented armour shown in artifacts like Trajan's Column as an indication of propaganda/ idealism probably only reflects the viewpoint of the creator, rather than Roman society as a whole. Then again, most Italian (Roman) civilians would have mostly seen troops on parade, which likely would have used fancier, more visually appealing attire such as striking colours and shined armour, and of course something to look very Roman. Yet it may have been a very inaccurate portrayal of the real-life conditions that soldiers experienced.

[JaM]

how can you kill a legionary in lorica laminata covering all vital organs? this is my question. I mean, you can just stab his legs, but you will not kill him (not immediately). Or maybe you could try to hit the small part of face not covered by the steel of helm? i mean maybe they won simply for that reason, it is hard to kill a man in steel/iron armor covering almost al his body, and with a big heavy shield protecting him from arrows and direct attack.

If you look at losses during Civil wars, they were considerable even though Legionaries used Hamata. Most of the losses were caused when one side retreated, and only about 5% of losses were dealt in direct combat before rout occurred. Plate armor was quite effective against direct blows, yet due to low coverage, Legionaries would attack gaps this armor had.. Hamata provided much better coverage and protection against such attacks, anyway even Hamata didn't had 100% coverage... Yet i think if you put two cohorts against each other, with the same training, one in Hamata and other in Laminata, Hamata unit would most likely suffer less casualties.. Anyway if you out Hamata unit against Falx or any other heavy hitting polearm, Laminata would be better (even though Squamata would protect you a bit better due to overlapping scales)

[andrew881thebest]

If you look at losses during Civil wars, they were considerable even though Legionaries used Hamata. Most of the losses were caused when one side retreated, and only about 5% of losses were dealt in direct combat before rout occurred. Plate armor was quite effective against direct blows, yet due to low coverage, Legionaries would attack gaps this armor had.. Hamata provided much better coverage and protection against such attacks, anyway even Hamata didn't had 100% coverage... Yet i think if you put two cohorts against each other, with the same training, one in Hamata and other in Laminata, Hamata unit would most likely suffer less casualties.. Anyway if you out Hamata unit against Falx or any other heavy hitting polearm, Laminata would be better (even though Squamata would protect you a bit better due to overlapping scales)

lol hamata has a much worse protection than segmentata/laminata. No way. Try to hit violentely a lorica hamata with a spear/gladius and it will not resist at all, try to do it against a plate of iron 1 mm thick and it will. Then, laminata only covered a bit more upper legs, but in the vital area it protected more or less the same. I would say less, since lorica segmentata protected armhole -most vulnerable places- with plates while hamata did not; same thing with shoulders, another easy hit point). Laminata was superior in every situation -slash, thrust, arrows, javelins-, but i would say, more suitable to rust if not well cleaned. And it needed fabriquae producing all small spare parts, so a good organisation. Maybe the lack of it leaded to reintroduce the hamata i nlate empire, less protective, but which could be made by every iron worker everywhere.

[JaM]

It was considered to be a very "Roman" armor and was used heavily as propaganda to differentiate a "Roman" army from a "Enemy" army.

it was used like this in Trajan column only, and the second one risen due to same thing, doesn't contain it at all.. Tropaeum Traiani in Romania, doesn't have single LS portrayed...

[JaM]

not true. Hamata was able to resist about 70 joules of piercing damage dealt by sword or spear (and about 130-150 joules for slashing attacks, anyway slashes with KE of 90 joules will break your bones). Todays tests show that average underarm low thrust with a sword, can achieve about 8.5m/s speed, which combined with weight of sword aprox 1kg gives you kinetic energy of cca 40 joules. Heavier spear like Hasta, used underarm (but not low grip in the same height as sword, but high grip with spear over shield) can get to about 8.3m/s, combined with weight of 1.5kg gives you cca 50 joules of KE, which means neither Gladius or Spear will penetrate Hamata directly... (overarm grip for spear gives just 6.5m/s which means spear would have KE of about 37 joules..)

Anyway, with short gladius, you can actually use it against any gaps and openings you can see in the armor. Hitting arm pit which was a considerably large target, or neck, groins, or go for femoral artery and your opponent would be dead or at least taken out of fight...


Lots of people tend to underestimate chainmail, anyway good riveted mail can stop a lot... There was a reason why this type of armor was used for thousands of years... (in eastern Europe it was used till late 17.century, in the east even longer..)



Oh, and BTW, there was no armor in Ancient times, that would be able to stop direct hit from heavy javelin like Pilum.. first such armor came during Late Medieval period.

[andrew881thebest]

not true. Hamata was able to resist about 70 joules of piercing damage dealt by sword or spear (and about 130-150 joules for slashing attacks, anyway slashes with KE of 90 joules will break your bones). Todays tests show that average underarm low thrust with a sword, can achieve about 8.5m/s speed, which combined with weight of sword aprox 1kg gives you kinetic energy of cca 40 joules. Heavier spear like Hasta, used underarm (but not low grip in the same height as sword, but high grip with spear over shield) can get to about 8.3m/s, combined with weight of 1.5kg gives you cca 50 joules of KE, which means neither Gladius or Spear will penetrate Hamata directly... (overarm grip for spear gives just 6.5m/s which means spear would have KE of about 37 joules..)

Anyway, with short gladius, you can actually use it against any gaps and openings you can see in the armor. Hitting arm pit which was a considerably large target, or neck, groins, or go for femoral artery and your opponent would be dead or at least taken out of fight...


Lots of people tend to underestimate chainmail, anyway good riveted mail can stop a lot... There was a reason why this type of armor was used for thousands of years... (in eastern Europe it was used till late 17.century, in the east even longer..)



Oh, and BTW, there was no armor in Ancient times, that would be able to stop direct hit from heavy javelin like Pilum.. first such armor came during Late Medieval period.

if what to say was true, why not to make a warrior full covered with chain mail? he would be invulnerable. Not. Chain mail is well known to resist well to slash but much less to thrust. Consider then a tiny point can go trhough the gapsamong the chains and reach the flesh beyond it even withouth breaking chains. But an hard thrust with a spear surely goes trhough and breaks some chains.
BUt main point is that roman was BUTTED chainmail not RIVETTED chain mail which is much more resistent and maybe applies to what you said.

[andrew881thebest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTEVAKWWvOk&hd=1 AS YOU SEE: it resists to slashes but NOT TO THRUSTS.
but worst result is with arrows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4gPgHyaG1Q&hd=1
another test, this time against rivetted chainmail: no rings broken, but the point goes through. This is means that chainmail is hard to break, but it is possible to penetrate, if you use small gaps inside rings.
another video showing how bad chainmail is against arrows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkIlVx99EPg

the larger the ring, the more penetrable to pointed objects it is. And 7-7,5 mm is a large ring.

[JaM]

Let me add few basic data I collected over years, might give you some perspective:

- you need about 15 joules to thrust deep enough to cause lethal hit.
- you need about 90 joules to break a bone.
- Thrusting spear needs 30 joules to penetrate the hardened leather armor
- Slashing sword needs about 80-90 joules to penetrate same Leather armor
- Spear needs to have 70 joules to penetrate rivetted chainmail
- you need to deal about 120-150 joules with slashing attack to penetrate chainmail. (but ofcourse that would break a lot of bones)

[JaM]

Nope, Roman Chainmail was rivetted.

for some basic understanding of mail, check this article: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

The Romans used mail extensively, and today the generally accepted Latin term for it is lorica hamata. The term apparently refers to armour that has been "hooked" (or linked) together. However, there are very few instances of this term in contemporary accounts. The earliest occurrence of the term lorica hamata is in St. Jerome's Vulgate [1.17.5], written in 405 AD. Virgil's Aeneid (1st century BC) mentions armour in which rings, linked or hooked (hamis) into one another, were of gold [III.467, V.259, VII.639].³⁰ Sidioius uses a similar phrase [Carm. ii. 322].³¹ Arrian [l.c], Polybius [6.23.15, 30.25.3], and Josephus [5.7.299] all use the Greek term, halusidotos, (ἁΛυσΙδωΤος) which refers to the armour being "made in chain fashion." The only Latin term used in most texts is simply lorica, which is a general term for any type of armour. Earlier period Roman mail seems to have had smaller links than later examples with inside diameters (I.D.) as small as 4mm. Second century Roman mail consisted of larger links with an I.D. of 7-7.5mm and a thickness of about 1mm. They were slightly flattened and riveted with round rivets. There are many similarities between various finds suggesting at least partially centralized production.

i have also marked line about "Lorica" being the term for Lorica Segmentata.. which is not the case - Romans used term lorica for any armor (as it literaly meant exactly that - Armor)

But an hard thrust with a spear surely goes trhough and breaks some chains.

no thrust would ever go through Hamata chainmail... its not possible. Only way how you could defeat armor with a spear, would be by crouching the spear, and using your entire weight and speed for the impact with the spear point.. and to go through, you would have to move (for 75kg heavy man) about 1.4m/s to deal 70+ joules of KE to pierce it. This was btw the reason why Hoplite tactics was effective - if you fixed the spear and start moving faster in formation (with sauroter fixed against shield of men behind you) your weight and speed would give spear point amount of energy you would never achieve by hand thrust... with light run of speed of 2m/s you get up to 200 joules... which would be enough to defeat shield and some armor... (but there would be a quite good chance your spear would break upon impact... thats the reason why many Greek Historians mention Spears shatter... there is no other way how you could shatter a spear by thrusting it in one hand..)

[JaM]

Thats butted mail not Rivetted.. butted mail is much weaker than Rivetted mail.. youtube tests are usually done by using some cheap indian made butted mail.. truth is, butted mail was never really used in Europe at any point of time.. everybody recognized its inferior quality, so why would you lose time making something that will not protect you...

here you have one test with rivetted mail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4bpb4eTI

btw, Romans used leather or linen undergarment as a backing for chainmail.

[andrew881thebest]

Thats butted mail not Rivetted.. butted mail is much weaker than Rivetted mail.. youtube tests are usually done by using some cheap indian made butted mail.. truth is, butted mail was never really used in Europe at any point of time.. everybody recognized its inferior quality, so why would you lose time making something that will not protect you...

here you have one test with rivetted mail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4bpb4eTI

btw, Romans used leather or linen undergarment as a backing for chainmail.

lol in the videos i linked he clearly says it is rivetted chainmail. Not in the last one but in previous, watch better. WHat you say simply has no sense. Lorica segmentata was adopted after defeat at Carrae where all lorica hamata problems went out. DO you want to say that a rivetted chainmail resist even to arrows as a plate armor?

[JaM]

lol in the videos i linked he clearly says it is rivetted chainmail. Not in the last one but in previous, watch better. WHat you say simply has no sense. Lorica segmentata was adopted after defeat at Carrae where all lorica hamata problems went out. DO you want to say that a rivetted chainmail resist even to arrows as a plate armor?

titles of those yours videos say: Butted Chainmail vs A Variety of Sharp Things , and Piercing Butted Chainmail with Medieval Arrows - Video 15


not sure where did you came with that Carhae example, but Hamata was used long after Laminata/Segmentata stopped to be used... plus, Carrhae was caused by completely incompetent leadership on Roman side, not due to some armor they used.. They would lose even if they all were dressed in Gothic plate..


if you read that article i posted, you would learn that:

Once mail was adopted by the Romans, it quickly spread to the Aegean and the Middle East. By the 3rd century AD, mail was very common in Europe and the Aegean, throughout the Middle East, and on the Indian subcontinent. There is a misconception that when the Roman armour of segmented plates, called lorica segmentata by modern scholars, was developed in the last half of the 1st century BC,³² that it supplanted mail. This was not the case. Mail saw continuous use before, during, and after the period in which segmentata was being used.

Mail has many advantages over segmented plate:

• It is more flexible and more comfortable than segmentata
• It provides better coverage—segmentata cannot protect the armpits, stomach, groin or thighs the way mail can
• Mail is easier to store, transport, and clean
• It is easier to tailor to individuals—an arsenal would only need to stock a few standard sizes to fit the vast majority of legionaries
• Mail is quicker and easier to don
• Mail is less susceptible to damage—the fittings on extant segmentata are very fragile, to the point that reconstructions do not attempt to replicate them
• Mail has a longer lifespan—there are many extant examples of mail that have been repaired multiple times with patches of different types of mail from different time periods³³
• In the field, all that is required to repair mail is a piece of wire—there are extant examples in which a piece of wire has been wrapped around the damaged section several times to hold it together. Even in the workshop, all that is required to make most repairs is some replacement links and rivets and a peening tool

Given mail's ease of repair and its long life span, it is reasonable to conclude that the reserves of Roman mail continued to grow during the period of the Roman Republic and later the Empire, and that more and more of it was available for troops to wear.

Segmentata does have advantages though:

• It is less expensive and faster to produce than mail, which is probably why the armour was developed in the first place
• Segmentata is lighter than mail—but it also provides less coverage. If mail was reduced so that it only covered the same areas as a segmentata, the weight difference would not be so great
• Segmentata offers better protection against blunt trauma than mail. Many assume that it also provides better protection against other attacks, but it will be shown that this may not have been the case

An article by Dan Howard

[andrew881thebest]

titles of those yours videos say: Butted Chainmail vs A Variety of Sharp Things , and Piercing Butted Chainmail with Medieval Arrows - Video 15


not sure where did you came with that Carhae example, but Hamata was used long after Laminata/Segmentata stopped to be used... plus, Carrhae was caused by completely incompetent leadership on Roman side, not due to some armor they used.. They would lose even if they all were dressed in Gothic plate..

ok i watched many videos i linked wrong ones. This is surely rivetted chainmail and sword goes through: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19qEUJTE90s&hd=1. Notice, it is a very pointed sword.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcVWi2czH0&hd=1 rivetted chainmail with leather armor behind against a dagger

here is lorica segmentata: armpits are well protected as well as shoulders but pieces overlapping. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5f7R...6747BB335&hd=1; better than this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGyIRVJKGi8&hd=1