a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

[Archimonday]

probably that mail was for cavalry, so it could be heavy but mainly horse should carry it. I do not think the regular (fit, ok, but not "rambo-like") infantry man would carry that mail, then the heavy shield, that all the 30-40 kgs impedimenta while marching 30 miles a day. It would simply be inhuman. I think a modern athlete would have hard time doing that nowadays. And you must imagine that regular infantry man was just man of the folks, trained for some time, ok, but not an athlete.

Don't underestimate how far soldiers can go with heavy weight. I'm sometimes amazed by how much we sometimes carry and continue to do missions. It sucks, but we do it.

[andrew881thebest]

Don't underestimate how far soldiers can go with heavy weight. I'm sometimes amazed by how much we sometimes carry and continue to do missions. It sucks, but we do it.

I think that modern USA soldiers are 10/15 cm taller (maybe 180/185 cm) in average than normal Roman infantry soldier (around 170).... So you cannot compare equally the 2 groups.

[JaM]

I think that modern USA soldiers are 10/15 cm taller (maybe 180/185 cm) in average than normal Roman infantry soldier (around 170).... So you cannot compare equally the 2 groups.

lol, yeah, maybe in G.I Joe..

[andrew881thebest]

lol, yeah, maybe in G.I Joe..

I have been in USA and i had that impression watching at average young (white not hispanic/black) male, not to talk about marines i saw (not so many, ok) who looked like 185-190 cm on average and massive giants. Maybe just an impression.

[Tiwaz]

probably that mail was for cavalry, so it could be heavy but mainly horse should carry it. I do not think the regular (fit, ok, but not "rambo-like") infantry man would carry that mail, then the heavy shield, that all the 30-40 kgs impedimenta while marching 30 miles a day. It would simply be inhuman. I think a modern athlete would have hard time doing that nowadays. And you must imagine that regular infantry man was just man of the folks, trained for some time, ok, but not an athlete.

Average soldier would not have had shot of ever paying to have mail armour for huge part of history. That stuff cost a fortune when built properly.
Again people... We are not talking about modern day when wire is bought by meters from closest hardware store in nice, high quality. On Roman age, making wire to make rings was absurdly hard work, and that was after you had put lots of time and effort into making good quality iron to make it from. And you would need hundreds of meters of it for single suit.

[andrew881thebest]

Average soldier would not have had shot of ever paying to have mail armour for huge part of history. That stuff cost a fortune when built properly.
Again people... We are not talking about modern day when wire is bought by meters from closest hardware store in nice, high quality. On Roman age, making wire to make rings was absurdly hard work, and that was after you had put lots of time and effort into making good quality iron to make it from. And you would need hundreds of meters of it for single suit.

surely an hard work but someway they could fast it. Think at republican army which could put on field maybe 80000 men (punic wars, battle of Cannae, Roman "empire" limited to italian peninsula) mostly (3/5) equipped in mail (maybe just hastati did not wear it)...it was a time when they had lot of free labor with slaves and everyone of them could just be ordered to work all day long, with no problems of salary and pauses. They compensated the lack of modern machinery with the mass of slave labor, this in weaponsmith as well as in building all those magnificent buildings we still can see today in small part.
As for the guy who said that it was impossible for roman blacksmiths to make armors in big plates of iron, such as medieval ones, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0n2gh21Zg

as for the lorica segmentata resistence, i just do not think that it was possible to stab or slash it so easily: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pniyFbvXMUI

[JaM]

surely an hard work but someway they could fast it. Think at republican army which could put on field maybe 80000 men (punic wars, battle of Cannae, Roman "empire" limited to italian peninsula) mostly (3/5) equipped in mail (maybe just hastati did not wear it)...it was a time when they had lot of free labor with slaves and everyone of them could just be ordered to work all day long, with no problems of salary and pauses. They compensated the lack of modern machinery with the mass of slave labor, this in weaponsmith as well as in building all those magnificent buildings we still can see today in small part.
As for the guy who said that it was impossible for roman blacksmiths to make armors in big plates of iron, such as medieval ones, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0n2gh21Zg

as for the lorica segmentata resistence, i just do not think that it was possible to stab or slash it so easily: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pniyFbvXMUI

whole idea of "cheap" slave labor is a bit ridiculous.. Having a slave during Ancient Rome was not a cheap thing.. it can be compared to having a car today... its not like everybody could afford one. most of the time, only rich could, and it doesnt automatically mean that just because things were manufactured by slaves, their owner would sell the stuff cheap...


and to manufacture wire, or putting rivets together, that was not some sort of low skill work... on contrary, it required quite a lot of skill to make it right. at the other side, hammering the steel plate to the required shape, was much much simpler...

[andrew881thebest]

whole idea of "cheap" slave labor is a bit ridiculous.. Having a slave during Ancient Rome was not a cheap thing.. it can be compared to having a car today... its not like everybody could afford one. most of the time, only rich could, and it doesnt automatically mean that just because things were manufactured by slaves, their owner would sell the stuff cheap...

slaves were few and precious in first republican time, when they were still italic prisoners, so they shared same "race", same lifestyle, tradition and maybe language; it was a time when slaves were treated not so differently from sons and wife from pater familias, who basically had his "propriety" (Mancipium in lathin) on them, exactely as on animals of the farm. After punic wars things changed dramatically, masses of eaastern slaves came into Rome, they became "cheap", or not so expansive as before, and less precious; they were not treated as members of the family, but just as manpower to use. Sometimes some romans established some sort of "friendship" with some of them, as you can imagine towards a person living costantly with you, but they were exceptions. Obviously the price of a slave changed according his ability, profession, age...some greek "teachers" even if slaves were treated with respect and received some money too. At the opposite the slaves in the country or those property of state and sent in mines or to make public buildings were treated more or less as animals.
When you bought a slave you could use him/her until the end of their days, and his sons too, so yes, slave labor was cheap, and this reflected on items' price....exactely as in China today, where price of job is very cheap (and not so far from being modern slaves) and so items are cheap. There were even slaves with particular abilities and surely some dedicated to weaponsmith and making of loricae. RIch romans had hundreds or thousands slaves, but an artisan or normal roman with a small enterprise could surely afford 1-2 or more slaves. It is maybe the most cruel side of roman civilization, if you think that slaves could be tortured to death just to confess his master's guilt or killed in most brutal way with no real reason, until late empire at least, or that it was normal and not immoral for a roman patrician to have some sexual slaves for their desires, and very often young children ("pueri delicati", or "delicious kids")...

[JaM]

Average hamata suit had 10-15kg. Segmentate armor had around 4-5kg... Hamata was 2-3x heavier... so, average legionary was carrying 15kg hamata, 10kg scutum, 2kg heavy and 1kg light pilum, 1kg helmet,1kg gladius, and his personal staff.. overall, around 30kg of weapons and armor. That is not that far off what today's soldiers are carrying around in Afghanistan, so i don't see why Roman soldier that was used to harsher conditions would not handle.

[andrew881thebest]

Average hamata suit had 10-15kg. Segmentate armor had around 4-5kg... Hamata was 2-3x heavier... so, average legionary was carrying 15kg hamata, 10kg scutum, 2kg heavy and 1kg light pilum, 1kg helmet,1kg gladius, and his personal staff.. overall, around 30kg of weapons and armor. That is not that far off what today's soldiers are carrying around in Afghanistan, so i don't see why Roman soldier that was used to harsher conditions would not handle.

On my opinion that mail in the picture weights much more... I lift weights and I know how much 15 kg is. That mass of iron is at least 20 25 kg. Then his personal staff meant a lot in kg

[Mjarr]

On my opinion that mail in the picture weights much more... I lift weights and I know how much 15 kg is. That mass of iron is at least 20 25 kg. Then his personal staff meant a lot in kg

25-30kg of extra weight (read = modern flak jacket and\or ceramic plates, and let's not forget all the extra crap one may have to wear, or for the sake of comparison old pieces of armour) properly distributed around your body does not suddenly drag you down to hungry man's marathon crawl as long as you're in reasonable or good shape, even if it obviously may impose some limits. Imagine you're the unlucky dude of say, LMG and few extra belts, flak jacket, helmet, vests, water, food, and let's say marching equipment - or hey, regular assault rifle, the rest of the shebang and maybe couple of LAWs. You may very well exceed weight of common armours back in the day you are effectively carrying as part of regular gear which may be expected to be worn today as standard equipment.

[SD_Man]

Yep, mail gets pretty heavy when you just let it pile up like that ... *double zing*

[JaM]

in 18.century, there was a simple rule - when rookie survived first 6 months of service, he would usually survive almost anything (except bullet in his body of course) Military service was harsh, daily marches, hard drill, lack of food, all this had huge effect on rookies which had quite low survivability in such conditions. if you look at Romans, they had good system how to train their soldiers - im talking about professional Marian army - usually it took 6 months for rookie to be accepted into combat cohort, and during that time, he was trained and drilled quite hard. Historians mention that Roman training was like bloodless battles, while their battles were like bloody training.. i think there is no doubt Roman Legionaries had to be in top shape to survive such conditions for 6-8 years.. and real Evocati veterans, with 20 years of service, i cannot imagine how tough those men must have been... so, if todays soldiers are supposed to carry 50-60lb of weapons, armor and other equipment, there is no doubt Roman soldier would have no problem with it either.. he might be even a bit stronger due to conditions he was trained/lived in...

[andrew881thebest]

i think that a roman veteran could be some up in just these words: trained killer. More than other soldiers at that time. Carry a pike 6 mts long and push it forward trying to hit something for chance is not like to stab in the face, neck or stomach a man in front of you, just 50 cm away, facing death every second, for each man you face. Imagine being a young boy in his 18s or 20s and be in first rows, in his first battle. That would be menthally devastating, a thing that changes you completely. 2000 years ago boys were not dna different from today, they had a tough life but felt as we would feel nowadays in those occasions. I think it was a way of natural selection, if you survived that, you had to be a tough, very tough man. Imagine bring a teenager of our time in an ancient battle and tell hiim to kill the enemy or be killed ...i think someone would his pants soon.

[Archimonday]

i think that a roman veteran could be some up in just these words: trained killer. More than other soldiers at that time. Carry a pike 6 mts long and push it forward trying to hit something for chance is not like to stab in the face, neck or stomach a man in front of you, just 50 cm away.

Then again, death was a common thing in the ancient world. People must have been incredibly raw. Death must've been so natural a thing to them. I mean, you'd have so many children, and then more than half would die before they came of age, and another third of those would die of war/disease/famine or some other unfortunate act. While I dont illude that it was easy for a man to kill another, I do think that the idea was much more common place.

[Tango12345]

Keep this on topic please. This thread is about ancient Roman armour, not modern warfare. This is your first and final warning.

[andrew881thebest]

plate is no doubt better in fighting but thinking that fighting time was 0,00000001 % of the life of the typical legionary I think that they preferred mail because it was more confortable to wear in everyday life (and routine hard jobs) and easier to maintain. Simply for that reason. Imagine having to dig trenches cut trees or do routine physical exercise with a segmentata on rather than mail. You can even take off mail and put it in a small bag while segmentata needs more space and you cannot simply put it on ground cause it would rust...many problems in everyday life.
Simply think that medieval knights had servants who cleaned from sweat and put things to prevent rust immediately after the knight took armor off. Romans did not have servants so they had to do this alone every day, if they had enough time in peaceful times during campaigns it must have been time consuming (they even needed to carry with them cleaning stuff maybe animal fat to protect from rust...).
I imagine that the result of wearing mail armor was many soldiers with broken ribs or shoulders (a hard thrust hitting with violence your chest even with some padded protection behind even jf not piercing will definitely break some ribs and damage inner organs). Exactly like medieval knights in mail. Since the main problem back then was infections I think that this could be the better thing.

[JaM]

Actually, not really. Slaves with ironworking experience were quite costly.. Plus, working on mail required a lot of skill considering how precious work was required. if you realize that rings were 0.8-1.2mm thick, with rivets have to be punched perfectly in the middle, otherwise such ring would be easy to break... it is not something unskilled person could do without endangering the quality of mail..

and for mines, that was practically a death sentence. no slave could survive for long, so they used mostly slaves that were not suitable for anything else, or as terminal punishment (and it was not pretty..)

[daelin4]

I was aware of the shield being used to fight, but I was also considering the context of the OP's subject.

[andrew881thebest]

If you watch whatever duel video in YouTube in you its matter of few seconds before one manages to overcome the Shield protection reaching the guy behind. So armor was fundamental not simply an add on, it let you survive when the enemy strike hit your body, which surely happened quickly in a melee fight. None is able to defend and pary when I can do 3 strikes at second over or under or at the sides of the shield or maybe attack the guy to my left or right so that each soldier should protect against 3 guys at same time. Or maybe simply hitting the unarmoured parts like face or hitting with violence the helm to give concussive damage.
So you definitely an armor covering the most area possible and in this sense mail was better than segmentata. You could easily cover thighs and arms. Well they could have done same with segmentata but they did not for some reason (I am sure I even saw a type of Gladiator in iron segmentata with all body covered by iron segments and head protected by a big helm with visor...something very close to a late medieval knight as for protection)