Lorica Segmentata - fact or fiction?

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

Just saying lads, you probably shouldn't use Trajans Column as an example of the common soldiers armament, particularly when there's a very good chance the sculptors (who knew bugger all about the army) used Praetorian Guards as the models for their depictions (i.e. look at the shields).

I'm not wading into this opinion fest though. Can't be arsed.

[maurel]

Isn't LS supposed to work with mail armor ?
The common soldier would wear LH (mail armor). but some legionaries would wear their mail armor and LS over it. Making them a very heavy infantry. the Reason for this is because the romans needed to improve their armor but increasing the mail size would make the soldier worthless in combat. so by combining a layer of mail and LS it would give a better defense without sacrificing much flexibility in combat.

Mail armor would protect the entire body (and the places where LS is vulnerable) and LS would give better torso protection.

But this combination was used for a short period of time because the roman legions needed more flexibility and less heavy infantry was adopted.

[-Stormrage-]

I am NOT getting myself into this discussion...

I have a similar, yet separate question, which might prove to be good food for thought. I have never read any text or saw a picture that shows a combination of mail and plate armor being worn. Some heavy cavalry might have worn such a combination (I remember seeing some EB1 units...), but not infantry, at least I haven't heard about it. Why is that? They had mail, they had breast plates, why did they never combine them? Surely they knew about the positive properties of both types of armor, combining them would be a good idea.

Maybe it was the added weight of an additional piece of armor that caused trouble? Or was it the cost of mass production and maintenance that was too much?

EB1 has become a reliable historical source, harnessing the authority to pop up in a contested debate.

*Priceless

Well done team, Thats your honours right there ;p

[pirro]

EB1 has become a reliable history source, harnessing the authority to pop up in a historical debate.

*Priceless

Well done team, Thats your honours right there ;p

cough cough Radika cough cough

[MagniCuculi]

Well the Adamclisi Tropaeum from the same period doesn't show Lorica Segmentata at all,only mail and scale armor.


The problem is that the iron used for LS is by no means able to work like actual plate armor,nor is the heat treating even close to it,it also covers less of the body than most mail shirts.
And mail works damn good against most arrows:



Don't dare to.....really don't do that.

I have been watching EB2 for some time but this threat time I happen to have recently read "Roman Imperial Armour the production of early imperial armor" by David Sim and his conclusion is

"lorica segmentata is approximately half the thickness of high medieval plate armor but was just as effective as a method of defense"

He also goes over very early in the book the results of his tests with Roman iron and steel and the consistency and how impossible it is to get those results with some of the traditional ways we assume Romans worked iron.