Lorica hamata with Lorica segmentata.

[tiepilot98]

Why in the cohort after the reforms of August are the legionaires in Lorica hamata? The entire Roman army was already proceed to Lorica segmentata.

[Sint]

Ahm no never.....never really.Most did most likely still use hamata and squamata.

[Yayattasa]

NOT THIS AGAIN

[kahnage]

Ahm no never.....never really.Most did most likely still use hamata and squamata.

Depends what theatre the Legions were fighting in, the enemy they expected to fight and the climate of the theatre.

For example, in North Africa and the Middle East, the heavy armour of the Segmentata wouldnt really be much use, and its lack of ventilation meant it got extremely hot inside. Which is why the legions who fought in the Middle east and north Africa used the hamata and Squamata more than anything.

Also, the highly mobile enemies in those areas would have made slow heavy infantry less useful.

On the other hand, in mainland europe, where the climate is more temperate if not downright cold, the Segmentata's heating problem does not become an issue and could actually be a benefit.

Also, the fact that most possible enemies in Europe use mostly infantry, shock tactics etc, meant the superior defense of the segmentata was needed. And whilst the Segmentata never became the only armour in mainland europe, it did become the majority use, which is why most finds of the segmentata are found in mainland europe, and in large numbers. Also, the fact that there were at least 4 different types of the Segmentata indicates that it was widely used and very common as you dont make multiple versions of something that is rarely used and/or ornamental.

The Segmentata would have had dominant use in Iberia, Italy, Gaul, Britannia, Germania, Greece, Dacia and all other Roman provinces in mainland Europe. Hamata and Squamata would have been significant minorities.

The Hamata and Squamata would have been dominant everywhere else, with the segmentata being rarely, if ever, used.

The mod actually gets the armour pretty much right, except the helmets and the inclusion of leather segmentatas (which, whilst possible, does not have much evidence supporting it, but it is a possibility). As far as I know, the gallic and imperial helmets were all iron/steel, later with brass and iron reinforcements and some with brass and/or bronze designs added.

The only entirely bronze helmets of the Gallic and imperial types I know of are centurion/officer helmets, and not every-day legionary helmets. Auxilia would have also been equipped with the Gallic/Imperial helmets, not modified bronze coolus helms.

[Sint]

Well first problem is that scale wasn't lighter since it was usually(scale isn't that great since you can actually stab upward through it.)worn with mail underneath making it not lighter than LSegmentata.
Oh and LS doesn't provide superior defence,it often covers less and has gaps at the armpits and does not cover the groin ,as well as being possible to able to stab through it in an upward movement ,bypassing the plates.
You can't even remotly compare it to plate armor,since both heat treating and steel quality wasn't comparable.No that doesn't inidcate that it was widely used ,there are dozens of mail types even in places were it wasn't common or had only secondary purposes and the types of LS don't differ much other than cosmetics .The Tropaeum Traiani build after the Dacian war in Dacia shows no Lorica Segementata at all ,only mail and scale....and I think the people building it must have known it better we do.



And leather segmentata,if it ever existed, would need to be extremly thick and heavy to actually protect you,even medieval Cuire Bouille was shown worn with mail underneath.

[KEA]

Earliest finds for LS are at the (supposed) side of Teutoburg (9 AD). These are single elements for the remains of an entire Roman army, suggesting one or the other was equipped with it while the vast majority was wearing chain mail. Obviously, no mail was thrown away to completely rearm the army with LS from one day to other. The reason is that chain mail until the 13th Century was insanely expensive, and equipping an entire army with it was the true military masterpiece of the Romans in the 1st Century BC.

From the 1st Century AD onward LS would have been used whenever a new set of armor was needed, gradually replacing mail. At some point in the 3rd Century this would have gone again the other way round, so that the Late Roman Army again is one using chain mail, as their opponents and successor did. So, only the "peace-time" Roman legion of the late 1st to early 4th Century would appear in LS. Not surprisingly because LS is in no way superior to chain mail. It offers less protection and is less comfortable to wear. The only advantage is that easier, and that way cheaper, to produce - sufficiently for an army mostly occupied with border duties.

[kahnage]

Well first problem is that scale wasn't lighter since it was usually(scale isn't that great since you can actually stab upward through it.)worn with mail underneath making it not lighter than LSegmentata.

Really? Must admit, I have never heard this before. I knew they wore quite a bit of padding, but i did nto know they wore chain underneath. Source?

Oh and LS doesn't provide superior defence,

It does, where it covers.

it often covers less and has gaps at the armpits and does not cover the groin

It covers the torso and all of the shoulders, which is 90% of what the Squamata and Hamata covered. Yes, it doesnt cover the groin, but that is why legionaries wore thick hardened leather strips to make up a 'skirt' that covered their thighs/groin and were actually pretty damn good at stopping cutting and missile weapons.

,as well as being possible to able to stab through it in an upward movement ,bypassing the plates.

Actually, no it wouldnt be possible to do that. Or you would need a ridiculous amount of strength. Also, the legionary would need to be standing still and letting you hit him. As with the scale above (in which you;d have the same issues with your 'stab upwards' tactic), the legionary would be wearing this heavy armour, plus he has a huge shield and most likely leg guards/greaves as well on at least one leg.

You can't even remotly compare it to plate armor,since both heat treating and steel quality wasn't comparable.

Who was comparing it to plate armour?

No that doesn't inidcate that it was widely used

Yes, it does. You dont make more than one type of something that is rarely used or for ceremonial purposes only.

,there are dozens of mail types even in places were it wasn't common or had only secondary purposes

Name five of these supposed 'dozens' of types and where they come from. The style or 'cut' of a chain hauberk does not make it a completely different type. There were at least 4 DISTINCT types of segmentata, not just minor changes or a different 'cut' or shape.

and the types of LS don't differ much other than cosmetics

Wrong. The original segmentata, the earliest known, was very intricate and had a lot of plates.

The two later models had many changes done to them, with varying plate sizes and configurations. It wasnt just cosmetic.

And the 4th type, only known due to a statue, seems to show Segmentata crossed with Scale armour.

.The Tropaeum Traiani build after the Dacian war in Dacia shows no Lorica Segementata at all ,only mail and scale

Except there is another column built at the same time which shows only Segmentata and Scale. There is also writing from the era that states Trajan ordered his troops to only use scale and plate armour as the Dacian weapons could and would cut through chain very easily. After seeing with my own eyes a period recreation of a Dacian Falx and other heavy cutting weapons being used against period recreations of chain armour, i can tell you he wasnt exaggerating.

....and I think the people building it must have known it better we do.

You cherry picked evidence. There are columns and other art which shows Segmentata in the dacian wars. Some people like to dismiss those as 'artistic license' of some ancient artist as it doesnt mesh with the rubbish they are peddling.

Why is it so hard to believe the Romans used Segmentata in combat? Why is it so hard to accept that they used? That it was at least fairly common, especially in Europe?

Its like the people saying these things are ignoring the massive amount of finds that can be linked to Segmentata sets all over Britain, France, Germany and Eastern Europe......

And leather segmentata,if it ever existed, would need to be extremly thick and heavy to actually protect you,even medieval Cuire Bouille was shown worn with mail underneath.

Stop with the passive aggressive tone. One, i never said it DID exist. Second, I never said leather Segmentata existed. Thirdly, I stated that there is some evidence of Roman leather armour use in North Africa, which is true, with the only known evidence located in North African museums.

Earliest finds for LS are at the (supposed) side of Teutoburg (9 AD).

Actually, the earliest finds are from between 30BC-15BC, in small numbers.

These are single elements for the remains of an entire Roman army, suggesting one or the other was equipped with it while the vast majority was wearing chain mail.

We have no way of really stating what the Romans were wearing as most armour and weapons would have been stripped from the remains of the Roman legions by the Germans, with the Germans only leaving behind what was too badly damaged to take (or, in the case of Segmentata, possibly disassembled for storage and therefore too complex or daunting to piece together for the german warriors).

Obviously, no mail was thrown away to completely rearm the army with LS from one day to other. The reason is that chain mail until the 13th Century was insanely expensive, and equipping an entire army with it was the true military masterpiece of the Romans in the 1st Century BC.

Of course, but the Romans did rapidly change to new equipment. The Coolus helm would have been extremely rare by the late 1st century BC (replaced by the Imperial Gallic helms and early Imperial Italic helms). It is safe to say that the Segmentata, which made many good points, would have been rapidly adopted for both Garrison troops (shown by the high number of finds in garrison forts all over the empire, despite the troops there previously been thought to have been Auxilia (the forts may have had Legionaries there too, or the forts may ahve been inhabited by legionaries only etc etc)) and field troops.

The Romans werent stupid. The Segmentata was damn good armour.

From the 1st Century AD onward LS would have been used whenever a new set of armor was needed, gradually replacing mail.

I'd say from as early as 15-10BC, around the later parts of the earliest finds.

So, only the "peace-time" Roman legion of the late 1st to early 4th Century would appear in LS.

Calling the 1st -4th centuries 'peace time' does not do the period justice. Troops along the borders, where the legionaries were stationed in their forts and limes alongside their auxilia back ups, would have seen regular fighting against hostile forces.

The only troops that would not have seen combat would have been the Auxilia (in which many were also volunteer Roman citizens as well as Roman non-citizens) in the internal garrison forts and city garrisons.

Not surprisingly because LS is in no way superior to chain mail.

Where did this myth appear from? Segmentata provides superior protection against arrows, heavy cutting weapons (like the Dacian Falx), piercing weapons, blunt weapons and missiles. It covers the entirety of the torso, as well as of the shoulders and most of the upper arm (bar the arm pits, which are in fact very hard targets to hit especially on a highly skilled enemy such as a Roman legionary who also has a giant shield, and the elbow) and a significant portion of the neck.

Roman legionaries with the LS also seem to have worn a 'skirt' made of vertical strips of hardened or semi-hardened leather to cover the thighs and groin, which would have been at least fairly effective. But even so, the Legionary would have had their shield, which in the skilled hands of a legionary would have been more than enough to protect his legs.

And, finally, greaves/leg guards of bronze or iron on at least the shield-side leg (usually the left leg) were common, with both legs being protected being rather common as well, judging by the finds.

It offers less protection

It covers less, yes, but not by much. The squamata and hamata do not significantly cover the thighs or groin and in the early types of Squamata and Hamata, they do not seem to even protect the arms at all, only protecting the torso and upper thigh/waist areas.

and is less comfortable to wear.

Given, as it is more rigid than flexible squamata and hamata. However, as Roman troops wore padded tunics, the discomfort would have been minimal. And no, Segmentata does not chafe you, especially if you have a padded tunic. I've worn recreations of all three major types of Segmentata and I can safely say that, whilst they are more uncomfortable due to their stiffness, they feel a lot more solid and the padded tunic means discomfort is small and there is no chafing.

Heat is an issue, however.

The only advantage is that easier, and that way cheaper, to produce - sufficiently for an army mostly occupied with border duties.

Segmentata has plenty of advantages over the Hamata, less over the squamata though but still a number.

The only main issues i can think of for the LS is that it gets very hot in high temperatures, it has complicated maintenance and it has less flexibility. Thats it. Protection is equal, even if it does cover marginally less than the other two known types of Roman armour, it is cheaper and faster to produce and it is tough.

It wasnt the only type of armour they wore, but at least in Europe it seems to have been one of the main ones.

[Diocle]

I'm here just to remind you all that I, II and III centuries AD were not peaceful times, the golden age of the Lorica Segmentata saw the most brutal wars and battles of the Roman History: the Civil War between Galba, Oto and Vitellius, the Dacian Campaigns, the Marcomannic wars and the terrible wars against the Parthians and then, the long terrible, bloody and tragic Civil Wars after the death of Commodus in which hevily armored Legions had to fight against heavily armored Legions.

Let me remind here that the last find of Lorica Segmentata is a Spanish site of the middle of the IV century AD.

[KEA]

Actually, the earliest finds are from between 30BC-15BC, in small numbers.

really? where?

We have no way of really stating what the Romans were wearing as most armour and weapons would have been stripped from the remains of the Roman legions by the Germans, with the Germans only leaving behind what was too badly damaged to take (or, in the case of Segmentata, possibly disassembled for storage and therefore too complex or daunting to piece together for the german warriors).

We have enough finds to safely state that chain was the standard gear of the army at this point.

Of course, but the Romans did rapidly change to new equipment.

In this case there would had been no reason in sticking to mail for several generations after LS had been introduced; in particular when you say the later was superior.

Calling the 1st -4th centuries 'peace time' does not do the period justice.

That's what we use the "" for, don't we? The army of the principate did its fightings (well, mostly versus other Romans), but was in no way under constant pressure from well organized enemies as the legions before and thereafter were.

Where did this myth appear from? Segmentata provides superior protection (...)Heat is an issue, however.

It is an armor made of strapped together long pieces which have a tendency to telescope under quick movements, if not the leather straps do snap. The material is stiff and therefore offers good opportunities to be penetrated. And even when you don't try to run or fight in it you'll get slowly backed in your own sweat. On the other hand we have a completely flexible mail shirt that instantly goes back into its normal coverage regardless what movements you make, which is very difficult to penetrate because of its flexibility and offers close to 100% protection against cuts. On top of that, single elements getting damaged does not reduce its protective value, while it also offers good ventilation (as much as any armor can).

And you say that chain is superior is a myth? interesting....

The only main issues i can think of for the LS is that it gets very hot in high temperatures, it has complicated maintenance and it has less flexibility. Thats it. Protection is equal, even if it does cover marginally less than the other two known types of Roman armour, it is cheaper and faster to produce and it is tough.

So you say it's better, cheaper, easier to make, introduced and issued. Can you give as a reason why the Romans stopped using it and reverted back to the inferior, expansive and slow to produce chain?

[Diocle]

So you say it's better, cheaper, easier to make, introduced and issued. Can you give as a reason why the Romans stopped using it and reverted back to the inferior, expansive and slow to produce chain?

It's the easiest answer ever : because at the middle of the III century the Roman warfare was changed, because the manipular legion ended in the bloodbath of the Civil Wars, as tactics and startegy changed forever during those tragic days, the small Vexillationes gradually took the place of the large Legions and so on ... But all this is well known. Isn't it?

[kahnage]

really? where?

I remember reading about recent finds in either Italy or Spain dating from 30-15BC that seemed to be parts of the first known type of Segmentata. I've forgotten where I read it. It might have been on sciencedaily, or maybe the dailygrail (which usually has quite a few interesting, lesser known discoveries on its frontpage).

We have enough finds to safely state that chain was the standard gear of the army at this point.

It probably was, it was the back end of the Early Legionary/late marian legionary period before we get on to the Imperial Augustan era.

But that doesnt mean other armours werent getting more common, especially as roman troops could use their wages to buy more equipment, as the high uptake of leg guards attests to. Leg guards were not standard equipment (but they were quick and easy to make, so they were probably pretty damn cheap).

In this case there would had been no reason in sticking to mail for several generations after LS had been introduced; in particular when you say the later was superior.

The LS was superior, but not in all situations.

If you tried using the LS in North Africa or the Middle East, you'd be cooked alive as the LS doesnt 'breath' well. Squamata and hamata would be the go to armours in those areas. Just look at what the Cataphracts and especially the Clibaranii (i think i spelt that wrong, but anyway) got called. They were likened to furnaces due to how hot they would get in their heavy armour of steel plates and heavy chain.

LS would have been tolerable in Spain, Italy and Greece and fantastic anywhere north of those places. Especially as the better protection provided by the LS and the fact it had better top-down defense (which is great as many barbarian weapons attacked from the top, down) meant Roman armour further negated their enemies possible attacks.

It is probably one reason why most LS finds are in Europe and not anywhere else.

I'd never say LS would completely replace the Hamata. Auxiliary troops (at least in Europe) would have worn the Hamata almost exclusively with the exception of the cavalry who seem to have liked to hybridise their armour as Hamata-Segmentata and hamata-Squamata hybrids are both known to have been created through written and artistic confirmation (although just how common they were is unknown/never stated.

EDIT: And the Officers and standard bearers who seemed to have had a soft spot for long-sleeved, knee-long-skirted Lorica Squamata armour

That's what we use the "" for, don't we? The army of the principate did its fightings (well, mostly versus other Romans), but was in no way under constant pressure from well organized enemies as the legions before and thereafter were.

Aside from the civil wars, there were still constant attacks on the borders from barbarians in Europe, many incursions being quite large, large enough to require a legion or two to counter.

There were also the constant wars with the Easterners and the Steppe peoples in the North.

Also, there are the Marcomannic and Dacian wars as mentioned previously by another person.

It was hardly a time of peace. The period saw brutal fighting.

It is an armor made of strapped together long pieces which have a tendency to telescope under quick movements, if not the leather straps do snap.

I think you are underestimating the strength of the LS's design. Needless to say, later versions of the LS had even sturdier designs, with more rivets/articulation instead of breakable hinges and straps.

The material is stiff and therefore offers good opportunities to be penetrated.

Whilst the LS was not as tough as Medieval platemail armour, it would still have been hard to penetrate, especially as weapons designed to penetrate metal plates, even if said plates are banded steel and not a solid plate cuirass, had not been designed yet.

Arrows and other missile weapons wouldnt have done much damage to the LS. A very strong thrust from a spear or sword MAY (emphasis on may) pierce the LS, but you would need a long wind-up to it, in which time the legionary has already riddled you full of stab wounds and maybe cut off one of your arms for good measure and is already moving onto his next enemy.

And thats not even taking into account the Legionaries training, his shield, his dodging nor his swordplay.

Do you honestly think a legionary would just stand there and let you wind up a powerful hit in which you try to penetrate his armour?

And even when you don't try to run or fight in it you'll get slowly backed in your own sweat.

Was only really an issue in the very hot climates of North Africa and the Middle East, which is why the LS wasnt used there much, if at all.

On the other hand we have a completely flexible mail shirt that instantly goes back into its normal coverage regardless what movements you make

True, but it could also be easily flipped up by an enemy, in which case he could get under it.

which is very difficult to penetrate because of its flexibility

....And has next to no protection against blunt force trauma. When one is wearing chain and, much less so, scale, one has to remember that even though the enemies attack may not have pierced the armour, the attack could still have easily broken bones or caused internal bleeding, or any other variety of wounds.

Why?

Because force dissipation by flexible armour is terrible. The LS would offer far better protection from these types of attacks.

and offers close to 100% protection against cuts.

OK, lets assume some idiot would be stupid enough to try and cut you through armour, the LS has 100% protection against cuts. The only known weapon (well, family of weapons) from the ancient world that we know of that could cut into/through the LS is the family of oversized can-openers used by the Dacians and Thracians.

On top of that, single elements getting damaged does not reduce its protective value

Not at first. But just like a tear in cloth clothing, damaged ringlets can eventually become holes and holes can eventually become large enough to make the armour useless. There is plenty of period material from anytime between the Ancient era to the late medieval era where chain armour is described as rent open or ripped during combat.

, while it also offers good ventilation (as much as any armor can).

True.

And you say that chain is superior is a myth? interesting....

If chain is superior to metal plates, why, then, did the Eastern peoples dress their Cataphracts and other heavy cavalry in steel banded and plated armour?

Sure, some cataphracts were clad in heavy mail and/or scale, but most were clad in steel plates and/or steel banded armour.

So you say it's better, cheaper, easier to make, introduced and issued. Can you give as a reason why the Romans stopped using it and reverted back to the inferior, expansive and slow to produce chain?

Changing fighting style. In the eastern empire, the fast moving enemies made heavy infantry almost obsolete. Heavy infantry were relegated to garrison duty and/or guarding artillery and missile troops in field battles. Cavalry became the focus and the LS was unsuitable as cavalry armour due to its inflexibility.

The Eastern Empire used specially designed and made banded and plate armour, lamellar and similar armour for their cavalry, but not the LS. The infantry got your typical chain armour as they were usually in the same place for a long time as garrison troops and thus could wait and/or their equipment wasn't a priority.

In the Western Empire, due to a number of well known reasons, the empire was falling and the coffers were dry. The trend in the west was for infantry to wear less and less armour until you get to the very end of the Western Empire where the typical 'Roman' legionary was about as well armoured as the typical Gallic or German warband of the ancient era was before Roman conquest.

Romano-British legionaries are a fine example of Western empire infantry troops: Conical Helm, oval auxiliary-like shield, sword, dagger, spear and not much else except for a heavy cloak, tunic, trousers and boots. The empire couldnt afford to equip their foot troops with much more.

The change in infantry equipment and tactics could also be attributed to the ever increasing number of barbarians in the Western Empire and the subsequent influx of barbarians in the Roman military which, when coupled with a failing empire and lack of money, meant the Romans couldnt keep up with the level of discipline and training they could before.

So the people in the legions reverted to what they knew best, but included some basic discipline, which leaves you with, essentially, a semi-disciplined warband.

Furthermore, what money that could be found was spent again on the cavalry as the Western Empire was also under attack by horse-based enemies.

[KEA]

It's the easiest answer ever : because at the middle of the III century the Roman warfare was changed, because the manipular legion ended in the bloodbath of the Civil Wars, as tactics and startegy changed forever during those tragic days, the small Vexillationes gradually took the place of the large Legions and so on ... But all this is well known. Isn't it?

This is well known but not even close to an answer:

We have an LS that is cheaper, easier to produce, and claimed to be better than chain. Why did the Romans stop using it in order to revert back to an armor that is more expensive, more difficult to produce and that you say to offer less protection? Certainly not because the old legions were replaced by vexillations.

But that doesnt mean other armours werent getting more common, especially as roman troops could use their wages to buy more equipment, as the high uptake of leg guards attests to. Leg guards were not standard equipment (but they were quick and easy to make, so they were probably pretty damn cheap).

sidetracks. When you say LS already was in use in 30 BC and it definitely not was standard in 9 AD it is obvious that it not quickly replaced other armor as standard but came gradually over generations.

The LS was superior, but not in all situations. (...) Especially as the better protection provided by the LS and the fact it had better top-down defense (which is great as many barbarian weapons attacked from the top, down) meant Roman armour further negated their enemies possible attacks.

Why should barbarians have a habit to attack top down? Because they are supposed to be bigger than Romans? Because their weapons demanded it?

It was hardly a time of peace. The period saw brutal fighting.

But you don't wish to have Britons or Dacians to be ranking with Hellenistic Kingdoms or the Sassanids, or put the Macromanni Wars on a level with the Punic Wars or the Migration? Again, there is a huge gap between what foreign enemies demanded from the Roman Legions during the principate and what happened before and thereafter.

I think you are underestimating the strength of the LS's design. Needless to say, later versions of the LS had even sturdier designs, with more rivets/articulation instead of breakable hinges and straps.

I think you seriously overestimate it.

And thats not even taking into account the Legionaries training, his shield, his dodging nor his swordplay.

Do you honestly think a legionary would just stand there and let you wind up a powerful hit in which you try to penetrate his armour?

The training and other protective equipment would be the same, regardless of the armor.

....And has next to no protection against blunt force trauma. When one is wearing chain and, much less so, scale, one has to remember that even though the enemies attack may not have pierced the armour, the attack could still have easily broken bones or caused internal bleeding, or any other variety of wounds.

That's why it always is worn with padded undergarment

Changing fighting style. In the eastern empire, the fast moving enemies made heavy infantry almost obsolete. Heavy infantry were relegated to garrison duty and/or guarding artillery and missile troops in field battles. Cavalry became the focus and the LS was unsuitable as cavalry armour due to its inflexibility.

The Eastern Empire used specially designed and made banded and plate armour, lamellar and similar armour for their cavalry, but not the LS. The infantry got your typical chain armour as they were usually in the same place for a long time as garrison troops and thus could wait and/or their equipment wasn't a priority.

In the Western Empire, due to a number of well known reasons, the empire was falling and the coffers were dry. The trend in the west was for infantry to wear less and less armour until you get to the very end of the Western Empire where the typical 'Roman' legionary was about as well armoured as the typical Gallic or German warband of the ancient era was before Roman conquest.

Romano-British legionaries are a fine example of Western empire infantry troops: Conical Helm, oval auxiliary-like shield, sword, dagger, spear and not much else except for a heavy cloak, tunic, trousers and boots. The empire couldnt afford to equip their foot troops with much more.

The change in infantry equipment and tactics could also be attributed to the ever increasing number of barbarians in the Western Empire and the subsequent influx of barbarians in the Roman military which, when coupled with a failing empire and lack of money, meant the Romans couldnt keep up with the level of discipline and training they could before.

So the people in the legions reverted to what they knew best, but included some basic discipline, which leaves you with, essentially, a semi-disciplined warband.

Furthermore, what money that could be found was spent again on the cavalry as the Western Empire was also under attack by horse-based enemies.

Before, you said it yourself: LS is easier to produce, and in the 4th Century everyone in Europe should have known how to make it (at least those that were capable of making mail). Could you please explain why in this situation someone would stop making LS in favor of returning to mail, if LS would be the superior armor? We should expect in a situation like that of the late WRE everyone who could still afford armor to run around in LS, and not the last resources being casted to make chain mail shirts.

There is only one explanation, and that is that the people back then considered chain the superior armor, and were willing to make the extra effort in order to get it. I tend to believe in their judgment.

[k/t]

I think we should all adopt the personal rule to never post anything in a thread whose title includes the word "segmentata".

[bomaylasoc]

Except there is another column built at the same time which shows only Segmentata and Scale. There is also writing from the era that states Trajan ordered his troops to only use scale and plate armour as the Dacian weapons could and would cut through chain very easily. After seeing with my own eyes a period recreation of a Dacian Falx and other heavy cutting weapons being used against period recreations of chain armour, i can tell you he wasnt exaggerating

realy???