Looking at the whole hamata vs segmentata discussion from another angle

[Corvus]

If Legionaries had to purchase their own equipment during the imperial times as well, its more likely that they would purchase a lorica hamata.
And here is why: Why would somenody prefer to buy a segmentata that is much harder to maintain, takes up more space when not worn and needs the help of another person to put it on?

Of course if a segmentata was cheaper to buy, legionaries might have bought it because of that.
But I am not surprised why at the "unoficial" monument Tropaeum Traiani the legionaries are depicted in lorica hamata. That must have been the much preferred armor.

Yes the state preferred to depict legionaries in lorica segmentata, to distinguish them from auxilaries, because it was better for showing them as legionaries and roman citizen, since the segmentata was a roman invention.

[Dan Howard]

Segmentata was the Roman version of munitions plate. It was the cheapest metal armour available.

[Mark Hygate]

Segmentata was the Roman version of munitions plate. It was the cheapest metal armour available.

Even I know enough about Dan's view to know he's not a fan!  

I was more minded to suggest, however, that 'soldiers' have been charged for their 'uniform' more than once in the past - and it's more a case of paying for what you're given.  They may not have been given any choice at all; they just have the cost deducted from pay.

Given I have some training in materials science and my thesis was on modelling ballistic impacts on body armour - I still remain of the view that the performace of segmentata and hamata are rather different - and therefore perhaps the weapons they were defending against were also different.....

[Dan Howard]

I'm a huge fan of segmentata. It was an ingenious solution and well advanced for the time period.

The most common threat on any battlefield for three thousand years was from spears and arrows. Every type of body armour ever invented was primarily designed to protect against those weapons. They never had different armours for different weapons.

[Mark Hygate]

I'm a huge fan of segmentata. It was an ingenious solution and well advanced for the time period.

The most common threat on any battlefield for three thousand years was from spears and arrows. Every type of body armour ever invented was primarily designed to protect against those weapons. They never had different armours for different weapons.

My apologies, I wasn't arguing that and agree completely.  The 'weapon vs armour' battle continues to this day.

But there, logically, must be a reason why segmentata was introduced; and perhaps only in the West.  Given that plate and mail react very differently to impacts it could well be 'threat driven'.  However, if your basic premise of 'cheap' is correct, then that remains possible.

My very simple interpretation is that it might be that in the East it was indeed that the major threat was from arrows (and spears), but that in generally closer combat in the West that plate is better against blades; although it would also be better against slingshot.  It certainly seems that hamata covers more of the body, however, which would be better against arrows.

[Dan Howard]

If you only had to defend against blades, you don't need armour at all. A decent winter tunic will stop a sword cut. You need armour to stop points, not edges.

[Feinman]

If you only had to defend against blades, you don't need armour at all. A decent winter tunic will stop a sword cut. You need armour to stop points, not edges.

Wouldn't blunt force trauma also be an issue? It seems like even if a wound was not inflicted, ribs would be broken and it could still be debilitating blow. I know mail would provide some protection against a sword strike as would other forms of armour including the segmentata and textile armour, but only mail and plate would stop a strong sword thrust, though textile armour might provide some protection from spears and arrows (not a lot), the best protection from arrows would be plate armour and mail.

[Dan Howard]

Blunt force is seriously over-rated. It can be an issue on exposed "boney" parts of the body like the clavical, knees, elbows, and skull but not on the torso. In order to deliver incapacitating trauma through armour to the torso (without penetrating the armour itself), you need firearms. Hand weapons can't deliver enough energy. I've worn a crappy butted mail shirt over a sweater (no padding at all) and been hit multiple times with a metal baseball bat hard enough to knock me off balance and the only injury I suffered was bruising.

Some types of padded armour are actually better than metal armour against blunt trauma. Giovanni Michiel was a Venetian Ambassador to Queen Mary and King Philip. This comes from his "Report of England", written to the Venetian Senate on the 13th May, 1557. He is describing what regular English fighters wore to battle and tells us that plate armour was the least preferable of all the armours available - only worn by those who could not afford something better such as mail or a jack or a padded doublet. By that time, plate armour was the cheapest form of armour available. He also tells us that their padded canvas doublets were considered to be a better defense against "the shock of arrows" than the other available types of armour.

"... and for the body they either use some sort of breastplate (qualche petto di corsaletto) which guards the forepart, although indifferently, or else more willingly (especially those who have the means) some jack (giaco) or shirt of mail (camicia di maglia); but what they usually wear are certain padded canvas jupons (giubboni di canevaccio imbottiti), each of which is double high, two fingers or more in thickness (doppi alti due dita); and these doublets are considered the most secure defence against the shock of arrows. Upon their arms they place strips of mail (liste di maglia), put lengthways, and nothing else."

The munitions plate he talks about can be equated with segmentata. It was developed as a cheap metal defense for those who couldn't afford anything better.

[Feinman]

Thanks Dan! Great information. I suppose a sword is not meant to be a mace.

[Mark Hygate]

Blunt force is seriously over-rated. It can be an issue on exposed "boney" parts of the body like the clavical, knees, elbows, and skull but not on the torso. In order to deliver incapacitating trauma through armour to the torso (without penetrating the armour itself), you need firearms. Hand weapons can't deliver enough energy. I've worn a crappy butted mail shirt over a sweater (no padding at all) and been hit multiple times with a metal baseball bat hard enough to knock me off balance and the only injury I suffered was bruising.

.......................

Apart from a similarly weighted light mace, I can't really think of any weapon less designed to cause damage through armour than a baseball bat.

Would you be as happy to be hit with a full size axe blade wielded with intent?

Unless there's actual penetration, then mail will deform inwards - plate will not.  The behind armour effects are completely different.  When it comes to firearms - a bullet-proof vest will often not perform nearly as well against a knife point - and vice versa.

Now, I must admit that I am not indeed experienced with the structural mechanics of Roman segmentata plate - so it's possible that I'm equating it too much to more modern rolled steel.  Perhaps it is much 'crappier' than I'm thinking.....

[Dan Howard]

If maces and axes were so effective, the spear wouldn't have dominated the battlefield for thousands of years. The Wisby battlefield tells us how effective body armour was. Here is Thordeman's analysis of the location of wounds on hundreds of skeletons from the losing side:

Tibia injuries: 98
Skull injuries: 97
Forearm injuries: 69
Upper arm injuries: 21
Torso injuries: 0
Pelvis injuries: 0
Thigh injuries: 0

The armour was left on the bodies so we know what they wore; it mainly included mail and coats of plates. Mail was the most common armour type. The most common weapon in this battle was the two-handed polearm - halberds, bills, pikes, pollaxes, bardiches, and so on. Even with these, they could not penetrate torso armour.

[Sean Manning]

Also, even in Stalin's USSR lots of factory managers and engineers kept trying to invent new things and push them into production. Its not surprising that workers in Gaul trying to get some of that sweet, sweet Roman silver came up with a new type of armour and that it found a market in the Roman army. Just like workers in the east with a lot of experience making scale and lamellar kept making it for their new customers. And give people a few different options for kit, and they will love some and hate others, but rarely agree on which. Soldiers love to believe myths about their and other people's kit. So we can try to understand the advantage and disadvantages of different types of armour, but we can't really say how Gaius Miles decided which to wear if he had a bit of money and could chose. He might have chosen based on 'objective' factors like protection and maintenance, or he might have liked how segmentata made his shoulders look big and made him feel like a mighty barbarian!

As I wrote in Armed Force in the Teispid-Achaemenid Empire p. 276

Technological change in ancient warfare seems to have been driven at least as much by fashion and by changing contexts as by improvements in technology. A lorica segmentata was not necessarily better armour than a bronze breastplate, but it could be made quickly and cheaply with the technology of the 1st century CE and fit the military culture of Italy, the Alps, and Gaul, while warriors born further east were keen to look like Alexander the Great or Homeric heroes. In areas where the Iliad and legends about Alexander defined the appearance of a heroic warrior, there was much more resistance to this new technology. Wealthy Romans from centurions to emperors are depicted wearing more traditional styles of armour.

[Corvus]

I was more minded to suggest, however, that 'soldiers' have been charged for their 'uniform' more than once in the past - and it's more a case of paying for what you're given.  They may not have been given any choice at all; they just have the cost deducted from pay.

I recently read the book "Army of the Roman Emperors" by Thomas Fisher, where in my oppinion a very convincing argument is made that there were never issued equipment and weapons like we know from modern day armies.
Soldiers were free to purchase their own gear and many would have chosen to purchase  gear that already had been in use  from the armories of the legions in the beginning of their service, because it would have been cheaper than buying nice new customized gear. With time legionaries would have been able to affordord nicer gear with more bling bling.

In the Roman Empire, defensive weapons, swords and daggers, tents,
entrenching tools and cooking and tables wares were all effectively privately owned. But this was certainly not so for ‘consumables’, such as javelins, arrows, slingshot, and other projectiles. The outdated theory that the weapons of Roman soldiers were state-owned can still be found in print, although a number of sources clearly contradict it. Likewise, the view expressed by H. U. Nuber in his thesis, that weapons were only handed over to soldiers in exchange for a deposit, can hardly be credited when confronted with the counterarguments listed below. First, there are documents on papyri which record the fact that weapons and military equipment were privately obtainable in the Roman Empire: J. F. Gilliam has discussed a papyrus from Egypt, which records how the weapons and equipment of a deceased auxiliary soldier (among them a tent), were acquired by his unit, the money then being given to the mother. He also cites further evidence for the private ownership of weapons and military equipment from information on Egyptian papyri (Gilliam 1967). Papyrus P. Columbia Inv. 325 shows that Roman
soldiers were apparently accustomed to selling their weapons and equipment to the unit (represented by the custos armorum; cf. Speidel 1992) upon leaving active service, the weapons then being sold to the new recruits. The fact that the sum paid out was the property of the soldier, and did not represent the repayment of a deposit sum, which had been put aside for state-owned weapons and equipment, is clear from other sources (see below). Taking all surviving information together, the private ownership of weapons and military equipment was the rule. It seems frequently to have been a payment by instalment: when entering the service, one got a complete set of equipment, which was paid off by deducting amounts from the regular payments until everything was paid.

Also even nowadays soldiers prefer to get more comfortable equipment, if there is such possibility, even if that means less protection.
A lorica hamata is more comfortable and easier to maintain.
Segmentata seems to be just pain in the ass.

[CaesarAugustus]

If Legionaries had to purchase their own equipment during the imperial times as well, its more likely that they would purchase a lorica hamata.
And here is why: Why would somenody prefer to buy a segmentata that is much harder to maintain, takes up more space when not worn and needs the help of another person to put it on?

Of course if a segmentata was cheaper to buy, legionaries might have bought it because of that.
But I am not surprised why at the "unoficial" monument Tropaeum Traiani the legionaries are depicted in lorica hamata. That must have been the much preferred armor.

Yes the state preferred to depict legionaries in lorica segmentata, to distinguish them from auxilaries, because it was better for showing them as legionaries and roman citizen, since the segmentata was a roman invention.

Instead it is the contrary: if you are the one that is in the armor, what would you buy? the armor that gives more protection and weighs less, or the armor that gives you less protection and weighs more? A clever soldier takes the segmentata. That is what has been done until production has been centralized and state factories imposed logistical reasons and mass production.

It seems we have here somebody who does not want to understand this simple fact. The Hamata, or Gallica, Hamata is another term introduced recently, offers much less protection than a segmentata. It is a valid armor only against cutting damages. The basic model one ring connected to fours rings (also said as four in one), can be easily penetrated, and has been partially replaced by the one with one ring connected to six rings (also said as six in one). But, apart being much eavier, still had all the issue related to a ring based armor, that is an armor that is not done to protect at all against breaching weapons, it is an armor that does not dissipate the impact on a wider surface, offering a not great protection to the soldier.

For the Tropaeum Traiani, it is in contrast with almost everything else we have, and is not at all a monument to be taken into consideration for the reasons I have extensively documented here:
The Tropaeum Traiani: a dark source

[Dan Howard]

How does the segmentata provide more protection? Mail covers the belly, thigh, groin, and armpit. Segmentata leaves all of those locations completely exposed. Mail stopped weapons just as well as every other type of armour. It was the preferred armour for nearly two thousand years in almost every metal-using culture on the planet when the most common threat on all of those battlefields was from arrows and spears.

This might prove edifying, it contains more than enough proof that mail stopped spears and arrows: http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html