Quote: arklore70:2noglf5m Wrote:Lets not forget that a possible contributing reason for the disappearance of segmentata armor might also have been due to a change in fighting tactics.
But the basic tactics didn't change significantly. Battles were still fought by lines of infantry, chucking some missiles and then closing in with pointy things. This is fundamentally the same as Greek hoplites, Vikings, Gauls, Zulus, Carolingians, Scottish highlanders, Sumerians, and Romans from a spread of about 1500 years.
If that were to be the case, the why did we never see Zulu heavy infantry impis with rawhide body armour and long thrusting spears?
C'mon Matt, you were joking there, surely? :wink:
While I would grant you that 'basically', infantry battles can be compared from the Sumerians to the invention of gunpowder, but iot we really start comparing tactics, of course thing change, change back, then change again. The Romans did not have hoplite tactics, but late Roman tactics look more like hoplite tactics again. When economics change and armies shrink, Roman tactics chnge from the large legionary battles of the Republic and the Principate. Of course tactics change!
Quote:Sure, we go on about how the gladius is so good for close-quarters work, but longer swords were certainly used to great effect in many crowded battles. You could arm a Roman legion with Zulu shields, copper helmets, 17th century pikemens' armor, and cutlasses, and they'd still be able to fight like Roman legionaries. (Well, okay, they might have to practice with the vertical-grip shield a little!) (But I bet they'd LOVE the Zulu assegai!)
But arm a Zulu impi withn segmentata, Gallic G's (or whatever) and heavy scutum and they'd be sitting ducks.
Quote: In all fairness, I do think that significant changes in tactics can lead to changes in equipment. But I don't think there was anything being done in the 3rd or 4th centuries (tactically speaking) that couldn't be done in 1st century armor.
If you put it that way, maybe not. But then, also look at how the Late Roman soldier began to look like during the 5th c. and after. It's not so much a break with the legionary, but effectively a deevelopment of the auxiliay: hamata, hasta, oval shield. We need not discuss why the legionary infantry received a different armour, but why the leegionary looked like the auxiliary of the Principate. Scholars have tried to answer this with the changing role of the legionary: instead of 'just' acting as very heavy infantry, their role changed to a more diverse role - a Late Roman infantryman needed to be able to act as heavy infantry as well as light infantry, or even unarmoured raider. That
could be an answer as to why thee segmentata became les popular.
Quote: Does an Intercissa helmet really function any differently in battle than a Gallic type G, or give significantly more or less protection? Nope! Helmet fashions had simply changed over time.
Oh yes it did. You can duck behind your shield and put your head in your neck due to the flesxible neckguard, something that's hard to do with a Gallic helmet type, impossible even with the last developments. And you need to do that when crouching behind your scutum, or when you are constantly firing javelins to support your buddies fighting in front of you. Legionary infantry did not do that after they sent their pila flying. Lanciarii did.
As discussed before on this forum, this complaint was written down during the Severan period: helmet too big and lance too short. Clearly a need for different equipment due to changing battle circumstances, staright from the sources.
My own guesss about a seggie being less usable, apart from that cavalry seem to have shunned it from the start, is that the 3rd c. may have seeen circumstances that needed armour to be made as fast as possible, repaired in difficult circumstances (any smith would do) and that therefore only armour that could be made and repaired by anyone and worn by all the military would become the favorite. So yes, a seg would not have beeen unusable during the 4th c., but my guesss is that in most regions, production had stopped during the 3rd c. due to the factors above, and it never went into production again afterwards.
Call that fashion? OK, then that's fashion.
Quote:arklore70:2noglf5m Wrote:are we considering the fact that Rome was fighting more enemies that had larger and larger mounted forces as the years rolled along such as the the remnants of Parthia, the Goths, and Palmyra? In the third century we begin to see the rise of, or at least formal recognition of specialized troops like the lanciarii and a greater need for mobility, and reach.
Hmmm, I can see what you're saying, but really, infantry faced with more cavalry rather than other infantry don't really need to be more mobile, do they? I'd rather think they'd want a more compact and solid line. Lots of spears and javelins, sure. But it's not like any legionary is going to outrun a horse on the battlefield. Weren't more of the changes in organization and an increase in Roman cavalry and missile troops, though? Still no burning need to replace plate armor with mail, for the average "heavy" on foot.
I agree with what you say about no need for more mobility, but as I've argued above, some movements you just cannot make with some helmets. I guess that a segmentata would not hinder you in chucking javelins or crouching behind a scutum.
Quote: And we do see things like the adoption of the manica and cross-braced helmet (apparently) in response to the Dacian falx. Or the use of poles and picks against the crupellarii in Vindex's revolt. But in general I tend to feel that ancient changes in weapons or tactics were not as radical as they can be today. Spears, arrows, swords, axes, clubs. Cavalry, infantry, maybe chariots. The Roman system was already quite flexible, and the sheer amount of armor the Roman army had compared to anyone else meant that most attempts to find "weaknesses" were simply insignificant. The vulnerabilities or drawbacks of the segmentata must have been mostly logistical, rather than tactical.
In case of the segmentata, I agree with you. In case of the Intercisa (or Berkasovo) helmet, the re-introduction of the hasta and the increase of missile firepower, I do not.