08-31-2016, 04:56 PM
09-01-2016, 08:11 AM
(08-31-2016, 04:48 PM)CNV2855 Wrote: [ -> ]In the end, I think Segmentata was probably slightly better at saving people. It just wasn't superior enough to warrant it displacing mail as the standard armor, esp. when mail has so many other good qualities.
Well, without of course the expletives (removed) and the 21st-c. analogy that's not particularly useful, isn't that what was said here in earlier discussions? Armour, the adoption as well as the disbanding of it, may very well have been a case of fashion, cost, local availability as well as problems with construction and maintainance. Mail armour may in the end have scored better overall.
Like you say, nobody knows for sure.
09-01-2016, 08:24 AM
One factor to consider in all this debate is why mail armour was so popular, to the extent that throughout the course of history all but the America's and a couple of other places wore mail at one time or another, and a few isolated places in India and Afganistan still do.
09-01-2016, 10:27 AM
Quote:In the end, I think Segmentata was probably slightly better at saving people.
How? Mail covers right down to the thighs. Segmentata leaves your lower stomach, groin, and thighs completely unprotected. By the 3rd century mail was covering the upper arms as well. The armpit is one of the most sensitive and vulnerable hit locations on our body and the segmentata leaves it unguarded.
Quote:One factor to consider in all this debate is why mail armour was so popular, to the extent that throughout the course of history all but the America's and a couple of other places wore mail at one time or another, and a few isolated places in India and Afganistan still do.
The short answer is that mail provided far better protection than the dodgy modern repros lead us to believe.
09-06-2016, 09:23 AM
All following posts split off into a new thread about the psychology of the Roman soldier.