+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... (/showthread.php?tid=4495)
A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - Magnus - 01-12-2006
This popped into my head today, and I'm not sure why. I'll try to be as concise and understandable as I possibly can.
Here's my theory, based around the 1st - late 3rd century AD:
The first few ranks in a battle line of any given legion, were given segmentata, and trained as heavy infantry. Their job is to break the enemy's ranks, and to absorb any shock weapons the enemy might employ against the legions. The files on both the left and right side, as well as the rear rank in a cohort may also wear segmentata, as defence when engaged in smaller unit action. The officers, maintain the use of chain maille for increased mobility, but more importantly, battlefield identification.
My left field evidence and support:
1. The mixed finds in the archaeological record which indicates that there is a somewhat greater amount of chain maille in quantitative comparison to segmentata. This isn't anything remotely concrete, but if if the majority of the ranks did in fact wear maille vs segmentata, it would make sense. A bit of a stretch in anycase, since it would be difficult to draw such a correlation without any other evidence (written), or a numerical study on the number of finds of each.
2. The fact that there is little if no evidence of officers, even pay'n'a'halfers utilizing segmentata. This would seem that there was a specific purpose for such a type of armour, beyond the regular din of infantry fighting.
3. The cost in time, money and resources of equiping an entire legion as heavy infantry. Take the Dacian campaign for example...the only ranks that would be exposed to the falx would be the first couple, so long as the legionarys maintained formation. It would make sense then, to only give them the manica, the greaves, and the crossbraced helmets. Once the heavy infantry have done their jobs and eliminated the falx wielding dacians, IF the model was to rotate the ranks...lighter armed (no added defences, and wearing maille) legionarys could then be well enough protected agains the lighter armament of Dacian regular troops.
4. Vegetius also mentions that the individual file leaders (using the term "armatura") had special training, since they were the first to engage in hand to hand combat. Would you not equip them with heavier equipment?
5. Two 6th century Byzantine manuals, the Strategikon and the Peri Strategikes (both editions GT Dennis) seem to back this theory up.
Strategikon book 12, section B, paragraph 4, "... The picked men of the files should have mail coats, all of them if it can be done, but at least the first two in the file. They should also have iron or wooden greaves, at least the first and last in each file"
The picked men are likely to be identical to ranks 1 to four and 13 to 16 in the file of 16 men . Since these could deploy in depths of 32, 16, 8 or 4, having all these ranks of picked men heavily equipped would ensure well protected front and rear rankers in even the shallowest formation.
Peri Strategikes, 16 "... If everyone in the phalanx cannot be equipped with breastplates and shin guards, at least the men in the first, second, and last ranks and those in the files on the flanks should certainly wear them for the reasons stated above. The rest of the troops may be provided with coats of mail, breastplates and head coverings fashioned of felt and leather. So that the rough material does not chafe the skin, they should wear padded garments under them, as we recommended for iron breast plates and other items ..."
So..to me it certainly sounds plausible. It would also explain the fewer number of finds of segmentata vs mail, and as the Roman army became more mobile and less of a pitched battle force, why the segmentata fell out of usage.
Thoughts? Am I insane? 8)
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - Dan Howard - 01-12-2006
You assume that segmentata was superior to mail armour. I would dispute this. The only real advantage of segmentata is that it is quicker to manufacture and is likely to have been cheaper (it is also a little lighter). Mail offers just as good protection, covers more of the body, is more flexible, requires less custom tailoring, is easier to repair, etc. IMO segmentata was only used by those who could not afford mail (don't forget that troops paid for their own armour through salary deductions). Where they stood in the ranks is irrelevant. It was the "munitions armour" of the Classical period.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - FAVENTIANVS - 01-12-2006
Well, I think the segmentatae were more resistant to downwards hits and sword blows, especially on the shoulders, The hamatae were good for blade cuts, and more flexible... IMHO.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - Dan Howard - 01-12-2006
The shoulder doublings on hamata would provide plenty of protection for the shoulders. People grossly underestimate the protective capabilities of mail and its associated padding. Here is one of the few online tests I have seen that uses a reasonable fascimile of contemporary mail. http://es.geocities.com/cotasmalla/test2.htm
It has flaws, mainly the inadequate padding and the low draw weight of the bow. But the range was shortened to partially compensate. With the exception of blunt trauma, there is nothing the segmentata could resist that wouldn't also be resisted by the hamata. In fact, I'm willing to bet that it is easier to put a bodkin through a segmentata plate than it is to punch through this type of mail.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - Magnus - 01-12-2006
I am NOT talking about missile weapons here. I am plainly speaking of front rank to front rank hand to hand combat, and the effectiveness of plate armours vs single and two handed weapons of the time, notedly axes, swords, and specific shock weapons like the Falx. I am also not putting down the effectiveness of maille...if it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it.
I would contend also Dan, that the steel plates of a segmentata especially around the mid section, and certainly the shoulders are a lot better at defeating the blunt force trauma from weapon impacts. Unfortunately for maille, there is no solid form outer shell to provide such resistance. So while maille will indeed stop some attacks, it will not prevent broken bones as well as a segmentata.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - FAVENTIANVS - 01-12-2006
Very interesting test indeed.
Thanx Dan.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - Dan Howard - 01-12-2006
Quote:I would contend also Dan, that the steel plates of a segmentata especially around the mid section, and certainly the shoulders are a lot better at defeating the blunt force trauma from weapon impacts. Unfortunately for maille, there is no solid form outer shell to provide such resistance. So while maille will indeed stop some attacks, it will not prevent broken bones as well as a segmentata.
Yes, I have already said that mail was susceptible to blunt trauma. Personally I'd rather risk a broken rib rather than a sword or spear or arrow in the lower stomach or groin - areas not covered at all by segmentata. In order to prove your theory correct you need to demonstrate that segmentata would be prefereable to hamata for heavy infantry. I don't think the case can be made.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - Crispvs - 01-12-2006
"2. The fact that there is little if no evidence of officers, even pay'n'a'halfers utilizing segmentata. This would seem that there was a specific purpose for such a type of armour, beyond the regular din of infantry fighting."
Please don't forget that the assumption that centuriones did not wear segmentata seems to be based purely on the fact that there are no surviving images of them wearing it. Let us not forget that the number of surviving stelae commemorating centuriones AND decorated with images of the men themselves or their equipment is limited to NINE examples. They are as follows:
- Minucius Lorarius - standing figure - unarmoured
- Marcus Caelius - seated? figure flanked by busts - mail, torcs and phalerae
- M. Favonius Facilis - standing figure - mail
- Q. Sertorius Festus - standing figure - scale and phalerae
- M. Petronius Classicus - equipment only - helmet, breastplate? / mail, greaves, phalerae
- T. Caliduis Severus - equipment only - helmet, scale, greaves, vinestick
- Unknown (Verona) - equipment only - breastplate(?), greaves, vinestick
- Caecilius Avitus - 3rd century standing figure - unarmoured
- Marcus Aurelius Nepos -3rd century standing figure - unarmoured?
That, as far as I know, is it! This does contitute evidence that centuriones worn mail and scale, but to suggest that it proves that they did not wear segmentata is farcical. Segmentata is virtually absent from first century sculpture, even though there is ample archaeological evidence for its use. If we relied on the sculptural evidence alone, we would have to conclude that segmentata was not worn by anyone, which is clearly ridiculous. Centuriones were experienced soldiers and were paid enough to afford whatever armour (up to a point) they wanted. If a centurio preferred segmentata over scale or mail I am quite certain that he would be free to choose to use it.
If only one stele commemorating an aquilifer survived, that of L. Sertorius Firmus, many people would almost certainly conclude that all aquilifers were equipped with scale armour. However, a second aquilifer survives in the form of Gnaeus Musius, which shows that he wore mail. If another one was found, what sort of armour would the man be wearing? Would he be wearing mail; would he be wearing scale, would he be wearing segmentata; or would he be unarmoured. Furthermore, if a soldier is shown unarmoured, very few of us would try to argue that these soldiers never wore any armour, and none of us is in a position to say what type of armour he would have been wearing if he had been shown armoured.
Quite simply, if we leave out public sculptures in Rome itself, we are left with little more than the Alba Iulia relief to stand as uncontestable proof of the existence of segmentata, unless of couse we include archaeological evidence. Archaeology has found large amounts of segmentata - it simply cannot prove who wore it.
The nine centurio stelae (along with a couple of stelae commemorating optiones) must surely be a mere drop in the ocean when we consider the number of stelae which must have been produced originally. What the stones now destroyed showed we cannot say. If a particular item is well known from the archaeological record who is to say that it was not heavily illustrated on thousands of stones which were centuries ago broken up to produce road gravel?
Let us not be prescriptive about who wore exactly what when all we have to base those prescriptions on is a thin whisp of an assumption.
Crispvs
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - A_Volpe - 01-13-2006
Interesting thought, Magnus.
I can't help but consider this possibilty myself sometimes, but I just end up scratching my head, shrugging my shoulders, and go back to polishing and oiling my [darned] seggie armor.
I'd think that it'd be up to the soldier with whatever they could afford and what was available to fit them.
Also, I seem to recall there was a mention, I forget the source, that said Segmentata-clad soldiers might have specifically been the building and engineering troops, I think this may be more true of Late Empire, since the Newstead and later helmets look as they're made to cover with larger plates and guards, compared to Corbridge.
That being said, Seggie armor I could see as being a more "flexible" armor to do work in, while still being very well protective, esspecially if they aren't able to use thier Scuta to defend themselves, whereas soldiers in Maille armor could be more guard/sentry and/or skirmish troops, since in some ways maille is more protective, covering more body that seggie will.
Or, it could be that Seggie-clad troops were in situations were they couldn't use a scutum in the first place - Ballista/Scorpio/Onager crews.
Of course, this is not to say maille is not effective vs. [missle] weapons, but to be honest, I'd feel more comfortable in a plate armor, like seggie, rather than maille armor if I'm in a situation where I'd be depending solely on body armor for protection, for whichever reason for not having a shield....It's not that maille armor is bad, but plate and seggie armor I think is just inherently better in overall terms of protection vs. [arrows].
But, the above is also a theory. Wish we had better evidence to ponder over about this question.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - Magnus - 01-13-2006
Yep, it was basically just a thought that happened to blossom a bit. We all know there really isn't any solid evidence or information as to the Segmentata...we know it was used (just as white and red tunics where!) and that's about it.
Theoretically we could measure the effectiveness of segmentata and hamata vs different weapon types...but it would almost end there. There's no way to confirm whether or not any particular piece of equipment was used in specific situations...
...still waiting for that end-all field manual to be discovered!
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - tlclark - 01-13-2006
Quote:I would contend also Dan, that the steel plates of a segmentata especially around the mid section, and certainly the shoulders are a lot better at defeating the blunt force trauma from weapon impacts. Unfortunately for maille, there is no solid form outer shell to provide such resistance. So while maille will indeed stop some attacks, it will not prevent broken bones as well as a segmentata.
Just a question. At what point does the rigidity of segmentatae become a liability. I mean if a mortar blows off near you, if the wall next to you is made of harder/more rigid material, that just means it makes better shrapnel. After a while I'm wondering if you'd just feel like a frog in can. I'm not sure that the flexibility of maille isn't as much a bonus as a detriment to crushing blunt force trauma either.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - tlclark - 01-13-2006
Quote:Also, I seem to recall there was a mention, I forget the source, that said Segmentata-clad soldiers might have specifically been the building and engineering troops,
I think that's based on the column of Trajan.
Although the column of trajan shows them building with segmentatae I have a hard time believing anyone built anything in armor, so maybe the artist is using the segmentatae as an iconographical reference? If so, then why not show them in helmets too?
The column of Trajan is beautiful and wonderful, but it is very bizarre, on so many levels.
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - tlclark - 01-13-2006
Quote:...still waiting for that end-all field manual to be discovered!
At least you know there WERE field manuals. Art historians are still debating whether model books for artists even existed.
Basically though, I think the theory is sound, why else put the emphasis on greaves and armor for the first and last in the rank? Obviously these guys are the living shield for the people in the interior of the file.
It seems logical that the Segmentatae would have been used in the same way.
I'm just not convinced that the segmentatae were all that superior in such situations, that doesn't mean that the Romans weren't convinced of it though. They didn't exactly do scientific tests on this stuff.
Travis
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - Comerus Gallus - 01-13-2006
Sorry guys if this not fit here, but maybe you have the answer.
How cool that lorica, part brass & steel & edges of brass looks, is this interpretation of lorica is accurate, I will love to see a reconstruction of one! :wink:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/C ... an11bh.jpg
Re: A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use... - hoplite14gr - 01-13-2006
The Byzantine manuals talk about front line armored spearmen and lesser armored rear rank archers. Some emperors tried to have the Heteria guard infantry archer armored too but I do not know if it was standard practice.
So allow me to argue that it has not to do with segmetata or mail.
In the orginal text he term Lorikion is used and it just means armor being Hellenisation of the latin Lorica.
We assume it to be segmentata on the pictorial evidence and at Byzantine times most armores of the imperial armory in Adrianopolis seem to have specialized in lamelar armor.
Kind regards