+- 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: segmentata (/showthread.php?tid=7647)
segmentata - Redwald - 12-03-2006
Forgive me if this has been discussed before (if it has can someone point me to the right thread) but why did lorica segmetata go out of fashion?
Cheers,
Paul
Re: segmentata - Caratacus - 12-03-2006
Oh, the easy ones first, eh?
There remains much about this armour we don't know (why was it developed, from where did the idea come, who thought of it first, why did it go out of use, etc?) The earliest use seems to be around the last decade of the 1st century BC (find site was Dangstetten, Germany), while the last site known for some years was Eining (also Germany), towards the middle of the 3rd century AD. More recently, some of the armour has turned up in Spain, at Leon. (See JRMES 12/13, p.15-28 ). The date for this has pushed the use forward to at least the second half of the 3rd century AD, and possibly even further forward than that (last quarter, perhaps).
As to why it went out of use - one idea that has been advanced is that the enemy that the Roman Army had to face towards the end of the 3rd century AD were fast moving, often cavalry forces. Heavily armoured infantry simply could not get to the site of trouble quickly enough, so the armour had to go. Protection was then provided by the large oval shields and simple 'Intercisa'/Ridge/Spangenhelm type of helmets.
Another, somewhat odd, idea that I have come across is that the Roman Empire ran out of supplies of copper and zinc ores to make the brass fitments for the armour! The composition of the brass fitments seems to have been around 75% Cu and 25% Zn - roughly the same as that of the brass coinage used. There is certainly some evidence of difficulty with metal supplies to make coins at this time but whether this would have been enough to trigger the discarding of the armour, I have seen no real evidence for in the literature. Subject for someone's Ph.D.?
That this type of armour was high-maintenance seems to be accepted. I have heard a figure quoted of one major repair every two weeks or so. Maybe in the chaotic times appertaining then, it was simply impossible to get enough people who could maintain the armour for the legions?
Dr Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)
Re: segmentata - Matthew Amt - 12-04-2006
Not a problem, but yeah, it certainly has been discussed before. I think the last time went to what, 6 or 8 pages? Fun stuff. On other boards as well! Can anyone dig up one or two of those threads, please?
Keep 'em coming! Vale,
Matthew
Re: segmentata - Dan Howard - 12-04-2006
Quote:As to why it went out of use - one idea that has been advanced is that the enemy that the Roman Army had to face towards the end of the 3rd century AD were fast moving, often cavalry forces. Heavily armoured infantry simply could not get to the site of trouble quickly enough, so the armour had to go.This theory is easy to refute since segmentata weighs less than mail, which remained in common use after the segmentata was phased out.
Re: segmentata - L C Cinna - 12-04-2006
just did a little search but have no time to continue now. here's one of the threads i found. This is not really about when it came out of use but might help a bit. The important thing here is imho that the majority of troops never used the segmentata only some did. Here's one of the discussions about that. maybe it helps.
will try to find more if i have time later
link from old RAT
Re: segmentata - Caratacus - 12-04-2006
This theory is easy to refute since segmentata weighs less than mail, which remained in common use after the segmentata was phased out.
Hmmm. Don't know that that really holds water, Dan. I would take a lot of convincing that the extensive use of mail armour continued after segmentata fell out of use. I would contend that it would be an extremely difficult thing to prove unless there was something like sculptural evidence because I would doubt that the archæological record alone could supply us with a reliable conclusion. My reasons for saying this are set out below.
The archæological reports that are sitting on my shelf and which cover sites with dates of the 1st to 3rd century AD for the most part, show very little evidence for the use of mail armour at all. The Wroxeter report, for example, shows a couple of pages of fragments of segmentata armour but not one ring! Of course, this site is (roughly) mid 1st century AD - but I don't believe for a moment that no mail armour was used by the soldiers who were garrisoned there. Vindisch (Vindonisssa, 1st century AD) shows about five pages of segmentata finds and only half a page of hooks from hamata armour, while Risstissen (also 1st century, but extending into late 2nd century) has oodles of segmentata armour - not one piece of iron mail at all (and this is supposed to have been an auxiliary encapment).
What is absolutely certain is that segmentata armour was in extensive use for a period of around 300 years. More than 100 sites have been logged where it has turned up - all along the Rhine-Danube frontier, into North Africa and all over Britain. What would be required to prove the continued use of mail armour after segmentata's use ceased would be the excavation of a number of sites that date from the late 3rd into the 4th and 5th centuries. This would be a very difficult undertaking as such sites are few and far between, difficult to date accurately and subject to all sorts of difficulties of interpretation. I don't think this has been done yet. In short, I doubt that reliable evidence for the continued and extensive use of mail armour exists at present.
However, having said that, I have doubts myself that it was solely a weight penalty factor that led to the phasing out of armour. It's a bit like the hoary old question as to why the Roman Empire collapsed - form a queue here with your ideas, folks! There may have been any number of contributing factors and we will probably never know which of them was the more important - or whether they were all acting in concert to force the armour out of use!
Dr. Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)
Re: segmentata - A_Volpe - 12-05-2006
And the technical detail that perhaps Seggie armor went out of style or fashion somewhere in the late 200's (or whichever date you hold to), but it probably didn't quite go out of USE for a little while later, perhaps trickling out of service as the years go into the 300's
If I can offer a stretch in a comparison - The firearms being issued and used in the American Civil war - ie, the weapons in use in 1855 were no longer issued/made in 1861, but were still being used when the "war began", likewise, the weapons in 1861 were no longer being issued in 1865...Percussion cap ignition was still in use, only varied in design via newer models.
So.....Seggie armor mave have stopped being issued in, say, 250, but was still being *used* in 275 (or whichever), the popular/issued armor was back to Maille armor; and at that, the maille being issued in 250 was not the same syle issued in the year 30. (I believe the "Greek style" shoulder doublings were not being put on maille in 200, yes?)
You're the 15 year veteran still wearing Seggie armor from the good ol days, but the new recruits are wearing maille. You like your armor, it works for you...Why trade it in? Let the newbies figure that out.
...Same way different when Seggie was being put into use, as early as 9AD perhaps.
but I digress.
Re: segmentata - Redwald - 12-05-2006
Many thanks for all the comments and leads to other threads.
It is very curious, at least to me, that there seems to be very little evidence for anyone other than Romans using segmentata. If it was a useful and effective bit of kit you would have expected other armies to have copied it. It should be easier to manufacture than mail - but it is mail that continues to be used throughout history until comparitively recent times.
Perhaps it is odd that the Romans used it at all - especially if there were serious maintenance problems.
Paul
Re: segmentata - Robert Vermaat - 12-05-2006
Quote:Perhaps it is odd that the Romans used it at all - especially if there were serious maintenance problems.
You're right. But when one considers that it was in use for about 250-odd years, that is not so very long (especially when compared to the most successfull one, the hamata). Even Medieval armour was longer in use?
Re: segmentata - Crispvs - 12-07-2006
Still, 250 -300 years is still rather a long time. 250 years ago there was no such thing as the United States, yet it seems to have been around for quite a while now and has changed considerably in that time. 250 years is much more time than is necessary to find that something does not work well. If lorica segmentata was difficult to maintain and more problematic than other armours, the Romans cound have worked this out in less than FIVE years and stopped using it. The fact that it was around in various forms for over two hundred and fifty years suggests that it was a very successful armour whose benefits were seen to outweigh its drawbacks. What piece of military kit is around today that was in use even a hundred years ago?
I would be more inclined to think that the change away from segmentata was the result of changed military tactics. New tactics demand the right equipment to carry them out. Presumably lorica segmentata had lagged behind the tactical requirements of the Roman army by the late third century AD and was retired accordingly, in favour of other types of protection which better suited the current tactics. This might also be the reason why other armies do not appear to have used it (apart from Persian cataphracts?). As a piece of equipment it not suit their prefered tactics so there was no point them equipping themselves with it. By contrast, it did suit whatever tactics were used by the Romans for over two centuries and thus continued in use during that time. It makes sense to me to think that when it failed to be useful to the current theatre of warfare it was discarded. This could be compared to the Spitfire or the P51 Mustang. In their time they were perfect for the style of warfare employed at the time. Only a short time later though, we live in a time of jets and lasar guided missiles. Neither the Spitfire or the Mustang are any match for the current state of warfare. So too, when its time finally came, for lorica segmentata.
Crispvs
Re: segmentata - Dan Howard - 12-08-2006
There isn't a single military tactic ever invented that would favour segmentata armour over mail armour. Mail was worn by the Romans before the introduction of the segmentata. Mail was in use during the use of segmentata. Mail was in use after the use of segmentata. There isn't a single depiction of an officer or centurio wearing segmentata (though the sample size is infuriatingly small). It seems to me that segmentata is peasant armour - only worn by those who couldn't afford something better.
The phasing out of segmentata occurred around the same time that the state took over control of the fabricae. Mail armour is equal or superior to segmentata in every sense except that it is more expensive to produce and is heavier. IMO segmentata was phased out because the cost of producing mail was reduced to the point that segmentata was no longer considered viable by the state.
Re: segmentata - Crispvs - 12-09-2006
Dan,
It seems to me that there are a lot of assumptions in your last statement.
"There isn't a single military tactic ever invented that would favour segmentata armour over mail armour."
Are you sure about this? Are any of us familiar with the details of the full range of Roman tactics?
"Mail was worn by the Romans before the introduction of the segmentata. Mail was in use during the use of segmentata. Mail was in use after the use of segmentata."
True, as was scale, which everyone likes to ignore, except for those occasions when their eye is caught by the ones worn by Peronis and Robert.
Is there any evidence to suggest that Roman quartermasters distinguished between different types of armour when issuing it to new recruits?
Also, and contrasting somewhat with my last statement, there is ample reason to think that the Romans may have equipped soldiers in different units or even different parts of the same units differently to relect differing roles in combat. Therefore, it might make sense to a Roman commander to have different types of armour in different parts of a formation, although, not being familiar with the inner workings of the Roman military mind, I would hesitate to rubber stamp an explanation of his reasoning onto the argument.
"There isn't a single depiction of an officer or centurio wearing segmentata (though the sample size is infuriatingly small)."
Quite right. So small in fact (only four examples of armour as far as I recall) that to draw any sort of general conclusion from it about the equipment of centuriones is at best naiive and at worst infantile as I have said many times before (and no I am not accusing you of infantile comments - the makers of the comments I was thinking of do not participate in this forum as far as I am aware).
"It seems to me that segmentata is peasant armour - only worn by those who couldn't afford something better."
The problem I find with this is that as far as we know Roman soldiers, far from being peasant militia who would make use of whatever they could get their hands on, were all paid professionals whose equipment was issued to them and for which they were charged the cost through deductions from their pay. There is of course also evidence that equipment could be bought privately and that the army had a buy-back system to reclaim equipment which was no longer needed and which could be re-issued. It does make sense therefore to think that soldiers on higher pay (centuriones, duplicarii and sesisquiplicarii) and soldiers who had lost less on gambling and women would be more likely to be found using more expensive privately commissioned equipment, but this does not mean that the equipment of the other ranks or those who were less careful of their pay was particularly inferior in practical terms. Presumably the army contracted private suppliers to provide agreed quantities of particular items of equipment. There is evidence to suggest that there was a degree of supervision to ensure that the resultant items fitted the army's requirements. If they were concerned enough to ensure that things like the strapping on caligae were fairly consistent for all soldiers it makes sense to think that they were concerned that items they commisioned from private contractors would be of sufficient quailty to do the job, just not so elaborate that they would be too expensive. Don't forget that the difference between an expensive piece of kit and a cheaper piece of kit might be in terms of the silver and ivory it was or was not decorated with rather than the metalurgical content of the iron. It is true that not all Roman military items are of the highest quality but that does not mean that they were not up to the job that they were intended for. This was a proffessional, rather than peasant, army. If there was an armour which was inferior it was probably scale, but that was clearly good enough to do the job as well, and was widely used by Rome's enemies as well.
"The phasing out of segmentata occurred around the same time that the state took over control of the fabricae."
This could well be co-incidence. What of the pahasing out of pectoral plate in favour of mail? What of the phasing out of Montifortino helmets in favour of Imperial series helmets in the early first century AD? What of the move to very deep neck guards in the late second and early third century? As far as we know these as well as other examples, were not the result of changes to the purchasing practices of the state. I see no reason to think of the phasing out of segmentata in terms which are any different. The reasons have to be based on prevailing tactics. Equipment and weapons are developed primarily in response to tactical requirements and these requirements develop and change over time. The taking over of production by the state should be seen as the state guarenteeing that the army could still equip itself according to its requirements in a more uncertain world (towns started to erect walls around themselves at the same time), rather than the other way round.
"Mail armour is equal or superior to segmentata in every sense except that it is more expensive to produce and is heavier."
I find it interesting, given your position on padding under mail, that you should discount the superior deflective capability of segmentata over mail. I have tried full contact combat in both. Have you?
In terms of the expense of production, I thought the jury was out on that one.
"IMO segmentata was phased out because the cost of producing mail was reduced to the point that segmentata was no longer considered viable by the state."
Well, you are entitled to hold that opinion, but in my opinion it was phased out, as other things had been phased out before, because it no longer suited the tactical conditions of the day. The fact that it survived for a period equivilent to that stretching from the Seven Years War to now suggests that it, along with other types of armour, suited the prevailing tactical conditions for a very long time before tactics finally overtook it.
Crispvs
Re: segmentata - Tarbicus - 12-09-2006
Quote:There isn't a single military tactic ever invented that would favour segmentata armour over mail armour.
However, you disassociate tactics from strategy, and the capability to manufacture, when they all go hand in hand. Liberty ships in WW2 were crap, but they helped win that war.
Re: segmentata - Dan Howard - 12-09-2006
Quote:I find it interesting, given your position on padding under mail, that you should discount the superior deflective capability of segmentata over mail. I have tried full contact combat in both. Have you?Yes. I should have added that mail, even with its associated padding, is more susceptible to blunt trauma. Though I would gladly risk a broken rib to gain the extra coverage on the armpits, stomach, groin, and thighs that mail provides.
Re: segmentata - Robert Vermaat - 12-09-2006
Quote:the extra coverage on the armpits, stomach, groin, and thighs that mail provides.Aren't you discussing later hamatae there? The ones from the Flavian period protected quite the same area as the segmentata did, am I right?
And would a subarmalis not add that extra protection?