segmentata

[Magnus]

" but I think the reasons for its introduction and eventual disappearance are better explained by strategic and tactical changes in the context of changing political and economic circumstances. "

How though? Military developments come as a result of warfare. Politics has little to do with advances in equipment, but certainly the tactical and strategic situation could have contributed. However, the tactical and strategic situation would imply that there was a war being fought yes? Which appropriately there was at the time of the segmentata's first known appearance. I believe there was segmented armour found 50 years before the Kalkriese find.

"but I don't put much stock in it as a response to something as specific as Gallic and non Gallic sword types, especially given the very wide ranging sorts of enemies faced by Rome over the Republican and Imperial periods."

Well, that's the tough part isn't it? But look at the weaponry used by Rome's enemies. Page 117 in "Greece and Rome at War" shows a huge assortment of spear and javelin heads from Celtic armies, and these are dated to the Republic. So the danger of piercing weapons has always been there. It's not difficult to imagine the armourers of the time trying to figure out a better type of armour to defeat such weapons. Even if it was only issued to front rank troops. (But that is for another discussion).

"I do not think there is sufficient evidence that points towards Segmentata being introduced for any one specific reason or to deal with any one weapon. As a more general improvement to the arms and armour of the Roman Army during a time of increased prosperity, it makes better sense to me. "

And yet, the segmentata has VERY specific characteristics about it that make it much better armour versus specific types of weapons, to dismiss it's creation to mere innovation out of thin air. We agree that it is better versus piercing weapons, because of the nature of the plating, as well as giving better protection versus blunt force trauma. If this is not in debate, and these 2 traits of the segmentata are rather specific, then how can it be attributed to a simple general improvement? It just doesn't make sense. We're talking about an entirely different form of armour, that is totaly unique for it's time. Something on that level of invention requires more than just a trivial "raison d'etre".

"Yes indeed, but we have then a period of two hundred years from the supposed introduction of the Gladius Hispaniensis to the postulated introduction of Lorica Segmentata, during which the Romans fought many external and internal wars. That the technology to forge that sword was not originally their own, but taken from Cartho-Spanish enemies, does little to convince me that the Gladius was the reason for the adoption of Lorica Segmentata."

But the piercing weapons were already there and being used against Rome...gallic and celtic spears. The gladius evolved into a devastating thrusting weapon, which added to the need of a new armour type. Bear in mind also the Spanish used the spear quite a bit...page 150 in "Greece and Rome at War", shows different javelin and spear tips again. Not to mention the large slashing swords which I don't believe the doubled hamata on the shoulders would have been enough to prevent broken collar bones or neck injuries.