segmentata

[Matthew]

Salve!

I don't really think so no. Too many nooks and crannies to get a spear, sword or arrow point stuck on (the abdominal and chest areas create points where a point can grab and thus penetrate). I also don't think it has enough "flex" to it, whereas mail does, and of course the leather framed segmentata as well. To me it's a question of defensive capabilities, and musculata is severely lacking.

Fair enough, I don't know enough about it. Sounds reasonable.

The biggest piece of evidence is in it's size, and how it was used. I'm not saying it wasn't a very good cleaver when used in cutting roles(it was!) but it's physical properties and the way it was used in very close quarter fighting lends it to being a fantastic stabbing weapon. In fact, gladius size tended to be quite small as it evolved in form from Hispaniensis to pompeii style, until the legions went to the Spatha as their unit tactics changed.

See, for me, size doesn't indicate much except for the degree of reach. The Roman's certainly appear to have emphasised the thrust over the cut, but that may only relate to the Gladius in the most minor way. For instance, it could perhaps be argued that the their preference for the thrust meant that they didn't need the Gladius to be very long, but that the technique was equally applicable to a longer blade. It is noticeable that Vegetius (not the greatest source I know) doesn't mention relative sword length at all. For him the technique was what was lacking, he makes no connection between this and sword design / length.
Saying that, I do agree that the Gladius was well suited to close quarters combat, but that doesn't suggest anything to me about its influence on the introduction of Segmentata. It is also interesting to note that at the time Segmentata went out of use, so too, it seems, did the Gladius. Very odd, if the latter was so well suited for penetrating Mail! Of course, that is something of a different discussio - Why the change from Gladius to Spatha? I think there are several very long threads about that knocking around the place. Could be unit tactics, as you say, but that would, no doubt, also be related to a number of other things.

No, I'm definately not saying that! But I am saying that a large number of weapons facing the legions during the time the segmentata was created were of the thrusting nature. It may be a factor as you say that a stable political and economic enviroment allowed for the right conditions for the segmentata to be produced but that in my mind isn't enough to push for it's invention. To me there seems to have been a greater need for better defensive capability.

Fair enough. I could see it as a cmbination of factors, I just don't see it as simply as Gallic Slashing Blade = Hamata, Roman Thrusting Blade = Segmentata

I'd really love to know which troops wore the segmentata. :?

Wouldn't we all? That would be great. For the moment I am happy enough to settle for the idea that Segmentata was limited to the Legions, but was not the only Body Armour used by them. It would be fantastic to one day discover that Segmentata was employed by Auxillaries, both Foot and Horse, or even that it was adopted by Rome's Barbarian enemies. In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to settle for the facts at hand (insufficient as they are).

Interesting discussion so far though...a laudes point for you Matt.

I agree, and return the courtesy.

Geez, WAY past bedtime. I am not going to be able to keep up with this one... Probably should have left it all to the other Matthew, we seem to be pretty much in agreement.

I'm always glad to hear an agreeable voice! The only thing I wonder about is what kind of gear Crassus' Men were carrying. My understanding was that they were hastily raised, and I have always wondered whether, for all Crassus' resources, they were also poorly equipped. Can we really compare them to Mark Antony's Men? I don't know.

Why would that seem bizarre? There has been a lot of study about outside influences on Roman arms & armour, but I've also read theories that most of the fighting of Roman armies was in civil wars. So would somehow only external wars have had influence on military development? Somehow I seriously doubt that.

If I understand the idea correctly, I think it is not that the idea of both internal and external enemies having an influence on Roman military development, but the idea that Roman Segmentata was particularly developed to counter the Roman Gladius, rather than developed to face a broad range of weapons, both insular and foreign.

True possibly, but after being in the sun all day, being pelted with an endless supply of arrows, and perhaps no water, holding that scutum would become less sure a defense, perhaps?

Absolutely, but your Body Armour probably won't save you by that point either...

There is another theory about the segmentata voiced by Lendon, and that is it was developed more for siege types of warfare, going hand in hand with the ever increasing helmet neckguard sizes to help protect from missiles from above. Whilst the legionaries took more of a step back from field combat they increasingly stepped up to the ladders instead, leaving open combat more to the auxilia.

Yeah, I think we have discussed this before, Jim. A really interesting theory.

Personally, I feel the seg was a more efficient and cheaper way of equipping the army that had its own benefits in terms of production, tied in with new technologies in making plate armour that brought it to the same standard as mail. Augustus was very watchful of spending, and if a way of saving money in the army presented itself I'm sure he would have promoted its use.

I think that's quite probable, but I think it also requires something in the way of investment to set up the infrastructure.

I still don't accept the argument that it was harder to repair than mail, as plates are easily replaced so long as you have some method of rivetting new ones into place. The amount of repaired finds show that repairs were frequent. In the field, likewise, with the baggage train having the necessary stocks of plates, just like any other pieces necessary for field repairs. The asymmetrically different pieces on segs could also indicate that. Given that the plate thicknesses and weight distribution of a modern seg are all wrong, the lighter armour may have been very popular with soldiers, especially if it gave the same protection as mail (see the latest findings on the composition of plate armour of the time).

I'm still undecided as to this. I suspect that Segmentata had more complicated maintainance issues than Hamata. I would have thought it would be a lot easier to replace a few broken links than a mangled plate or two, but that's just supposition on my part, having never seen battle damaged body armour.

My feelings about the reason that mail eventually superceded plate in the legions is the legions were a completely different animal by that time, composed almost entirely of auxiliary blood (but citizen in title), bringing with them their own practices and preferences.

I'm not entirely on board with this, but it seems like as good a theory as any.

Matthew James Stanham