01-27-2004, 10:18 PM
There’s no reason the same manufacturing process you described for mail could not have also been utilized for the production of segmentata. And segmentata would have been cheaper and faster to produce (in theory) since it would have required fewer skilled workers (less workers overall, in fact), fewer specialized tools, and fewer steps in the production process. If we assume that scale and mail hauberks could be produced in basic Small, Medium and Large sizes to fit all possible recruits, then it was only the need to tailor some of the individual lames (assuming you couldn’t get around this by tailoring your subarmalis instead) that would have prevented the segmentata from completely fitting into this system of factory mass production.<br>
<br>
From what I’ve read, the segmentata was a remarkably advanced form of armor. That it offered superior protection against slashing, piercing, and smashing blows seems pretty self-evident. Mail was obviously far more vulnerable to blunt impact (partially ameliorated by the subarmalis), but also to piercing weapons, particularly arrows (against arrows, even scale may have been a superior defense to mail). But while a segmentata might stop just about anything it could reasonably expect to face on a battlefield, it probably sustained considerable damage in the process. To help absorb the force of a blow (from what I understand), the plates were constructed of iron and not steel. Therefore large (and comparatively expensive) repairs after combat were probably not uncommon. As long as cost was not an issue, this does not seem to have been a problem.<br>
<br>
If I’m reading the evidence correctly (and I’m not all that up on the late Empire), the Romans decided that low-maintenance armor that could be mass-produced at speed (like scale and mail) was preferable to armor like the segmentata for no other reason than because the segmentata may have required some individual tailoring, and was comparatively high maintenance. However, in doing so they consciously chose to abandon a superior and proven (and probably often preferred) defensive armor for simpler and more easily maintained types. The evidence for the change in helmet styles from highly advanced single-bowl types to lower-quality composite designs would seem to support this. Personally I can’t see this kind of technological de-evolution as anything but a response from a system in serious trouble.<br>
<br>
Though my comparison to the development of medieval armor was obviously rather simple, I believe it still holds true. There was no real move towards decrease in armor coverage in the Middle Ages until gunpowder weapons finally began to change the way war was fought. It’s difficult for me to imagine the last great knightly armies, like the French at Nancy, or the Yorkists at Bosworth, charging their enemies clad only in buff coats…. <br>
<br>
Gregg <p></p><i></i>
<br>
From what I’ve read, the segmentata was a remarkably advanced form of armor. That it offered superior protection against slashing, piercing, and smashing blows seems pretty self-evident. Mail was obviously far more vulnerable to blunt impact (partially ameliorated by the subarmalis), but also to piercing weapons, particularly arrows (against arrows, even scale may have been a superior defense to mail). But while a segmentata might stop just about anything it could reasonably expect to face on a battlefield, it probably sustained considerable damage in the process. To help absorb the force of a blow (from what I understand), the plates were constructed of iron and not steel. Therefore large (and comparatively expensive) repairs after combat were probably not uncommon. As long as cost was not an issue, this does not seem to have been a problem.<br>
<br>
If I’m reading the evidence correctly (and I’m not all that up on the late Empire), the Romans decided that low-maintenance armor that could be mass-produced at speed (like scale and mail) was preferable to armor like the segmentata for no other reason than because the segmentata may have required some individual tailoring, and was comparatively high maintenance. However, in doing so they consciously chose to abandon a superior and proven (and probably often preferred) defensive armor for simpler and more easily maintained types. The evidence for the change in helmet styles from highly advanced single-bowl types to lower-quality composite designs would seem to support this. Personally I can’t see this kind of technological de-evolution as anything but a response from a system in serious trouble.<br>
<br>
Though my comparison to the development of medieval armor was obviously rather simple, I believe it still holds true. There was no real move towards decrease in armor coverage in the Middle Ages until gunpowder weapons finally began to change the way war was fought. It’s difficult for me to imagine the last great knightly armies, like the French at Nancy, or the Yorkists at Bosworth, charging their enemies clad only in buff coats…. <br>
<br>
Gregg <p></p><i></i>
