11-07-2007, 06:37 PM
I never said it "replaced" anything, Dan. 
And I see your point that segmentata was likely easier to mass produce, although I'm not sure I would deem it "peasant" armour (but your comment regarding those with more money "going for mail" is intriguing, do you have a reference for this?). Bishop & Coulston have acknowledged the idea that segmentata may have been easier to produce than mail for the lone craftsman, but as they say, "an increase in manpower would greatly facilitate production [of mail]." (2006, p. 98 )
Let's not forget that auxilia were likely equipped with mostly hamata (or squamata), and there were just as many auxiliary soldiers as legionaries during the Principate. So to me, easy mass production doesn't seem to be the only reason for the development of segmentata, since if that was the case, it may have been cheaper to supply the entire army with segmentata, rather than just the citizen soldiers.
I do think that with the professionalization of the army, developments in military equipment evolved from how easily they could have been mass produced, but I also think that functionality and how easy armour was to maintain also played a role in these developments. As Bishop & Coulston point out, segmentata also provided excellent shoulder protection, and being a 'soft-armour', better absorbed blows than mail did. So, again, I would consider the functionality of equipment, along with ease of production (and maintenance!) when considering developments in Roman armour.
And I see your point that segmentata was likely easier to mass produce, although I'm not sure I would deem it "peasant" armour (but your comment regarding those with more money "going for mail" is intriguing, do you have a reference for this?). Bishop & Coulston have acknowledged the idea that segmentata may have been easier to produce than mail for the lone craftsman, but as they say, "an increase in manpower would greatly facilitate production [of mail]." (2006, p. 98 )Let's not forget that auxilia were likely equipped with mostly hamata (or squamata), and there were just as many auxiliary soldiers as legionaries during the Principate. So to me, easy mass production doesn't seem to be the only reason for the development of segmentata, since if that was the case, it may have been cheaper to supply the entire army with segmentata, rather than just the citizen soldiers.
I do think that with the professionalization of the army, developments in military equipment evolved from how easily they could have been mass produced, but I also think that functionality and how easy armour was to maintain also played a role in these developments. As Bishop & Coulston point out, segmentata also provided excellent shoulder protection, and being a 'soft-armour', better absorbed blows than mail did. So, again, I would consider the functionality of equipment, along with ease of production (and maintenance!) when considering developments in Roman armour.
Adam Anders
