Time period weapons vs time period armor

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I actually think Lorica Segmentata, as much as I love and prefer Lorica Hamata, was a very well made and fantastic innovation in armor: properly made lorica segmentata fit snugly, conformed well to the wearer, was hard to penetrate and hard to exploit gaps. It was face hardened, a technology not used again until the 18th century, which made it just as resistant as renaissance plate armor.

Probably the most powerful weapon the Romans faced, other than artillery like Euthytone and Palintone engines, was the bow. An archer with a 100 pound draw could do as much damage as a small caliber bullet, although people with that kind of strength were rare.

Chainmail was very, very difficult to penetrate. Late Medieval Chainmail like the kind used in the War of the Roses wasn't as well made as Roman mail, usually because the links were larger and it was less dense, providing better opportunities for penetration, as well as the probability that it had a higher slag content than Roman steel.

What killed in all eras was not trying to penetrate armor, your objective was to kill your opponent by attacking and disabling his limbs or head. In finds of battlesites, the torso and thighs very rarely have wounds, while most attacks were done to the limbs or head.