Lorica hamata / segmentata

[Matthew Amt]

If that were to be the case, the why did we never see Zulu heavy infantry impis with rawhide body armour and long thrusting spears?
C'mon Matt, you were joking there, surely? :wink:

Okay, the Zulus were stretching it just a tad! But there were unarmored legionaries and hoplites and Vikings.

While I would grant you that 'basically', infantry battles can be compared from the Sumerians to the invention of gunpowder, but iot we really start comparing tactics, of course thing change, change back, then change again. The Romans did not have hoplite tactics, but late Roman tactics look more like hoplite tactics again.

But they don't have to adopt the Greek linothorax or muscled cuirass, nor the Greek style round shield, to use these tactics effectively. Massed spears are certainly different from pila and short swords, but the discussion started specifically with armor types, so my main point is that lorica segmentata is suitable most ancient heavy infantry tactics, if not all.

When economics change and armies shrink, Roman tactics chnge from the large legionary battles of the Republic and the Principate. Of course tactics change!

Economics could be the key.

But arm a Zulu impi withn segmentata, Gallic G's (or whatever) and heavy scutum and they'd be sitting ducks.

I'll admit, I got a little carried away! Zulus are different, they ran like crazy and regularly employed tactics that other ancient armies didn't use (though I think they would have recognized what was going on, probably in an "Oh crap!" kind of way!).

In all fairness, I do think that significant changes in tactics can lead to changes in equipment. But I don't think there was anything being done in the 3rd or 4th centuries (tactically speaking) that couldn't be done in 1st century armor.

If you put it that way, maybe not. But then, also look at how the Late Roman soldier began to look like during the 5th c. and after. It's not so much a break with the legionary, but effectively a deevelopment of the auxiliay: hamata, hasta, oval shield. We need not discuss why the legionary infantry received a different armour, but why the leegionary looked like the auxiliary of the Principate. Scholars have tried to answer this with the changing role of the legionary: instead of 'just' acting as very heavy infantry, their role changed to a more diverse role - a Late Roman infantryman needed to be able to act as heavy infantry as well as light infantry, or even unarmoured raider. That could be an answer as to why thee segmentata became les popular.

Yet first century legionaries could wage very effective guerilla warfare or do sieges or build roads, or (I suspect) take their armor off if necessary. I don't think mail made that possible, or that segmentata inhibited it.

Does an Intercissa helmet really function any differently in battle than a Gallic type G, or give significantly more or less protection? Nope! Helmet fashions had simply changed over time.

Oh yes it did. You can duck behind your shield and put your head in your neck due to the flesxible neckguard, something that's hard to do with a Gallic helmet type, impossible even with the last developments. And you need to do that when crouching behind your scutum, or when you are constantly firing javelins to support your buddies fighting in front of you. Legionary infantry did not do that after they sent their pila flying. Lanciarii did.

Good points, my own Gallic H does keep me from tipping my head back, and I'd neglected the difference between the really honking big Imperial-Italic neckguards and the articulated later ones. BUT we do know that missiles were a constant danger all through a first century battle, and even with my helmet I don't think I'd have a problem staying covered up behind my scutum. It WOULD be easier with a Coolus or an Intercissa! I'm frankly at a loss to explain those honking big neckguards. (I cop out by not explaining! Yoda says, "There is no Why, only Do.")

As discussed before on this forum, this complaint was written down during the Severan period: helmet too big and lance too short. Clearly a need for different equipment due to changing battle circumstances, staright from the sources.

OOOooooo, I like it!! Never heard of that one before, since I don't tend to keep up with the later stuff. My bad. Very cool, thanks!

My own guesss about a seggie being less usable, apart from that cavalry seem to have shunned it from the start, is that the 3rd c. may have seeen circumstances that needed armour to be made as fast as possible, repaired in difficult circumstances (any smith would do) and that therefore only armour that could be made and repaired by anyone and worn by all the military would become the favorite. So yes, a seg would not have beeen unusable during the 4th c., but my guesss is that in most regions, production had stopped during the 3rd c. due to the factors above, and it never went into production again afterwards.
Call that fashion? OK, then that's fashion.

No, I'd say that's mostly economics and logistics, as has also been discussed a couple times before. Mail won out because it was easier to produce and maintain in centralized areas for an expanding army. So not fashion, here, necessarily.

I agree with what you say about no need for more mobility, but as I've argued above, some movements you just cannot make with some helmets.

Agreed. I cheerfully concede the point.

I guess that a segmentata would not hinder you in chucking javelins or crouching behind a scutum.

Nah, not that I've noticed. Well, actually, not many people want to try jumping jacks in a segmentata, since the shoulder motions tend to force the collar plates into the neck! But throwing with one arm doesn't seem to do that.

In case of the segmentata, I agree with you. In case of the Intercisa (or Berkasovo) helmet, the re-introduction of the hasta and the increase of missile firepower, I do not.

Fair enough! Great stuff here, Robert, you Da Man for late stuff. Thanks!

Matthew

PS: Hey, Zulu pikemen with Coolus helmets and katanas, would that work?