08-16-2007, 04:18 AM
There was a post about 16-20 months ago I want to say which did show to some extent the effectiveness of the hamata.
I think there was also one on the segmentata as well.
Is there any way we can get the links to those previous discussions on the other forums as well? I know I would be interested in reading them.
IMHO here, I think both the segmentata and the hamtata each had their advantages and disadvantages, but clearly both were effective means of protection that were in use for quite a period of time, but I do not think one was clearly superior to the other. If one type really was rotten or inferior,..it would not have been in use for long. Soldiers don't want to haul or carry anything they don't need or have too unless it has or serves some purpose/need.
Mission, tactics, enemy opposition also might have played a factor in one type being more preferred over the other. The right equipment so t say, for the right job. Supply and availability might have also been a factor. Personal preference and what was fashionable might also have played a role.
By re enacting we have begun to scratch the surface on what some of these advantages and disadvantages might be.
Unfortunately we may never be able to completely replicate all the battlefield stresses unless serious funding becomes available to not only include tests in mass but also having battle stress test labs made available.
Maybe some day we might find that odd ball "squaddie" that wrote home to "Mom" to complain about his armor or praise it. or to ask for some coin to purchase the newest best piece of gear.
Until then...there is plenty of room for opinion and not much in the way of really solving this mystery.
Cheers!!
Mike
I think there was also one on the segmentata as well.
Is there any way we can get the links to those previous discussions on the other forums as well? I know I would be interested in reading them.
IMHO here, I think both the segmentata and the hamtata each had their advantages and disadvantages, but clearly both were effective means of protection that were in use for quite a period of time, but I do not think one was clearly superior to the other. If one type really was rotten or inferior,..it would not have been in use for long. Soldiers don't want to haul or carry anything they don't need or have too unless it has or serves some purpose/need.
Mission, tactics, enemy opposition also might have played a factor in one type being more preferred over the other. The right equipment so t say, for the right job. Supply and availability might have also been a factor. Personal preference and what was fashionable might also have played a role.
By re enacting we have begun to scratch the surface on what some of these advantages and disadvantages might be.
Unfortunately we may never be able to completely replicate all the battlefield stresses unless serious funding becomes available to not only include tests in mass but also having battle stress test labs made available.
Maybe some day we might find that odd ball "squaddie" that wrote home to "Mom" to complain about his armor or praise it. or to ask for some coin to purchase the newest best piece of gear.
Until then...there is plenty of room for opinion and not much in the way of really solving this mystery.
Cheers!!
Mike
Mike Daniels
a.k.a
Titus Minicius Parthicus
Legio VI FFC.
If not me...who?
If not now...when?
:wink: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" />:wink:
a.k.a
Titus Minicius Parthicus
Legio VI FFC.
If not me...who?
If not now...when?
:wink: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" />:wink: