Protection - Which Lorica was best?

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I know this can possibly be a very ambigous topic, but which form of Roman Armour provided the most protection for the wearer, against a variety of hazards (blows, cuts, thrusts, piercing by an arrow, etc).

The most obvious answer will be the ''Newstead'' type of Lorica Segmentata (or laminata as some call it), but when it comes to the Hamata, Squamata, Plumata and Lamellar, which of these would provide the most protection for the wearer?

Also, was the Plumata more of a ''Ceremonial'' type or armour, or did it afford a decent level of protection? I ask because, having seen a couple of pictures of some, they do look a little, ''fragile''.

[Tarbicus]

Here's my opinion on ceremonial armour for legionaries up to centurions: A load of rubbish!

You can put cavalry into that category as well, including the masks.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Did legionaries wear ceremonial armour?
How was it rubbish Jimbo?

I would agree that some of the squamata looks pretty fragile in my opinion, but I imagine it offered enough protection for the officer who wore it......I wonder just how involved in combat some centurions in later times actually got..... but that is only my opinion.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Here's my opinion on ceremonial armour for legionaries up to centurions: A load of rubbish!

You can put cavalry into that category as well, including the masks.

Do you mean just the Plumata kind, or is there any other type of ceremonial armour im not aware of?

I'd also like to add the Lorica Musculata into the question, the iron/brass kinds and the possible ''leather'' type too. Would the latter be a ceremonial one?

As for the masks, I guess they must have afforded some protection against shallow blows, which would otherwise have scarred your face?

[Tarbicus]

I've absolutely no faith in the notion that the more elaborate armour was used for ceremonial purposes only. I think it's a modern way of thinking and has been discussed on RAT numerous times before (it's almost become the new tunic colour debate).

Centurions wore their phalerae in battle- we know for a fact when fighting for Caesar. When a Roman died his spirit remained on Earth for a certain amount of time, and I thoroughly believe that a soldier would wear his best looking gear for battle and the afterlife. We also have references to how the very appearance of the Romans could intimidate the enemy so much they would sometimes retreat before battle even started. Look was everything to a Roman - it defined him - and even though one soldier is attested to being castigated for the richness of his appearance, that's a single account out of how many potential occurences? The fact he was dressed up to the nines proves that soldiers did wear elaborate and rich armour for battle - there was no mention of that legionary wearing his "parade" armour, though.

Look at the equipment that has been found that is elaborate or at least decorated, especially pugiones. The evidence is overwhelming IMHO. Any plain appearance might be down to covers to help protect the equipment when on the march, which is quite logical and was practiced up until recently. But, we know they removed covers before battle.

We see modern Coldstream Guards and immediately assume that's how it worked throughout history, because it's what we're used to - they wear bright fancy uniforms for parades, and change to combat fatigues for battle. In no way should that be applied to the ancients.

My opinion, anyway.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I know some Squamatas do look a bit fragile, but I was referring more to the Plumata than anything else, as these REALLY look like they may fall apart with a simple blow of the wind!

Off course, at the same time, it looks beautifull, and as Tarbicus has said, that meant a lot to the romans. Perhaps they may have also chosen a form of armour that provided less protection as a sign of bravery maybe? Like the plumata, a centurion would be easily recognisable, would look his best, and have the superior ''I dont need no armour fool!'' look about him.

[Dan Howard]

I would wear a decent mail shirt instead of segmented plate any day. The first spearpoint or arrow in the groin, armpit, thigh, etc will convince others too. Segmentata was peasant armour.

[Tarbicus]

Until someone builds and uses a plumata for testing fully in a combat situation, there is no proof either way of its functional effectiveness. It's no good imagining the scenario until one is accurately made and used. All of the plumatae so far, that I know of, are not made incorrectly, and all conclusions become the kind of factoid you find on Wiki.

I also agree with Dan that segs were peasant armour, but given the size of the army when it was likely introduced it was a probably an economical armour to equip with. The absence of segs in grave stelae is maybe a suggestion of it being looked down on, but if the state was supplying the equipment, then there you go.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I would wear a decent mail shirt instead of segmented plate any day. The first spearpoint or arrow in the groin, armpit, thigh, etc will convince others too. Segmentata was peasant armour.

So was the mail more protective of piercing than the segmentata? I mean, still, taking an arrow in the groin even if not penetrating the mail would have hurt A LOT!

I also agree with Dan that segs were peasant armour, but given the size of the army when it was likely introduced it was a probably an economical armour to equip with. The absence of segs in grave stelae is maybe a suggestion of it being looked down on, but if the state was supplying the equipment, then there you go.

Well, it was probably cheaper at the time to make, as it indeed still is today. But even being cheaper, peasent armour, I doubt a plumata offered more protection than the segmented plates.

As for the musculata, mail, scales and lamellar, I simply dont know.

[Dan Howard]

So was the mail more protective of piercing than the segmentata? I mean, still, taking an arrow in the groin even if not penetrating the mail would have hurt A LOT!

I don't think so. But I also don't think that mail was much worse at stopping points. Its only real disadvantage is that it is susceptible to blunt trauma. Some decent padding under the mail will stop most of that. Even if it didn't, I'd much rather go home with a cracked rib than bleed to death on the battlefield from a stomach wound.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I don't think so. But I also don't think that mail was much worse at stopping points. Its only real disadvantage is that it is susceptible to blunt trauma. Some decent padding under the mail will stop most of that. Even if it didn't, I'd much rather go home with a cracked rib than bleed to death on the battlefield from a stomach wound.

Well, that was my point, blunt trauma, an arrow would still hurt if you were wearing only a tunic + the mail. And even a cracked rib can kill you if sufficient bone marrow leaks into the bloodstream.

In this case, would you say that the mail armour provided the most protection, when compared to all the rest?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I've absolutely no faith in the notion that the more elaborate armour was used for ceremonial purposes only. I think it's a modern way of thinking and has been discussed on RAT numerous times before (it's almost become the new tunic colour debate).

.

Ahhh, ok, just sounded like you ment the parade armour was crummy!! :lol: :lol:

[Tarbicus]

Ahhh, ok, just sounded like you ment the parade armour was crummy!! :lol: :lol:

LOL - Yup, it did. Sorry

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think the seg would provide best overall, as it is pretty good allaround.
True, the longer hamata would protect your thighs, but your scutum shouldhave them covered......

And the hamata is no more protection to your groin than any other, if some one is targeting that area, they will find an alternate route.....IMHO 8)

[Tarbicus]

True, the longer hamata would protect your thighs, but your scutum shouldhave them covered......

And pteryges.