Protection - Which Lorica was best?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I find that a little unbelieveable too, but who am I after all......
I know the forbade sodomy in the military camps, but obviously it wasn't such a big deal for private citizens......? Or why mention it at all?
Seems they had a lot of odd double standards I am still trying to pin down.
They also forbade soldiers to marry, yet we all know how well that worked.. :lol:

[caiusbeerquitius]

Don't forget the recent post and counter-post some peeps made about there being no arms allowed even during a triumph - only ceremonial spears?

No weapons inside of the pomerium. Even during a triumph.

Byron is pretty right: Armour was there to catch everything that the shield didn´t. So the first question to be answered should be: How strong were the potential dangers that glanced off the shield and did hit you? Really dangerous (lethal) hits would mainly occur during melee, when you were attacked from the sides with spears, I guess. That is, an attack you cannot really foresee... I think all the armour we know from the Romans was able to protect you well enough to take all attacks that glanced off the shield. Hits that went by the shield... well, either bad luck or bad training. If you had done your homework right, it probably was rather accident that got you killed, but in a battle an accident is something that doesn´t occur rarely. And we see that those areas that are not covered by the shield are usually better protected: head, right arm, shins.

[Dan Howard]

Arrows don't "glance off the shield". Either you are hit with full force. Or the arrow sticks in the shield.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Is that so?
I am quite amazed, since many arrows reconstructed after the Dura Europos findings (that is, with hard-wooden arrowheads, which were, if I remember correctly according to S. James, the majority of arrows in IMperial Rome) in fact glanced off the shields in our exercises. I must have been having visions, then.

Apart from that: I didn´t say that "arrows glance off the shield". Maybe you should re-read my posting.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

You are obviously thinking of one fired at point blank range, with a flat trajectory, Dan. I can well imagine one coming down from a high angle, ricocheteing off metal and wood as it comes down.......

I believe Phillip of Macedon was injured in the high by such an arrow?
He was unlucky to have the arrow hit his eye!

[Sardaukar]

Well...I think Romans used whatever was best value for their money vs. protection.
If lorica segmentata was easiest (cheapest) to manufacture, offering competitive protection, they used it.

One aspect often ignored, even when discussion modern militaries, is not the ability of equipment but could they afford it ?

There were interpretations of Gallic War that not all Caesar's legionaries wore lorica hamata. While I think they did, it raises the question, could he afford it in monetary sense ? He commanded often 10-11 legions...and that's lot of chainmail.

There was this saying of Crassus that man should not deem himself rich if he could not raise and equip a legion.

Operating a single 4,500-man legion for a year ran to some 4 million sestertii.
(Cicero, in Pis., 86; Plutarch, Cae., 28 & Pomp., 55. Supporting this is Cicero's comment that the two under strength legions he controlled in Cilicia in 51 B.C. each cost about 3 million sestertii in pay and maintenance a year (Cicero, ad Fam., V , 20, 9, & ad Att., V, 11, 5), which was about 60% of the annual revenues of the province (Cf., Frank, pp. 136ff)).

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

One aspect often ignored, even when discussion modern militaries, is not the ability of equipment but could they afford it ?

There were interpretations of Gallic War that not all Caesar's legionaries wore lorica hamata. While I think they did, it raises the question, could he afford it in monetary sense ? He commanded often 10-11 legions...and that's lot of chainmail.

There was this saying of Crassus that man should not deem himself rich if he could not raise and equip a legion.

Operating a single 4,500-man legion for a year ran to some 4 million sestertii.
(Cicero, in Pis., 86; Plutarch, Cae., 28 & Pomp., 55. Supporting this is Cicero's comment that the two under strength legions he controlled in Cilicia in 51 B.C. each cost about 3 million sestertii in pay and maintenance a year (Cicero, ad Fam., V , 20, 9, & ad Att., V, 11, 5), which was about 60% of the annual revenues of the province (Cf., Frank, pp. 136ff)).

Wow, 60% of a provinces income all on the military is a hell of a lot.

What I don't quite understand is, why did the Lorica Segmentata fall out of use near the middle of the third century? And how did it come to be replaced by Lamellar armour, which may not have been as protective?
I mean, I know a lot of the Later Legionary's inventory had barbarian roots (after their conscripts), but did the barbarians actually use lamellar armour?

The only civilization I understood wore this were the Eastern Civilizations, such as the Sassanids. As far as the chain mail goes, wasnt it actually more expensive to produce than the lorica segmentata?

If this is the case, then the theory that the ''Anarchy'' in the third century was partly responsible for the decline in quality of the legionary's armor should be re-evaluated.

[Matthew Amt]

Oooohhh, Yuri----There have been LONG discussions on this topic! Anyone got links to a couple of those? If the search function doesn't bear fruit, I'd try just browsing back through this section and the Reconstruction section, you'll find them eventually.

Vale,

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I didn't want to say that.... :lol:

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hmmnn, I get the feeling I've just triggered a landmine, and am now waiting for it to go off.... :?

I'll backtrack a little shall I.

[geala]

It seems to be nearly a religious quarrel and on many forums.

Many many favour padded hamata, squamata over the clumsy segmented armour. The covered area is a good argument. We have reports about casualties because the wearing of lamellar armour which did not cover the armpits, for example. But on the whole I'm not so sure.

At least in the middle ages knights (not the poorest and "professional" soldiers), equipped in abundance with padded mail all over the body, tried a lot to introduce laminated armour (similar to Roman segmented armour) from the 13th c. AD onwards. Later the best equipped persons wore forms of plate armour (the Roman segmented armour is a form of plate) instead of padded mail. I question myself why a person who could compare the abilities of armour in practise would choose to wear plate (often in addition to mail) if padded mail alone had the same merits (and offered better mobility)?

Segmented armour was used when the imperial Rome was at her peak and disappeared after the problematic years of the 3rd c. AD. Why use cheap but unprotective armour when you could afford better? When I compare the economical situation of the empire in the 1st or 2nd c. AD, when segmented armour was introduced in certain numbers, with that of later centuries, seeing more use of other armour, I see no reason to assume that they had to use it because it was cheap.

So, I would say, segmented armour had apparently some advantages in performance compared to the armour in use before and after the 200 years of use of "segmentata".

[Tarbicus]

We're not taking into account that technological advances didn't suddenly stop after the 2nd Punic War. Given some evidence that Roman plate from Britain may have been as advanced as much later Milanese plate, the possibility exists that it was simply very good armour and cheap to make - doubly beneficial. We're also still uncertain as to when segs were first introduced. It was definitely in the BC era, and the earliest finds are during the reign of Augustus in 9 BC, so we can then assume it was in use earlier than then and perhaps in a form as yet not found, or fragments found but identified wrongly and sitting in the depths of a museum or collection somewhere.

Augustus' legacy was to introduce a true standing army that would need to be equipped no matter what, as well as participate in expansion. All of this following civil war after civil war, and really beginning around 27 BC. When you consider the 9 BC find of seg, it fits perfectly that a cheap armour would be a very attractive proposition, especially if, after the numerous periods of war, we apply the adage that war drives technological advance. Not only do we see the introduction of the seg, but also the introduction of new helmets, the gallic type, also made completely of iron sheet/plate/billet. To my mind there is clearly the possibility that 'something happened', or was discovered, or just realised. One possibility may be that with the influx of perhaps new Gallic ironworking technology post-Caesar their technology gained favour and saw a kind of renaissance in the army, following on from hamata and scuta from centuries before. It would only need a consistent observation after battle that the Gallic auxiliaries strangely didn't seem to suffer as many head injuries as those wearing the Montefortino or Coolus. For all we know It may have been the Gauls, once again, who led the field with a new cheap plate armour? I won't bang on about my own dodgy theory that the Legio VI Ferrata of Gallic origin earned their nickname Ironclad/Ironsides by introducing segmented body armour into the ranks, but to me it's a tantalising possibility. On the other had, they may simply have worn the iron gallea, which would also make them look entirely ironclad.

Economic, technologically advanced, lighter if made correctly, proven in battle, are all likely candidates, especially if all occurred around the same time in the second/later part of the 1st-C BC. Note that we never see (to my knowledge) mail armguards except on gladiators. The right arm was probably the most vulnerable part of the body, needing to leave the defence of the shield regularly in combat. But we see the segmented armguard even in earlier Republican context in artistic representation, even if only as spolia. I have to ask, if mail was so good compared to plate, how come it didn't become standard arm protection rather than plate?

[Sean Manning]

At least in the middle ages knights (not the poorest and "professional" soldiers), equipped in abundance with padded mail all over the body, tried a lot to introduce laminated armour (similar to Roman segmented armour) from the 13th c. AD onwards. Later the best equipped persons wore forms of plate armour (the Roman segmented armour is a form of plate) instead of padded mail. I question myself why a person who could compare the abilities of armour in practise would choose to wear plate (often in addition to mail) if padded mail alone had the same merits (and offered better mobility)?

Knights normally wore coats of plates over mail. Wearing one without at least heavy padding below seems to have been unusual.

Re: military spending, I've heard a plausible guess that the early Imperial army may have cost 80% of regular state revenues to maintain. Prices would rise during a major war. The most basic function of a state is to protect its subjects/citizens: other services come later. And the Roman government was comparatively tiny until the late empire.

[Taoye]

I definitely agree with the notion that a large standing army would require a cheaper form of armor that, although slightly less protective, was far cheaper and easier to ensure that soliders actually had armor.

As for chainmail arm guards... maybe they found it too difficult because you would need sufficient padding on your arms for the mail to be effective? They must have used something... the right arm is definitely the most vulnerable and exposed part of the body and I find it very hard to believe that they didn't use some form of protection, be it vambraces or mail or the segmented manica dealio.

[Matthew Amt]

the right arm is definitely the most vulnerable and exposed part of the body and I find it very hard to believe that they didn't use some form of protection, be it vambraces or mail or the segmented manica dealio.

Believe it! Throughout history, the vast majority of men on the battlefield had little or no armor at all, and it never seemed to be their major concern. Even those with body armor, from the Bronze Age through the Norman Conquest, usually had unprotected forearms. Didn't keep them from fighting!

The SHIELD is your main defence. All armor is secondary, really.

Comparing the Roman army of the late Republic and early Empire to the high middle ages is very difficult and not very safe, since there are so many huge differences. Technology, social matters, economics, fashions, military organizations--all of these are factors in armor development. For instance, it has been shown pretty clearly that the rise of urban economics and the spread of technology that went with it had as much or more to do with the growing use of plate armor in the 14th century than simply response to weapon development. So it's a darn complex question without simple answers!

Valete,

Matthew