Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lorica hamata / segmentata
#1
Do I understand correctly that the lorica hamata went out of fashion in the late first/early second century, and was replaced by the lorica segmentata (which had been produced for quite some time already)?

If so, what caused the change? Is there a parallel to the change of Medieval mail armor to plate armor?
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#2
Not at all Jona.

Hamata is seen and used throughout the entire Roman period. It never went 'out of fashion'.

The forms changed in that we see the disappearance of the shoulder doubling sometime in the early second Century. (Although a ram-headed clasp was found at Dura Europos!). The sleeves get longer too.
Reply
#3
Agreed. IMO segmentata was developed because it was quicker and cheaper than mail, or scale, or musculata. It was the munitions plate of the Roman era Those who had the means always wore mail. Plate was developed in the Middle Ages for the same reason (among others). It only became popular after the developement of trip hammer mills and the blast furnace which enabled plate to be produced more cheaply than mail - especially after the black death increased the cost of labour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#4
Thanks gentleman!
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#5
Quote:Agreed. IMO segmentata was developed because it was quicker and cheaper than mail, or scale, or musculata. It was the munitions plate of the Roman era Those who had the means always wore mail. Plate was developed in the Middle Ages for the same reason (among others). It only became popular after the developement of trip hammer mills and the blast furnace which enabled plate to be produced more cheaply than mail - especially after the black death increased the cost of labour.

Dan,

Could you please point to the references on the inexpensive production of the steel plate in antiquity? I would like to see how the production of chain mail was more expensive than plate armor.

Thank you,
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF

quando omni flunkus, mortati
Reply
#6
Quote:Could you please point to the references on the inexpensive production of the steel plate in antiquity? I would like to see how the production of chain mail was more expensive than plate armor.
I am not Dan, but I think that the amount of labor to produce chain mail is immense. A friend of mine was making a lorica hamata, but abandoned it because it took too much time. A lorica segmentata looks easier, at least to me.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#7
Quote:
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER:2h0fmp2h Wrote:Could you please point to the references on the inexpensive production of the steel plate in antiquity? I would like to see how the production of chain mail was more expensive than plate armor.
I am not Dan, but I think that the amount of labor to produce chain mail is immense. A friend of mine was making a lorica hamata, but abandoned it because it took too much time. A lorica segmentata looks easier, at least to me.

Indeed, the man hours required to make a hamata are a lot higher than those needed to churn out a segmentata.

Vale,
Jef Pinceel
a.k.a.
Marcvs Mvmmivs Falco

LEG XI CPF vzw
>Q SER FEST
www.LEGIOXI.be
Reply
#8
We have to take into account the labor and skills required to produce the materials before we talk about the construction of armor out of them. Do we know how long did it take to produce a steel plate? What kind of labor (skilled or unskilled) was involved in production of sheet metal? All that would reflect on the expenses involved in production. I would still like to see some research on the issue.
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF

quando omni flunkus, mortati
Reply
#9
The amount of labour required just to make bloomery iron wire is way higher than anything involved in the making segmented plates and the quality of the iron must be much higher or it cannot pass through the draw plate without the slag inclusions causing it to continuously break. So the cost of labour is higher and so is the cost of the raw materials. A little of this is covered in Sims' "Iron for the Eagles". Apologies to all those who like segmentata but it is peasant armour. The state might have provided it but the cost was deducted from your pay. Those with the means would have worn hamata, squamata, musculata - anything but segmented plate.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#10
Thanks, I will have a look.
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF

quando omni flunkus, mortati
Reply
#11
Plebs...not peasants... :lol:

But I would personally not discount it, and would consider it superior as armour in comparison to the other variants.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#12
Quote:So the cost of labour is higher and so is the cost of the raw materials.
If true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then it seems strange that segmented plate disappeared during the 3rd century when the economy collapsed. Under such conditions one would think that we should see an increase in the use of simple, cheap armor like segmented plate. Yet hamata, maybe the most expensive type of armor after a musculata, survived the crisis. :?

I can only speculate that the third century civil wars were the first real trial period that segmented plate faced on a massive, empire-wide scale and that the troops discovered how shoddy the armor proved to be in prolonged combat. Consequently, they abandoned segmented plate altogether (except in the form of arm and thigh guards.)

Maybe there are other factors I haven't yet considered.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#13
Segmentata was phased out around the same time that the state took over the manufacture of armour. It is possible that mass production techniques redcued the cost of masil to the pioibnt that there was no longer any need for segmentata. Especially when you consider all the other benefits that mail has over segmentata:
It required no custom-fitting - a few sizes stored in an arsenal would fit the vast majority of recruits.
It required less ongoing maintenance, less tools, and way fewer spare parts.
If offered better coverage - segmentata does nothing to protect the stomach, groin, armpits, etc.
It was more comfortable
It had a longer lifespan - being able to serve many more successive recruits.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#14
I don't dispute the advantages of mail.
But I would disagree on segs not protecting the stomach.
Also it gives great protection from blunt trauma, when worn wit ha subarmalis. I cannot personally attest this to mail though, but have my suspicions it is not quite that good.
Also the groin area is exposed on mail wearers as well. Unless it is left in a longer shirt aka Republican variants....which is how I am trying to make mine to fit...

But mails also breaths better, so you would not be suffering from heat prostration as fast as a seg wearer.....
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#15
Quote:Segmentata was phased out around the same time that the state took over the manufacture of armour. It is possible that mass production techniques redcued the cost of masil to the pioibnt that there was no longer any need for segmentata. Especially when you consider all the other benefits that mail has over segmentata:
It required no custom-fitting - a few sizes stored in an arsenal would fit the vast majority of recruits.
It required less ongoing maintenance, less tools, and way fewer spare parts.
If offered better coverage - segmentata does nothing to protect the stomach, groin, armpits, etc.
It was more comfortable
It had a longer lifespan - being able to serve many more successive recruits.
That makes a lot of sense, especially the part about new standardized production techniques making hamata more affordable.

After every battle I suspect a segmented cuirass would always need major repair. It just has too many design flaws.

Thanks.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Looking at the whole hamata vs segmentata discussion from another angle Corvus 29 2,169 04-09-2022, 04:51 PM
Last Post: Dan Howard
  About the three types of armor Lorica Segmentata? Leoshenlong 2 603 04-21-2021, 07:52 PM
Last Post: Crispianus
  New find of lorica segmentata mcbishop 18 3,066 11-21-2020, 02:05 PM
Last Post: Simplex

Forum Jump: