Lorica hamata / segmentata

[jvrjenivs]

It could be, but as the signs point at 'batavian' settlements. The legionairies are more centered at the big legionairy fortresses of Nijmegen, Xanten, etc, while those findings are from rural settlements with a lot of late la tene items, which points on non-romans, as does some evidence about regligious sites.

More info: Johan Nicolay - Armed Batavians, Amsterdam, 2007

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Cheers !

[Peroni]

But could this not also possibly be from veterans settled after retirement, and being allotted land near the Rhine?

Yes, certainly, that is what Johan Nicolay discusses, but include auxiliary infantry and cavalry veterans not simply legionary veterans.

One particular find site is at Delwijnen-Eendenkade, where, in addition to a diploma fragment from Britannia (RMD-03, 00151), sixty items of military equipment were found. The military equipment included twenty-two cupric alloy components from segmented plate armour, and two fragments of iron plate, one with a hinged buckle attached, mostly of the Corbridge type cuirass which Dr. Johan Nicolay suggests had probably been fully intact at the time of deposition. The date given on the diploma (AD98 – 117, probably ante AD114) would fit perfectly with a Corbridge type cuirass suggesting that the soldier – (a Batavian auxiliary soldier from the information on the diploma), deposited this armour and equipment on his safe return home. This combined evidence would strongly suggest that the cuirass belonged to the Batavian soldier.

Another diploma fragment found at Elst-Lijnden was issued on the 20th February 98AD. (RMD-04 00216) This diploma was issued to a certain ‘Gaveri(us)’ - a Batavian trooper of ala I Batavorvm. If, as the discharge diploma suggests, he fulfilled his 25 years service it means that he joined the army in 73, shortly after Vespasian re-constituted the five Batavian ‘one-thousand strong’ milliaria units. He must have been one of the first Batavians after the revolt to attain a Roman citizenship diploma. The associated finds of segmented armour seem very unusual for a cavalryman to have in his possession, (unless it was armour of the type depicted on a cavalryman at Arlon wherein the rider is wearing what appears to be a mail/plate hybrid cuirass with shoulder sections of segmented plate).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

OK, I remember these being discussed now.

So, we will need more Batavians wearing segmentata......

(I have a very large set for any large Batavians who may want one!)

The idea of the combination seg/mail seems quite an interesting idea to me...

[jvrjenivs]

So, we will need more Batavians wearing segmentata......

That's what I'm planning to do for my Batavian auxilia impression.

The idea of the combination seg/mail seems quite an interesting idea to me...

When Markus Junkelmann did his Limes tour on horseback, one of his companions (and if i remember right it was Dan Peterson) used a hamata with segementata shoulderpart. I'm sure you can find pictures of that to see how it looks.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I have good visualisation abilities too!

But I do recall this being discussd some time ago.....

That's what I'm planning to do for my Batavian auxilia impression.

soooo, if you put on about 150 lbs, and achieve a 48" waist, I have the very seg for you!!!! lol:

[Matthew Amt]

Lets not forget that a possible contributing reason for the disappearance of segmentata armor might also have been due to a change in fighting tactics.

But the basic tactics didn't change significantly. Battles were still fought by lines of infantry, chucking some missiles and then closing in with pointy things. This is fundamentally the same as Greek hoplites, Vikings, Gauls, Zulus, Carolingians, Scottish highlanders, Sumerians, and Romans from a spread of about 1500 years. Sure, we go on about how the gladius is so good for close-quarters work, but longer swords were certainly used to great effect in many crowded battles. You could arm a Roman legion with Zulu shields, copper helmets, 17th century pikemens' armor, and cutlasses, and they'd still be able to fight like Roman legionaries. (Well, okay, they might have to practice with the vertical-grip shield a little!) (But I bet they'd LOVE the Zulu assegai!)

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.

Titus: I'd be curious how you got to those conclusions. My first reaction is to say, I'd want the armor that keeps the other guy's sword out of my guts, but I can also see how someone can believe this armor or that armor is better for what we're doing. Like Arklore/Mike said, changes in fighting tactics can change armor needs, too.

What led to the conclusion that it was fashion? I'm dying to see your study.

Oh, it's ALL about fashion! Any metallic European armor is going to be adequate against the common weapons of the time, and there are dozens of different ways they could have covered the torso to the same extent that the lorica segmentata does. For starters, why does the silly thing have 7 or 8 pairs of girdle plates rather than just 3 or 4? You can get all the mobility you need with a 2-piece late medieval breastplate. Shoulder guards can be made in fewer pieces, too. Most cuirasses through history open at the sides, rather than front and back. Look at all the coats of plates from Visby in the 14th century, half a dozen ways to rivet simple plates inside a leather or fabric cover--very nice armor and much easier to make than a segmentata. The Japanese did the same thing joining plates with narrow strips of mail.

Next, look at all the non-functional details. The Kalkriese lorica is the plainest, with nearly rectangular hinges. Then the well-known Corbridge, which no self-respecting reenactor would dream of making without at least 8 or 10 little decorative bosses on it (even though I've heard such bosses are not found on armor parts from Germany?). Finally, the Newstead, with brass linings around all the girdle plate slots, pearled edges on the brass bits around the holes for the hooks, and honking big hinges that ALWAYS have that triangular hole cut through the middle! These aren't exactly designed to save time and money, eh?

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.

Fashion, fashion, fashion. Never underestimate its power.

Valete,

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Fashion sucks.....LOL I've never been a slave to it myself..but I run in a small circle....

[arklore70]

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.

Matt,
are we considering the fact that Rome was fighting more enemies that had larger and larger mounted forces as the years rolled along such as the the remnants of Parthia, the Goths, and Palmyra? In the third century we begin to see the rise of, or at least formal recognition of specialized troops like the lanciarii and a greater need for mobility, and reach. Hamata to me has always felt far easier to maneuver in than segmentata.

Personal experience in combat, over the years, in multi places, with multiple tours, has shown and taught me that even some of the slightest changes in weapons, body armor, force changes in tactics from the individual all the way up to a brigade combat team sized formation and vice versa; meaning that as the tactics change, you have to modify or change your kit.

Professional soldiers of any era are always looking to exploit their enemies weakness, maximize their strengths, and minimize their vulnerabilities. The segmentata could have just as easily been assessed as too much of a vulnerability for the tactics of the moment.

Just food for thought, and not in anyway trying kick anyone in the shins.

v/r
Mike

[john m roberts]

Overall, the hamata has been the most satisfactory body armor ever invented. At various times it was supplemented (but not replaced) by plate and other forms of armor, and in some periods it grew long sleeves, coifs, and skirts to the ankles, but the basic mail shirt remained little changed. In the early 17th century many a soldier wore a mail shirt almost unchanged from one worn by a Gallic chieftain of the 3rd century BC. That's a history of continuous use, all but unchanged, of almost 2000 years. If that's not a successful design, I don't know what is.

[Matthew Amt]

are we considering the fact that Rome was fighting more enemies that had larger and larger mounted forces as the years rolled along such as the the remnants of Parthia, the Goths, and Palmyra? In the third century we begin to see the rise of, or at least formal recognition of specialized troops like the lanciarii and a greater need for mobility, and reach.

Hmmm, I can see what you're saying, but really, infantry faced with more cavalry rather than other infantry don't really need to be more mobile, do they? I'd rather think they'd want a more compact and solid line. Lots of spears and javelins, sure. But it's not like any legionary is going to outrun a horse on the battlefield. Weren't more of the changes in organization and an increase in Roman cavalry and missile troops, though? Still no burning need to replace plate armor with mail, for the average "heavy" on foot.

Hamata to me has always felt far easier to maneuver in than segmentata.

Ha, maybe you've just got a lousy segmentata! Though in all seriousness, I agree that you can't beat mail for comfort, pound for pound.

Personal experience in combat, over the years, in multi places, with multiple tours, has shown and taught me that even some of the slightest changes in weapons, body armor, force changes in tactics from the individual all the way up to a brigade combat team sized formation and vice versa; meaning that as the tactics change, you have to modify or change your kit.
Professional soldiers of any era are always looking to exploit their enemies weakness, maximize their strengths, and minimize their vulnerabilities. The segmentata could have just as easily been assessed as too much of a vulnerability for the tactics of the moment.

Sure, that makes sense today. And we do see things like the adoption of the manica and cross-braced helmet (apparently) in response to the Dacian falx. Or the use of poles and picks against the crupellarii in Vindex's revolt. But in general I tend to feel that ancient changes in weapons or tactics were not as radical as they can be today. Spears, arrows, swords, axes, clubs. Cavalry, infantry, maybe chariots. The Roman system was already quite flexible, and the sheer amount of armor the Roman army had compared to anyone else meant that most attempts to find "weaknesses" were simply insignificant. The vulnerabilities or drawbacks of the segmentata must have been mostly logistical, rather than tactical.

Just food for thought, and not in anyway trying kick anyone in the shins.

No prob, got my greaves on! Bwa ha ha!

Vale,

Matthew

[Titus Petronicus Graccus]

Titus:

Seems (at least to me) that the development of Armor had much more to do with fashion, rather than it's ability to deflect weaponry aimed against it.
Not a truism of course, just an educated guess.

Titus: I'd be curious how you got to those conclusions. My first reaction is to say, I'd want the armor that keeps the other guy's sword out of my guts, but I can also see how someone can believe this armor or that armor is better for what we're doing. Like Arklore/Mike said, changes in fighting tactics can change armor needs, too.

What led to the conclusion that it was fashion? I'm dying to see your study.

Armor works the same way, no matter how it's made or how pretty it looks. Obvious "parade" armor has all kinds of useless (but beautiful) bumps all over it (usually in the form or repouse or applied decoration) making it virtually useless in a battlefield context. That's not what we're talking about here.
What I'm saying is that when cloth fashion changed, so did armor. Some armourers went to great length to ape fashion.
When fashion changed, so did the armor. It's all about keeping up with the Jones'. Does a Ferrarri get you to the supermarket differently than a Dodge Caravan? Fundamentally no, but there are differences. The "head turning" factor to name one (never underestimate that force, either for cars or armor).
You are correct, fighting tactics can change armor needs. But what if you can't afford those changes? Or you need them yesterday but they aren't forthcoming? You make due.
I'm sure the Romans on the first Dacian campaign would have wished for a LOT more armor, but they had to wait to get it.
Until then, they made due with what they had.
My 2 denarii for what they're worth...

[Robert Vermaat]

Lets not forget that a possible contributing reason for the disappearance of segmentata armor might also have been due to a change in fighting tactics.

But the basic tactics didn't change significantly. Battles were still fought by lines of infantry, chucking some missiles and then closing in with pointy things. This is fundamentally the same as Greek hoplites, Vikings, Gauls, Zulus, Carolingians, Scottish highlanders, Sumerians, and Romans from a spread of about 1500 years.

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:

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

Sure, we go on about how the gladius is so good for close-quarters work, but longer swords were certainly used to great effect in many crowded battles. You could arm a Roman legion with Zulu shields, copper helmets, 17th century pikemens' armor, and cutlasses, and they'd still be able to fight like Roman legionaries. (Well, okay, they might have to practice with the vertical-grip shield a little!) (But I bet they'd LOVE the Zulu assegai!)

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

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.

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.
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.

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.

are we considering the fact that Rome was fighting more enemies that had larger and larger mounted forces as the years rolled along such as the the remnants of Parthia, the Goths, and Palmyra? In the third century we begin to see the rise of, or at least formal recognition of specialized troops like the lanciarii and a greater need for mobility, and reach.

Hmmm, I can see what you're saying, but really, infantry faced with more cavalry rather than other infantry don't really need to be more mobile, do they? I'd rather think they'd want a more compact and solid line. Lots of spears and javelins, sure. But it's not like any legionary is going to outrun a horse on the battlefield. Weren't more of the changes in organization and an increase in Roman cavalry and missile troops, though? Still no burning need to replace plate armor with mail, for the average "heavy" on foot.

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

And we do see things like the adoption of the manica and cross-braced helmet (apparently) in response to the Dacian falx. Or the use of poles and picks against the crupellarii in Vindex's revolt. But in general I tend to feel that ancient changes in weapons or tactics were not as radical as they can be today. Spears, arrows, swords, axes, clubs. Cavalry, infantry, maybe chariots. The Roman system was already quite flexible, and the sheer amount of armor the Roman army had compared to anyone else meant that most attempts to find "weaknesses" were simply insignificant. The vulnerabilities or drawbacks of the segmentata must have been mostly logistical, rather than tactical.

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.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

...That's far more sophisticated than I thought.

The complex way of segmentata production requiring considerable skill may be the reason for the following statement in RME (2nd ed, p. 258):

The manufacture of mail is undeniably easier and less specialized that "lorica segmentata", even if it was composed of a mixture of riveted and welded rings.

[Dan Howard]

I don't think any evidence for the Romans using welded lniks exists. Examination of slag inclusions and the uniformity of the rings suggests that they were punched.