Lorica hamata / segmentata

[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