Lorica hamata / segmentata

[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