Looking at the whole hamata vs segmentata discussion from another angle

[Corvus]

I will also add, that a hamata might be heavier, but the weight distribution is better, and more even.
You can also move in a hamata much better, than a segmentata and its easier to transport and takes up less space when not worn?

[CaesarAugustus]

It is a simple fact, a plate armor offer more protection because the impact is distributed over the entire continuous surface. It is a really simple fact that you can study in any material science book. On the opposite, the chain mail is by definition a set of rings put together, something that dissipate the impact in a really bad way, and infact every time there have been organizational/logistic improvement, plate armor has been preferred. Unless you have to fear only cut damages. But, also in that case...
Also, the fact that an armor weighs more, it tires more. Run less. Fight less. Fight worse. They kill you first.

For the logistical issues, yes, ithere were logistical issues. The same reasons for which roman field artillery has been progressively abandoned and so on. But, these are issues coming with the crisis of the third century and the loss of organization.

A tank is immensely more complex to handle from a logistical point of view than a simple jeep, but if you are able to sustain its supply chain, you would prefer to have the tank.

[Dan Howard]

It is a simple fact, a plate armor offer more protection because the impact is distributed over the entire continuous surface. It is a really simple fact that you can study in any material science book. On the opposite, the chain mail is by definition a set of rings put together, something that dissipate the impact in a really bad way, and infact every time there have been organizational/logistic improvement, plate armor has been preferred. 

Apparently you've never worn plate armour. Unless it is carefully tailored and custom-fitted, it is decidedly uncomfortable. I've already given you a cite in this thread proving that plate was not always preferred. In that example, plate was the LEAST desirable out of all the armour types available. We have other examples of mail costing more than plate yet people still wanted mail. Kassa's archives (Hungary 1633) record a mail shirt costing six times more than a "double breastplate." The mail required 2 months to be completed while the breastplate only required 2 days. Why would this person pay six times more for mail and be prepared to wait 2 months for it if plate was so wonderful?

[CaesarAugustus]

It is a simple fact, a plate armor offer more protection because the impact is distributed over the entire continuous surface. It is a really simple fact that you can study in any material science book. On the opposite, the chain mail is by definition a set of rings put together, something that dissipate the impact in a really bad way, and infact every time there have been organizational/logistic improvement, plate armor has been preferred. 

Apparently you've never worn plate armour. Unless it is carefully tailored and custom-fitted, it is decidedly uncomfortable. I've already given you a cite in this thread proving that plate was not always preferred. In that example, plate was the LEAST desirable out of all the armour types available. We have other examples of mail costing more than plate yet people still wanted mail. Kassa's archives (Hungary 1633) record a mail shirt costing six times more than a "double breastplate." The mail required 2 months to be completed while the breastplate only required 2 days. Why would this person pay six times more for mail and be prepared to wait 2 months for it if plate was so wonderful?

You have not proven anything. Here some comparison about the two type in the middle ages:
https://medievalswordsworld.com/plate-vs-mail/

For a qualitative comparison, for the reason I have already explained (impact force distribution, materials science, this is "proof") the plate armor is far better. For the confort, it is the opposite, the mail armor uses just a belt to reduce the weight on the shoulders. And it weight more. The presence of horizontal bands made it possible to better distribute the weight of the segmented. And finally, for the price:
Throughout the Middle Ages chainmail was cheaper than plate armor. Only at the end of this period the balance started to shift in favor of plate.
This change was caused by the rise of better manufacturing methods speeding up the process to forge plate armor.
It is really difficult to compare prices of these armor types, because there are very few sources and their quality was subject to big fluctuations.

It is a matter of fact that chain mail production is far easier than the plate armor. There is a basic element, the ring, that is used in every single part. Riveting only adds time. But you can easily assign the task to entire groups of slaves (and later servants). It needs no skill at all. Instead, building a lorica was involving a massive amount of different elements, of different size and not interchangeable, with a work that was far from being within reach of non well-skilled personnel.

[Dan Howard]

Now it is clear that you have never worn plate armour.
Carefully tailored, custom-fitted plate was more expensive than mail. The rest was not
Carefully tailored, custom-fitted plate provides superior protection to mail. The rest does not.

Where do you think the links for mail came from? Most of the labour involved in mail was in making the wire in the first place, not weaving the links together. They couldn't go to the hardware store and buy a spool of wire for a few bucks. It had to be made by hand. Each shirt required between one and two thousand feet of wire pulled over and over again through a draw plate. After each pass the iron had to be annealed. That wire could only be made from the most highly refined iron (another process that was heavily labour intensive) whereas other types of armour (plate, scale, lamellar) could utilize cheaper sources of iron.

[CaesarAugustus]

Now it is clear that you have never worn plate armour.
Carefully tailored, custom-fitted plate was more expensive than mail. The rest was not
Carefully tailored, custom-fitted plate provides superior protection to mail. The rest does not.

Where do you think the links for mail came from? Most of the labour involved in mail was in making the wire in the first place, not weaving the links together. They couldn't go to the hardware store and buy a spool of wire for a few bucks. It had to be made by hand. Each shirt required between one and two thousand feet of wire pulled over and over again through a draw plate. After each pass the iron had to be annealed. That wire could only be made from the most highly refined iron (another process that was heavily labour intensive) whereas other types of armour (plate, scale, lamellar) could utilize cheaper sources of iron.

Really, you should study material science. You should study how the energy is dissipated, how discontinuities prevent the distribution of the impact and consequently increase the damage inflicted by the hits. It is something absolutely proven and studied. Instead, you are still here to talk about how a chain mail is better than a plate armor.

Now, "looking from another angle", like in the topic, we have to consider that "cost" is not given only by the purchase (and also here, I am still waiting to see how a skilled an experienced blacksmith's job is less expensive than a job that any ignorant slave can do), cost is given by purchase + operating cost. Operating cost including battle / drill damage and normal deterioration (e.g. rust).
It is another matter of fact that a chain mail is normally self capable of removing the rust, by simply wearing it. Also, local damages in a chain mail can be easily repaired even from the soldiers, you only need to have an undifferentiated mass of rings. Considering that each Contubernium generally had one servant, it is quite easy to admit that operating cost of a chain mail is lowest. On the contrary, a plate armor need to be constantly maintained to remove the rust, and in case of damage, you will need the exact armor piece, and this is far beyond the possibilities of simple group of soldiers/servants. It is quite obvious that the "cost" of a segmentata is far beyond the cost of a hamata.

Finally, what somebody really doesn't understand is that the regression to the hamata has been the result of the change of the logistic model done in the third century. A change that has its origin mainly in two factors: an heavy loss in organization and an attempt to sabe money (given a massive inflation and general economic crisis).
The logistic model of the I/II century was highly decentralized and was rounding around the legionary fortresses and the limes, where the limes was not simply a street, it was an integrate logistical system able to support advanced operations. Legionary fortresses had all what was needed to equip the legions and support their effort. This means they were real logistical bases, able to provide the service of skilled blacksmiths, supporting legionary efforts in the real front line. The segmentata was complex to handle for sure, but in this model it was an added value. More complex, but with the infrastructure to keep it. Like for the field artillery. If works, it is an added value. And, to be noticed, the blacksmiths are near the soldiers, to keep their inputs and support them directly.
Instead, the logistical model of following centuries, and the operating model, switch to a centralized model, where the imperial factories provides a set of pre-made armor and weapons. Being far from the operatives, it becomes hard if not impossible to keep operative complex equipments, so the glorius segmentata becomes a problem. If there is a piece to repair, there is no spare part. And from the central fabrics they sent just... riveted rings. At this point, you give up, and you take what is provided, even if you perfectly know that it is going to offer you a worst protection.

[Dan Howard]

Hamata was always worn. It was the preferred armour in pretty much every metal-using culture on the planet for almost two thousand years. In Rome, mail was still the preferred armour when segmetata was available. Segmentata was munitions armour - a secondary option for those who could not afford hamata.

You have the time periods wrong. Segmentata was being used when Rome was in the decline. Segmentata was phased out when Diocletian took over the armour fabricas and standardised armour production. It was a time of greater organisation and a resurgence in Rome's fortunes. It was after the Diocletion and the removal of segmentata that Rome entered into a period of expansion and prosperity.

[Corvus]

It is a simple fact, a plate armor offer more protection because the impact is distributed over the entire continuous surface. It is a really simple fact that you can study in any material science book. On the opposite, the chain mail is by definition a set of rings put together, something that dissipate the impact in a really bad way, and infact every time there have been organizational/logistic improvement, plate armor has been preferred. Unless you have to fear only cut damages. But, also in that case...
Also, the fact that an armor weighs more, it tires more. Run less. Fight less. Fight worse. They kill you first.

For the logistical issues, yes, ithere were logistical issues. The same reasons for which roman field artillery has been progressively abandoned and so on. But, these are issues coming with the crisis of the third century and the loss of organization.

A tank is immensely more complex to handle from a logistical point of view than a simple jeep, but if you are able to sustain its supply chain, you would prefer to have the tank.

I think there is a difference between real plate armor and a segmentata. The segmentata is not really plate armor, it consists of many smaller parts.
I doubt that it protects better than mail.
But lets say that's the case. If the armor is a soldiers personal choice a soldier would always go for something that is more comfortable and easier to maintain. You will see the same thing in modern armies as well.
Your example with a tank and jeep is not so good, its better to think about personal choice of a plate carrier by a modern soldier. And I never saw someone go for a more bulky and less comfortable plate carrier, only because it offers more protection. If the person has a choice of course to choose their own equipment. But I did saw the army issuing bulky, more protective less comfortable equipment, because it was cheaper etc.

Lets also not forget that centurions used hamata as well and certainly every legionary would have looked up to centurions and would have wanted to wear a similar armor to them.
I would say same goes in relation to cavalry, but I am not sure how cavalry was perceived by the legionaries.

[CaesarAugustus]

Hamata was always worn. It was the preferred armour in pretty much every metal-using culture on the planet for almost two thousand years. In Rome, mail was still the preferred armour when segmetata was available. Segmentata was munitions armour - a secondary option for those who could not afford hamata.

You have the time periods wrong. Segmentata was being used when Rome was in the decline. Segmentata was phased out when Diocletian took over the armour fabricas and standardised armour production. It was a time of greater organisation and a resurgence in Rome's fortunes. It was after the Diocletion and the removal of segmentata that Rome entered into a period of expansion and prosperity.

"Segmentata was being used when Rome was in the decline."
Are you serious? Really, do you know what we are talking about? Segmentata was widely used in I and II century, when Rome was at the apex. I think you should carefully study not only science material, but also roman history.

---

Lets also not forget that centurions used hamata as well and certainly every legionary would have looked up to centurions and would have wanted to wear a similar armor to them.
I would say same goes in relation to cavalry, but I am not sure how cavalry was perceived by the legionaries.

I have already replied you. You can use more complex equipments/weapons (if you don't like the tank example, think at the roman field artillery, with the ballista more complex but used when Rome was at the apex) if logistic supports you. In that case, more complex equipments/weapons/armors are a force multiplier. The simple fact it is depicted to be used also from praetorians tells you that it was considered as the best option.

For the centurion example... here a topic about Centurion representations between I and II century:
https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showth...?tid=31192
We have lorica muscolata and squamata. Please provide evidences before talking again on this topic.

[Leoshenlong]

Is this Segmentata really cheap and no one want to buy it?

[Dan Howard]

Is this Segmentata really cheap and no one want to buy it?

No armour was cheap. Segmentata was less expensive than the alternatives.

[Sean Manning]

To give an idea, in the Roman world many people had no change of clothing. Cato the Elder provided his slaves with a tunic and a cloak in alternate years and made them recycle the old ones into patchwork. When the engineer Nonius Datius was held up by robbers in the second century CE, they left him naked (nudus). A number of passage in the Hebrew Bible mention poor people who may pawn their cloak and have nothing else to wear (eg., Exodus 22:26, 27, a similar detail is in the Babylonian story of the Poor Man of Nippur). So having any kind of metal body armour was an extraordinary display of wealth, even one designed for quick manufacture like lorica segmentata.

[Dan Howard]

In the Middle Ages it required the combined wealth of multiple villages to field one mailed knight.

[CaesarAugustus]

Is this Segmentata really cheap and no one want to buy it?

Are you trolling? Segmentata was used by the Praetorians as depicted in monuments of the period. And you don't have any reason to wear an armor that any inexperienced slave can do, that is going to offer a bad protection against penetration damages, and no protection at all against blow damages. And, which weighs more.

[Dan Howard]

Produce evidence of a Praetorian that is depicted wearing segmetata.