Bronze lorica segmentata?

[Anonymous]

Hello Antoninus<br>
<br>
The point of the illustrations of the 'Praetorian' and the Phalangite was to show that even if any rules existed, relating to style, practicality, cost, or tradition they could be swept aside by individuals like Nero or Caracalla. There was no suggestion that these uniforms were normal or that they may have lasted longer than the reign of the individual emperor. So do not discount other sources of evidence for Praetorian uniforms as they are equally relevant.<br>
<br>
If you notice the upper half of the 'Praetorian' armour in my illustration is iron with bronze edging. Only a few years ago this would have been thought of as fanciful but archaeology has now proved this to be true.<br>
<br>
Whatever Caracalla's state of mind, sources indicate that he was an experienced soldier loved by his troops. He probably realized that the Roman army was long overdue for reform and his 'Phalanx' could be viewed in this light. As you pointed out earlier, the army did indeed adopt new tactics and equipment soon afterwords.<br>
<br>
Nevertheless if you think these subjects are controversial just wait till you see what is in Roman Military Clothing 3!<br>
<br>
Both Raffaele D'Amato and I have been commissioned to produce a new book on Roman military equipment and clothing. So sources such as the mosaic from Tunisia will be published in that. However if you cannot wait for the book to be published if you post your email or postal address I would be pleased to send you a picture.<br>
<br>
Graham. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

"However if you cannot wait for the book to be published if you post your email or postal address I would be pleased to send you a picture." Yes please- [email protected] .<br>
<br>
<br>
Congratulations on the earlier Osprey books- a real quantum leap in quality , with sources clearly laid out so that you can (if you want) follow it up. When is the next one out?<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Tarbicus]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Congratulations on the earlier Osprey books<hr><br>
<br>
I actually leave all my wool gear (tunics extra extra large) crumpled up just to get that look I won't be knocking one of my front teeth out, though.<br>
<br>
Beautiful work. Ta. About the bronze segmentata..... <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Both Raffaele D'Amato and I have been commissioned to produce a new book on Roman military equipment and clothing<hr><br>
<br>
Hi, Mr. Graham.<br>
<br>
That's great news ! Can you tell us approximately when it's due to be released ?<br>
<br>
Thank you.<br>
-Theo<br>
<p><img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/RCasti998/chi-ro2.jpg"/></p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

Daniel,<br>
<br>
"Are there any examples of someone with money, such as an officer or centurio, wearing segmentata? If the painting in question is disregarded I can't find any. Most are wearing mail or solid cuirasses."<br>
<br>
I cannot call to mind a vast number of representations of centuriones or their equipment. In fact I can only think of seven, or possibly eight:<br>
<br>
1) Minucius - unarmoured, tunic, sagum(?), boots, belt, dagger, vitis.<br>
<br>
2) Marcus Caelius - mail, phalerae, torcs, civic crown, paludamentum, vitis<br>
<br>
3) M. Favonius Facilis - mail, sword on baldric, two belts, dagger, greaves, vitis, paludamentum.<br>
<br>
4) Q. Sertorius Festus - scale, phalerae, torcs, civic(?) crown, greaves, vitis, paludamentum<br>
<br>
5) T. Calidius Severus - scale, helmet with transverse horsehair(?) crest, greaves, vitis<br>
<br>
6) M. Petronius Classicus - helmet with transverse feather crest and cheek-guards which appear to have embossed ears like those on cavalry helmets.<br>
<br>
7) Possible centurio from Mainz - mail, helmet without crest, sword on left side (main reason for identification as a centurio).<br>
<br>
Possible centurio from Trajan's column - breastplate with Meusa head motif<br>
<br>
Eight examples then, with six definite (2 mail, 2 scale, 2 no armour) and two possible (1 mail, 1 breastplate).<br>
<br>
Although none of the eight examples includes segmentata, eight examples (only six actually in armour and only four of them definitely centuriones) is not a big enough sample to indicate that none of the tens of thousands of centuriones who served ever wore segmentata.<br>
<br>
"I am thinking that segmentata was only worn by those who couldn't afford anything "better".... could afford to get himself some mail or a solid cuirass."<br>
<br>
In the main, centuriones were very experienced soldiers and I am sure that each probably chose the type of armour he thought best, based on his own experience. Each type of armour has its own particular advantages and disadvantages for the soldier. Mail is very flexible and is difficult to penetrate but is heavy and could be time consuming to repair if replacement rings were not available and had to be made specially; scale probably has better deflective qualities than mail but was probably easily damaged although it may have been cheap to repair; breastplates have good deflective qualities but are inflexable and would be very cumbersome if used in a dynamic, rather than static style of fighting; segmentata is flexible and has good deflective qualities but is prone to broken fittings.<br>
<br>
"I would have thought that one of the reasons for developing the segmentata was that, at the time, iron was too difficult to fashion into solid breastplates - especially if it is mass produced."<br>
<br>
Segmentata is actually a surprisingly flexible armour with good deflective qualities which I am sure is better suited than a solid breastplate to the dynamic style of fighting probably employed by Imperial legionaries.<br>
<br>
"Is there such a thing as "parade" or "ceremonial" segmentata?"<br>
<br>
Not as far as we know, although in all likelyhood crests, military decorations and ceremonial staves and spears could have been considered as 'parade' items.<br>
<br>
Quite aside from its absence from the handfull of repesentations of centuriones, apart from its appearance on Trajan's cloumn, segmentata is very rarely depicted in sculpture even on representations of the regular rank and file, yet we accept that it was worn by them. Why then do many people not accept that it may also have been worn by many centuriones?<br>
<br>
Sorry if this has been somewhat OT.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

In fact besides helmet on stela of M. Petronius Classicus we can see part of armour aswell as legs with centurios stick.<br>
<img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3196235-md.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3196239-lg.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=arahne>Arahne</A> at: 3/14/05 7:33 pm<br></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

Avete, amici!<br>
<br>
Nice discussion going on, here.<br>
<br>
I don't necessarily accept the view that the lorica seg was "cheap" armor worn only by those who couldn't afford anything better. If that is the case, why do we not see representations of auxiliaries wearing the lorica seg? It seems a generally accepted view that the auxiliaries were more cheaply and simply equipped than legionaries. True, some lorica seg fragments have been found at auxiliary forts and there was, for awhile, a lot of discussion about auxiliaries having been equipped with it, but this boomlet seems to have passed and the consesnus of M.C. Bishop and others (if I read them correctly) is that there is no solid evidence that auxiliaries were ever equipped with it in large numbers. However, legionaries (and Praetorians, who were more highly paid than regular legionaires) were clearly were equipped with it in significant numbers.<br>
<br>
I think tradition and "fashion" played an enormous role in the selection of armor my different classes of soldiers. Mail, scale and "plumata" seem to have been established as Centurion armor early, and thus it was simply accepted that, once you made Centurion, you wore one of these forms (depending on what you could afford). Tribune and above gravitated to the muscle cuirass and Green-style panoply, although by the later 2nd century we see coins depicting emperors wearing what appear to be scale cuirasses.<br>
<br>
Modern reenactors have noted the excellent defensive qualities of the lorica seg, particularly against missile weapons and blunt trauma, and its superior weight and range of motion compared to mail, scale and muscle cuirasses. I'm sure these qualities would have not passed unnoticed in ancient times. Another author has noted that the lorica seg also gave legionaries a strong, manly look, emphasizing broad shoulders and chest and narrow waist, which certainly appealed to the sculptors of Trajan's Column at least.<br>
<br>
Have any centurions been identified on Trajan's Column? If so, could someone post a picture of him? I've long been puzzled as to why centurions, who play so critical a role in the legions, seem to be totally absent from the column.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Legio VI VPF<br>
CA, USA<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Aranhe,<br>
Are those your photos? Any chance we may use them for the imagebase on Romanarmy.com? <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Of course, just send me your e-mail, and image size that you want me to post. Maximum is 3264x2448 pixels. <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Ok. Check your EZinbox. Thanks! <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[John M McDermott]

Okay, I have heard for years how superior tests show the lorica segementata is to other forms of protection. However, has anyone done these tests on a lorica made of hammered iron of the type the Romans had?<br>
<br>
A recent History channel program on Crecy? showed that the battle occurred at about the time of a tremendous upgrade in the quality of steel available in plate armor. The results of tests even suggested the English longbow wouldn't have been effective against the new type of steel.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I would contend that longbow arrows could not penetrate any sort of plate armour. It was never developed to be used in such a way. Before the advent of better quality steel plate was generally heavier (and often worn over mail). As steel quality improved armour could be made thinner/lighter and provide similar protection.<br>
<br>
Regarding segmentata I would contend that (with the exception of impact resistance) mail would provide similar if not superior protection. The main problems with mail is that it was expensive and time consuming to produce, and it was heavier than plate lorica. Though it offered much better coverage.<br>
<br>
The problem is that there has never been a single test done against reasonable replicas of either mail or segmentata using contemporary materials and techniques. Recent tests against mail suggest that it offers much better protection than many have previously assumed.<br>
<br>
The Armour Research Society is currently in the process of commissioning some tests against very accurate reconstructions of 14th Century Italian mail and contemporary weapons. I am hoping that the next set of tests will be involving reconstructions of Roman mail and segmentata using equally rigorous standards. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/16/05 10:03 pm<br></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>some lorica seg fragments have been found at auxiliary forts and there was, for awhile, a lot of discussion about auxiliaries having been equipped with it, but this boomlet seems to have passed</em><br>
<br>
To be accurate, that should be 'forts traditionally interpreted as auxiliary'; at a time when garrisoning policy was so fluid, forts with one single troop type or even unit in them seem to have been the exception rather than the rule.<br>
<br>
<em>the consesnus of M.C. Bishop and others (if I read them correctly) is that there is no solid evidence that auxiliaries were ever equipped with it in large numbers.</em><br>
<br>
Just 'no evidence' will do fine!<br>
<br>
<em>The problem is that there has never been a single test done against reasonable replicas of either mail or segmentata using contemporary materials and techniques. Recent tests against mail suggest that it offers much better protection than many have previously assumed.</em><br>
<br>
David Sim has been doing tests along these lines.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>"Regarding segmentata I would contend that (with the exception of impact resistance) mail would provide similar if not superior protection. The main problems with mail is that it was expensive and time consuming to produce, and it was heavier than plate lorica. Though it offered much better coverage."<hr><br>
<br>
I agree that mail was probably proof better against arrows than previously supposed, but that exception-- impact resistance -- is a big one. A heavy sword blow that could easily break bones or cause massive contusions against a mail-clad trooper (unless he's wearing significant padding under his mail shirt) would have essentially no effect on someone in a lorica seg. Again, that fact could not have gone unnoticed. Also, the lorica seg is significantly lighter and requires much less under-armor padding than a mail shirt.<br>
<br>
As far as tests against a seg made from plates beaten from iron ingots is concerned, Hibernicus of Legio IX Hispana has been working off and on on producing just such an item for awhile; however, the immense time and effort involved in creating it might militate against his wanting to "test to destruction" the piece once finished, I would reckon. Modern mild steel of an appropriate gauge is probably a pretty good substitute as far as testing goes; the original material was probably pretty close to steel on the outside, with a soft iron core that might have actually made it better against blunt trauma than modern mild steel. In any case, even if ancient metalurgy was inferior, you would figure that all forms of armor would be affected uniformly, so that comparisons between mail and plate made from modern materials would still be roughly equivalent to their ancient counterparts. You would, however, have to make sure the mail was of similar manufacture to Roman mail-- i.e. riveted rings made from wire linked with solid flat rings made by punching.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Legio VI VPF<br>
CA, USA<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/17/05 12:15 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

<em>David Sim has been doing tests along these lines.</em><br>
<br>
Dr Bishop, you mentioned this in a thread a while ago and I asked if he has published any details. You didn't respond and I can't find any published papers reporting his findings. I thought that he was concentrating on mail. We would need comparative results on both mail and segmentata dating from a similar time period to get some useful results. If his tests involve both types of armour then wonderful. Either way I'm looking forward to reading his work.<br>
<br>
Flavius, regarding modern materials, it isn't reasonable to expect useful results from modern homogenous steels. They have completely different mechanical properties to wrought iron. In the case of mail, even mild steel wire has a much greater tendency to snap than wrought iron. Wrought iron will bend and twist rather than breaking - greatly increasing the force needed to penetrate it. The percentage of slag inclusions also affects the armour's performance. Generally slag in wrought iron wire is very low (otherwise it couldn't be drawn). In plate the quality of iron can be much lower. So you can't assume that all iron armour was made from the same material.<br>
<br>
Regarding the weight of mail. Mail offers much more coverage. If mail was shortened to only cover the same area as segmentata it wouldn't weigh that much more.<br>
<br>
There is a reason why mail saw continuous use by virtually every metal using culture on the planet for over 2000 years and segmentata lasted only two or three centuries. Why was segmentata phased out around the same time as the state began to take over the production of body armour and the administration of the fabricae? Why did mail see continuous use throughout this period, both before and after segmentata? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/17/05 5:30 am<br></i>