How well armoured was the Roman army?

[JeffF]

During the battle of Dyrrachium there is a description of Caesar's soldiers, after suffering casualties from arrows, making protective armor to county this. This makes me doubt that Caesar's legionaries were normally equipped with mail shirts.

[magister clarissimus]

especially in times of long lasting wars or civil wars bodyarmour was probably poor or not in use at all. in Sallusts Bellum Catilinae (caput 56) we read that in some legions only a quarter of the men was equipped with armis militaribus. the others were equipped only with sudae (a long piece of hardened wood) or types of lances that were primarily used for hunting animals. conclusively the armis militaribus are gladius and pilum. body armour is not mentioned at all, but the description leaves little to the imagination about its quality...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

What evidence is there to say that the hamata in the 3rd Century was stronger than Segmentata?

[Dan Howard]

You'd need to define "stronger". Personally I think that segmentata was at least as good as hamata against arrows and swords and better against blunt trauma. But hamata has a lot of other advantages: more comfortble, easier to tailor, covers more of the body (stomach, armpit, groin, etc.), quicker to put on, easier to maintain, etc etc.

[Sardaukar]

You'd need to define "stronger". Personally I think that segmentata was at least as good as hamata against arrows and swords and better against blunt trauma. But hamata has a lot of other advantages: more comfortble, easier to tailor, covers more of the body (stomach, armpit, groin, etc.), quicker to put on, easier to maintain, etc etc.

Was hamata more comfortable than segmentata? I have no experience wearing either, but would have thought segmentata having less strain on shoulders than hamata (even when using belt to take some of the weight). Larger protection area of hamata is obviously an advantage.

There are probbaly lot of factors why one or another type of armour was popular. Even things like that sermetata was probably easier to decorate and make shiny.

[Crispvs]

I recall that when I switched from wearing hamata to segmentata about thirteen years ago I felt that the segmentata, as a more rigid armour, was less comfortable to wear, but I quickly became used to the segmentata. One thing I did notice however was that segmentat was actually harder on the shoulders than hamata, probably because of the way that hamata hugs the underlying body and distributes its weight reasonably evenly, whereas the weight of the segmentata is taken primarily by the shoulders, although this is relieved somewhat by the pressure of the belt at the waist. Until I got myself some padding to go under my armour I used to get very sore patches on my somewhat bony shoulders wearing segmentata.

Regarding popularity, I think that would have a lot to do with what was already available and how a unit was being supplied with replacement kit. We know that some units at least had some sort of 'buy back' arrangement which meant they could keep the equipment of dead soldiers in service for other men for as long as it was serviceable. For new equipment coming into the unit, from the reign of Diocletian onwards there were huge state factories manufacturing kit, but earlier on there were probably numerous private workshops with army contracts to supply equipment. Each of these workshops would probably have its own style or preferences, with one manufacturing one type of equipment and another a different type. In all likelyhood all equipment which had not been allotted to particular soldiers was kept under the care of the custos armorum, who would presumably equip new recruits according to both what he had available and what fitted the individual man's body shape. Personal preference may have had little to do with what sort of armour a man ended up wearing, excepting where a man with a good deal saved up decided to commission something privately.
I think also, and with more relevance to the overall topic of this thread, that there may have been a prevailing wisdom which said that armour (of whatever type) was better than no armour when confronted with weapons of any description. How many soldiers actually had armour though, particularly prior to Augustus, is a better question to be asking.

Crispvs