How well armoured was the Roman army?

[Matthew Amt]

Theories abound as to when lorica segmentata was adopted (ie. Carrhae in 53 BC and Florus/Sacrovir in AD 21).

Actually, that's being narrowed down to the late first century BC. There are finds of fittings from Dangstetten, I believe, in a reasonably dated context. Of course, the finds from Kalkriese prove that segmentata was in use by 9 AD. Theories of that armor's origins DO still abound, though!

It would have been relatively easy to manufacture or mass produce, but it's susceptible to corrosion and wear...not something you want on long marches and battle conditions. Probably for these reasons, it falls out of favor around the 3rd century.

Any armor is susceptible to corrosion, and we know that various sorts were indeed worn on the march and in battle. Segmentata was lighter than a longer shirt of mail or scale, in any case. And it would not have taken 300 years for the Romans to have figured out any major problems, eh? There have been a couple LONG discussions on why the segmentata fell out of use.

The plates would have been good protection against downward sword blows (Germanic wars and conquest of Britain), but poor against piercing missile weapons (so probably not so popular in the east).

Eh? It is excellent protection against any sort of weapon! And better against blunt trauma than mail. And segmentata parts have been found in the East (Gamala), so we know it was used there. Also remember that spears are always the most common weapon.

Even at the height of its popularity, though, I think mail was still far more common.

It's possible, though I'd say that may have been true across the whole army. I still think Trajan's Column shows legionaries in segmentata because that was the common perception of the time, even if it was not entirely accurate. I certainly agree that it was never *universal* among legionaries, and that mail (and/or scale) predominated among auxiliaries.

From the number of finds, it seems to me that lorica segmentata was most common from early- to mid-first century AD to mid-second century. But I do think the whole idea of it being used by "specialist" troops is a little odd...

Valete,

Matthew

[Bucephalus]

Home from work! Haha. You definitely know your stuff. I will attempt to clarify my earlier general ramblings.

Actually, that's being narrowed down to the late first century BC. There are finds of fittings from Dangstetten, I believe, in a reasonably dated context. Of course, the finds from Kalkriese prove that segmentata was in use by 9 AD. Theories of that armor's origins DO still abound, though!

Yes, it's more or less agreed that it was well established by 21 AD, with plenty of earlier evidence. I've just read too many arguments going many different ways, and I might not be as current on the subject as I'd like to be. I thought the Kalkriese was in use by 9 BC by legio XIX? Maybe I'm mistaken or it's a typo. 18 years is pretty insignificant anyways.

Any armor is susceptible to corrosion, and we know that various sorts were indeed worn on the march and in battle. Segmentata was lighter than a longer shirt of mail or scale, in any case. And it would not have taken 300 years for the Romans to have figured out any major problems, eh? There have been a couple LONG discussions on why the segmentata fell out of use.

Well, segmentata had the disadvantage of being made from both iron and copper alloy, meaning it's prone to bimetallic corrosion. The fittings and plates were riveted, making it hard to clean to prevent the corrosion. So sweat or water would have been a problem. And then you'd have to worry about replacing and maintaining the leather. But segmentata was indeed lighter than mail and provided good protection for its weight. It obviously served well in its time, as it's 300-plus years in service indicate.

Eh? It is excellent protection against any sort of weapon! And better against blunt trauma than mail. And segmentata parts have been found in the East (Gamala), so we know it was used there. Also remember that spears are always the most common weapon.

I wouldn't say excellent protection against any weapon. Its defense was concentrated in the shoulders and upper components. I'm not saying it wasn't used in the East, but segmentata was by no means the perfect defense, arrows being one weakness. Spear thrusts not strong enough would have been deflected by the curved plates.

It's possible, though I'd say that may have been true across the whole army. I still think Trajan's Column shows legionaries in segmentata because that was the common perception of the time, even if it was not entirely accurate. I certainly agree that it was never *universal* among legionaries, and that mail (and/or scale) predominated among auxiliaries.

Tajan's Column is a tricky source because it shows exactly that, perception, not actual representation. It's difficult to argue on exactly what ratio of legionaries wore which type of armor. I think that our modern image of the Roman legionary automatically includes segmentata, so maybe we tend to lean that way. Or maybe not, but it's a thought.

[Sardaukar]

Legions were very expensive commodity and I am not sure if it was actually financially possible to equip all troops with full armour.

http://www.strategypage.com/articles/de ... .htm#_ftn4 (itself very interesting article about Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus strategic options in start of civil war)

Footnote there:

Cicero's comment that the two under strength legions he controlled in Cilicia in 51 B.C. each cost about 3 million sestertii in pay and maintenance a year (Cicero, ad Fam., V , 20, 9, & ad Att., V, 11, 5), which was about 60% of the annual revenues of the province (Cf., Frank, pp. 136ff).

Also the comment by Crassus (IIRC) that man should not consider himself rich unless he was able to raise and equip and legion, vastly more expensive than just pay and maintenance.

[Caratacus]

I have a question regarding the Lorica segmentata. One of my Osprey books about the roman army shows a legionair in britain in 43 AD. He wears a Lorica Segmentata. The book states that the Segmentata wasn't common or standard among the legion by then. It says that probably only 'specialists' wore that kind of armor at that time. Is that assumption correct? If so, who were considered 'specialists'?

That sounds to me like one of those statements that aught to be supported by some evidence but when you go looking for it, it's not there! It's a fact that lorica segmentata armour has turned up at sites associated with the Claudian invasion of AD 43 (Chichester, for example). To say that "Segmentata wasn't common or standard ...." is an opinion impossible to verify. Dating just isn't that accurate and in any case we do not have a complete picture of what was worn. There is no equivalent of the Vindolanda writing tablets that would give us a inventory of the armour for a legion, cohort, whatever. What can be said is that we have evidence that the armour was being worn from the very earliest period of the occupation until at least the end of the 2nd century AD.

Likewise, there is absolutely no evidence that the armour was worn only by 'specialist' troops (define "specialist" for a start! I don't know what they mean either by this.) Trajan's column suggests that only legionary (citizen) troops wore the armour but it has often been said that this was merely a device to tell the viewer that they were looking at legionary troops and not auxiliiary soldiers (just as the senior officers and emperor are always shown wearing a muscle cuirass).

The earliest date for the armour we have is Dangstetten (as someone said above) - somewhere between 15 and 9 BC and the latest date suggests it was still in use in the last quarter of the 3rd century AD. This knocks on the head the idea that the stuff was brought into service to replace the losses under Varus in AD 9 - because there have been finds of the 'Kalkriese' form of the armour at the supposed site of the battle.

As to what proportion of the legion would have worn armour - well, in the absence of any written evidence, there is no possible way that we can know. We do know that there were armouries in the camps, because they have been found (e.g. at Carnuntum) - which suggests that the armour would been issued to the troops and that there was enough to go around. For the rest, however, it's merely going to be speculation as to what the true situation would have been. My own view (for what it's worth) is that the vast majority of the legion would have been armoured in some fashion because the army was a professional military force and this would have been the best way to ensure success in battle. The Romans were nothing if not pragmatic!

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Matthew Amt]

Yes, it's more or less agreed that it was well established by 21 AD, with plenty of earlier evidence. I've just read too many arguments going many different ways, and I might not be as current on the subject as I'd like to be. I thought the Kalkriese was in use by 9 BC by legio XIX?

Right, the Kalkriese type lorica is named for the site of Kalkriese where those parts were found, and that's dated to c. 9 AD (whether it's a Teutoberg battle site or not!). Presumably this was not the first use of that armor. Watch out for books with outdated information, by the way--there are some still in print which were first published long before the Kalkriese finds, and they've never been updated.

Well, segmentata had the disadvantage of being made from both iron and copper alloy, meaning it's prone to bimetallic corrosion. The fittings and plates were riveted, making it hard to clean to prevent the corrosion. So sweat or water would have been a problem. And then you'd have to worry about replacing and maintaining the leather. But segmentata was indeed lighter than mail and provided good protection for its weight. It obviously served well in its time, as it's 300-plus years in service indicate.

Very much agreed on most of that! It rusts, and the leathers rot. And while cleaning armor would have been a constant task for a soldier, I'd say that's one of the big reasons he had it! Officers love a busy soldier, and having him spend a couple more hours polishing is a perfect way to keep him out of trouble. Ask any reenactor how they keep their lorica clean, and they'll groan and roll their eyes! However, as much as I've heard about bimetallic corrosion, I've never seen any hint of it, on anyone's armor. Nor on any original pieces, as far as I can see. There are a number of little fragments of plate with rivet holes punched in them, and you can often see the "volcano" shape from the punch, with its original raggedy rim, often with a rivet still in place. So I think that theory is overplayed (not impossible!).

I wouldn't say excellent protection against any weapon. Its defense was concentrated in the shoulders and upper components.

Similarly to many ancient armors. With spears thrust overhand, and swords and other weapons swung overhand, that makes all kinds of sense. But the torso is covered perfectly well, even if the plate thickness averaged a little less than the shoulders. It can stop points, edges, and blunt trauma--what other weapons are there? (Besides heat and hunger, ha!)

I'm not saying it wasn't used in the East, but segmentata was by no means the perfect defense, arrows being one weakness.

Huh? Arrows are generally not going to penetrate plate armor! If there's a weakness, it's that the limbs are exposed. But the shield is the primary defense in any case.

Spear thrusts not strong enough would have been deflected by the curved plates.

Right, or simply stopped cold. Remember how little effort it takes to pierce or slice unarmored flesh! About as much work as swatting a fly. With armor, you can simply ignore any number of blows that would otherwise be fatal. Or more likely, no one will even bother whacking at your armor, since they know the lousy odds of getting through it! Better just to go for the soft parts.

Tajan's Column is a tricky source because it shows exactly that, perception, not actual representation. It's difficult to argue on exactly what ratio of legionaries wore which type of armor. I think that our modern image of the Roman legionary automatically includes segmentata, so maybe we tend to lean that way. Or maybe not, but it's a thought.

Oh, agreed! I doubt we'll ever know exactly what the ratio of segmentata to hamata was, or even the ratio of armored to unarmored, though it all undoubtedly varied over time and place. And it's certainly true that Trajan's Column has helped create the modern stereotype of the legionary in the lorica segmentata! I'm just saying that it wasn't too wacky an idea to the sculptors, that their "visual shorthand" must have had some basis in reality. Most reenactors are aware of these issues, though, and while those of us in segmentata don't mind being recognizable as "stereotypical" Romans, any decent group of us will make it clear that there was a lot of variety.

Vale,

Matthew

[Caratacus]

Matthew Amt wrote:
However, as much as I've heard about bimetallic corrosion, I've never seen any hint of it, on anyone's armor. Nor on any original pieces, as far as I can see.

The problem is that we are not dealing with simple bimetallic corrosion here. The brass fitments are an alloy of copper and zinc. While copper is a less reactive metal than iron, zinc is more reactive. There are hundreds of examples of fragments of lorica seg that have pieces of iron plate still attached to the brass fitments. This is so because the zinc 'protects' the iron from corrosion (our modern equivalent is 'galvanising'). The copper would cause the iron to corrode more rapidly but the voltage of the copper/iron couple is lower than that of the zinc/iron one - so the latter wins! However, the effect falls off with distance (which is why we rarely get complete plates of the armour). If the Romans had used bronze, rather than brass, fitments then it's very likely that the iron would have corroded much more rapidly as both copper and tin are less reactive than iron. The protection isn't a complete one, of course but after 2,000 years in the ground one would not expect to find pure iron metal.

The question remains (in my mind) as to whether the Romans knew of this difference in behaviour (without, of course, knowing the electrochemical reason behind it) - or whether it was just serendipity!

I remember that a couple of years back there was a TV programme where eight young men were 'trained' to be Roman legionaries, wearing the lorica seg armour (as well as hamata) for a week and roughing it in the countryside. At the end of a week of exposure to the elements, the iron of the lorica seg had a distinct red tinge to it - ALL OVER.

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Matthew Amt]

Aha! Thanks, Mike! Fascinating metallurgical explanation.

Matthew

[Theodosius the Great]

Julius Caesar's men may have been better armored overall than one of the many legions raised during the civil wars after his death, for example. But I don't think there is much in the way of actual evidence to argue either way.

Two episodes stand out to me from Caesar's Commentaries. First, after Caesar bridged the Rhine the Suebi evacuated their civilians and gathered their warriors in the forest to offer battle. Caesar declined to face them in the forest, he says, because he advanced far enough to serve both honor and interest. Author J.F.C. Fuller interprets this retreat as an acknowledgement of the fact that Caesar's army was 'not suited for forest warfare'. I infer that most of the army was too heavily armored to fight in the forest. Caesar wasn't the type to shy away from a fight especially when he thought he could win it.

The second episode is Caesar's invasion of Britain. When the Britons under Cassivellaunus' leadership resorted to guerrilla warfare Caesar's men were distressed : " It was clear that in all such fighting our infantry, by reason of their heavy armament, since they could neither pursue a retiring enemy nor venture far from the standards were but poorly fitted for an enemy of this kind."

Fuller concludes on page 317-18 that Caesar's 'light-armed auxiliary troops...were valueless as soldiers.' He cites an episode involving Publius Crassus in Aquitainia, in 56 BC during which he decided against using his auxiliaries to fight and used them instead to gather stones and missles and to carry sods to make a ramp which gave them the appearence of fighting troops to the distant Gauls. Caesar's light troops, Fuller says, 'were totally useless as or against guerrillas, as were also the legionaries'. So, I too gather that the vast majority of Caesar's legionaires were probably armored.

~Theo

[Lunico]

Is it correct that the legionairs quit using the humeralis of the Lorica Hamata sometime during the 1st century AD? If so, can someone tell me a specific time frame (mid or late first century)?

[Q Rutilius]

Why would segmetata not be effective agiainst arrows? I have never seen this postulated before. I have been trying to visualize an arrow striking an iron plate. I have a difficult time seeing how an arrow can penetrate such a plate unless it is fired from an extremely short distance, much as a bullet will penetrate modern ballistic armor if the gun is fired at close enough range. It is interesting to consider why the Romans gave up protection against arrows. Perhaps they thought that is what the shield is for?

[jkaler48]

Why would segmetata not be effective agiainst arrows? I have never seen this postulated before. I have been trying to visualize an arrow striking an iron plate. I have a difficult time seeing how an arrow can penetrate such a plate unless it is fired from an extremely short distance, much as a bullet will penetrate modern ballistic armor if the gun is fired at close enough range. It is interesting to consider why the Romans gave up protection against arrows. Perhaps they thought that is what the shield is for?

There are lots of accounts of many many arrows in shields. Also one account of roman soldiers defending a camp using hides to increase protection from arrows. To be effective the Armor and
subarmor padding would not have to prevent complete penetration of the arrow but just enough to prevent the soldier from being seriously wounded and taken out of action or killed.
The Roman Legion medical system would be able to handle the minor wounds.

[Goffredo]

then again if segmentata was not widespread then why are so many found? Is there any reliable statistics ot the types of armor found? has anyone made a complilation?

[Goffredo]

I read somewhere that segmentata was designed after rome's longterm encounters with parthian archers: crassus then antony finally augustus's standardization of easter frontier.

[Caratacus]

Q Rutilius

Why would segmetata not be effective agiainst arrows? I have never seen this postulated before. I have been trying to visualize an arrow striking an iron plate. I have a difficult time seeing how an arrow can penetrate such a plate unless it is fired from an extremely short distance, much as a bullet will penetrate modern ballistic armor if the gun is fired at close enough range. It is interesting to consider why the Romans gave up protection against arrows. Perhaps they thought that is what the shield is for?

David Sim did some 'experiments' with a falx against some recreated lorica segmentata and concluded that the armour would not offer too much in the way of protection against such a weapon. However, the falx is a very formidable thing and would probably come at the top of the range for energy of blow.

The thing is, the plates on this type of armour are all curved and this effectively multiplies that thickness of the armour, without actually adding any weight. At any sort of oblique angle, the force of the blow will be far less than if delivered perpendicular to the plate - the sword, spear or arrow will tend to glance off. It's the same principle behind the inclined armoured decks that used to be used on armoured ships.

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Matthew Amt]

Is it correct that the legionairs quit using the humeralis of the Lorica Hamata sometime during the 1st century AD? If so, can someone tell me a specific time frame (mid or late first century)?

Ave! Sorry, not sure I understand the question--what is "humeralis"? Legionaries did not stop wearing lorica hamata (mail armor) when the lorica segmentata appeared. Some wore one type, others wore the other, and some were not armored. If you just mean the flaps or shoulder doubling/reinforcing on the hamata, that is still seen on the Adamklissi monument dating to Trajan's Dacian campaigns. However, Trajan's Column also shows mailshirts without shoulder flaps, so there were different styles at use for a while.

It is interesting to consider why the Romans gave up protection against arrows. Perhaps they thought that is what the shield is for?

They didn't. Mail works just fine against arrows, or it would not have been used by so many Roman troops, including officers and standard bearers. In fact, since the lorica hamata of the 3rd century is a little longer than a segmentata and has sleeves, it gives *more* protection than a segmentata. Though it is certainly true that the shield was always the first line of defence! Remember that there were always some legionaries who had no body armor, and that does not seem to have been seen as any terrible problem or disadvantage.

I read somewhere that segmentata was designed after rome's longterm encounters with parthian archers:

Well, that seems to be about right as far as the timing goes. But we can not say that those encounters are *WHY* the segmentata developed, unless there is a clear reference in ancient literature to that effect. The reasons for Crassus' defeat are complicated and much debated, but it certainly wasn't as simple as "mail is no good against arrows". The Romans did beat the Parthians sometimes, after all!

Matthew