Another primary consideration in introduction & eventual disappearance of Segmentata?

[CNV2855]

Yes, I was referring to the Plague of Justinian.

Smallpox is a very deadly disease, especially among those without immunity.  There's evidence of it hitting very hard in the 2nd Century and then continuing to do so for a couple hundred years until the Plague of Justinian completely finished off any chance for imperial reclamation.

Now, I don't want to assign all of the blame to disease but don't underestimate it's tertiary effects such as any effects it may have on general outlook on life in subsequent leaders, of all levels of authority. Is it a mere coincidence that we consider Marcus Aurelius to be the last of the Five Good Emperors? I don't think we can ever know with any certainty.

It is very unlikely that pestilence alone brought about the collapse of the Western Roman state because there are several other factors at play.  Factors, all of which in combination, plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. Nathan, read up on what Smallpox did to the Aztecs and you'll understand why I'm arguing as intensely as I am. 2,000 Spanish conquered the entire Empire, and it wasn't because of technological superiority like text books indicate. It was because the Aztec people were dying in droves. Smallpox is terrible and I'm quite happy that it was eradicated before I was born. Determining the health of any kingdom solely on the number of soldiers it can field is incredibly misleading, as it will continue drafting an ever higher percent of its male populace. This in turn lowers the amount of skilled male civilians of which very sophisticated armor is completely reliant.

"It is the worst human disease. It probably killed more people in history than any other infectious agent, including the Black Death of the Middle Ages," says Richard Preston, who writes about deadly diseases like Ebola and anthrax. Nothing scares him like smallpox.

One day we might have evidence for just how bad the Antonine Plague was. We can only guess, and I'm going to say that it was probably pretty terrible because it led the Romans directly into the Crisis of the Third Century, which it's a miracle the Empire survived! It also caused a dramatic expansion in Christianity.

By virtually any count, smallpox has taken more human lives than any other communicable disease. In the twentieth century alone, smallpox caused roughly 300 to 500 million deaths.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

the loss of north Africa to the Vandals, would probably be my choice for the point after which revival was impossible.

This.^^

Even with Aetius the Western Roman Empire did not have the financial or military capacity to retake it (and he tried, twice in fact: 440/441 and in 453 with his invasion of Spain which would be followed up by his lackeys Avitus and Majorian.)

[Nathan Ross]

his lackeys Avitus and Majorian

Ah, so you don't hold with Gibbon's idea that Majorian was "a great and heroic character, such as sometimes arise, in a degenerate age, to vindicate the honour of the human species"?

[CNV2855]

I always thought it funny that Cap Bon was supposedly this massive undertaking and basically the final defeat of the Romans, yet it's little more than a footnote in history.

Had it been won and the Vandals defeated, I'd say it would have dramatically altered the course of history. The other battle that of great importance being Yarmouk. Straight from Wikipedia:

George F. Nafziger, in his book Islam at war, describes the battle as:

“ Although Yarmouk is little known today, it is one of the most decisive battles in human history...... Had Heraclius' forces prevailed, the modern world would be so changed as to be unrecognizable. ”

In both, a mucher larger Byzantine army was defeated by a force only a fraction its size. Not a very good showing for the East Romans.

Do you all believe that the Romans were well equipped in 468? I find it highly unlikely.

A noteworthy comment on his army is that he is said that his troops were said to have always been well-equipped;[16] to say that in an age when the armies in the west were declining this becomes especially important.

His force wasn't beaten in Africa.

My final question. Why was segmentata used at all? Seriously, if mail is better, and it was around beforehand why would they create a completely different armor for hundreds of years? That's something no one here has given a reasonably good explanation for. Do you think it was only quicker to make? This was an age where people had plenty of time. They didn't have vehicles, instant communication, fast travel, electronic entertainment, or anything of the sort. There were plenty of people around who could always be put to work making a bunch of chain tunics given the rings needed.

It does not make sense that they could not equip the legions in hamata, if that were the best armor available, had they wanted to... especially over the course of two hundred & fifty years. Augustus was furious he lost two legions in Germany. He isn't going to be satisfied with his soldiers being armed with substandard equipment when he has the gold to pay for the very, very best.

[Dan Howard]

Given the resources and infrastructure the Romans had, segmentata was cheaper and faster to produce than any other kind of metallic armour. In comparison, mail was the most expensive and time consuming type of armour ever invented. The cost of production of just the wire (one-two thousand feet of highly refined iron wire for every hamata), exceeds the completed cost of most other kinds of armour.

Segmenta was phased out because, IMO, the state took over armour production and determined that it was not economically viable compared to mail. This has been discussed many many times in the past. Suppose you had a public servant ordered by Diocletian to clean up arms production and maintenance. He has to streamline the armour fabrica and needs to decide whether to concentrate on mail or segmentata. Which would he choose considering that the state is now directly paying for both production and maintenance?

[Renatus]

Given the resources and infrastructure the Romans had, segmentata was cheaper and faster to produce than any other kind of metallic armour. In comparison, mail was the most expensive and time consuming type of armour ever invented. The cost of production of just the wire (one-two thousand feet of highly refined iron wire for every hamata), exceeds the completed cost of most other kinds of armour.

Segmenta was phased out because, IMO, the state took over armour production and determined that it was not economically viable compared to mail. This has been discussed many many times in the past. Suppose you had a public servant ordered by Diocletian to clean up arms production and maintenance. He has to streamline the armour fabrica and needs to decide whether to concentrate on mail or segmentata. Which would he choose considering that the state is now directly paying for both production and maintenance?

Am I being incredibly dense or is this a complete non sequitur?  If segmentata was 'cheaper and faster to produce than any other kind of metallic armour' and mail was 'the most expensive and time consuming type of armour ever invented', how is it that segmentata was 'not economically viable compared to mail'?

[Dan Howard]

Consider some of the benefits of mail compared to segmentata

It provides a similar level of protection but covers more of the body
it is arguably more comfortable and is definitely faster to put on and take off
There are only three basic components (open ring, solid ring, rivet)
It doesn't need to be as closely tailored - an arsenal only needs to stock a few standard sizes
It is easier to repair and maintain
A field repair can be made with a twisted piece of wire
Less spare parts are needed
Few tools are needed
It is easier to store and transport
It has greater longevity so can be passed down to many more generations of soldiers.

So if you have one entity paying for all the costs of armour and having to handle all of the infrastructure and logistics required, from the manufacture through to its ongoing storage and maintenance, it seems to me that mail would cost more in the short term but segmetata costs more in the long term. It would be in the state's financial interest to phase out segmentata and concentrate on mail even though it costs more to manufacture. When the soldiers were allowed to choose their own armour they would want the cheapest armour available because they aren't interested in long term costs.

[CNV2855]

I see that argument regurgitated with absolutely no supporting evidence.  If segmentata was so much cheaper, and "economically viable" then why do we never see it return during the Middle Ages when people were struggling to buy even the simplest armors?

Are we to believe that they preferred going unarmored to wearing segmentata?

For the last time, time=money is a modern concept. In an age where people occupied themselves with many physical tasks, finding the labor to put together a coat of rings would not have been difficult nor costly.

[Dan Howard]

The vast majority of armies from the Bronze Age through to the end of the Middle Ages went unarmoured. During this time, armour of any kind was reserved for the elite. You usually only see the rank and file wearing body armour when there was a central authority with the economic and industrial infrastructure to mass produce armour. Examples include Assyria, Rome, and China. In Europe at the end of the Middle Ages you DO see segmented armour return in the form of coats of plates in the 13th-14th century, which became covered breastplates at the end of the 14th century, which became solid breastplates in the 15th century.

For the last time, time=money is a modern concept. In an age where people occupied themselves with many physical tasks, finding the labor to put together a coat of rings would not have been difficult nor costly.

So where do you think those rings are going to come from? You can't drive down to the hardware store and buy a spool of wire for a few dollars. You can't go online and order a bag of premade links from a supplier in India. You need an industry to make the iron and refine it enough to enable it to be drawn into wire. You need an industry to make those thousands of miles of wire. You need an industry to turn out all those millions of links and rivets. The cost of actually weaving the links into mail is a small part of the overall cost of mail armour.

[CNV2855]

Dan, I'm not saying mail was cheap lol. On the contrary.

I am merely rebuffing his argument stating that segmentata was "cheap". If it were such an economical option, then why is does noone else use a segmentata-like armor throughout history to put some form of armor on all of these soldiers who were thrown into combat without any body armor? Why is plate NEVER produced by a small economy?

Those arguments calling segmentata "economical" are based upon the amount of time it takes to put together a mail tunic, when as you said, "it's a small part of the overall cost."

[Dan Howard]

The only way for mail to be cheaper than segmentata is to take the cheapest part of both Roman and modern societies and conflate them. You need the cost of Roman slave labour and the cost of modern raw materials. In the past, raw materials made up a much higher cost of production than it does today. By the time the Romans got to the point of actually assembling the links into armour the majority of the cost had already been paid.

[CNV2855]

The only way for mail to be cheaper than segmentata is to take the cheapest part of both Roman and modern societies and conflate them. You need the cost of Roman labour and the cost of modern raw materials. In the past, raw materials made up a much higher cost of production than it does today.

Which has basically been my argument for 3/4ths of this thread.

I completely agree.

Everything else I said, especially about the plagues, was because I was trying to illustrate the different ways in which the Roman economy was undermined.

[Dan Howard]

And the cost of the components required to make mail far exceed those required to make segmentata. Do some research on what was required to make two thousand feet of drawn wire. Just the cost of this alone would exceed the cost of a completed segmentata.

[CNV2855]

Sorry I am doing something else, I'll come back to this later.

I'd love to see the research in which someone estimates the cost of armor produced using ancient smithing techniques and ore. Especially to create the steel required for segmentata.

We see plate completely replace mail as the preferred armor when it entered production again in the Late Middle Ages, some 1,250 years after the Romans first produced it. Incidentally, it was the world's first and only Western superpower that used plate armor first.

Incoming sarcasm!

Segmentata was ineffective, cheap, uncomfortable, overly complicated, hard to maintain.

Yet for some unknown reason, they couldn't let it go until their Empire was falling apart at the seams. Makes a lot of sense. Actually, no it doesn't. And still there hasn't been one single good reason that anybody has mentioned in this thread for why the Roman's used it in the first place! None. They already had plenty of hamata laying around, why would they commission another inferior armor type? It makes NO sense unless they were extremely pleased with its performance.

[Dan Howard]

Segmentata is munitions armour. It appears a couple of generations after lower classes started being admitted to the legions but were still required to purchase their own equipment (costs were deducted from their pay). Segmentata remains in use (along with hamata and squamata and musculata) until the state takes over the armour making fabricas. IMO this was part of the Diocletian reforms. During this time, segmentata only seems to have been worn by the lower classes - there isn't a single depiction of an officer or NCO wearing it.  After segmentata was phased out in the 4th century, the Empire underwent an extended period of success - both economically and militarily.

We see plate completely replace mail as the preferred armor when it entered production again in the Late Middle Ages, some 1,250 years after the Romans first produced it. Incidentally, it was the world's first and only Western superpower that used plate armor first.

Mail continued to be used along with plate in Europe for centuries. We have inventories and production orders demonstrating that mail often cost MORE than plate during this time. Plate started to spread when it did in medieval Europe because trip hammer mills and blast furnaces made it cheaper and faster to produce. This might help.
http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

So plate became popular in medieval Europe for the same reason that it became popular in Rome: Economics.