Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Another primary consideration in introduction & eventual disappearance of Segmentata?
#46
(12-01-2015, 12:14 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: Segmentata remains in use (along with hamata and squamata and musculata) until the state takes over the armour making fabricas.

When was that, though? The imperial fabricae are usually seen as an innovation of Diocletian, I think.

Even so, there could be a connection. I wondered back in this thread whether the later Roman army was able (due to centralised production, or improved metalworking technology?) to equip more of its troops with musculata. Perhaps it was just faster (or easier, or something) to produce armour made from two large sheets of metal, rather than lots of smaller bits fastened together?

Not sure about the 'extended period of success' though - the 3rd century (when the change seems to have happened) was surely a bit of a low point. I do not, however, think these things are related!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#47
I agree that the Diocletian reforms at the end of the 3rd century were when the state took over the fabricas. It was after this, the beginning of the 4th century, that segmentata started to be phased out and it coincided with a century of Roman stability and prosperity.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#48
(12-01-2015, 12:41 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: It was after this, the beginning of the 4th century, that segmentata started to be phased out

Aha! A controversial view, but not without supporters (see the recent Ross Cowan 'legionary' book, for example!)

I tend to think it had been largely phased out by around the mid 3rd century, but lingered in use in some areas.

However, as we know from the Leon finds, our views in these things can easily be overturned...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#49
Munitions armor wasn't developed for a couple hundred years after the introduction of plate, which was extremely expensive.  The technology to make cheap, mass produced plate armor did not exist in Antiquity.

There is no reason to associate the cost of munitions armor to segmentata.

Quote:. 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.

This is also the time the legions are the best payed and when tax collection was at an all time high. I've seen figures showing that the Empire's income shrunk to just 1/8th it's peak (which was ca. 1st C). You also say the word generations. You're really trying to say one-hundred years, which is a very, very long time. Being a soldier in the legions wasn't a poor paying job, and the victorious got everything from slaves, plunder, land, and for the auxilia, citizenship. I'm almost positive the state subsidized equipment, otherwise how are these same soldiers affording mail?

Show me any evidence that the Roman economy actually grew during the period we associate with its decline. Everything I've ever learned, read, and seen contradicts that, so I'd love to be shown otherwise. I've given my reasons for why centurions might have continued using mail.

Why not continue using segmentata in a period when a lot of their soldiers were starting to go unequipped and into combat without any body armor at all? Why not keep this "extremely awesome economical" option around? Seems like -anyone- would prefer to wear segmentata over nothing. at. all.

As Mike Bishop pointed out in a thread four years ago:

Quote:Too right. There is the small question of evidence that everyone still overlooks. It is a hypothesis, sure, but unproven.

Mike Bishop

Show me evidence, that's all I ask. I don't want conjecture. Show me that the armor was munitions grade. Show me that the Roman economy actually grew, that'd be groundbreaking.

Quote:The appearance of the Roman soldier, on both imperial monuments and individual tombstones, changes radically during this period. A mobile force would perhaps be a more lightly equipped force, but it was also cut off from the traditional legion armoury at home base. This might explain the shift from segmented armour, for example, which required skilled craftsmen to repair, to the more versatile mail, scale and even musculata (breastplate) type armours.

From http://ianjamesross.com/journal/2015/7/1...e-part-one
Christopher Vidrine, 30
Reply
#50
I think that there are some indications - in Zosimus and Ammianus, possibly also Vegetius could be interpreted in a similar way - that the infantryman of the Dominate was expected to fight in light equipment - i.e. no body armour - as well as in body armour. This would depend on the circumstances; a raid, such as Julian made on the Rhine islands, would not have required armour, indeed jumping in and out of small boats it would be a positive menace. In contrast, the Principate legionary was required to wear armour even when engaged in engineering projects, when close to the enemy - as can be seen on the columns in Rome. The abandonment of segmental armour may have more to do with its transport bulk than anything else. A soldier expected to switch from armoured to unarmoured fighting can transport a folded mail-shirt much more easily than a segmental armour, even if the weight is similar. Even when concertinaed, a segmentata is still more bulky than a folded or rolled mailshirt.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#51
(11-30-2015, 04:34 PM)CNV2855 Wrote:
Quote:(by the way, I notice you've droped the bold type and underlining from your posts above - it might encourage others to debate your ideas if you avoided too much extra emphasis, including caps!  )

If people stoppped misinterpreting some of my points, such as implying that I had ever called the Antonine Plague an instance of Yerstinia Pestis.  I was just a tad frustrated, my apologies.
I removed all the bold and other script types which we do not want here in the forum in case it upsets others.

Also, I would like to urge that the quoting rules are takien into account. the system lets you quote, use it please! It's becoming impossible to see who is responding to who. If you want your points to be interpreted well 9goes for all here), use the corrct quotes.
[moderator mode]
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#52
One bit of evidence of an increase in wealth during the 4th century AD could be linked to an episode when the Emperor had to ban the sale of iron/iron ore to the Sassanids, said iron was being used to make arms and armour for the Sassanid military. It would only be possible for merchants to sell iron if there was a surplus due to increased production. Increased production increases the amount of wealth that is circulating around the Empire, through more workers being hired who then spend their pay on a variety of goods, which in turn leads to an increase in such goods having to be produced, which leads to hiring new workers which leads to.... I think you get what is happening then.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#53
(12-01-2015, 01:02 AM)CNV2855 Wrote: This is also the time the legions are the best payed and when tax collection was at an all time high.  I've seen figures showing that the Empire's income shrunk to just 1/8th it's peak (which was ca. 1st C).  
 
Please show me that the period in which the segmentata is used, is also the period in which the legions were paid the most (as you say) and that taks collection was at an all time high (as you say). 
As to the former claim, I have reservations because we know by no means all the details about military pay, and what we know seems to point at an alteration of payment in coin and payment in kind. Expensive equipment such as the segmentata (your claim) supplied by the state does not seem to coincide with an equally high pay, which was to be used to procure such equipment privately. Most of the time it's either/or, not and/and.
As to the latter, I would love to see figures for the Roman tax collection. Do we even have these? I fear that your claim is based on assumption, but I love to be proven wrong by evidence.
 
(12-01-2015, 01:02 AM)CNV2855 Wrote: Show me any evidence that the Roman economy actually grew during the period we associate with its decline.  Everything I've ever learned, read, and seen contradicts that, so I'd love to be shown otherwise.
 
Show me evidence that the Roman economy actually shrank. Or better, show me hard date about the Roman economy in this period and the periods before. Although my assumption would, like yours, be that the Roman economy shrank during the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries, I have no method to gain hard data to support that hypothesis. I would love for you to produce these, as you ask for hard data in return. I won't accept evidence such as 'look at all the ruins' btw. Wink

(12-01-2015, 01:02 AM)CNV2855 Wrote: The appearance of the Roman soldier, on both imperial monuments and individual tombstones, changes radically during this period. A mobile force would perhaps be a more lightly equipped force, but it was also cut off from the traditional legion armoury at home base. This might explain the shift from segmented armour, for example, which required skilled craftsmen to repair, to the more versatile mail, scale and even musculata (breastplate) type armours.
 
Why would you assume a mobile force to be a lightly equipped force? Are you not confusing strategic mobility with tactical mobility? A mobile force can march great distances, accompanied by carts that carry the heavy equipment (as the late Roman army seems to have done). That there was no ''traditional legionary home base' anymore was replaced by regional production centres, which supplied the army wherever it was stationed.

Well, it seems like you are going over to the dark side the other arguments in this discussion! Smile This is exactly what was argued at the beginning of this discussion: segemnted plate armour was phased out because of production methods, not because society was crumbling due to disease, loss of literacy or massive drops in population levels.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#54
(12-01-2015, 01:19 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: Why would you assume a mobile force to be a lightly equipped force? Are you not confusing strategic mobility with tactical mobility?... there was no ''traditional legionary home base' anymore was replaced by regional production centres...

I'll address that, as the quote was actually from a blog post, not from CNV.[Image: wink.png]

The original context was the change in legionary equipment - and therefore probably tactics - during the later third century. This was (probably) before the introduction of the regional fabricae, so most legions would presumably still have been officially based in frontier fortresses - although this was already changing, as we see quite a number of Danubian detachments apparently based at Aquiliea, for example.

The idea here is that the fabricae were intended to address the supply needs of pre-existing mobile detachments, who were unable to rely on the armouries in the fortresses (which still existed in the 3rd-4th centuries, as we quite possibly see at Leon, the 'traditional home base' of VII Gemina).

As for the 'lightly equipped' bit - it's an assumption, yes. Although I think, as you've said yourself, that we see a lot more flexibility (both tactical and strategic) in later Roman forces. Some equipment changes may have been directed by this need for relatively rapid movement over long distances (the Danube to Egypt or Mauretania, for example), far from reliable supply and repair opportunities.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#55
(12-01-2015, 02:53 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: As for the 'lightly equipped' bit - it's an assumption, yes. Although I think, as you've said yourself, that we see a lot more flexibility (both tactical and strategic) in later Roman forces. Some equipment changes may have been directed by this need for relatively rapid movement over long distances (the Danube to Egypt or Mauretania, for example), far from reliable supply and repair opportunities.

There is a statement somewhere in Zosimus about soldiers being commanded to fight without armour. I think Elton mentions it in his Warfare in Roman Europe book in the section on armour, around page 110.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#56
Ammianus does talk about all forms of infantry being used in the 'expeditii' role, including 'Velites', Auxilia and Legionarii. Its assumed that the troops were striped of their body armour so they could travel faster, climb up mountains, cross rivers without drowning etc.

This is a good example of showing the Late Roman armies flexibility in combat roles.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#57
Yep, p. 110 - Modares "ordered his men, armed only with swords and shields and disdaining heavier armour, to abandon the usual fighting in close order." A very explicit statement that late soldiery fought in more open order when necessary, and abandoned their armour so as to be more effective in this type of combat.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#58
It's unlikely that we are going to be able to convince one another, so this argument seems futile until more evidence is discovered. All that we truly know was the armor was very popular in the legions prior to the Crisis of the Third Century. This is a time that I think was assuredly much more prosperous and robust than the later centuries. I think the academically accepted modern viewpoint, discussed by M.C. Bishop who has posted here, is correct. You guys do not agree with me.

I only have one quote from someone who took some hits with the armor from another forum:

Quote: There's a big difference between "help" and "solve". Chain mail tends to put a lot of strain on the shoulders, and although a belt can reduce the pull from the sections below, the upper part is still almost entirely hanging from the shoulders and the lower section (which can vary considerably in length) will still exert some pull, which can be quite a bit at times as you move. That "pull" was comparatively minor in the Segmentata, where the semi-rigid upper lames effectively rested against the chest to some degree, spreading out the contact area and requiring less support from above.

When struck with a blunt object (a rattan SCA sword), a suit of chain mail distributed the impact vertically to a moderate degree (chain mail has a "grain", and flexes more in one direction than the other), but you could tell exactly where you were hit, and still feel it to a moderate degree through the underlying padded gambeson. Segmented armor transferred most of the shock from the lame which was struck to the lames that it partially overlapped, so I wasn't entirely sure where it hit, just some pressure in a general area. The gambeson was far thinner than the one I wore with the chain. Whack! "Does that hurt?" "No, I couldn't feel it." I was quite surprised at the result.

I'm thin and kind of wonder about the assertion about "difficulty" breathing if it were worn by somebody who was shorter, and probably much more fit than today's humans, whom are fed and get much less exercise. It's quite obvious this armor had some very good qualities, otherwise it wouldn't have been used by the very best soldiers the Romans had for a very long time. Much longer than the time-span in which we have used the modern rifle.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
Reply
#59
We don't have the slightest clue what percentage of a Roman army wore armour during the late republican, early imperial, or later imperial periods. It is impossible to say whether armour use increased or decreased in the later Empire.

How can a (speculative) trend towards lighter equipment possibly explain the decline of segmentata when mail weighs more than segmentata? If troops really wanted lighter armour then they would ditch their mail and wear segmentata. In reality, when soldiers need more mobility they don't wear any armour at all.

Quote: only have one quote from someone who took some hits with the armor from another forum:

Mail worn in the SCA is either butted, which makes it a lot heavier than historical mail and/or it is a shapeless tube. Medieval mail was made from riveted links (which allows much lighter wire) and was custom tailored to the wearer - it does not hinder movement as described in your quote. If you don't want to custom tailor the mail and still allow freedom of movement then you make it with very short sleeves (or no sleeves), which is what the Romans did. SCA mail has little in common with Roman or Medieval mail.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#60
There is no evidence of any soldiers not being equipped with armor, from any source, during the Principate. At the very least, body armor of some type was available to them to use in battles. I've read that segmentata fragments are fairly common at Principate sites, but I'm not an archaeologist so that may just be hearsay. During the overwhelming majority of history, most soldiers were not able to afford, or given, metal armor of any type.

On the second point, mail folds up. Segmentata, while lighter, still takes up a large amount of space even when telescoped. Also, to repair armour the soldiers would only have to carry a bag of rings, and a limited amount of other things, instead of specialized plates, fittings, and segments of different sizes, and lengths.

Custom armor is extremely expensive is it not? The Romans might have been taking a lot of casualties, or not cared as much about the welfare of its soldiers due to them being barbarus. They probably reused most of the mail from the wounded and dead. I don't even want to take a guess at how long any given mail tunic might have been in continuous service for.

If the goal is to overturn the current consensus on this subject, maybe someone should right a book laying out all of the information regarding this theory. Until that happens, most people believe and probably will continue to believe that segmentata was superior protection, myself included. I doubt I would have any problems fitting into a segmentata tunic, and would choose to use it & a scutum over mail and the oval shield of the later periods, especially if I had similarly equipped friends next to me.

Nobody is saying that mail wasn't fantastic armor. It was. Armor is very underrated, and in Hollywood every single blow from a sword cuts straight through it like butter. This never happened, and people probably were hit too many times to count. There was one account from the Middle East of a knight riding around and looked like a porcupine with all of the arrows protruding from his armor. Robert de Bruce hit another knight so hard that his head was split in two. A blow that hard as to penetrate directly through armor was so uncommon it was immortalized.

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com...bohun.html

Obviously, it's safe to assume that any metal armor, plate or mail, really worked.

Sorry, that this thread got so heated... I'm firmly in the opposing camp on this particular topic. Big Grin
Christopher Vidrine, 30
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disappearance of the military triumph constantius 9 3,677 11-29-2015, 02:45 PM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs
  Disappearance of velites Gladius Hispaniensis 12 4,503 06-20-2007, 10:31 PM
Last Post: Coriolanus
  IX Hispania Disappearance Myth Hoojio 18 6,674 03-21-2006, 03:47 PM
Last Post: Dan Diffendale

Forum Jump: