A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use...

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

Well, Magnus, you *could* be insane anyway, eh?

The one thing I can think of that blows the worst hole in your theory is that the Adamklissi monument clearly shows legionaries with supplemental greaves and manicae, and cross-braced helmets, wearing hamatae and squamatae. All are shown in close action with Dacians, including falx-men, and none have segmentata. The best guess, as Dan implies, is that mail and scale shirts simply covered more of the body and were thus more desirable in that situation.

That said, I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the level of armor in a legion was not uniform, or that some legionaries did not have body armor. The late Roman or Byzantine army would not be the only ones to put the more heavily armored men in the front ranks. Heck, look at the legion around 500 BC--fully armored men in the front ranks, more lightly armored men backing them up.

Not to be a complete devil's advocate, but what if weight were the main concern, and the segmentata was considered to be *light* armor?

Valete,

Matthew

[Crispvs]

Comerus,

The picture you posted a link to was painted by Graham Sumner and appears in the Osprey 'Roman Military Clothing Vol. 1', also by Graham Sumner.
The armour as shown in the picture is a possible reconstruction of the armour worn by a soldier shown in a fresco in part of what is left of Nero's Golden House in Rome. The original fresco is quite worn and there is some debate over what sort of armour is actually being depicted. Some people favour a breastplate, for example. Graham's depiction is a good attempt to show what *might* be being shown. Unfortunately it is not a definitive answer.

Magnus,

"(just as white and red tunics where!)"

Without wishing to start a ball rolling again by reprising my role as a participating general in the Great Tunic Colour War, please note the green tunic. :twisted:

Crispvs

[tlclark]

Not to be a complete devil's advocate, but what if weight were the main concern, and the segmentata was considered to be *light* armor?

Well since everyone is playing the devil's advocate I might as well too!

The one thing I can think of that blows the worst hole in your theory is that the Adamklissi monument clearly shows legionaries with supplemental greaves and manicae, and cross-braced helmets, wearing hamatae and squamatae. All are shown in close action with Dacians, including falx-men, and none have segmentata.

I would like to point out that the artists of the Adamklissi monument were almost certainly locals, Dacians. Considering how much we question the Column of Trajan as a reliable source of military practice -- and the artists there are Romans! -- I think we can pretty much discount most of what we see here.

Small plug for art history here, the column of Trajan and the Adamklissi monument are contemporary works, completed under Trajan (or possibly Hadrian) and yet the difference in style between the two could not be more pronounced.

The Romans, if anything, were not sticklers.

Travis

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Avete,All.
I may be wrong or just missing something but
wasn't segmentata gone by Byzantine times?
The Stratigekon of the sixth c. sounds like it's
refering to something else entirely.
Sorry if I missed the point :oops:

[tlclark]

Ave,All.
I may be wrong or just missing something but
wasn't segmentata gone by Byzantine times?
The Stratigekon of the sixth c. sounds like it's
refering to something else entirely.
Sorry if I missed the point :oops:

Yes, but I don't think Magnus was insinuating that it did.

I probably shouldn't be answering for Magnus but I don't think that's what he meant. I think he's using the evidence he has to argue that advance troops had heavier armor, and then extrapolating that to suggest a probable reason for the segmentatae.

I'm sure he would love to have an earlier source, it just doesn't exist. If it did, he probably wouldn't be arguing it here, he would be publishing it.

Travis.

[Magnus]

LOL @ Matt...yes, I probably am crazy. But your line of thinking made me ponder. I usually associate "plate armour" as being heavy, in the sense of what constitutes heavy and light classifications of infantry and such. I mean, no-one really knows anything for sure as to why the segmentata came into use then disappeared. But I never thought of the role reversal there.

Good points too Travis about the artistic variations of the two monuments pertaining to the Dacian Campaigns.

As to the segmentata not being low enough to protect the groin and lower abdomen...if that was the case, why was it used? If lower abdomen/groin injuries were an issue in their campaigns, why not adapt some type of additional defensive measure? in the 250+ years the segmentata was in use, we never see any additional plates protecting the lower abdomen. You'll have as much of a difficult time proving that this area was a problem, than not.

One other significant aspect of the segmentata I've noticed, is it's springiness. The circular shape around the midsection (the circle being one of the strongest mathematical and structural shapes) is formed when the two sets of girdle plates are tied together. I'd be interested to see how that impacts the defense against incoming weapon blows. Maille does not obviously share this advantage.

So how does that affect the shoulders? The shoulders are right over top the heaviest padding from the subarmalis. Giving a similar effect, i would think.

Back to the original topic...well, i'm now officially lost. But man this is fun!

PS - Crispvs, i'm sorry about the tunic reference...i couldn't help it! :lol:

[Magnus]

Yeah, that's what I was elluding to. Thanks Travis.

[tlclark]

Good points too Travis about the artistic variations of the two monuments pertaining to the Dacian Campaigns.

Thanks!

One other significant aspect of the segmentata I've noticed, is it's springiness. The circular shape around the midsection (the circle being one of the strongest mathematical and structural shapes) is formed when the two sets of girdle plates are tied together. I'd be interested to see how that impacts the defense against incoming weapon blows. Maille does not obviously share this advantage.

Now that's a neat idea.

I've worn Gothic plate armor and honestly, when hit, the blows just transfer from the plate to the body. It doesn't even help that it's spread out more since it usually just transfers to where the armor touches the padding at the joints, so that instead of getting a hole in your gut, your arms feel like they are going to get torn off. Custom made armor might help this, but still I think the ability of plate armor to deflect crushing blows is overrated.

I have a nephew, 14, who has 6 inches and 40 lbs on me and I'd hate to face him in battle.

It's funny that people say the padding/subarmalis/gambeson is so effective since my experience shows that its' the joints that take the beating since the force just has to go somewhere.

It's brutal and you feel like a frog in a can kicked down the stairs, and I honestly have doubts that the segmentatae is any better.

However I really like your 'spring' idea and I can see how it might actually work with a segmentata and avoid that hammered feeling.

Any idea how to test this?

Travis

[Theodosius the Great]

As to the segmentata not being low enough to protect the groin and lower abdomen...if that was the case, why was it used?

I know it isn't typically seen on sculptural evidence, but sometimes when wearing segs we see them supplimented with waist-pteruges.

I hope I didn't just open up another can of worms :oops:

[Comerus Gallus]

Comerus,

The picture you posted a link to was painted by Graham Sumner and appears in the Osprey 'Roman Military Clothing Vol. 1', also by Graham Sumner.
The armour as shown in the picture is a possible reconstruction of the armour worn by a soldier shown in a fresco in part of what is left of Nero's Golden House in Rome. The original fresco is quite worn and there is some debate over what sort of armour is actually being depicted. Some people favour a breastplate, for example. Graham's depiction is a good attempt to show what *might* be being shown. Unfortunately it is not a definitive answer.

Magnus,

"(just as white and red tunics where!)"

Without wishing to start a ball rolling again by reprising my role as a participating general in the Great Tunic Colour War, please note the green tunic. :twisted:

Crispvs

Thank you Crispvs, another book in my list, karma added! :wink:

[Tarbicus]

no-one really knows anything for sure as to why the segmentata came into use then disappeared.

With Octavian/Augustus having a bit of a financial problem after all of his reforms, I can't help but think the attraction of being able to equip maybe four soldiers with segs, as compared to one with hamata (I base this on modern cost comparisons), was an incredibly attractive fiscal proposition. Especially if the segs were proven to actually work which, he being a stickler for facts and proof, they must have. I can honestly imagine his Treasurers showing him on an abacus the difference in costs between hamata and segmentata. No proof, just an idle mind's whimsical thought. As for its disappearance, I haven't got a clue, except maybe the emphasis on body defence changed from the upper torso to lower?

[Nectanebo]

I agree with Dan Howard on this.

Mail was the preferred armour of the Romans however making it was a expensive, highly skilled, labour intensive and time-consuming job. Segmented armour could be made much more quickly and needed less skill, allowing newly-raised legions to be equiped very quickly with functional armour.

I believe current thinking is that segmented cuirasses appeared late in the 1st century BC, possibly during the civil war between Mark Anthony and Octavian. Presumably both sides needed to raise and equip legions quickly, segmented cuirasses would have allowed them to do this. This is all my own speculation BTW.

[Tarbicus]

I believe current thinking is that segmented cuirasses appeared late in the 1st century BC, possibly during the civil war between Mark Anthony and Octavian.

Nectanebo, how come you believe the seg was introduced as early as 31 B.C.?

[Commilito]

well, it may be a little off, but wasn't the segmentata (based off a reading of Adrian Goldsworthy) developed around the same time that the new scutum, the curved rectangle style came out? If so, the new shield might have affected the armor the troops wore.

[Matthew Amt]

I would like to point out that the artists of the Adamklissi monument were almost certainly locals, Dacians. Considering how much we question the Column of Trajan as a reliable source of military practice -- and the artists there are Romans! -- I think we can pretty much discount most of what we see here.

Wacky, from what I've heard it's the other way around in terms of reliability! Isn't the Column generally felt to be MORE stylized and less realistic than artwork from the frontier area? I'm curious as to why you think Dacians carved the Adamklissi reliefs, rather than the army's own stone workers. One would think hired artists would be a little more skilled, and I would also think that Dacians would carve what they'd just seen. These legionaries had just clobbered them and burned their towns, after all--no reason for them to substitute very accurately portrayed forms of armor that had not been worn in those actions.

Whereas Trajan's Column may have been carved by foreign slaves who had never seen a legion in action. There are all kinds of theories about models or sketchbooks that they might have worked from.

But fill me in, Travis, *you're* the art historian here, not me!

The Romans, if anything, were not sticklers.

I hear dat!

Matthew