segmentata

[L C Cinna]

the extra coverage on the armpits, stomach, groin, and thighs that mail provides.

Aren't you discussing later hamatae there? The ones from the Flavian period protected quite the same area as the segmentata did, am I right?

hamatae were usually longer than segmentatae so he's right about stomache and groin.

2nd thing is. the discussion is about why the segmentata came out of use so the important thing is to compare it with the hamatae worn when it started to disappear anyways :wink:

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

and these days mail is still used by butcher's, shark divers, re-enactors

so can you really say armour ever went out of fashion?

:lol:

M.VIB.M.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Plate and lamalar armour is still used by infantry today! Or perhaps laminated is more accurate term for layers of different balistic materials etc?

[Matt Lukes]

Actually no, you're right about it being lamellar- it's made of several different large pieces inside that overlap and thicken certian areas and the different sections overlap outside as well- it's lamellar and laminated and composite actually if you add in small arms protective ceramic plates.

And Henk's right about mail still being used; actually I can recall pictures of weird, probably more experimental than anything, armors from WWI that included sections of mail on the face in particular. It certainly speaks well of the design that it's been usable for, what 2500 years?

The idea of the segmentata going out of use because of a shortage of brass seems a touch far-fetched- given how little of the metal there really is, masswise, in the armor. Not only that but the fact that there's actually MORE brass in the later Newstead than the earlier Corbridge cuirass and in truth there's no real reason the parts had to be brass- they could have been iron and functioned just as well (maybe better). It seems to have been largely for show- using the same metal for military objects that's used for coins certainly does portray the richness of a nation, doesn't it?

I'm intrigued by Dr. Thomas' suggestion that there might not in fact have been even much mail around in later times when the segmentata went out of use- the assumption people make has always been that mail came back to replace segmented armor- I've never heard anyone suggest that there might have been something of a hole left in the use of metal protective armor by the 'demise' of the segmentata. That actually makes a whole lot more sense to me than the usual, difficult to rationalize, alternative. The Empire was not doing so well later on so if the segmentata were in fact cheaper to produce than mail, why go from a cheap to an expensive form of armor when you have less to spend? It makes more sense that there'd actually be less armor used...

[Q Rutilius]

Vegetius, Book I, 20. "So they petitioned the Emperor that they should hand if first the cataphracts, then helmets. Thus with their chest and heads unprotected..." From N. P. Milner, 1996.

Now if this to be taken literally, and if I understand Matt's post correctly, then this could be taken as evidence that they went from segmatata to nothing.

On the other hand, doing without armor always seemed a bit weird to me.

[Robert Vermaat]

Vegetius, Book I, 20. "So they petitioned the Emperor that they should hand if first the cataphracts, then helmets. Thus with their chest and heads unprotected..." From N. P. Milner, 1996.
Now if this to be taken literally, and if I understand Matt's post correctly, then this could be taken as evidence that they went from segmatata to nothing.
On the other hand, doing without armor always seemed a bit weird to me.

These days, we read this as a political statement and not one reflecting reality. To the contrary, we know that armour was worn as usual during the 4th c. and later:
Beltrán Fortes, José and Adolfo Raul Menéndez Arguín (1999): New Evidence on the Use of Armour by Roman Soldiers of the Fourth Century AD, in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 10, pp. 21-26.
Coulston, J.C.N. (1990): Later Roman armour, 3rd-6th centuries A.D., in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, pp. 139-60.
Mielczarek, Mariusz (1993): Cataphracti and Clibanarii, Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World, Oficyna Naukawa, Lódz.

It's one of the reasons to read Vegetius with caution.

[Q Rutilius]

I always read Vegetius with caution. I interpret his remark to mean that he was advocating heavier armor - that is the type of armor and helmets worn by earlier Roman armies. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up Vortigern. I always assumed that taken literally his comment was absurd.

[Matt Lukes]

we know that armour was worn as usual during the 4th c. and later:
Beltrán Fortes, José and Adolfo Raul Menéndez Arguín (1999): New Evidence on the Use of Armour by Roman Soldiers of the Fourth Century AD, in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 10, pp. 21-26.
Coulston, J.C.N. (1990): Later Roman armour, 3rd-6th centuries A.D., in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, pp. 139-60.
Mielczarek, Mariusz (1993): Cataphracti and Clibanarii, Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World, Oficyna Naukawa, Lódz.

It's one of the reasons to read Vegetius with caution.

So then there's clear evidence that mail actually did replace the segmentata?

[Robert Vermaat]

So then there's clear evidence that mail actually did replace the segmentata?

Yes. Or rather, as mail was already widely used (as was scale), the plate armour was dropped and the rest remained in use. Not so much replaced, therefore.

[Dan Howard]

There is nothing I can find to suggest that mail ever stopped being used. It was used continuously since they adopted it from the celts. Since mail is ridiculously easy to maintain and repair and a single shirt could last many generations of soldiers, it seems reasonable to assume that the reserves of mail continued to grow. Only through large military defeats and subsequent looting of bodies and/or prisoners by the enemy could mail reserves be reduced.

[Iosephus]

Hmmm...
sorry but I can't imagine any reasonable fighting tactic what can be done in hamata but can't be done in segmentata (I have wore both).
I can imagine two reasons for segmentata going "out of fashion":
- Maintenance! I think from the third century BC onwards soldiers were spending more and more time on the field instead of in garrisons, where you can keep your segmentata in a safe dry place to prevent rust. But being almost constantly on the move, fighting barbarians/fellow romans AND additionally just keep cleaning-cleaning-cleaning-etc. could be hell. At least for me (that's why I use tons of WD40 each year :oops: ). If I were serving in the legions at that time one of my main concerns would be to replace my segmentata with a brass squamata or a hamata! I could go as far as deliberately damaging my segmentata (beyond repair) to have it replaced.
- Construction problems (?). Well it's just a hypothesis of mine and it is not backed by any facts (maybe somebody can help me out on this). Which was harder to produce in ancient times? Wire or plate? I think making an iron wire needed much less knowledge (just pulling the iron bar through rings with decreased diameters) than hammering sheet metal of equal thickness. If it's true, it can be a reason why they ceased the production of armours made of sheet metal. I can even imagine a relationship with the helmets made of several parts instead of the former "single plate" constructions and the disappearing of the segmentatas!

Of course if the romans knew rolls and even used it for sheet metal production than this theory falls but at least I have tried...

[Virilis]

That is really food for thought, Iospehus!

Could there in fact be a link between the turbulent third century and the disappearance of the segementatas due to the maintenance problems? That seems to be quite plausible!

Also the first sassanian/danubian region influenced segmented helmets started to replace the more elaborate one piece bowl constructed ones in the third century. Was this also influenced by the diminishing of the permanent bases this affecting also the adjoining fabricas and their manufacturing capabilities?

One more question: Is it totally impossible to think about a roman soldier having a late Lorica Segmentata and a late roman nasal quard helmet (like in the arch of Galerus) somewhere in the mid to late third century? Of course there is no evidence what so ever supporting this image but the segmentatas disappeared somewhere in the middle of the third century and the first spangen- /burgh castle style helmets appeared some time from the middle of the third century to the end of the century?

[Hibernicus]

The sheets of iron hammered to size and shape required more skill to produce than rings or scales. Some seg plates are layered.. forge welded..

I maintain that the leathering had to be replaced every year.. do it when the legio is in winter quarters...

Segs can be tied back together if internal straps break but it takes more down time to repair than chainmail..

Segs also fit a small range of sizes.. a limiting factor. That same chain shirt can fit many differently sized soldiers.

[Marcus Mummius]

Some seg plates are layered.. forge welded..

I've yet to see convincing evidence for this... I know it's mentioned in Iron for the eagles but I'm far from sure...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That is where I read it as well! I thought it was a good interpretation of ironworking? perhaps those with more knowledge of ironworking would explain what other explanation there might be for the phenomena?

perhaps the method of forging causing one side of the plate to harden while the other retains a softer flexibility? :? ? ? I want to know!