segmentata

[Crispvs]

David Simm has had the chance to exampine a few more examples of Roman armour since he wrote Iron for the Eagles.
When I saw him in Carlisle a couple of years ago I asked him about the method he thought might have been used to case harden one side on an iron scale he spoke about in his lecture. He replied that he thought that it had probably been put back to back with another scale and then the two encased in carbon rich clay and baked, meaning that the two scales would effectively be one iron object that carbon infiltrated from both sides. When the baked clay was broken open the scales could be separated, leaving each with one hardened and one unhardened side. He said he did not see any reason why groups of scales and even larger plates could not be treated the same way. This, or something similar, might be a realistic alternative to the idea of forge welding thin iron plates of varying strengths of iron together to make hard yet flexible armour plates. Alternatively, it might be possible to temper iron in such a way as to give one side of a plate more temper than the other. The obvious method of doing this, to my mind, would be to pour oil onto one side to cool it gradually, although that would require a huge amount of oil to work.

Crispvs

[Redwald]

Thanks gentlemen,
Your comments have given me plenty of food for thought - I have enjoyed them and learnt a great deal.


Cheers,

Paul

[marcii ulpi messala]

I think that the lorica segmentata, was more effective than the lorica hamata. Already in the low middle ages the first armor was imposed on the second armor. The lorica segmentata, weighs less and is more resistant to the blows with forceful weapon, avoiding the fracture of bones, the hamata in this respect protects less enough. The lorica segmentata gives also a major protection opposite to the assault of sharp(acute) top and protects of equal form opposite to the cut, the hamata is very vulnerable opposite to the assaults of sharp(acute) top.
The lorica hamata was effective opposite to the Gallic long sword, his top was not really very sharp(acute), but she was very effective in giving the cut. In (Century-I B.C.) the use of the gladius of sharp(acute) top coincided with the appearance of the lorica segmentata, whose protection is very effective against the assault of sharp(acute) top. Later on the third century with the adoption again for the Roman legions of the sword, the lorica hamata will return fashionable, this one will disappear with the arrival in the low middle ages of the swords of section in rhombus and very sharp(acute) top, sword that as the advanced gladius made this type of armor very vulnerable. The armor of plates would end for be imposing definitively

[Tarbicus]

The lorica segmentata gives also a major protection opposite to the assault of sharp(acute) top and protects of equal form opposite to the cut, the hamata is very vulnerable opposite to the assaults of sharp(acute) top.

It's already gone from being introduced before the 30's AD, to before 9 AD, and then to before 9 BC. Makes you wonder if it wasn't the result of the Civil Wars and the result of Romans v Romans during those.

[Matthew]

As I understand it, Swords were not the most commonly carried weapons. Spears and Arrows almost certainly saw more general use. I don't think that the Gladius was the defining reason that Segmenta was introduced. Technological advancement and relative economic stability seem like much more convincing reasons to me.

Matthew James Stanham

[Tarbicus]

Technological advancement and relative economic stability seem like much more convincing reasons to me.

That's the other side to the coin no doubt, although I'm not too sure of the economic stability and lean more towards the need for a cheaper and faster way of armouring the army. But that depends on when exactly the armour was introduced.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Perhaps an idea of Caesar's when planning to go against the Parthians, even! Certainly gives better protection against arrows than Hamata, and seems to have been around far earlier than stated in many publications out.

Regards

[marcii ulpi messala]

In the low middle ages, the sword was the determinant factor of the change of the lorica hamata for the armor of plates, this was equal for the Roman world. The Roman army I look always for the struggle body to body, design his sword short (gladius) for this type of combat, the pilum and the arch were for the alone Roman a support during the fight, but the determinant factor it was recovering always the infantry in the struggle body to body, for the early Roman the cavalry alone I recover a paper(role) of support, I think.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

If you study first century daggers and swords closely you will find most have a square tipped point.... excellent to slice/thrust thwough mail...

since the segmentata deflects thrusts and slicing very well it has to be considered the better form of body armour.

maybe the fact it was more cumbersome and more maintenance prone, and not that good in cavalry/speed warfare that eventually chain mail again got the upper hand..

M.VIB.M.

[Dan Howard]

Certainly gives better protection against arrows than Hamata

That is an outdated theory based on dodgy modern reconstructions. Reconstructions of mail that actually resemble extant examples are far more resistant to arrows than many realise. There have been plenty of threads on this subject even on RAT.

[Dan Howard]

If you study first century daggers and swords closely you will find most have a square tipped point.... excellent to slice/thrust thwough mail...

It isn't possible to put a sword of any sort through a decent reconstruction of mail and its associated padding with a single handed thrust (especially underhanded) - regardless of the type of blade used. A human being isn't capable of generating the force required without the second hand in a thrust or using a weapon that acts as a force multiplier such as a pick. No you can't slice through mail with a sword either. The most detailed work on this subject has been done by Allan Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" see especially Chapter 9.

[Matthew]

In the low middle ages, the sword was the determinant factor of the change of the lorica hamata for the armor of plates, this was equal for the Roman world. The Roman army I look always for the struggle body to body, design his sword short (gladius) for this type of combat, the pilum and the arch were for the alone Roman a support during the fight, but the determinant factor it was recovering always the infantry in the struggle body to body, for the early Roman the cavalry alone I recover a paper(role) of support, I think.

That seems somewhat unlikely. Although Dan places more faith in the protection afforded by Mail than I would (my personal and unsubstantiated opinion is that Lorica Segmenta afforded somewhat better protection and that Mail is penetrable), his contention that you are underestimating the potential of Lorica Hamata to provide protection against all types of weapons seems very possible.
Changes in weapon forms do not necessarily reflect changes in armour and the influence of one on the other is likely much more complicated than simple cause and effect. Furthermore, the perceptons of Soldiers towards the effectiveness of equipment may not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation. One Soldier will swear by one piece of equipment and detest another, whilst another Soldier will have the exact opposite opinion.
The Ancient and Medieval battlefield was a combined arms event and each side provided only what it was politically and economically capable of fielding. Tactics were often subserviant to strategy.
I'm not saying that weapons were never developed to better cope with armour or the that armour was never developed to better resist weapons, but I do think that it is dangerous to identify this as a clear cut reason for the introduction and apparent popularity of Lorica Segmentata, especially when only referring to one particular weapon type that was only a part of those deployed.

At least, that's my view...

Matthew James Stanham

[Magnus]

Have we lost sight of the forest for the trees?

Why ever, in human history have new weapons or armour been developed?

It's always in direct response to some type of weapon or armour that has recently defeated the previous model. You know, the arms race?

Moncada Martín, Gabrie said:

"I think that the lorica segmentata, was more effective than the lorica hamata. Already in the low middle ages the first armor was imposed on the second armor. The lorica segmentata, weighs less and is more resistant to the blows with forceful weapon, avoiding the fracture of bones, the hamata in this respect protects less enough. The lorica segmentata gives also a major protection opposite to the assault of sharp(acute) top and protects of equal form opposite to the cut, the hamata is very vulnerable opposite to the assaults of sharp(acute) top.
The lorica hamata was effective opposite to the Gallic long sword, his top was not really very sharp(acute), but she was very effective in giving the cut. In (Century-I B.C.) the use of the gladius of sharp(acute) top coincided with the appearance of the lorica segmentata, whose protection is very effective against the assault of sharp(acute) top. Later on the third century with the adoption again for the Roman legions of the sword, the lorica hamata will return fashionable, this one will disappear with the arrival in the low middle ages of the swords of section in rhombus and very sharp(acute) top, sword that as the advanced gladius made this type of armor very vulnerable. The armor of plates would end for be imposing definitively"

Makes perfect sense. I think the focus here has been too much on economics and silly things like "maintenance". As if spending too much time on equipment has ever been an issue for soldiers...lol. As Crispvs said, if the segmentata didn't work, it would have been phased out a LOT earlier than a stretch of 250 years. We're not talking about bell-bottom jeans as a fashion statement here, we're talking about life saving equipment. If soldiers are required to put their lives on the line with gear that isn't going to work in any regard, do you really think they're going to keep using it?

And Dan, you seem to think that breaking a bone is feasible in combat (you mentioned a rib), but think about that for a second. Where is the majority of the body armour located on either the hamata or segmentata? Up around the shoulders, because the scutum is protecting your lower and middle body. So you then have to worry about overhand swings (hence the doubled up armour over the shoulders), which would mean a broken clavical or worse. There is no possible way that you're going to be using an arm with a broken collar bone (and wielding a sword or scutum...forget it!). Period. That means you are then out of the fight, and you are now useless. Given the amount of padding on the shoulders and the stepped shoulder guards, there leaves little doubt as to which armour is supperior for stopping blunt force trauma.

Basically guys, I think we need to study what kinds of weapons were in use, who was using them, and what was the Roman grand military strategy at the time that would require the creation of a new type of armour. Things just don't happen without a reason.

[Matthew]

Sure, but the Gallic Sword was not the most common weapon on the battlefield, or so I am led to believe. Much more common would have been the Spear, which would have been similarly effective against Mail as the Gladius. Not to mention the fact that Segmenta was not in service for the 200 years or so following the initial introduction of the Spanish Sword, which we know Polybius considered good for both thrust and cut. A slow process of change indeed, hardly a race.

It's a good theory, but it's too neat and relies heavily on the assumption that there was an arms race and that troops were uniformly equipped with the best weapons and armour technologically available. Nor does it make much allowance for preference, assuming that everyone would use the best weapon by default.

Matthew James Stanham

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

laudes MAGNvS!!!!!!!!

BTW... I would love to test this theory with my armour splicing pugio, gladius, bow an pilvm, and the cutting through mail theory with my real Japanese katana, on any living subject willing to be on the receiving side. he needs to be fully medically insured and sign off a release form before actually engaging in this test.

I know for a fact you will need to go to the hospital afterwards!

I have seen riveted mail hung over a pigs body being thoroughly devastated by a pugio.......

and internal bleeding factor has not even been mentioned yet, so i will throw that in too!

riveted mail is slightly stronger of course, however to imagine a thrust like that is physically impossible is imho a bit strange and unnattainable if you would have studied martial arts and its physics / scientific power leverage a bit better.....

M.VIB.M.