segmentata

[Matthew]

Yes, the protective value of armour is a contentious and highly debated issue. No way to show definitively what was effective, which is obviously a significant part of the problem.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Honto desu ne!

:lol:

M.VIB.M.

[Magnus]

Matthew, if you are correct, then the spear which is a thrusting weapon would have a greater degree of difficulty in piercing solid curved plate vs maille.

I don't think my theory can simply be dismissed since I don't recall a detailed examination on the subject has been done. I really think that if the Roman military had an idea of who they were going up against, or had gone up against, that they would make the appropriate changes prior to or immediately after such an engagement. The segmentata was unique for it's time, such an innovation was simply an idea that someone happened to stumble upon. It was created by a need. When your soldiers rely on their armour for life and death, you can be sure that they'll want the best protection given the tactical situation.

Otherwise, why not just use maille? <--- $64,000 dollar question right there. If Maille was as good at protecting the soldiers as well as some people think, then why the need for a new armour type??

[Tarbicus]

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.

Romans weren't using gladii against each other until the Civil Wars started by Caesar. No need. Celtic swords were rubbish, and mail sufficed plenty probably.

I really think that if the Roman military had an idea of who they were going up against, or had gone up against, that they would make the appropriate changes prior to or immediately after such an engagement. ..... It was created by a need.

Romans versus Romans: They'd recently finished scrapping with each other for many years, gladii on gladii, ergo.... IMHO.

[Matthew]

Don't get me wrong, I think Segmentata provides better over all protection than Hamata, but I think the reasons for its introduction and eventual disappearance are better explained by strategic and tactical changes in the context of changing political and economic circumstances. Of course, there is no way of definitively proving any such thing, it's all just theoretical tempered by what seems most likely to me.

Nor would I entirely rule out the possibility that Segmentata is a response to a change in weaponry, but I don't put much stock in it as a response to something as specific as Gallic and non Gallic sword types, especially given the very wide ranging sorts of enemies faced by Rome over the Republican and Imperial periods.

Romans weren't using gladii against each other until the Civil Wars started by Caesar. No need. Celtic swords were rubbish, and mail sufficed plenty probably.

True, to some extent, but Rome fought on more fronts than Gaul. The Carthaginians in particular are reported by Polybius as employing captured Roman arms. Also, there were wars between Romans before Caesar, not to mention the so called Social War.

Matthew James Stanham

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ah-hmmm! Parthians maybe? :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

"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."

I saw how an arrow punches through mail and how a segmentata resisted it, VERY recently, so it may be outdated in some minds, but logic and events would support it in my school! I can only draw conclusions from what I read and see, and, maybe I am a bit simple, but an armoured plate with a padded backing is more logically resistant than a chainlink, to a high velocity small footprint projectile! 8)

[Matthew]

The thing about anecdotal evidence, though, is that it is anecdotal, not systematic. I don't doubt that you have seen this comparison, you wouldn't be the only one, but the question that will always be asked is "under what conditions?" There are Medieval anecdotes that make Mail sound invulnerable to Arrows and their are anecdotes that makes it sound like no protection at all, not to mention more literary descriptions. The debate is will no doubt continue.

With regard to the Parthians and Arrows, though, it is worth bearing in mind several key factors. First of all, the primary defence against Arrows for Heavy Foot is the Scutum, not Body Armour, which does not in any case cover every point of the body. Whether a Soldier wears Hamata, Segmentata or Squamata he will remain vulnerable at certain points. It is also worth remembering that the Roman Army was a composite and at any given time from the introduction to disappearance of Segmentata it would not likely have been the only armour present, particularly amongst Auxillaries, who may have made up as many as half the total numbers or more.

I do not think there is sufficient evidence that points towards Segmentata being introduced for any one specific reason or to deal with any one weapon. As a more general improvement to the arms and armour of the Roman Army during a time of increased prosperity, it makes better sense to me.

Matthew James Stanham

[Tarbicus]

True, to some extent, but Rome fought on more fronts than Gaul. The Carthaginians in particular are reported by Polybius as employing captured Roman arms. Also, there were wars between Romans before Caesar, not to mention the so called Social War.

But the Romans got the capability to make the gladius hispaniensis from Spanish swordsmiths they captured after Scipio had captured (I think) Carthage (or during that stage of the Punic Wars), when they were forced to teach them how to make them. It must have been like the Allies capturing the German rocket scientists after WW2. The Carthaginians carried captured Roman armour, scuta and helmets (there are comments in sources about how the Romans thought it was other Romans approaching them at Cannae), but the spanish sword was much sought after by Romans due to its incredible manufacture and qualities which was lacking in their own.

[Matthew]

Yes indeed, but we have then a period of two hundred years from the supposed introduction of the Gladius Hispaniensis to the postulated introduction of Lorica Segmentata, during which the Romans fought many external and internal wars. That the technology to forge that sword was not originally their own, but taken from Cartho-Spanish enemies, does little to convince me that the Gladius was the reason for the adoption of Lorica Segmentata.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes anecdotal may be all I have seen, but the fact remains that segs appeared sometime between the debacle in Parthia, and the one in Germany!
A good example may have been given by parthian armour! many pictorial representations of banded armour worn by catephracts are in evidence, to ignore the obvious, that the Romans copied anything that was good, seems to be cutting ones nose off to spite your face! As you say there may be many reasons for the introduction of seg armour, but look at who was in the driving seat at the time, Caesar, Octavian...... both highly intelligent individuals. Who else could be responsible for this improvement of the armour, he certainly had the army itself changed.......

I think it is plausible that they/ he learned a little from the events in their times! the Parthian event, the civil war.........

Also, if segs were only issued to legionaries, well, they were Roman citizens after all.......

[Matthew]

Heh. Yes, I wouldn't rule out stealing ideas from the Parthians, that's for sure and I certainly am not disputing that the Romans, as a general rule, learned from their enemies, but to see Segmenta as a direct response to Parthian Arrows, I would have to see more compelling evidence. To be sure, I have no problem with them adopting Segmenta as a better Body Armour type (to what degree is another matter), I just don't see it as a response to a particular weapon. However, I would be very wary of attributing it to an individual reformer.

Matthew James Stanham

[Magnus]

" but I think the reasons for its introduction and eventual disappearance are better explained by strategic and tactical changes in the context of changing political and economic circumstances. "

How though? Military developments come as a result of warfare. Politics has little to do with advances in equipment, but certainly the tactical and strategic situation could have contributed. However, the tactical and strategic situation would imply that there was a war being fought yes? Which appropriately there was at the time of the segmentata's first known appearance. I believe there was segmented armour found 50 years before the Kalkriese find.

"but I don't put much stock in it as a response to something as specific as Gallic and non Gallic sword types, especially given the very wide ranging sorts of enemies faced by Rome over the Republican and Imperial periods."

Well, that's the tough part isn't it? But look at the weaponry used by Rome's enemies. Page 117 in "Greece and Rome at War" shows a huge assortment of spear and javelin heads from Celtic armies, and these are dated to the Republic. So the danger of piercing weapons has always been there. It's not difficult to imagine the armourers of the time trying to figure out a better type of armour to defeat such weapons. Even if it was only issued to front rank troops. (But that is for another discussion).

"I do not think there is sufficient evidence that points towards Segmentata being introduced for any one specific reason or to deal with any one weapon. As a more general improvement to the arms and armour of the Roman Army during a time of increased prosperity, it makes better sense to me. "

And yet, the segmentata has VERY specific characteristics about it that make it much better armour versus specific types of weapons, to dismiss it's creation to mere innovation out of thin air. We agree that it is better versus piercing weapons, because of the nature of the plating, as well as giving better protection versus blunt force trauma. If this is not in debate, and these 2 traits of the segmentata are rather specific, then how can it be attributed to a simple general improvement? It just doesn't make sense. We're talking about an entirely different form of armour, that is totaly unique for it's time. Something on that level of invention requires more than just a trivial "raison d'etre".

"Yes indeed, but we have then a period of two hundred years from the supposed introduction of the Gladius Hispaniensis to the postulated introduction of Lorica Segmentata, during which the Romans fought many external and internal wars. That the technology to forge that sword was not originally their own, but taken from Cartho-Spanish enemies, does little to convince me that the Gladius was the reason for the adoption of Lorica Segmentata."

But the piercing weapons were already there and being used against Rome...gallic and celtic spears. The gladius evolved into a devastating thrusting weapon, which added to the need of a new armour type. Bear in mind also the Spanish used the spear quite a bit...page 150 in "Greece and Rome at War", shows different javelin and spear tips again. Not to mention the large slashing swords which I don't believe the doubled hamata on the shoulders would have been enough to prevent broken collar bones or neck injuries.

[Matthew]

How though? Military developments come as a result of warfare. Politics has little to do with advances in equipment, but certainly the tactical and strategic situation could have contributed. However, the tactical and strategic situation would imply that there was a war being fought yes? Which appropriately there was at the time of the segmentata's first known appearance. I believe there was segmented armour found 50 years before the Kalkriese find.

As I understand it, the idea is that a relatively stable polity fosters a relatively stable economy that facilitates production of Segmentata. Rome was very often at war and with many different enemies. I do not see anything special about this period that would lead me to believe that Segmentata was a direct response to the Gladius.

Well, that's the tough part isn't it? But look at the weaponry used by Rome's enemies. Page 117 in "Greece and Rome at War" shows a huge assortment of spear and javelin heads from Celtic armies, and these are dated to the Republic. So the danger of piercing weapons has always been there. It's not difficult to imagine the armourers of the time trying to figure out a better type of armour to defeat such weapons. Even if it was only issued to front rank troops. (But that is for another discussion).

Absolutely, and I would not dispute that armourers would be searching to refine and improve Body Armour in general, but bearing in mind that there is a limit as to what the economy can support.

And yet, the segmentata has VERY specific characteristics about it that make it much better armour versus specific types of weapons, to dismiss it's creation to mere innovation out of thin air. We agree that it is better versus piercing weapons, because of the nature of the plating, as well as giving better protection versus blunt force trauma. If this is not in debate, and these 2 traits of the segmentata are rather specific, then how can it be attributed to a simple general improvement? It just doesn't make sense. We're talking about an entirely different form of armour, that is totaly unique for it's time. Something on that level of invention requires more than just a trivial "raison d'etre".)

We are entirely in agreement that Segmentata is an improvement on Hamata. Exactly to what degree the specific benefits of Segmentata were recognised is difficult to be sure of. Presumably, Breast and Back plates provided a similar sort of capacity for defence? Indeed, let me ask if you consider an iron cuirass to be superior to Mail (or, indeed, Segentata)?. If so, then one might why troops were not uniformly equipped with that form of Body Armour earlier? My guess would be economics.
If the specific benefits were intended and if they do make a significant difference (which we must recognise is in dispute), then I still don't see that it is a direct result of the Gladius, rather than an attempt to make it better proof against missiles and blows of all types. I regard Segmentata as superior to Mail with regard to chop and thrust, but of no greater value with regard to the cut. I don't see that this makes it armour developed to meet a specific weapon any more than a general improvement over Mail.

But the piercing weapons were already there and being used against Rome...gallic and celtic spears. The gladius evolved into a devastating thrusting weapon, which added to the need of a new armour type. Bear in mind also the Spanish used the spear quite a bit...page 150 in "Greece and Rome at War", shows different javelin and spear tips again. Not to mention the large slashing swords which I don't believe the doubled hamata on the shoulders would have been enough to prevent broken collar bones or neck injuries.

Well, perhaps this is where we truly differ, because I don't agree that the Gladius evolved into a devestating thrusting weapon and am unsure of what specific evidence there is for that. It seems to me that it was an efficient cut and thrust sword (and not the only sword in service, if Auxillary depictions are to be believed). This argument rather hinges on the idea that a late Republican / Imperial Gladius was better suited to thrusting through Mail than a Spear. I am not at all convinced of that.
Segmenta may well have been designed to better resist chops, thrusts and missiles, but I do not see that this must be related to the Gladius in particular. Increased centralisation of arms production coupled with unprecedented wealth and political stability (the caveat being that Octavius' government was stable during his grab for power) seems to me the driving force behind the production of an improved form of Body Armour, whilst political destabalisation and a more or less permanent economic downturn seem like reasonable explanations for its disappearance.

[Magnus]

Hey Matt,

"Indeed, let me ask if you consider an iron cuirass to be superior to Mail (or, indeed, Segentata)?. If so, then one might why troops were not uniformly equipped with that form of Body Armour earlier?"

I don't really think so no. Too many nooks and crannies to get a spear, sword or arrow point stuck on (the abdominal and chest areas create points where a point can grab and thus penetrate). I also don't think it has enough "flex" to it, whereas mail does, and of course the leather framed segmentata as well. To me it's a question of defensive capabilities, and musculata is severely lacking.

"Well, perhaps this is where we truly differ, because I don't agree that the Gladius evolved into a devestating thrusting weapon and am unsure of what specific evidence there is for that."

The biggest piece of evidence is in it's size, and how it was used. I'm not saying it wasn't a very good cleaver when used in cutting roles(it was!) but it's physical properties and the way it was used in very close quarter fighting lends it to being a fantastic stabbing weapon. In fact, gladius size tended to be quite small as it evolved in form from Hispaniensis to pompeii style, until the legions went to the Spatha as their unit tactics changed.

"This argument rather hinges on the idea that a late Republican / Imperial Gladius was better suited to thrusting through Mail than a Spear. I am not at all convinced of that."

No, I'm definately not saying that! But I am saying that a large number of weapons facing the legions during the time the segmentata was created were of the thrusting nature. It may be a factor as you say that a stable political and economic enviroment allowed for the right conditions for the segmentata to be produced but that in my mind isn't enough to push for it's invention. To me there seems to have been a greater need for better defensive capability.

I'd really love to know which troops wore the segmentata. :?

Interesting discussion so far though...a laudes point for you Matt.