segmentata

[Robert Vermaat]

Non-Romans played a part in the Roman military before the tetrarchy too, does that mean the old auxulia wore the hamata as a 'non-Roman preference'?
I think not.

Are you sure about that?

Pretty sure.
I mean, who decided what armour the pricipate auxilia wore, the recruits or the Roman military? Yet we see the auxilia today as using the hamata whilst the legions used the segmentata. Should we then conclude that the principate auxilia

a) preferred the hamata? I've heard many say 'Yes' to that, because they see 1) the hamata as better than the segmenta ta and 2) also because the hamata allows for more diverse tactics than the seg which seems to be best in a role for heavy infantry

b) brought the hamata with them? That I have not seen any evidence of.

Therefore I think (mind you, nothing for sure) that the principate auxilia wore the hamata most probably because it fitted their tasks better, not because they, as non-Romans, liked it better.

My two cents.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

I saw how an arrow punches through mail and how a segmentata resisted it

You saw nothing of the sort since I doubt the sample of mail tested had any resemblance what so ever to an extant Roman piece.

Dan what makes you the "expert" to speak such a final say so?

[Matthew]

Salve!

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.

Fair enough, I don't know enough about it. Sounds reasonable.

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.

See, for me, size doesn't indicate much except for the degree of reach. The Roman's certainly appear to have emphasised the thrust over the cut, but that may only relate to the Gladius in the most minor way. For instance, it could perhaps be argued that the their preference for the thrust meant that they didn't need the Gladius to be very long, but that the technique was equally applicable to a longer blade. It is noticeable that Vegetius (not the greatest source I know) doesn't mention relative sword length at all. For him the technique was what was lacking, he makes no connection between this and sword design / length.
Saying that, I do agree that the Gladius was well suited to close quarters combat, but that doesn't suggest anything to me about its influence on the introduction of Segmentata. It is also interesting to note that at the time Segmentata went out of use, so too, it seems, did the Gladius. Very odd, if the latter was so well suited for penetrating Mail! Of course, that is something of a different discussio - Why the change from Gladius to Spatha? I think there are several very long threads about that knocking around the place. Could be unit tactics, as you say, but that would, no doubt, also be related to a number of other things.

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.

Fair enough. I could see it as a cmbination of factors, I just don't see it as simply as Gallic Slashing Blade = Hamata, Roman Thrusting Blade = Segmentata

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

Wouldn't we all? That would be great. For the moment I am happy enough to settle for the idea that Segmentata was limited to the Legions, but was not the only Body Armour used by them. It would be fantastic to one day discover that Segmentata was employed by Auxillaries, both Foot and Horse, or even that it was adopted by Rome's Barbarian enemies. In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to settle for the facts at hand (insufficient as they are).

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

I agree, and return the courtesy.

Geez, WAY past bedtime. I am not going to be able to keep up with this one... Probably should have left it all to the other Matthew, we seem to be pretty much in agreement.

I'm always glad to hear an agreeable voice! The only thing I wonder about is what kind of gear Crassus' Men were carrying. My understanding was that they were hastily raised, and I have always wondered whether, for all Crassus' resources, they were also poorly equipped. Can we really compare them to Mark Antony's Men? I don't know.

Why would that seem bizarre? There has been a lot of study about outside influences on Roman arms & armour, but I've also read theories that most of the fighting of Roman armies was in civil wars. So would somehow only external wars have had influence on military development? Somehow I seriously doubt that.

If I understand the idea correctly, I think it is not that the idea of both internal and external enemies having an influence on Roman military development, but the idea that Roman Segmentata was particularly developed to counter the Roman Gladius, rather than developed to face a broad range of weapons, both insular and foreign.

True possibly, but after being in the sun all day, being pelted with an endless supply of arrows, and perhaps no water, holding that scutum would become less sure a defense, perhaps?

Absolutely, but your Body Armour probably won't save you by that point either...

There is another theory about the segmentata voiced by Lendon, and that is it was developed more for siege types of warfare, going hand in hand with the ever increasing helmet neckguard sizes to help protect from missiles from above. Whilst the legionaries took more of a step back from field combat they increasingly stepped up to the ladders instead, leaving open combat more to the auxilia.

Yeah, I think we have discussed this before, Jim. A really interesting theory.

Personally, I feel the seg was a more efficient and cheaper way of equipping the army that had its own benefits in terms of production, tied in with new technologies in making plate armour that brought it to the same standard as mail. Augustus was very watchful of spending, and if a way of saving money in the army presented itself I'm sure he would have promoted its use.

I think that's quite probable, but I think it also requires something in the way of investment to set up the infrastructure.

I still don't accept the argument that it was harder to repair than mail, as plates are easily replaced so long as you have some method of rivetting new ones into place. The amount of repaired finds show that repairs were frequent. In the field, likewise, with the baggage train having the necessary stocks of plates, just like any other pieces necessary for field repairs. The asymmetrically different pieces on segs could also indicate that. Given that the plate thicknesses and weight distribution of a modern seg are all wrong, the lighter armour may have been very popular with soldiers, especially if it gave the same protection as mail (see the latest findings on the composition of plate armour of the time).

I'm still undecided as to this. I suspect that Segmentata had more complicated maintainance issues than Hamata. I would have thought it would be a lot easier to replace a few broken links than a mangled plate or two, but that's just supposition on my part, having never seen battle damaged body armour.

My feelings about the reason that mail eventually superceded plate in the legions is the legions were a completely different animal by that time, composed almost entirely of auxiliary blood (but citizen in title), bringing with them their own practices and preferences.

I'm not entirely on board with this, but it seems like as good a theory as any.

Matthew James Stanham

[Conal]

Dan what makes you the "expert" to speak such a final say so?

Wow on that ... we are all experts on here hock:

However there are a lot of "definate" statements on this thread, such as the military are conservative by nature and once it was realised that Segs were not up to the job teh troops were forced to wera then till they wore out :roll:

OK its a theory but until someone puts a few Segs through elongated battle conditions I am sticking with it.

[Martin Wallgren]

Just a quick Question on Thickness of the plates! How thick on average? And for a reconstruction how thick should it be in millimeter?

I know im a bit OT but i´m talking to the guy who is going to cut the plates for me right now!

[Tarbicus]

b) brought the hamata with them? That I have not seen any evidence of.

None of us have, simply because the hamata is based on barbarian Celtic/Gallic hamata in the first place. In a sense, it was auxiliary types, although not in the Roman army at that stage, that introduced it to the Romans. The barbarians had it first, so there would be no surprise if they also had it last as auxiliaries and then legionaries.

[Robert Vermaat]

b) brought the hamata with them? That I have not seen any evidence of.

None of us have, simply because the hamata is based on barbarian Celtic/Gallic hamata in the first place. In a sense, it was auxiliary types, although not in the Roman army at that stage, that introduced it to the Romans. The barbarians had it first, so there would be no surprise if they also had it last as auxiliaries and then legionaries.

Was it not introduced befiore the Romans used celts as auxiliaries? What dates are you thinking of? Way outta my leage here.

[Tarbicus]

Just a quick Question on Thickness of the plates! How thick on average? And for a reconstruction how thick should it be in millimeter?

I'm having one made right now, and the Upper Shoulder Guards and Pectorals are 14 gauge, the rest of the shoulder assembly 16 gauge, and the girth hoops 18 gauge. This is in line with examples showing the thicknesses varied over the entire cuirass, with the thickest up top and the girth hoops frighteningly thin.

At least, they're the thicknesses I remember, but I might be a little hazy on that right now. I'm looking forward to seeing if the shift in weight to the upper assembly has any effect on centre of balance (therefore agility), and makes it easier to wear over prolonged periods.

The left and right Upper Shoulder Guards are also assymetrical, as thought to be evidenced in actual finds.

[Martin Wallgren]

Thanx a million!

How do you mean by assymetrical? Are they of different sizes?

[Tarbicus]

Was it not introduced befiore the Romans used celts as auxiliaries? What dates are you thinking of? Way outta my leage here.

(Damn, deleted my post by mistake - try again)

Exactly. It was initially Gallic armour that was adopted by the Romans, just as the hispaniensis was adopted during the Punic Wars. But, the classic hamata was still barbarian armour to start with. If they used it before the Romans, then why wouldn't they be using it afterwards. or at least later, making it the predominant armour when they were the mainstay of the Roman army? The spangenhelm - Roman or barbarian?

From what I can tell, no armour was also a preference of the barbarians in Europe. Wasn't there a point when the legionaries (who would have been auxilia not long before) discarded armour altogether?

My one cent's.

[Tarbicus]

How do you mean by assymetrical? Are they of different sizes?

Martin, let me double check on the thicknesses and where they are on the cuirass. Or Matt, if you're out there..?

One Upper Shoulder Guard is of Corbridge C type (pointed inwards), the other is a replacement/repair of Corbridge A type (flat on both sides). The fittings are also based on different finds and a real mix'n'match as seen on original segs, made of brass, bronze and steel.

[Magnus]

Guys, let me clarify one pretty important aspect of my theory:

I in no way said that the segmentata came about as a direct result of the Roman Gladius.

I am saying that the innovation of that armour came as a result of the myriad other types of pointy things (not necessairly arrows...I agree with the points on that about scuta) that were in use by Rome's enemies. I am also saying that the shoulder guards on a segmentata will give better blunt force trauma protection than those of a hamata.

Matt Amt, you said that there were other types of plate armour in use by other cultures...yet none resemble the segmentata, nor are they constructed quite the same (at least the examples you gave).

I truly believe that the conditions were right for this armour to be invented and then put into production (as stated, which I agree with Matthew Stanham on), but the basic need for something better vs pointy objects was driven by the weapons used against Rome at the time on all fronts. There is always a need...a cause and effect relationship so to speak.

Stimuli = Reaction under Proper Conditions

[Dan Howard]

Dan what makes you the "expert" to speak such a final say so?

It was a pretty safe statement since:
1. the poster implied that the test he witnessed didn't even involve riveted mail.

2. only a few people on the planet can make mail that actually resembles that used on the battlefield. "riveted" does not equal "historical"

A test needs to be done using a target that was reproduced as closely as possible from an extant sample of Roman mail. Preferably several examples since there were different types used. Even then it won't address the question of the subarmalis since no-one can agree on how to make one.

Mail was the dominant type of body armour for at least a thousand years and the most common threat on the battlefield during the whole of that period was from arrows and spears.

There have been few modern tests that actually involve decent mail reconstructions but all of them come to the conclusion that mail was far more resistant to points than many assume. Read Dr Williams' book. It is by far the most comprehensive work done on this subject.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Dan Howard Wrote----

"It was a pretty safe statement since:
1. the poster implied that the test he witnessed didn't even involve riveted mail"

And how did I imply that?

The test I saw was performed under conditions that reproduced those of a person wearing mail, with the padding that would go with it, however you may qualify that, and then the same conditions for the seg! I am only stating what I saw, not what I think may have been seen buy some third party! If I ever see this again I will take better notes! :wink:

And have a merry xmas too all as I won't be able to argue this point for a few weeks!

[Dan Howard]

So post the specifications of the test piece and tell us which extant example of Roman mail it was supposed to represent. Until this is done I'll stand by my statement.