segmentata

[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