Mail replaced segmentata? Why?

[Dan Howard]

I meant that "drawing in to wire" has been an invention of the Middle Age and that the romans made the round rings by hammering to round piece of wire! Am I wrong?

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the Romans used drawn wire - including at least two extant draw plates. One found at Vindolanda, Britain. The other found near Dusseldorf, Germany.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Yes. :wink: Erik

???? you agree maille would be one hell of a job or Yes, you can imagine making Maille?

:wink:

Both. :wink:

Wow really? Oops sorry Erik! :oops: No I didnt know, the reason I asked! <---makes notes to read profiles!

Erik where can I find information or could you enlighten me with the time it would possibly take to make a maille outfit considering ancient roman trade practices?

Is it comparable to making Segs?

Also, with the introduction of new legions etc, were the uniforms (segs or mail) that were handed out, new or second hand ones?

Oh and one last question "Would the army collect weapons and armour from fallen comrades?" My wonderful partner just asked me? since when is she interested??? :?

The amount of time required to make mail in the Roman period? Good question because nobody really knows for sure. That said, if there was a decent enough division of labour, then it can be reasonably assumed that they were able to produce several shirts per day. My own tests have confirmed this. Take it for what it's worth.

The other questions I will leave for others more knowledgeable than I.

<-------bows down to Erik!

Wow I just read the thread on the hamata you made.

I salute you!

Thank you and stop it. :oops: I've made a few things here and there that people seem to like. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Matthew Amt]

I am fully aware of the thickness of war swords of that time, the term rapier was used in a broader meaning. But still the fighting technique was very similar and they could still thrust them to specific points.

Fair enough!

And guns werent the reason plate went away, bullets at that time were spheres with little penetrating power compared to the modern day bullets, they wouldnt perfurate a good breastplate

True, a *good* breastplate! Many were marked with proof marks to show there were "bulletproof". But many had *fake* proof marks made with a hammer, so they weren't bulletproof at all! Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that armor in general went away because of gunpowder, I was thinking more specifically about the course of the English Civil War period. More guys with armor and pikes at the beginning, more muskets and very little armor used by infantry by the end of it. My brain just went that direction since I've done a little ECW reenacting.

IMHO the reason it went away was because of the weight, price and fighting techniques.

Sure, it's always a combination. But like I said, weight was more of a factor when you start trying to make the armor bulletproof.

But we digress!

But at the same time, I think the intent of wearing maille was for "glancing" hits, not intended for "direct" hits, even if you're on horseback and charging with a lance, you get hit with that kind of force and maille isn't going to stop anything...Isn't that why they had a shield (Norman "kite" shield, later the infamous "heater" shield) until full steel plate took over?

Exactly, the SHIELD is the primary defense! Same thing for Romans, too! Why worry about the exact physics of every possible weapon versus every possible armor when most troops never intended to let anyone hit their armor anyway? So the whole question of defensive pros and cons might have been entirely moot for the Romans, both the troops and the guys who made and supplied it.

Valete!

Matthew

[John M McDermott]

I think both the hamata and the segmentata used by the Romans were ingenious body defenses. Mail seemed to have lasted longer, yet plate armor resurfaced in history. The reasons are lost in history, but you can learn a lot by wearing both.

[Dan Howard]

True, a *good* breastplate! Many were marked with proof marks to show there were "bulletproof". But many had *fake* proof marks made with a hammer, so they weren't bulletproof at all!

Some certainly were. I wouldn't say "many" though.

[Magnus]

Is there stats on that?

[Dan Howard]

Nope. There were regulations in place to penalise those that faked proof marks so we know it happened. I can't think of any battle accounts in which a person was wounded because he was wearing plate that had a fake proof mark.