Mail replaced segmentata? Why?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sounds like a very valid point Lusitano..

[Tarbicus]

Maille is very simple to repair, i always have a few extra rings while on events so i can quickly fix any hole or such (we use butted maille), but even if it was rivited maille de process would be identical.

It's one of the most cited reasons, but I've never really bought it simply because segs were in extensive use for almost three centuries. If it was so bad then it would have lasted three decades.

[Magnus]

^ ^ what he said.

Pieces of gear that's a pain in the butt never lasts longer than it should in any military. Especially life saving equipment.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Will we ever know....... :roll: perhaps as they cut down more of europes forests to heat their ever enlarging baths, they ran low on fuel for the forges needed to heat their plates to make segs....... :? lol:

rapidly dons his segmentata to deflect incoming

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

^ ^ what he said.

Pieces of gear that's a pain in the butt never lasts longer than it should in any military. Especially life saving equipment.

hmmmmm what about the SA80?

[Lusitano]

Maille is very simple to repair, i always have a few extra rings while on events so i can quickly fix any hole or such (we use butted maille), but even if it was rivited maille de process would be identical.

It's one of the most cited reasons, but I've never really bought it simply because segs were in extensive use for almost three centuries. If it was so bad then it would have lasted three decades.

I'm not saying that segmentata was bad, it was great.

I dont belive that maintenance was the single reason, but it could be one of them.

Lack of resources, lack of specialized labor, change in tactics,etc.
Another reason could be the evolution of weapons, since armor tend to follow.
I'm not certain about any date, but i do believe that at some time infantry started to use bigger gladius or spathas. Since a segmentata would be used in very close quarters perhaps it would make no sense in continue to use it with longer swords.

I just mentioned this last one because it was a similar the reason why plates started to disappear in the 17 century, since swords started to be real thin (rapiers and such) and a skilled swordsman could strike at specific locations in armor, infantry opted to use lighter equipment.

[A_Volpe]

It's certainly a tricky issue, and one we'll probably never know for sure.

There are some good theories to consider, like those mentioned.

My personal theory has a few parts -
1. Maintaince became an issue, although it's not the bigger problem
2. Repairs - as mentioned earlier, Maille can be much easier to repair quickly "in the field"
3. Influence/Fashion - by the 4th century there's a much greater population of "Barbarian"/Non-Native-Romans joining the army, and if the "Roman Way" of adopting outside weapons/armor/tactics holds true at this time, then it's understandable where the "non-Romans" are bringing in more of thier native weapons and gear, such as maille, thrusting spears, smaller/circular shields, longer cut&thrust swords - Becoming more skirmishers than block/line infantry in tight formations...Although now I don't see this as a strong argument either, after all, Maille was in Roman use since the 200's BC, and was worn by just about every soldier, ie under Caesar....So it wasn't about lack of popularity.

So that being said, I've been leaning more towards the idea of defence against specific weapons and tactics - Looking at Seggie armor, the shoulders are heavily armored/protected, which also helps protect parts of the neck and upper torso...Maille for most of the Empire had the shoulder-doublings, so it's apparent that idea for protection was carried over to Seggie, so why is that? Beacuse I think there was a preferred tactic by the [barbarians] to use a powerful, downwards cuts (similar to "Wrath" cuts/Zornhaw in Germanic swordplay in the 14-16th centuries), if not to hack off pieces of Romans, but to add to a shock/crushing hit to cause blunt trauma - I could not imagine the pain and injury of recieving a full power "wrath" cut with a sword on my bare neck/collar bone - Ouch! And easily that could cause a concussion-sort of trauma, knocking you to the ground in a hurry.

When you're up against an army of soldiers covered in [maille] with big scuate, you should have enough smarts to understand that a quick cut or slash (or even a thrust) to the soldier isn't going to be effective, so why not instead try to just smash the soldier down from head to toe, even better if you hit them in the shoulder-neck area. (I think of the classic neck-chop like in Karate/Eastern Martial Arts)

So, I think Seggie in essence develped as a response to blunt force...Maille is still excellent armor (in use from c. 300 BC to what, 1600 AD?), but it's only really good for glancing cuts and hits - you'll still get wrecked with intermal injuries with a really heavy blow.

But, the big problem was that Seggie does not cover under the arms, and not below the waist, whereas Maille does have protection there, so again, I think part of the reason why might be because the Romans were facing a downwards cut more than other attacks, as opposed to a cut from below-upwards, and to the sides of the body.

It turned out to be a convienient solution to missile weapons as well - arrows, slingshot, rocks, darts/spears

Someone once offered a theory (I think it was Magnus) that it appears, according to Trajan's column - despite the argument on it's actual accuracy as opposed to impression of soldiers - that Legionaries seemed to have become more specialized in siege and fortification/engineering, whereas Auxiliary seemed to become, or stay at being skirmisher and "light" infantry, sticking with maille armor; whereas the Legionaries using seggie had enough overall body coverage as with the plate armor to aid in blunt-force protection...They may have been working under misslie fire, be it arrows or slingshot or whichever - being hit with that while you're busy doing something isn't going to be as bothersome as if you were wearing maille - it'll still protect you from arrows, but you'll still get knocked around by the force of impact.

In comparison...Why did full-plate armor come into use in the 1460's into the 1600's? Outside of being a slow evolution from "Transitional" maille-and-plate (1300-1400's) armor - Was it because of "fashion", or weapons/tactics?

One theory that makes sense to me is polearms like the Halberd - really good at tearing apart a Knight on horseback, esspecially in Transitional armor, which is when the weapon first started to appear...So, was full plate steel developed to counteract this?
(the fluke/hook on the halberd can easily grab onto maille as well as the harness strap for say, a cuirass over that maille...Making short work of a Knight...And the thin spearpoint can easily punch through maille links, So Plate armor appears to have been designed being hard and flat / smooth surface, to prevent the fluke from being able to catch anything; as well as deflecting arrows and other weapon points)

There's also the idea of the technology - The making of steel, as well as the science/art behind making those plates articulated for movement, if the armorers figured out a way to make the plates cover joints in the body but still flexible, then why NOT make that part all out of plate, and leave the maille for areas that really could not be made flexible enough?
(and maille of course was still used for armpits, groin, neck (Standard) and thighs (Fauld) under the plate in those areas)

So in the end, yeah we don't know for sure....Sorry to say.

It's fun/interesting to think about, though.

[Chuck Russell]

having worn both, i like mail better. it doesnt need to be tailored when i gain weight over the winter

[RUBICON]

Did fighting technique in the roman army ever move away from the tight formation?

In this formation I would think the scutum and Seg would offer best protection.

So is ther eany evidence to suggest, that as teh barbarians changed to a more powerful overhead swing to cause damge, that the tight formation fighting technique needed to adapt and change? (Personally I have no experience of such combat re enactment)

Did teh roman soldier have to learn a new fighting technique with the longer spartha..in this case would maille have been preferable, more ease of movement as opposed to teh tight formation stabbling advancing technique?

Food for thought?

[Tarbicus]

^ ^ what he said.

Pieces of gear that's a pain in the butt never lasts longer than it should in any military. Especially life saving equipment.

hmmmmm what about the SA80?

I believe it works fine since Heckler & Koch modified it, and as long as the troops maintain it like they're supposed to.

[Magnus]

hmmmmm what about the SA80?

Yeah, and the SA 80 came out in 1985 and is only slated to be in service until 2015. That's not long at all (3 decades), given some rifles like the AK or M-16 variants.

[Tarbicus]

There's also the theory of siege warfare declining, which Lendon believes was a large factor in the development of the seg (to stop things from above, along with larger neck guards).

[sulla felix]

There's also the theory of siege warfare declining, which Lendon believes was a large factor in the development of the seg (to stop things from above, along with larger neck guards).

Tarbicus - I am not sure that this theory really stands up to a lot of scrutiny? Surely sieges were quite commonplace throughout the Punic Wars, and yet segmentata do not apparently appear for another 150 years plus? Were the Romans really that slow on the uptake? At what point does Lendon suggest that siege warfare starts to "decline" ?

[Caius Fabius]

Did fighting technique in the roman army ever move away from the tight formation?

In this formation I would think the scutum and Seg would offer best protection.

So is ther eany evidence to suggest, that as teh barbarians changed to a more powerful overhead swing to cause damge, that the tight formation fighting technique needed to adapt and change? (Personally I have no experience of such combat re enactment)

Did teh roman soldier have to learn a new fighting technique with the longer spartha..in this case would maille have been preferable, more ease of movement as opposed to teh tight formation stabbling advancing technique?

Food for thought?

Actually the 'tight formation' is only one theory of how the Romans fought. Ancient sources can be found which write that each Roman soldier had a frontal area of five feet to protect, which means that they were not all crowded together like we see in the Asterix movies and shieldwall type formations, unless they were in specific, temporary formations. Peter connolly said that Caeasr's writings showed that the helvetii used a shield wall formation which was destryoed by J. Caesar's troops through the use of pila and a more fluid fighting style. The destruction of the Successor phalanxs by the Republican style Roman manipular tactics also do not support the 'tight formation' theory. A recent book from our recommended reading list also goes into some detail about Roman fighting styles.Soldiers and Ghosts

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There's also the theory of siege warfare declining, which Lendon believes was a large factor in the development of the seg (to stop things from above, along with larger neck guards).

Tarbicus - I am not sure that this theory really stands up to a lot of scrutiny? Surely sieges were quite commonplace throughout the Punic Wars, and yet segmentata do not apparently appear for another 150 years plus? Were the Romans really that slow on the uptake? At what point does Lendon suggest that siege warfare starts to "decline" ?

Hmmmm, how many fleets did they go through during the Punic wars because of storms? They certainly could be slow to take good advice at times! hock: :lol: