Mail replaced segmentata? Why?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Perhaps it was due to the loss of feeling in left arms from wearing segs and carrying scutums? Or maybe that is only a wimpy modern problem!? :oops:

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

I'm sure it probably has been mentioned before but I think the money of the Empire has something to do with it. There were certainly problems with
finances as the Empire expanded. More mouths to feed,troops to pay,bad years of supply could wreak havok with production on all levels. It's probably cheaper to make wire than plate.Less wood needed to stoke fires for forges, and armies of slaves could sit and crank out rings it seems. We've discussed previously how plate could have been made needing large pressing/rolling equipment,etc. The hardest thing about making maille seems to be time consumption. I know it's simplistic and not the whole answer I'm sure but surely a possible cause for change back to earlier forms of protection.

[Lusitano]

I'm sure it probably has been mentioned before but I think the money of the Empire has something to do with it. There were certainly problems with
finances as the Empire expanded. More mouths to feed,troops to pay,bad years of supply could wreak havok with production on all levels. It's probably cheaper to make wire than plate.Less wood needed to stoke fires for forges, and armies of slaves could sit and crank out rings it seems. We've discussed previously how plate could have been made needing large pressing/rolling equipment,etc. The hardest thing about making maille seems to be time consumption. I know it's simplistic and not the whole answer I'm sure but surely a possible cause for change back to earlier forms of protection.

Could the replacement of the segmentata by the hamata be somehow connected to the slowly decline of the roman empire?

[Magnus]

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" ?

I disagree, the firearm in the form of the musket and rifle were around for about 350 years before the machine gun was invented. Yet during those 350 years there was still a great need to create a more effective support weapon. So even though sieges were around prior to the segmentata, it doesn't mean that the technology was simply going to appear over night, or within a few decades. Some innovations simply take a lot of time, especially pre-industrial revolution.

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Lusitano wrote:
Could the replacement of the segmentata by the hamata be somehow connected to the slowly decline of the roman empire?[/quote]

In a very simplistic sense I guess I'm saying "yes".

[Tarbicus]

There is another possibility - the Romans simply forgot how to make decent plate. Look back 300 years from today, and see if we can make certain things in the traditional manner now, even in an age of printed reproductions. If less men were going into the arms industry (draconian laws were introduced to tie men into it, along with even tattooing them to identify runaways, so there must have been a crisis of some sort) then the knowledge could have theoretically been lost.

It might have been that simple?

[Magnus]

Well, look at how a lot of skills are disappearing today. In Canada there is a severe shortage of tradesmen (welders, carpenters, machinists, etc.) who are competant, and that's only after one generation of workers. And it's not like there were dedicated schools to churn those trades out in the Roman era.

[RUBICON]

It just doesnt make sense, loss of armoury skills when a few centuries later man is wearing full knight armour, even beforehand, man and horse were being seen in full armour covering of scale. surely and art not lost but developed.

Man is forever improving fighting techniques, better swords, better weaponry, surely as te empire expanded east, we see a return to maile then back to full armoured knights...

Just seems a cycle of maile through to the crusades back to armour, back to woollen uniforms during WW1 back to armour plating of modern soldiers.

By the way, the theories are great discussion points! D D

[Matthew Amt]

Since a segmentata would be used in very close quarters perhaps it would make no sense in continue to use it with longer swords.

Nah, as has been said, the usual Roman formation was not that tight. Some troops wore mail, some wore the segmentata, and as far as we know there wasn't any distinction between them.

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.

Careful, those long thin rapiers were CIVILIAN weapons, meant to be used against UNarmored opponents. War swords were stouter. Armor was going away because more guns were in use, and it bulletproof armor was too heavy (and expensive) for most troops.

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?

Because if you want to cover the shoulders with metal you can either run the plates front-back or side-side, or make one big dished pauldron. They went with front-back. Yes, the shoulder plates tended to be a tad thicker than the girdle plates, but the whole idea of "heavily reinforced shoulders" is way overblown. It's just overlapped pieces like the rest of the cuirass.

Beacuse I think there was a preferred tactic by the [barbarians] to use a powerful, downwards cuts

But weren't the Gauls the ones using the biggest swords back then? They were no longer a problem after 50 BC, conquered by men in mail. Sure, Migration era swords were also long, but they were rare--most barbarians of that era used spears.

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?

It was more technical, economic, and social. Towns and industry grew, and the technology to roll large plates of steel. Weaponry had a lot less to do with it that we used to think.

And the thin spearpoint can easily punch through maille links

You know better than this, Dudicus! There is NO ancient or medieval weapon which can "easily punch through maille"! There ARE those which are *more* likely to get through than others, but it is simply NOT a common likelihood in battle. In other words, don't bet your life on it. If thin spearheads were so great, why was mail the most common form of armor for over 1700 years, at the exact time that thin spearheads were the most common weapon?

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?

No, I don't think there was all that much fundamental change. Spears were still very common, and formations were not all that different. Plus, the easiest way to defend against huge downward cuts is simply to raise your shield a little!

Could the replacement of the segmentata by the hamata be somehow connected to the slowly decline of the roman empire?

Except that, as I understand it, that era was the military HEIGHT of the Empire! The army was at its largest, centralized mass production of gear was under way for the first time, and the soldiers were paid more than ever before (I think--this is out of my best era!).

There is another possibility - the Romans simply forgot how to make decent plate.

Except that helmets and shield bosses were still common, and both use pieces of plate no smaller than needed for a lorica. Not to mention the common household cookpot.

Just seems a cycle of maile through to the crusades back to armour, back to woollen uniforms during WW1 back to armour plating of modern soldiers.

Bingo! Things change! And it isn't always weaponry driving the change, there are a lot of other factors involved. So we may be looking for a great big "WHY" when there simply isn't one, though there may be a couple small "whys" which were enough to make the change. How often do you get "upgraded" software that doesn't do several things that the old version did? Isn't the new version of some stupid government form BOUND to be harder to fill out than the previous one? These are grunt-level changes, not sweeping decrees by some grand reformer with a keen eye for the future!

I really think it could have been the result of centralized production. Back in the first century, when every man is still technically responsible for equipping himself and armor was made either in army workshops or by local contractors, it was easy to make every lorica a different size to fit all the men. But with centralization, it just made a little more sense to go with mail since that didn't have to be tailored. Maybe the troops just liked the comfort better! They still did a lot more marching and digging than fighting, after all.

Or maybe it's just that the Romans so RARELY made sense that they felt the need to do something that future generations would see as dramatic and meaningful, just to keep us awake at night, when at the time no one really saw much change at all?

Sleep tight!

Matthew

[Tarbicus]

There is another possibility - the Romans simply forgot how to make decent plate.

Except that helmets and shield bosses were still common, and both use pieces of plate no smaller than needed for a lorica. Not to mention the common household cookpot.

But was it hammered? Are we so sure of it that there is no possibility it was rolled steel? Do helmets, cookpots, etc, show the same evidence of forge welded (I think) layers to make the complete plate as seen in examined armour?

[Peroni]

Have a read of David Sim - 'Iron for the Eagles' (Tempus)
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=ti ... the+eagles

It goes through the process of making plate from Billet iron, and how long it would take to make a seg. This is a process that only a trained blacksmith could undertake. It takes skill too, whereas making wire and getting a load of semi-skilled slaves to make mail would be far less costly.

[Lusitano]

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.

Careful, those long thin rapiers were CIVILIAN weapons, meant to be used against UNarmored opponents. War swords were stouter. Armor was going away because more guns were in use, and it bulletproof armor was too heavy (and expensive) for most troops.

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.

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, as a side note plate were still being used during napoleonic wars (XIX century) mainly by heavy cavalary, altough there were a strange foot unit that used also.
IMHO the reason it went away was because of the weight, price and fighting techniques.

[Tarbicus]

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

Weight?!! You must be joking! An off-the-shelf seg is no way to judge, if that's how you're making your comparison.

[Lusitano]

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

Weight?!! You must be joking! An off-the-shelf seg is no way to judge, if that's how you're making your comparison.

That post was a bit off topic, not about segs, but medieval armor, sorry to confuse you.

[Dan Howard]

Lusitano wrote:
Could the replacement of the segmentata by the hamata be somehow connected to the slowly decline of the roman empire?

In a very simplistic sense I guess I'm saying "yes".

Hardly. Segmentata was faster and cheaper to produce than mail. Do you have any idea what was required for iron age cultures just to produce iron wire? The quality of wrought iron had to be much higher than that required for plate. Poor wrought iron cannot not be drawn into wire.