Mail replaced segmentata? Why?

[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