I've seen this topic debated to death with great passion with no end in sight, and it's indeed something has interested me. Most people think the primary reasons the contemporarily christened "lorica segmentata" appeared and then fell out of use were combat effectiveness, cost, maintenance, ease of production, standardization, and barbarisation of the military. In fact, I do not think any of these above reasons were the primary motivations for military commanders to introduce and subsequently abandon this distinctly early form of plate. I think the primary, there were of course many secondary considerations, was something entirely different and something I've yet to see discussed.
I recently read a great thesis on the "fall of the Roman empire" and something that stood out was one phrase: "to go fight, sacrifice, and even die for Rome" was one of the most popular and successful advertisements in history. He compared it to Anqituities version of the popular Nike slogan in the '90s. He's right. During the principate, when we first see this armour appear, we also see other endearing nationalistic figures such as Eagle and Triumphant Arch which are still both deeply symbolistic of Western Civilization. Those very images have been so endearing that they've lasted until modern times.
So if the Romans were nationalistic and militaristic, and at almost constant warfare for roughly four to five hundred years, then why do we assume that they don't know the effects of pride, individualism, and more specifically espirit de corps?
Being a Roman soldier or Roman citizen was something of great pride. There they were, the light against darkness, civilization versus barbarisation, the eternal city and it's denizens fighting to bring their governance to the very world. In modern times uniforms, medals, flags, and even the very military machines they use (such as the m1 Abrams) are something of that military men, and even civilians, take great pride in. That's why several nations continue to have military holidays and parades. Again, if we take pride in our uniforms then why do we assume the Romans didn't?
If maile and plate were roughly the equivalent, give or take, then I think the main accomodation would be the morale, the unit cohesiveness, the espirit de corps. They wanted to be different, they wanted to be civilized, they wanted to be Roman. To do that, they did that in every way they could that didn't sacrifice combat effectiveness, and to that end they were able to introduce this armour, one of the only times that the Romans didn't adopt something from an enemy. Centurions used maile and did everything they could to stand out from the standard legionnaire, and I think the legionnaires wanted to stand out from the enemies they were fighting. So the introduction happened and was in use until some time shortly after the Antonine plague decimated the Empire's population, much like the Black Death did Europe.
It is at this point the Crisis of the Third Century occurred and Romans were no longer fighting barbarbarians, Africans, or Greeks but other Romans. It was legion versus legion for a hundred years of almost constant civil war, and when nations are at civil war we see nationalistic pride break down. Why was there a need to "stand out?" to "be different" when you were fighting your countrymen with the same equipment and standards? The armour falls out of disuse during this time, a time when after the Antonine plague the legions were reformed into Limitanei and Comitatenses. Barbarians were recruited en masse, and they used maile. Roman enemies used maile, which they could quickly scavenge and reuse. Vegetius writes that there was a general breakdown in moral and effectiveness in the army, even though the late Roman Army did score some great victories I don't think they were as effective as that of the Principate. People frankly no longer had the same fervor as you even see the aquila disregarded during this period.
Rome was no longer an expanding Empire fighting, plundering, and thriving against the outside world but merely trying to contain it. They weren't building extravagant new cities, opening new trade routes, they were merely trying to sustain the ones they had. It was during this time that we see maile standardized with the "segmentata" never to return. Being Roman was something granted to everyone in the empire. They were all citizens. It's arguable that sixth and successive century Byzantines never new about segmentata because it was never mentioned in surviving literature, there was a drastic breakdown in education after the Antonine plague through to the Dark Ages in the West, and there were unlikely any surviving examples. It was under these conditions that perhaps the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, and it's distinct armour, evententually faded away into history.
In short, I think the armours were very similar when measure by combat effectiveness, with the edge going to maile due to ease of use and availability. How many times do you think that small sacrifices in "considerations" have been sacrificed to make a specific modern military vehicle look cool? I emphasize small, perhaps very small, but it's probably better common. The Humvee is perhaps one example. It was a flawed, vulnerable, but very American vehicle.
I recently read a great thesis on the "fall of the Roman empire" and something that stood out was one phrase: "to go fight, sacrifice, and even die for Rome" was one of the most popular and successful advertisements in history. He compared it to Anqituities version of the popular Nike slogan in the '90s. He's right. During the principate, when we first see this armour appear, we also see other endearing nationalistic figures such as Eagle and Triumphant Arch which are still both deeply symbolistic of Western Civilization. Those very images have been so endearing that they've lasted until modern times.
So if the Romans were nationalistic and militaristic, and at almost constant warfare for roughly four to five hundred years, then why do we assume that they don't know the effects of pride, individualism, and more specifically espirit de corps?
Being a Roman soldier or Roman citizen was something of great pride. There they were, the light against darkness, civilization versus barbarisation, the eternal city and it's denizens fighting to bring their governance to the very world. In modern times uniforms, medals, flags, and even the very military machines they use (such as the m1 Abrams) are something of that military men, and even civilians, take great pride in. That's why several nations continue to have military holidays and parades. Again, if we take pride in our uniforms then why do we assume the Romans didn't?
If maile and plate were roughly the equivalent, give or take, then I think the main accomodation would be the morale, the unit cohesiveness, the espirit de corps. They wanted to be different, they wanted to be civilized, they wanted to be Roman. To do that, they did that in every way they could that didn't sacrifice combat effectiveness, and to that end they were able to introduce this armour, one of the only times that the Romans didn't adopt something from an enemy. Centurions used maile and did everything they could to stand out from the standard legionnaire, and I think the legionnaires wanted to stand out from the enemies they were fighting. So the introduction happened and was in use until some time shortly after the Antonine plague decimated the Empire's population, much like the Black Death did Europe.
It is at this point the Crisis of the Third Century occurred and Romans were no longer fighting barbarbarians, Africans, or Greeks but other Romans. It was legion versus legion for a hundred years of almost constant civil war, and when nations are at civil war we see nationalistic pride break down. Why was there a need to "stand out?" to "be different" when you were fighting your countrymen with the same equipment and standards? The armour falls out of disuse during this time, a time when after the Antonine plague the legions were reformed into Limitanei and Comitatenses. Barbarians were recruited en masse, and they used maile. Roman enemies used maile, which they could quickly scavenge and reuse. Vegetius writes that there was a general breakdown in moral and effectiveness in the army, even though the late Roman Army did score some great victories I don't think they were as effective as that of the Principate. People frankly no longer had the same fervor as you even see the aquila disregarded during this period.
Rome was no longer an expanding Empire fighting, plundering, and thriving against the outside world but merely trying to contain it. They weren't building extravagant new cities, opening new trade routes, they were merely trying to sustain the ones they had. It was during this time that we see maile standardized with the "segmentata" never to return. Being Roman was something granted to everyone in the empire. They were all citizens. It's arguable that sixth and successive century Byzantines never new about segmentata because it was never mentioned in surviving literature, there was a drastic breakdown in education after the Antonine plague through to the Dark Ages in the West, and there were unlikely any surviving examples. It was under these conditions that perhaps the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, and it's distinct armour, evententually faded away into history.
In short, I think the armours were very similar when measure by combat effectiveness, with the edge going to maile due to ease of use and availability. How many times do you think that small sacrifices in "considerations" have been sacrificed to make a specific modern military vehicle look cool? I emphasize small, perhaps very small, but it's probably better common. The Humvee is perhaps one example. It was a flawed, vulnerable, but very American vehicle.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
