Munitions armor wasn't developed for a couple hundred years after the introduction of plate, which was extremely expensive. The technology to make cheap, mass produced plate armor did not exist in Antiquity.
There is no reason to associate the cost of munitions armor to segmentata.
This is also the time the legions are the best payed and when tax collection was at an all time high. I've seen figures showing that the Empire's income shrunk to just 1/8th it's peak (which was ca. 1st C). You also say the word generations. You're really trying to say one-hundred years, which is a very, very long time. Being a soldier in the legions wasn't a poor paying job, and the victorious got everything from slaves, plunder, land, and for the auxilia, citizenship. I'm almost positive the state subsidized equipment, otherwise how are these same soldiers affording mail?
Show me any evidence that the Roman economy actually grew during the period we associate with its decline. Everything I've ever learned, read, and seen contradicts that, so I'd love to be shown otherwise. I've given my reasons for why centurions might have continued using mail.
Why not continue using segmentata in a period when a lot of their soldiers were starting to go unequipped and into combat without any body armor at all? Why not keep this "extremely awesome economical" option around? Seems like -anyone- would prefer to wear segmentata over nothing. at. all.
As Mike Bishop pointed out in a thread four years ago:
Show me evidence, that's all I ask. I don't want conjecture. Show me that the armor was munitions grade. Show me that the Roman economy actually grew, that'd be groundbreaking.
From http://ianjamesross.com/journal/2015/7/1...e-part-one
There is no reason to associate the cost of munitions armor to segmentata.
Quote:. It appears a couple of generations after lower classes started being admitted to the legions but were still required to purchase their own equipment (costs were deducted from their pay). Segmentata remains in use (along with hamata and squamata and musculata) until the state takes over the armour making fabricas.
This is also the time the legions are the best payed and when tax collection was at an all time high. I've seen figures showing that the Empire's income shrunk to just 1/8th it's peak (which was ca. 1st C). You also say the word generations. You're really trying to say one-hundred years, which is a very, very long time. Being a soldier in the legions wasn't a poor paying job, and the victorious got everything from slaves, plunder, land, and for the auxilia, citizenship. I'm almost positive the state subsidized equipment, otherwise how are these same soldiers affording mail?
Show me any evidence that the Roman economy actually grew during the period we associate with its decline. Everything I've ever learned, read, and seen contradicts that, so I'd love to be shown otherwise. I've given my reasons for why centurions might have continued using mail.
Why not continue using segmentata in a period when a lot of their soldiers were starting to go unequipped and into combat without any body armor at all? Why not keep this "extremely awesome economical" option around? Seems like -anyone- would prefer to wear segmentata over nothing. at. all.
As Mike Bishop pointed out in a thread four years ago:
Quote:Too right. There is the small question of evidence that everyone still overlooks. It is a hypothesis, sure, but unproven.
Mike Bishop
Show me evidence, that's all I ask. I don't want conjecture. Show me that the armor was munitions grade. Show me that the Roman economy actually grew, that'd be groundbreaking.
Quote:The appearance of the Roman soldier, on both imperial monuments and individual tombstones, changes radically during this period. A mobile force would perhaps be a more lightly equipped force, but it was also cut off from the traditional legion armoury at home base. This might explain the shift from segmented armour, for example, which required skilled craftsmen to repair, to the more versatile mail, scale and even musculata (breastplate) type armours.
From http://ianjamesross.com/journal/2015/7/1...e-part-one
Christopher Vidrine, 30
