The Lorica Segmentata

[Crispvs]

We tested our trispithimus (three span) scorpio against segmentata a few years ago. Our trispithimus' full tension draw weight at full draw is around 730psi. It was wound down to about three quarters of this tension for the tests on the assumption that shooting at maximum tension would quickly result in damage to the machine so the lower tension was used in the hope of approximating a more normal operational tension.

A set of segmentata was set up on a stand and padded out to produce something which was hoped to approximate the resistance produced by a human body. A three span bolt was shot at it over a distance of 38 metres. The bolt struck the front of the armour on the overlap of two girdle plates. It penetrated the outer plate and stuck in the inner plate, meaning that technically it did not penetrate the cuirass. However, the force of the impact pushed the plates inward to the extent that even if a padded garment (a subarmalis) had been worn the wearer would probably have received fatal internal injuries.

This, of course does not tell us what the penetration power of an actual Roman machine would be, but given that they would have been using sinew springing, the operational draw weight would probably be greater, meaning, on the basis of our tests, that segmentata would not be an adequate defence against artillery.

Our results have been published and can be found in the article 'Scorpio and Cheirobalistra', by Len Morgan and Alan Wilkins in JRMES 11.

Crispvs

[Boleslaw I]

The Hamata and the Squamata have rings and scales that catch the arrow point and even help to direct it in towards the wearer, this may not be the reason for the Segmentata coming into use for I think it is simply a lighter armour to wear and was much cheaper and easier to produce.

I think at least I can clear my mistake here, lorica segmenta is actually easier to produce and cheaper as well. But why it phased out eventually???

[Dan Howard]

The Hamata and the Squamata have rings and scales that catch the arrow point and even help to direct it in towards the wearer, this may not be the reason for the Segmentata coming into use for I think it is simply a lighter armour to wear and was much cheaper and easier to produce.

I think at least I can clear my mistake here, lorica segmenta is actually easier to produce and cheaper as well. But why it phased out eventually???

It is discussed (sorta) here
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=10293">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=10293<!-- l

Regarding the protective capacity of mail vs various weapons I've colllected the most commonly cited sources together in this article.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

And here is a list of reasons why the wedge-riveted mail imported from India is unsuitable for weapons tests. Most would also apply to Indian round-riveted mail.
* The size of the links are usually on the upper end of the historical scale - making it cheaper and quicker to produce but far less capable of withstanding an attack from an edge or point.
* The thickness of the wire is generally too light for the diameter of the link, making it lighter but less capable of resisting a weapon.
* Holes are made with a punch rather than a drift. This leaves a lot less metal around the rivet to help secure it
* Rivet holes are either too large or not centred. Both will leave too little material on one or both sides and the link will tear too easily.
* The links are hammered way too thin (probably to make them easier to punch), but this greatly reduces the strength of the link
* Rivets are incorrectly set. If a rivet is not peened tightly, the link will pull apart too easily
* There isn't enough overlap in the lapped section of the link to create a decent join
* Wrong shape rivet hole. Indian mail has rectangular holes. Historical wedge-riveted mail has ovoid holes. Rectangular holes tear very easily at the corners. Circular or ovoid holes are much stronger
* Incorrect metallurgy. Mild steel is not as ductile as bloomery iron and it is more likely to snap upon impact instead of stretching/bending

[Eleatic Guest]

A complete test report of a lorica hamata and lorica segmentata vs. composite bows, along with images and graphs, can be found here:
http://www.milites-bedenses.de/
Forum
-- Schutzwirkung roemischer Panzerung gegen Pfeilbeschuss

The test was also published in the renowned German-language journal Antike Welt.

[Boleslaw I]

A complete test report of a lorica hamata and lorica segmentata vs. composite bows, along with images and graphs, can be found here:
http://www.milites-bedenses.de/
Forum
-- Schutzwirkung roemischer Panzerung gegen Pfeilbeschuss

The test was also published in the renowned German-language journal Antike Welt.

But I don't understand German, could you summarize the final result

[Dan Howard]

It would be better to summarize the test pieces first. Who made the mail? Which museum example is it a replica of? What did they use to simulate a subarmalis?

[Eleatic Guest]

Below are the test results. You can run them through the Google translator. In a nutshell, at a distance of 5 m, using a traditional Hungarian composite bow as well as a modern fibre bow of 61 resp. 72 pound drawweight, the segmentata (1.0 mm strength, 129 HV hardness) was only pierced lethally by a bodkin-type arrow whose tip was larger in diameter than its shaft. The 1.5 mm thick version could not be penetrated by any type of arrow tip.

Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse:
1. 1.5-mm-Blech kann bei einer Schußentfernung von 4-5 m von keiner Projektilspitze durchschlagen werden. Es bilden sich allenfalls Impressionen bzw. kleinere Perforationen. Bild
2. 1-mm-Blech wird in Abhängigkeit von der Bogenleistung und der Beschaffenheit nur von "Bodkin-Spitzen" teilweise oder vollständig durchschlagen. Bild
3. Kettengeflecht: hier ist eine Differenzierung der Ergebnisse nach Art der verwendeten Pfeilspitzen erforderlich.
3a. Eine schmale Blattspitze (1.3 cm Durchmesser) federt entweder zurück oder durchschlägt das Geflecht bis zu einer Penetrationsdistanz von max. 2-3 cm. Bild
3b. Breite zweiflügelige oder die dreiflügeligen Spitzen (Durchmesser 2.3 cm) werden ebenfalls z.T. zurückgeworfen oder durchdringen das Kettensegment inklusive der Unterlage allenfalls um wenige Millimeter.Bild
3c. "Bodkin-Spitzen" mit breiterem Tüllen-/Schaft- als Spitzendurchmesser - gemessen jeweils in beiden Ebenen - erreichen eine max. Penetration von 3 cm über die Unterpolsterung hinaus. Gleichermaßen verhält sich die sogen. "Nadelspitze".Bild
3d. "Bodkin-Spitzen" mit breiterem Spitzen- als Tüllen- oder Schaftdurchmesser durchschlagen die Panzerung in Abhängigkeit von der Länge der Spitze, 11 bzw. 16 cm.

They conclude:

"Bei der Untersuchung stellte sich heraus, daß ein Segmentpanzer mit einer Blechdicke von 1.5 mm wahrscheinlich gegenüber jedwedem Beschuß aus der Distanz immun gewesen sein dürfte. Bei einer Materialdicke von 1 mm bestand grundsätzlich die Möglichkeit einer Perforation mittels "Bodkin-Spitzen", jedoch dürfte selbst hierbei für eine ernsthafte Verletzung die Pfeilenergie, bei einigermaßen realistischen Entfernungen, nicht ausgereicht haben."

The mail:

"Als `lorica hamata' benutzen wir ein 20x20 cm großes Geflecht aus abwechselnd gestanzten und vernieteten Kettenringen, in der Größe ( gestanzte Ringe: 9/6 mm Durchmesser, Dicke 1.2 mm, vernietete Ringe: 10/9 mm ). Die Unterpanzerung für das Kettenhemd (thoracomachus) bestand aus mit Roßhaar bis zu max. 1.5 cm Dicke aufgefüttertem, gestepptem Leinenstoff".

The whole test looks pretty scientific in that the authors give very detailed information on all aspects of its execution and the materials used.

[Dan Howard]

If this is the test I'm thinking of, the mail they used was imported Indian mail. It is useless for testing purposes for the reasons listed above. Alan Williams is the only published test I'm aware of that used a decent reconstruction. One test piece was made by Erik and a second one was an extant 15th century gusset. The problem with Williams' tests is that he underestimated the power of an English warbow.

You can't just get a piece of crap mail and start shooting it. It doesn't matter how accurate your bow and arrows are if the same attention is not paid to the target.

[Doc]

Dan's point is spot on. The receiving end had to be just as accurate as the giving end. Just as an analogy, most of the caligae have round or rounded corners. I am not aware of any that are perfectly square. This shape lends to what the rivet holes lend to as Dan pointed out. Mail would redistribute the force of projectile through the links or that the kinetic energy would dissipate throughout the garment. Of course, the garment has to be properly made.

Also Brian makes a valid point about a seggie in that a projectile has to hit square for some type of penetration otherwise a deflection can occur. It is a similar story to the curvature of the scutum.

Byron,

The seggie that Erik made is nice. However, and if this is what you were suggesting, one cannot look at that seggie and say that it is a status symbol. It looks like a metal can with some brass decoration. You cannot compare it to that lamellar armor or squamata he made. That scale armor is beautiful. I am quite sure it took much more time to produce. As far as the tinning is concerned, personally, I do not think it makes any sense that the Romans would have done it since in the end the plates rubbing against each other will remove the tinning quickly and the first battle that the armor would be privy to, would have a substantial removal of more tin coating. How much would be left in the end after one really heavy duty use? That means that if would have to be re-tinned-no?

Again, Byron, the above is only an observation if you were suggesting that by looking at that seggie and because it has tin and some brass, that it would have been a status armor.

Boleslaw, as Jurjen pointed out, mail and scale armors would require much more time to produce especially the LHS he mentioned. The issue with normal scale and mail (not LHS) is the amount of time required to assemble it IF all the pieces are already fabricated. If one has to make all the pieces and then assemble them, the it would take that much more time. The issue with LHS is the same except that mail and scales used are 2 to 3 times as small.

[Boleslaw I]

Below are the test results. You can run them through the Google translator. In a nutshell, at a distance of 5 m, using a traditional Hungarian composite bow as well as a modern fibre bow of 61 resp. 72 pound drawweight, the segmentata (1.0 mm strength, 129 HV hardness) was only pierced lethally by a bodkin-type arrow whose tip was larger in diameter than its shaft. The 1.5 mm thick version could not be penetrated by any type of arrow tip.

So a legionary in a Lorica Segmentata and Scutum were virtually impenetrable by any kinds of bows and arrows. This makes all Roman legionaries terminators Wow! Amazing!

But the Hungarian bow was only 64 lbs in draw weight! What about crossbow, any types of crossbow has been tested? like those have draw weight of 350 lbs?

[Dan Howard]

So a legionary in a Lorica Segmentata and Scutum were virtually impenetrable by any kinds of bows and arrows. This makes all Roman legionaries terminators Wow! Amazing!

Hardly. The armour doesn't cover everywhere. An arrow in the arm, leg, stomach, groin, face, armpit, foot, etc will take him down easily enough.

[Boleslaw I]

Hardly. The armour doesn't cover everywhere. An arrow in the arm, leg, stomach, groin, face, armpit, foot, etc will take him down easily enough.

But he has a scutum as well

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hardly. The armour doesn't cover everywhere. An arrow in the arm, leg, stomach, groin, face, armpit, foot, etc will take him down easily enough.

But he has a scutum as well

The scutum is the first line of defense, if they are getting past that, then something is going wrong for you.

[Boleslaw I]

The scutum is the first line of defense, if they are getting past that, then something is going wrong for you.

I just feel with such a good quality armour and improved scutum (I think the scutum of later 1 Century AD is improved from the earlier oval curved scutum), the legionaries were pretty good against arrows. But I am not sure why Parthian bowmen could still do some considerable damages to the Roman army, like what happened in battle of Nisibis in 217 AD. I have read Herodian, book IV, "Peace with the Parthian Empire", right after the assassination of Emperor Caracalla:

The barbarians inflicted many wounds upon the Romans from above, and did considerable damage by the showers of arrows and the long spears of the mail-clad dromedary riders.

So, don't quite understand how realistic battle happens. I actually have no field experience...

[Doc]

JAROS?AW,

You have to remember that the Romans lost many battles agains enemies that we would consider inferior in equipment. Loss of battles can also occur with the best equipment if the commander does not know what he is doing. If disorganization occurs or the loss of the chain of command at some point is also lost, then communications and response time are hindered.

Remember also that the archers you refer to were amongst the best. If you shoot arrows from above, something will get through at some point. There are always gaps and as Dan pointed out, there are many parts of the body still exposed to projectiles. Thus if you have expert archers or bowmen that can take advantage of openings, then you can have a situation as suggested by the passage you posted.