The Lorica Segmentata

[jvrjenivs]

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.

Just want to add another important point. At least in ancient times, you can win a battle before the actually fighting has started.

[Crispvs]

Don't forget tactics.

Continuous arrow fire would be likely to cause the Roman soldiers to contract towards each other for each to reduce the vulnerable areas on his and his comrades' persons. This contraction would hamper them in bringing their weapons to bear. It would be at that point that the Parthians would introduce cataphracts who could charge the Romans to create gaps, while at the same time the Romans might not have enough space per man to bring their weapons up to properly defend themselves. Having created gaps in the Roman line the Parthians could then return to archery in a continual wearing down process, alternating prolonged horse archer attacks with shock charges by cataphracts. All these troops would be mounted and fast, meaning that the Romans would be hard pressed to cause much in the way of casualties.
The armour worn by the soldiers would probably be of less importance in such a situation as the effect on morale of such tactics.
Added to that, the Romans might be likely to be near the extent of their possible supply lines, whereas the Parthians might have resources closer to hand.

Crispvs

[Dan Howard]

Just want to add another important point. At least in ancient times, you can win a battle before the actually fighting has started.

How about Arrian's description of Alexander's conflict with the Taulantians
“Alexander drew up the main body of his infantry in mass formation 120 deep… Then he gave the order for the heavy infantry first to erect their spears, and afterwards, at the word of command, to lower the massed points for attack, swinging them, again at the word of command, now to the right, now to the left. The whole phalanx he then moved smartly forward, and, wheeling it this way and that, caused it to execute various intricate movements…
The enemy, already shaken by the smartness and discipline of these maneuvres, abandoned their position on the lower slopes of the hills without waiting for the Macedonians to come to grips with them. Thereupon Alexander called on his troops to raise the war cry and clash their spears on their shields, with the result that the din was altogether too much for the Taulantians, who hastily withdrew to the town.”

[Eleatic Guest]

If this is the test I'm thinking of, the mail they used was imported Indian mail...You can't just get a piece of crap mail and start shooting it.

No, you can't. But your line of reasoning, simply asserting here that the mail was Indian, even though you actually don't know, is just as crappy, to be honest. I know the Indian mail line is your pet theory, but please tell me what makes you think they used Indian mail? Because I have not found any hint to an Indian connection in the whole of the article.

What they do in their discussion of the reconstruction of Roman mail is strongly referring to the work of David Sim in Britannia, Vol.XXVIII, 1997. Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected. But if not, next time you should think twice before planting unfounded rumours.

[jkaler48]

If this is the test I'm thinking of, the mail they used was imported Indian mail...You can't just get a piece of crap mail and start shooting it.

No, you can't. But your line of reasoning, simply asserting here that the mail was Indian, even though you actually don't know, is just as crappy, to be honest. I know the Indian mail line is your pet theory, but please tell me what makes you think they used Indian mail? Because I have not found any hint to an Indian connection in the whole of the article.

What they do in their discussion of the reconstruction of Roman mail is strongly referring to the work of David Sim in Britannia, Vol.XXVIII, 1997. Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected. But if not, next time you should think twice before planting unfounded rumours.

"Indian mail" you mean poorly made Indian mail as opposed to some of the more recent punched & riveted 6mm Hamatas that run us $800.00+? You can get top of the line authentically made mail from some of the RAT vendors whom I am sure would be happy to provide sections of a suitable size for testing at a lower cost than a whole hamata. It is even possible that one or more of the individual craftsmen would undertake a commission using Roman style bloomery iron to have as close as possible to the originals. You get what you pay for and where it comes from is not as important as the care and attention to historical accuracy with which it is made. (thinking Erik Schmidt here)

[Doc]

John,

All the mail currently available is the same regardless the price. The most accurate mail is from Erik all other mail is commercial and suffers from the same defects.

[jkaler48]

Well I'll have to take your opinion on that until someone sets up a mail quality board to evaluate different sources samples. I was under the impression that there had been a general improvement in the quality of mail available on the market in recent years. (the construction methods rather than the materials)
It is hard to tell much from photos but here is a close up photo of mail offered by RAT vendor SOTW. (A lot better than the Zinc butted stuff I bought a few years ago)
(I think the same item is also offered by RAT vendors Imperium and Armamentaria)

[Doc]

John,

It is better than what has been offered in the past and zinc galvano is no big deal since it can easily be removed. The zinc is only to protect from rust. I know that the Romans did not have it but by removing it there is no real problem. Granted the shirt you showed me is not horrendous. However, just look at the rivets and lapped joints. If you look at actual Roman mail, the lapping part is not that big (wide). What appears to be correct on the other hand in the swatch you provided is the direction of lapping joints right over left as the Roman mail appears to have been made. If you go to Erik's website and surf around, you will find some interesting articles about mail and Roman mail production.

Dan earlier in the post has already mentioned other issues with the rivets and construction of this commercial mail.

To be fair, from a distance and to the unknowing person, the mail you showed is perfectly fine IMHO. However, if you are the type that knows the "inaccurate" from the "accurate" then it could be of some bother. For me, as a private collector of top quality replicas, I would not buy a shirt like that. I would only go for a shirt from Erik and if I could not afford it, I would wait until such time that I could or that someone would produce something that I would deem accurate enough.

In my kit, I have pieces that have some allowances but not that many. As a matter of fact if there are too many, I would not hesitate to remove it from my collection. For me, the fact that the riveted areas on that mail are so visibly incorrect from what I have seen, I would not purchase it.

This is not meant to offend anybody its just my opinion nor do I claim that my armor is the best since I have already stated that I have made allowances myself. I guess in the end its up to each individual to best determine how accurate enough something is.

[jkaler48]

As I suspected it is good enough (and affordable enough) for many reenactors but would be unsuitable for any kind of testing to determine the effectiveness of the originals.
On another note my older gear gets handed down to equip the grandkids. (who would be glad to do some testing if someone were to send gear to be tested!)

[Doc]

John,

That is really nice of you to hand down the equipment. I really admire that because it is better that youngsters are introduced to what the real things may have looked like as opposed to the misleading information Hollywood provides.

My equipment as I mentioned is accurate enough and I will not be giving it away ever. However, my older daughter gets to handle it and wear some of the things I have so that she too can get a real idea as opposed to the Hollyoowd nonsense.

[Dan Howard]

What they do in their discussion of the reconstruction of Roman mail is strongly referring to the work of David Sim in Britannia, Vol.XXVIII, 1997. Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected. But if not, next time you should think twice before planting unfounded rumours.

So answer my initial questions. Who made the mail? Which museum sample were they trying to replicate?

Some follow-up questions.
What were the results when the museum sample was tested for metallurgical and mechanical properties?
How much care was taken to ensure that the replica had the same metallurgical and mechanical properties as the museum original?
If none of this was done, how can it tell us anything about Roman mail?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

And here I was thinking we were talking about Segmentata.... :roll: :lol:

[Crispvs]

Good point Byron.

The test I mentioned above was against segmentata. The plate was in 1mm mild steel. As I said, the full report can be found in the Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 (which i do not have on hand right now to quote).

Crispvs

[Eleatic Guest]

What they do in their discussion of the reconstruction of Roman mail is strongly referring to the work of David Sim in Britannia, Vol.XXVIII, 1997. Now if Sim uses Indian mail, I stand corrected. But if not, next time you should think twice before planting unfounded rumours.

So answer my initial questions. Who made the mail? Which museum sample were they trying to replicate?

Why don't you drop the author(s) a mail? The main contributor has left his email address at the bottom of the article. What I am objecting against, is your inclination to dismiss the whole test, even though you have not read (or understood) it.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think that I have also to go along with Byron on this to say that the subject was Segmentata, indeed the reference I gave to Hamata and Squamata was simply to point out how the Segmentata is better against arrows than the other two types of armour.