Loricae

[Matthew Amt]

I'm pre-ordering that book this week, but I got the one from Bishop, "Roman Military Equipment" and it states that the Segmentata was first introduced in 47AD or at the earliest that's what we know to be the earliest.

Hmm, I hope you misread something. Because the earliest known finds of lorica segmentata fittings date to about 9 BC. There is also a breastplate and numerous fittings from Kalkriese, 9 AD. Even the Corbridge style was in use before the invasion of Britain in 43 AD. And Bishop is "Da Man" on lorica segmentata, so that should be correct in his own book!

When I think about it more, these units were often away for a year or more at a time, and the spread of new equipment would have been impossible.

Were they? The impression I got is that most campaigns lasted a few weeks or months. A few sieges may have gone on longer, but those aren't the rule.

Vale,

Matthew

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I'm pre-ordering that book this week, but I got the one from Bishop, "Roman Military Equipment" and it states that the Segmentata was first introduced in 47AD or at the earliest that's what we know to be the earliest.

Hmm, I hope you misread something. Because the earliest known finds of lorica segmentata fittings date to about 9 BC. There is also a breastplate and numerous fittings from Kalkriese, 9 AD. Even the Corbridge style was in use before the invasion of Britain in 43 AD. And Bishop is "Da Man" on lorica segmentata, so that should be correct in his own book!

When I think about it more, these units were often away for a year or more at a time, and the spread of new equipment would have been impossible.

Were they? The impression I got is that most campaigns lasted a few weeks or months. A few sieges may have gone on longer, but those aren't the rule.

Vale,

Matthew

I just got the book yesterday so I may have misread it... it says "The earliest finds come from the Augustan military sites in the Rhineland and along the Elbe". I guess you're right in implying that it could date back to at the very least 9AD. I saw no mention in his 2nd revised book of anything in the BC timeframe. If you know the specific page let me know.

When I said "away for a year or more" I'm talking about being stationed away from Rome not just campaigning. But much of the 40BC-100AD timeframe was spent pushing the Empire's territory further out (I don't need to tell you where, I'm sure you know) and engaging in battles, sieges, and so forth. One could say that when not at home the amount of labor that it would have taken to send that equipment to the front, or make it available for purchase hundreds of miles from Rome would have been tough to do.

One would imagine that if something new came out that the closest units to "home" would get it first (or you could argue that it should be the other way around and the frontline troops get it first). But one could also argue that the Romans believed in the "if it's not broken don't fix it" type of mentality and didn't upgrade the entire army right away (or maybe they didn't have enough resources). The fact that some armors continue long after others come forward shows that. That, or there's some other missing link (like armor being used for different "classes" of soldiers).

[M. Demetrius]

One would imagine that if something new came out that the closest units to "home" would get it first (or you could argue that it should be the other way around and the frontline troops get it first).

Closest to home, or closest to the fabricum?

[Magnus]

TJ, you do know that Legions had their own armourers and weaponsmiths right? They didn't have to wait for shipments of weapons to come from Rome...

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I wouldn't doubt it... I can't say someone has told me that they did, but I would bet they had specialized troops that dealt with engineering, smithing, and so forth. But the "leap" from mail to segmented armor wasn't just something a dozen legion smiths could have come up with about the same time. It would (saying most likely here) have been something that was either researched or experimented with that disseminated to the legions. The information or the completed armors would have had to make their way across the Empire (or Republic) in order to be implemented.

From what I've read the segmented armor derived "most likely" (as they put it) from the gladiator armor. Correct me if that's incorrect but from the few books I have, that's the most likely scenario. A completed (and intricate design) as the Lorica Segmentata would have been an evolution of that armor that would have taken time. The information would then again as above have to travel to be used.

So to answer your question, no I've never heard of that. Would I believe it if you were to tell me there was at the very least one specialized soldier (or even attached civilian) that dealt in dealing with armor and weapon smithing? Of course (it's common place even today in the military). Do I think the change in armor happened over night? Absolutely not. I think it would have taken a considerable amount of time to spread to the men than I think some people are willing to acknowledge. Not saying you specifically Magnus... that was a generalization across the board.

[Magnus]

If that's the case, and segmentata fragments have been found as early as 9 BC...how long do you think it takes a smith to be trained in a new armour type? Even travel across the empire in order to facilitate the training, I'd say a decade is more than enough time. Seggie finds in the archaeological record as well as in sculpture become more prevalent after Kalkriese which is more like 18 years...

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Just curious... and again not to argue but to educate myself. But, what is the reference for 9 BC? I've seen statements in three of my books that go as far as 9 AD (the battle of Teutoburg Forest), but nothing directly mentioning the BC era. Do you have a reference for that? I'd assume that since it was in use during that time, that it's fair to say it goes back further with the amount of time it would have taken for that armor to spread.

[Matthew Amt]

When I said "away for a year or more" I'm talking about being stationed away from Rome not just campaigning.

Ah, gotcha. Actually, most men in the army weren't from Italy and never went to Rome. By mid-first century, it is estimated that even half of the legionaries were provincials, not Italian-born. So "home" was the unit's fort. It had its own workshops, with others run by local civilian contractors close by.

But much of the 40BC-100AD timeframe was spent pushing the Empire's territory further out (I don't need to tell you where, I'm sure you know) and engaging in battles, sieges, and so forth. One could say that when not at home the amount of labor that it would have taken to send that equipment to the front, or make it available for purchase hundreds of miles from Rome would have been tough to do.

Well, Keppie makes it clear that up into the reign of Caligula, legions were still seen as an annual "strike force", launching campaigns in the spring and pulling back behind the frontier in the fall. Permanent (or semi-permanent) fortresses were called "winter quarters" even long after. Many legion forts along the Rhine housed 2 or 3 legions apiece, until they were all distributed singly under Claudius or Nero, if I'm remembering correctly. And on campaign, everything needed was taken along, including armorers and equipment to make repairs. So very little had to be shipped any distance.

One would imagine that if something new came out that the closest units to "home" would get it first (or you could argue that it should be the other way around and the frontline troops get it first).

Sure, the spread of lorica segmentata (getting back to the original topic, in a way!) would depend on just where it was first developed. But we don't know that, any more than we can really say how it came about in the first place. A derivation from gladiatorial equipment is possible, but Eastern cataphracts were wearing forms of segmented armor even before such things were common among gladiators, as I understand it. As far as "frontline" troops goes, technically, that was the auxiliaries, since they were dispersed along the actual border and probably did most of the patrolling and raiding/anti-raiding work. The legions were farther back from the line. And yet we have this stereotype of legions in segmentata, auxiliaries in mail. Curious!!

Matthew

[Magnus]

I don't have that reference I just regurgitate what I've learned here from people smarter than me lol...Mr. Amt might though :wink:

But this has come up before...the first known "occurence" of the seggie, and 9 BC seems to be the consensus, though I'm not sure where the reference is. Someone with a better library than mine can fill us in.

But you're surely right, that if it was available in 9 BC, than it was in development prior to...

[mcbishop]

I don't have that reference I just regurgitate what I've learned here from people smarter than me lol...Mr. Amt might though :wink:

But this has come up before...the first known "occurence" of the seggie, and 9 BC seems to be the consensus, though I'm not sure where the reference is. Someone with a better library than mine can fill us in.

But you're surely right, that if it was available in 9 BC, than it was in development prior to...

The reference in question is freely available on the internet and what I said was:

The earliest pieces so far identified come from Dangstetten (Germany) and date to around 9 BC[3] and those appear to have been exclusively of type A (with double-riveted buckles attached to leather straps). Lorica Segmentata I, p.23

Note 3 was:

3 FINGERLIN, 1886, Abbn.268.1, 285.5, 448.1; 1998, Abb.681.2.

Essentially the finds from Dangstetten published by Fingerlin serve only to give us a terminus ante quem for the introduction of lorica seg which is fastened to the likely date of abandonment of that site. Of course it was in use before then, but we do not have solid evidence for how much earlier (although that has never stopped people speculating; I am only interested in the facts).

Mike Bishop

[Magnus]

Thanks Mike!

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

For me it was chapter 4, page 33... but I did find that paragraph. So that's good to know. I'll have to bookmark that for the future.

[mcbishop]

For me it was chapter 4, page 33.

Because you are looking at the physical page number in the PDF (which includes the prelims). The actual page number is 23. The folio (page number) is at the top right of this page. It is an important thing to note with PDFs as so many of them include the prelims in the page count.

Mike Bishop