The Lorica Segmentata

[Boleslaw I]

Hi everyone!
I am a newbie here so I would like to ask several questions on this particular type of armour:

Have there been any tests done for this armours, I have read the wiki page and it says that lorica segmenta virtually stops all kinds of missiles and direct strikes. Also is it possible for a lorica segmenta to sustain a bolt from the ballista? I have heard that the armour was fine even you shoot a ballista at it.

Are there any chances for a crossbow with 350-400 lbs draw weight to penetrate this armour?

Is it true that not all roman legionaries wore this armours? I think it was too expensive to equip it for everyone. Was this armour only for parade or it was used actually in battle. I have a feeling that legionaries depicted in the Trajan Column wore this armour, but another Trajanic monument, the Adamclisi Tropaeum showed no details of lorica segmenta and instead lorica squamata as well as mails, which ones was close to reality

[jvrjenivs]

That are a lot of questions at once. So, lets start with a welcome. Hopefully you'll enjoy this board.

@Tests: I know there has done some testing, and some more recently. But I don't know about the results yet. So I'll let this question unanswered. I only would like to comment that the shield is as important (or even more) in the defence. Probably no armour would sustain a big blow, as you still have the force of the impact, no matter if it goes through the armour or not, that force is there and goes to your body.

@usage: No, this is probably an old fashioned idear that has now been supported to be wrong. So not all legionairies wore segmentata. But then, in reallity it also seems the situation was other then the situation you suggest. I think we can say that every legionairy had access to some kind of armour. But was it all segmentata, I wouldn't think so. There is a lot of evidence that the ordinary legionairy also had access to Hamata (which they used in previous ages and again later on) and all types of scale. Also, you cost issue, doesn't seems to be an issue. Roman armour seems to be highly ornate and fashionable. What can be true is that a segmentata is faster to make compared to ring mail. I requires much less man hours, so is easier to supply.
Anyway, there is now also a good piece of evidence that suggest the segmentata wasn't restricted to the legionairy, too. Many pieces were found inside auxilia fortresses along the northern Limes.

@monuments: I think they both have their own value and should thread seperatelly. What we can see is that both monuments were made in another part of the empire, so the artists could have had another view about the army, due to local fashion.

[Boleslaw I]

What can be true is that a segmentata is faster to make compared to ring mail. I requires much less man hours, so is easier to supply.

But it is more expensive for making and upkeeping right? I think these armours might be equipped in a specific context, for example, a battle where Roman generals foresaw a fierce close combat that required his men to be armed heavily?

[jvrjenivs]

I always found the discussion about costs of items in ancient times rather difficult. I get the impression that the most important factor that determine the cost of a product wasn't the time or craftmanship involved, as it is today, but more based on the materials used.

As far as I know we don't have any example of soldiers getting specially equipment for a specific battle or season. I just think that in the end of the first century every soldier had his own suite of armour, either, segmentata, ring or scale. If you look at what ornate kind of stuff there's found in military contect I wouldn't say that in the first century there was a problem with equipping most of the men.

[Boleslaw I]

I always found the discussion about costs of items in ancient times rather difficult. I get the impression that the most important factor that determine the cost of a product wasn't the time or craftmanship involved, as it is today, but more based on the materials used.

As far as I know we don't have any example of soldiers getting specially equipment for a specific battle or season. I just think that in the end of the first century every soldier had his own suite of armour, either, segmentata, ring or scale. If you look at what ornate kind of stuff there's found in military contect I wouldn't say that in the first century there was a problem with equipping most of the men.

Well you see, I am a truely beginner of Roman History, so I really have no idea
No, I don't think Rome had problems of equipping her soldiers armours, what I mean is which type of armours were used more? The Lorica Segmanta was a very well-made armour. According to this paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 0afc8da0ca

It must be a fine armour, right?

[jvrjenivs]

I think the segmenata wasn't as ornate as some scale (lorica squamata), not to speak about lorica hamata squamataque. I would certainly say someone who wanted (and had the option) a fine piece of armour (fancy that is) wouldn't go for a segmentata.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That is an interesting link, Boreslaw. sponsored by Total? A small world!! Is that your real name?

Jurgen, who can defintitively say to what standards and expense the earlier versions were made to?
If the effort put into this version is anything to go by, they were as much a status symbol in those stages at least as other forms of armour,
except your really ornate stuff perhaps.

http://www.replik-online.de/en/index.html

[Narukami]

Greetings Boleslaw and welcome to the Forum.

Interesting link you added -- thanks for that.

One minor point of order: Please add your real name to your signature block. It need only be your first name. For more information on Forum Rules / Guidelines check here:

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5798">viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5798<!-- l

And here:

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=25956">viewtopic.php?f=37&t=25956<!-- l

The Rules here are few and simple, but well worth the effort to follow. I think you will find the wealth of scholarly information and knowledge as well as practical experience and advice on these pages to be the best found anywhere on the internet.

Once again, Welcome to the Forum.

:wink:

Narukami

[jkaler48]

Armor testing is interesting but results have to be viewed in light of the differences in the modern steels used in reproduction armor from the originals. Also another thing that
makes testing difficult is the differences in the attacking weapons. Modern reconstructions may be better OR worse in some cases. For example few if any reconstructions of Balistas
have been made with original sinew rope.

[Boleslaw I]

That is an interesting link, Boreslaw. sponsored by Total? A small world!! Is that your real name?

Oh no! It is just the name of the king of Poland

Interesting link you added -- thanks for that.

Yes, but I don't have money to enter and read the whole papers, what a shame

I think the segmenata wasn't as ornate as some scale (lorica squamata), not to speak about lorica hamata squamataque. I would certainly say someone who wanted (and had the option) a fine piece of armour (fancy that is) wouldn't go for a segmentata.

So the segmentata was cheaper and easier to produce than the hamata and squamataque? :mrgreen:
I am confused, I thought the other ways around...

Armor testing is interesting but results have to be viewed in light of the differences in the modern steels used in reproduction armor from the originals. Also another thing that
makes testing difficult is the differences in the attacking weapons. Modern reconstructions may be better OR worse in some cases. For example few if any reconstructions of Balistas
have been made with original sinew rope.

In many topic Han vs Rome, there raises an interesting question that I myself find it difficult to answer:
A Han crossbow with complex mechanism and a draw weight from 350 to 400 lbs could penetrate all kinds of Roman armours?
Han lovers said yeah! Roman lovers said NO!, NOT THE SEGMENTATA!
So that is why I am curious how this armour perform in modern test GIven the fact that ancient Han crossbow could be reconstructed quite complete because of samples we have recovered.

Also, I just want to learn more about Roman armours and metallurgy as well. For example: Roman steel, how did they make steel?

[jvrjenivs]

Armor testing is interesting but results have to be viewed in light of the differences in the modern steels used in reproduction armor from the originals. Also another thing that
makes testing difficult is the differences in the attacking weapons. Modern reconstructions may be better OR worse in some cases. For example few if any reconstructions of Balistas
have been made with original sinew rope.

Yeah, but such experiments shouldn't be dony with reproductions, but with reconstructions instead. At least I know of some testing with a reconstructed xanten catapult vs. 32 layered (if I'm remember right) steel, like the Kops Plateau face masks were made of. Only a scratch was visible on this one, where a cast sheet of bronze and a sheet of modern hardened steel had much more inpact.

Also, I think last year there was done some testing, and knowing the people wo were on that project, they should have done enormous efferd to make these details as close to the archeological record as possible.

So that is why I am curious how this armour perform in modern test GIven the fact that ancient Han crossbow could be reconstructed quite complete because of samples we have recovered.

Yeah, but that doesn't have to solve the problem. Okay, we've a reconstructed piece of artillery based on the archeological record. Now, how much of torsion do we give it (if the machine can be 'wound up'). What kind of 'fire' do we use (what weight) and at what distance? I mean, some of this kind of machines doesn't mean to go through armour. Just a big rain of arrows or stones will do the job as well.

[Boleslaw I]

Also, I think last year there was done some testing, and knowing the people wo were on that project, they should have done enormous efferd to make these details as close to the archeological record as possible.

Could you give us some details on this test? Is it about the sustainability of the lorica segmentata?

[jvrjenivs]

unfortunately no. And, as I think the results aren't published yet, the researched doesn't going to share it here before the get it published, I expect.

[Dan Howard]

Even if the results were available they are of limited use unless similar tests were done on all the other types of armour that Romans wore. If it turns out that mail and segmentata provide similar levels of protection then it can't have been the reason why segmentata was introduced.

[PhilusEstilius]

I do know that the VIII Avgvsta group of GB did some experimentation with bow and arrows against Hamata, Squamata, and Segmentata many years ago, and what was found is that the Segmentata stood up to this kind of fire better than the others.

From having seen a Video of these tests it became very clear that the reason why is the arrow has to strike a Segmentata at an exact direction to be able to penertrate at all, any deflection whatever from the straight and level will send the arrow off at a Tangent.

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 don't know if the VIII AVG ever published any of these tests but it would be worth following up on this.