Armour Flexibility

[caiusbeerquitius]

Kristian, it does not depend on where it was made, it depends on how it was made, and on what knowledge the reproduction is based on.

As a side-note, Dan, there is ample evidence for what we call "punched" rings to be actually rings cut off a metal tube on a turning lathe, starting at least from the 3rd century onwards. Much speedier production:

B. A. Greiner, Zur Herstellungsweise römischer Kettenhemden (Lorica Hamata), in: G. Seitz (Hg.), im Dienste Roms, Festschrift für H.U. Nuber, Remshalden 2006, S. 199-204.

[Achilleus]

Kristian, it does not depend on where it was made, it depends on how it was made, and on what knowledge the reproduction is based on.

Roger.

They look exactly like this (although made from steel ofcourse):

[Dan Howard]

They look exactly like this (although made from steel ofcourse)

This is the most common type of mail imported from India. If your mail was made in Germany then it was made from links purchased from India.

[attachment=4581]Mail-modernindian1.jpg[/attachment]

It is a lot weaker than historical mail examples - see the myarmoury thread linked above.

Here is a list of some likely problems with your mail
* 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

Here is a decent reconstruction of Roman mail made by Erik D Schmid

[Dan Howard]

As a side-note, Dan, there is ample evidence for what we call "punched" rings to be actually rings cut off a metal tube on a turning lathe, starting at least from the 3rd century onwards. Much speedier production:

B. A. Greiner, Zur Herstellungsweise römischer Kettenhemden (Lorica Hamata), in: G. Seitz (Hg.), im Dienste Roms, Festschrift für H.U. Nuber, Remshalden 2006, S. 199-204.

Many thanks. This seems to support the theory that Roman mail became cheaper, or at least faster to produce around the same time that segmentata was being phased out.

[Dan Howard]

Protection wise I really have no doubt that the Segmentata was superior to any form of mail, it simply must have been knowing how plate resists attack better than mail.

You haven't a clue how mail resists attack becausse you haven't seen anything that even remotely resembles historical mail. I have already presented an article that demonstrates that mail could easily resist the vast majority of threats faced by Romans or any other iron age soldier.

Also whilst the time of contructing a shirt of chain mail takes longer than a plate cuirass for example, producing plate was still more expensive thanks to the expertise and equipment needed to do so, which was true in the medieval period and therefore also must have been the case in ancient times when the small efficient blast furnaces of the middle ages didnt exist. Also slaves could and no doubt were used to produce chain mail, further reducing the cost, where'as the same couldn't be achieved with plate armour which required a skilled smith. And as mentioned plate armour also requires more maintenance than chain mail in the field, making it even more expensive.

You obviously haven't read any of the links already posted so I have to clutter up this thread instead. Apologies to the moderators.

Williams compares the cost of 12 oxen for a 9th century helmet, mail and leggings with the cost of only 2 oxen for horseman's plate armour at the end of the 16th century. At Iserlohn in the 15th century, a mail haubergeon cost 4.6 gulden while plate armour only cost 4.3 gulden. Kassa's archives (Hungary 1633) record a mail shirt costing six times that of a "double breastplate." These records also indicate the huge difference in labour involved. The mail required 2 months to be completed while the breastplate, only 2 days.

Where is your evidence that mail was cheaper than plate? The document in Kassa's archives was for an actual armour order from a manufacturer. Why would anyone in the 17th century order a mail shirt and be happy to wait two months for it when he can have plate armour in two days for less money? Obviously mail still had advantages over plate. Advantages that were apparently worth paying six times more money for.

[Alanus]

The preponderance of evidence, herein, is that mail is "more better."

Hmm...

Maybe that's why I wear it! :-D

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Where is your evidence that mail was cheaper than plate?

I believe, D. Sim and J. Kaminski, Roman Imperial Armour: The Production of Early Imperial Military Armour, have argued that apparently, the segmentata plates were produced by rolling, which would be fast, inexpensive, and could be done by unskilled workers.

[Gaius Colletti]

A suit of plate - definitely. Segmentata is far from that since it offers no protection at all to the stomach, groin, armpit, etc. I've been hit pretty hard with baseball bats, cricket bats, blunt swords while wearing mail and most of the time you hardly feel it. The problem is when "bony" spots are hit - skull, elbow, collar bone, etc. You really need rigid protection or lots of padding in these areas.

Each armour type has its pros and cons regarding protection. But when you consider all of the other advantages of mail and the shortcomings of segmentata, mail comes out in front IMO. The only clear advantage segmentata has is speed of construction. If mass production techniques can close the gap enough between mail and segmentata becomes less viable as an armour type.

Dan, I appreciate your passion for mail, but too many times over the course of this thread you make it the "end all be all" for armor. While it does have some unique aspects, primarily keeping mobility it was by no means perfect.

You give segmentata little credit, it covers very well what it does cover, which DOES include the stomach. As long as a Roman is properly using his fighting techniques, their should be little to no exposure to the armpit, the segmentata does NOT cover the groin, therefore cannot protect it, however all legionaries regardless of whether they had scale, mail, or segmentata would all use a large scutum, which should provide proper coverage for most of the body anyways.

Dan do you honestly believe the segmentata offers no protection to the stomach? That is absurd and beyond ridiculous, I expect better from someone as learned as you. Not only is it hard to stab through overlapping curved 16/18 gauge steel plates and get deep enough to cause grievous bodily harm, assuming you did that, but congratulations you just possibly blunted your weapon, and if you did get it in deep enough, probably got it wedged inside the steel armor, also for this attack to be effective, I assume you would need both hands to thrust inside the armor? That means you just approached a wall of legionaries without a shield of your own.

Either compare the usefulness of segmentata in actual fighting contexts or not at all, but as your argument stands now, you have convinced me of the disadvantages of segmentata as much as the 8 yeard old child at an event last month who suggested a barbarian could just cleanly cut through all the leather ties on my segmentata and my segmentata would be open

[Gaius Colletti]

How flexible is Roman segmented armour ? (Lorica Segmentata specifically) Does it impede movement in any way ? Are stabbing and slashing movements made more difficult, like an overhand strike ?

According to what I've read the segmented armour didn't impede movement at all, whilst providing superior protection to chain mail from pretty much any sort of attack. Is this true ?

Segmentata is quite flexible, I can still easily throw a pilum (spear), withdraw my sword, stab, even hack and slash (although slashing and hacking left the armpit exposed), bend over and touch the ground, and raise my arms most of the way over my head. Still it is armor and does restrict movement in some way, but you learn to work around it.

I have handled 6mm riveted chain, while it no doubt would offer more mobility, it is quite heavy. Most people would agree that chainmail would be more expensive to make given that steel has to be formed into wire, made into rings, and riveted. Now do that for what 10,000 rings? 20,000 rings? Segmentata was most likely quicker to produce, and most likely less expensive

[arklore70]

My 6mm riveted hamata weighs around 13 pounds that you see in my avatar picture. Ihave had to weigh it dozens of times, as I fly to a lot events to make sure I dont check in too heavy of a bag. I can only imagine what the TSA has to say each time my stuff gets searched.

Back on track, I would say that Roman Armor is quite flexible and that each form of armor has its weaknesses and strengths. We each seem to have our preferences, as I have no doubt, that the average Roman Soldier did as well.

What I am not aware of is anyting writen in ancient texts that state if one form of armor was more expensive to reproduce over the other and what the basis of issue was of one form over the other to the Soldier, or if it even mattered in the eyes of the Roman military and state.

Lots of unknowns.

[Dan Howard]

You give segmentata little credit, it covers very well what it does cover, which DOES include the stomach.

If you want to be pedantic then I'll say "lower stomach and groin". The coverage is similar to a breast- and back-plate with extra plates for the shoulders.

As long as a Roman is properly using his fighting techniques, their should be little to no exposure to the armpit.

As long as ANYONE is "properly using his fighting techniques", there should be little exposure to all sorts of things that happen during a battle, yet they still happen.

Not only is it hard to stab through overlapping curved 16/18 gauge steel plates and get deep enough to cause grievous bodily harm

I'd say it is virtually impossible using regular hand weapons. Same as mail.

Pros of segmentata vs mail

Seg.
lighter weight
cheaper/faster to produce
better resistance against crushing attacks and blunt trauma
large shoulder guards give the wearer a more intimidating presence
can be highly polished - perhaps being preferred for parades?

Mail
more body coverage
more flexible
less susceptible to breakage
easier to maintain
easier to make field repairs
easier to fit to a range of body sizes
easier to transport
quicker to don
longer lifespan

Personally I think that mail is more comfortable too but acknowledge that it is a subjective issue. There is little reason to discuss comparative resistance to blades and points because both are more than capable in that capacity.

Assuming that the above is correct then why would segmentata be phased out? There is nothing to suggest that the state-run fabricas were less capable than earlier private ones, so it is unlikely to have been a technological issue. There is nothing to suggest that the two types of armour require different fighting styles or tactics, so a changing battlefield environment wasn't the reason. The only thing that makes sense to me is that "cheaper/faster to produce" was no longer a concern in the state-run fabricas. Mail still took longer to make but if the gap was closed enough between the two, then all the other advantages of mail would tip the scales in its favour, rendering segmentata obsolete.

[Dan Howard]

As a side-note, Dan, there is ample evidence for what we call "punched" rings to be actually rings cut off a metal tube on a turning lathe, starting at least from the 3rd century onwards. Much speedier production:

B. A. Greiner, Zur Herstellungsweise römischer Kettenhemden (Lorica Hamata), in: G. Seitz (Hg.), im Dienste Roms, Festschrift für H.U. Nuber, Remshalden 2006, S. 199-204.

Hi Christian,

Does the article speculate on how the tubing might have been made? Does it cite other evidence that Romans had iron tubing suitable for making mail links?

[Gaius Colletti]

If you want to be pedantic then I'll say "lower stomach and groin". The coverage is similar to a breast- and back-plate with extra plates for the shoulders.

Pros of segmentata vs mail

Seg.
lighter weight
cheaper/faster to produce
better resistance against crushing attacks and blunt trauma
large shoulder guards give the wearer a more intimidating presence
can be highly polished - perhaps being preferred for parades?

Mail
more body coverage
more flexible
less susceptible to breakage
easier to maintain
easier to make field repairs
easier to fit to a range of body sizes
easier to transport
quicker to don
longer lifespan

Personally I think that mail is more comfortable too but acknowledge that it is a subjective issue. There is little reason to discuss comparative resistance to blades and points because both are more than capable in that capacity.

Assuming that the above is correct then why would segmentata be phased out? There is nothing to suggest that the state-run fabricas were less capable than earlier private ones, so it is unlikely to have been a technological issue. There is nothing to suggest that the two types of armour require different fighting styles or tactics, so a changing battlefield environment wasn't the reason. The only thing that makes sense to me is that "cheaper/faster to produce" was no longer a concern in the state-run fabricas. Mail still took longer to make but if the gap was closed enough between the two, then all the other advantages of mail would tip the scales in its favour, rendering segmentata obsolete.

Call me a "pedantic"? You using poor generalizations and vague descriptions of what you "actually" meant is what should be called out on. Don't get mad at me because I called out your post. Maybe you are the jolly green giant and the segmentata stops at your navel, but for me it covers my lower abdomen just fine.

Since you don't wear a subarmalis past your abdomen, chain isn't going to stop the blunt trauma from a swing aimed past your subarmalis, so your chain loses some credit there. Other than the top of the thighs, segmentata covers all the same areas.

I don't agree with your pro's and con's opinionated list either, is riveting new chains easier to putting a rivet through a piece of leather and hammering it more time consuming and difficult? and I'll take blunt trauma protection to "something easier to put on and easy to store" thank you. Give some weight or points to certain benefits and present them in a well balanced list and I'll take what you say with credibility.

Segmentata was in use for 300 years, it worked, why did it stop? Your guess is as good as mine, maybe it had something to do with cracks in the state starting to fracture the Empire, or the influx of mercenaries in the army, this was after all when the empire became very unstable (There were about 18 Emperors in the first 200 years vs 40 Western Emperors in the last 200 years, things were that unstable). But certainly it wasn't because the seg was junk or easy to manufacturer.

[Dan Howard]

Proposal: The state has taken over the armour fabricas. They are trying to standardise armour production. They could make segmentata or mail but not both. If you were a logistician or a commander trying to decide which armour to produce, what factors would you want? Which armour would be most appropriate given that criteria?

This is what I come up with.
* Good protection from anything likely to be faced in battle
* Easy/quick to maintain and repair
* Longevity so the same item can easily be re-issued over and over again
* Being able to fit a range of bodies without having to stock a large range of sizes
* Cheap and quick to make

[Dan Howard]

Since you don't wear a subarmalis past your abdomen, chain isn't going to stop the blunt trauma from a swing aimed past your subarmalis, so your chain loses some credit there. Other than the top of the thighs, segmentata covers all the same areas.

Has anyone produced evidence that a subarmalis was worn under Roman mail? I prefer to wear hamata with an integrated padded liner. Same for later period mail.

I don't agree with your pro's and con's opinionated list either, is riveting new chains easier to putting a rivet through a piece of leather and hammering it more time consuming and difficult?

How many plates and fittings are used to make a segmentata? How many links in hamata? What about the time needed to produce the links and plates to begin with? Do you have any idea what was required just to produce iron wire?

and I'll take blunt trauma protection to "something easier to put on and easy to store" thank you.

If a soldier can't afford to purchase his armour, does he get to choose what he is issued with?

Segmentata was in use for 300 years

And mail was in use for 2000 years including the entire time that segmentata was being used.

But certainly it wasn't because the seg was junk or easy to manufacturer.

I've never implied that it was junk and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it was likely faster to produce than mail.