My point was that ancient societies, without the benefit of the internet or instant communication, would have a hard time quantifying exactly how effective a piece of equipment is unless it's completely obvious.
We're in the age of the internet, in 2016, and arguing whether mail or segmented plate was better? We are all basically making assumptions, and guessing. Nobody really knows, because nobody has actually fought and had real weapons impact the armor with them in it.
In an ancient society, with more difficult communication? They'd more or less be guessing as well, with some people having the benefit of the accounts of veteran troops who actually got hit in the armor. How could their leaders really know for sure whether Segmentata saved 22% more men from X type of wounds? They couldn't. It'd come down to preference and what the troops who wore the stuff told them, or purchased, and continued to use.
Then, without the printing press, how could they relay that information? They'd have to rely on word of mouth. After a while, without fighting in battles, shit like that just gets lost or misinterpreted. I guess after a while the state would eventually say, "You know what? Pick a [deleted by moderator] type of armor that we KNOW works, that's effective, that's easy to repair, simple and let's just universally go with THAT."
That's probably why Segmentata got phased out. I really think by going off topic, we've uncovered the truth. The Roman leaders in the 3rd Century knew mail was effective, and just couldn't quantify whether Segmentata really saved enough lives, or how much more effective it really was, to justify keeping it around and standardizing it in state run fabrica when mail was the baseline and just all around easier.
It's exactly like military assault rifles! Which is the best? We use m4s. Why? Because they're light, modular, relatively accurate, short barrel length, easy to aim, no recoil, light ammunition, our troops are familiar with it, and it's very [deleted by moderator]effective at killing people.
Other countries use other assault rifles. Why hasn't the world adopted one universal rifle? Because even combat troops have preferences, and it's SUPER hard to qualify which is the best gun. In the end, it's the skill of the soldier that really matters. A soldier with good aim and an m4 will kill someone without good aim and a FN-SCAR. It took 50 years for the world to realize that 5.56 ammunition was better than bigger rounds due to wound channeling, and now that we have, even Russia has gotten away from the AK-47 and it's 7.62 round and adopted a 5.56 caliber rifle. Yes, some rifles are more reliable, some are more accurate, but in the end it doesn't really matter.
Before this, soldiers bought what they preferred. For three hundred years, a lot of people within the legions personally preferred Segmentata enough to trust their lives to it. They used the stuff despite the harsh maintenance, complexity, and how much of a pain in the ass it was. That tells me that Segmentata worked. When it came to state preference, they just picked the standard armor and ran with it. Segmentata could've been the superior armor. I'm not sure the Romans knew either way, for sure, especially if we don't, so in the end it didn't matter.
In the end, I think Segmentata was probably slightly better at saving people. It just wasn't superior enough to warrant it displacing mail as the standard armor, esp. when mail has so many other good qualities.
We're in the age of the internet, in 2016, and arguing whether mail or segmented plate was better? We are all basically making assumptions, and guessing. Nobody really knows, because nobody has actually fought and had real weapons impact the armor with them in it.
In an ancient society, with more difficult communication? They'd more or less be guessing as well, with some people having the benefit of the accounts of veteran troops who actually got hit in the armor. How could their leaders really know for sure whether Segmentata saved 22% more men from X type of wounds? They couldn't. It'd come down to preference and what the troops who wore the stuff told them, or purchased, and continued to use.
Then, without the printing press, how could they relay that information? They'd have to rely on word of mouth. After a while, without fighting in battles, shit like that just gets lost or misinterpreted. I guess after a while the state would eventually say, "You know what? Pick a [deleted by moderator] type of armor that we KNOW works, that's effective, that's easy to repair, simple and let's just universally go with THAT."
That's probably why Segmentata got phased out. I really think by going off topic, we've uncovered the truth. The Roman leaders in the 3rd Century knew mail was effective, and just couldn't quantify whether Segmentata really saved enough lives, or how much more effective it really was, to justify keeping it around and standardizing it in state run fabrica when mail was the baseline and just all around easier.
It's exactly like military assault rifles! Which is the best? We use m4s. Why? Because they're light, modular, relatively accurate, short barrel length, easy to aim, no recoil, light ammunition, our troops are familiar with it, and it's very [deleted by moderator]effective at killing people.
Other countries use other assault rifles. Why hasn't the world adopted one universal rifle? Because even combat troops have preferences, and it's SUPER hard to qualify which is the best gun. In the end, it's the skill of the soldier that really matters. A soldier with good aim and an m4 will kill someone without good aim and a FN-SCAR. It took 50 years for the world to realize that 5.56 ammunition was better than bigger rounds due to wound channeling, and now that we have, even Russia has gotten away from the AK-47 and it's 7.62 round and adopted a 5.56 caliber rifle. Yes, some rifles are more reliable, some are more accurate, but in the end it doesn't really matter.
Before this, soldiers bought what they preferred. For three hundred years, a lot of people within the legions personally preferred Segmentata enough to trust their lives to it. They used the stuff despite the harsh maintenance, complexity, and how much of a pain in the ass it was. That tells me that Segmentata worked. When it came to state preference, they just picked the standard armor and ran with it. Segmentata could've been the superior armor. I'm not sure the Romans knew either way, for sure, especially if we don't, so in the end it didn't matter.
In the end, I think Segmentata was probably slightly better at saving people. It just wasn't superior enough to warrant it displacing mail as the standard armor, esp. when mail has so many other good qualities.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
