When Did The Roman Army Standardize Using Plate Armor?

[TerminusFarseeR]

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/faction...units.html

This game mod is realistic and has unit descriptions, I heard scholars offered advice for the game. 

I suspect it only has Roman units from the early Marian reforms, possibly 107 BC-40 BC. I'm guessing after 40 BC, plate armor became more common.

[Condottiero Magno]

Didn't you even bother looking at the link you're shilling?

[Mark Hygate]

But a simpler and more succinct answer would also be - they never did!

[Dan Howard]

The Romans never standardized plate armour. The first to attempt armour standardization was Diocletian, and this is the period when they phased out plate in favour of mail.

[CaesarAugustus]

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/faction...units.html

This game mod is realistic and has unit descriptions, I heard scholars offered advice for the game. 

I suspect it only has Roman units from the early Marian reforms, possibly 107 BC-40 BC. I'm guessing after 40 BC, plate armor became more common.

If I remember correctly, the first plate armor has been found in the probable field of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (9AD).
But at the time probably it was not a common armor.

After, we can see it as standard armor in all main representations in the period of hereditary emperors, and also later (under Caracalla, for example). It was (almost) probably abandoned after the creation of the centralized armories.
Sometime you may hear an opposition concerning the Tropaeum Traiani in Adamclisi, which panels are supposed to describe Dacia conquest, where the plate armor is not shown (I think something similar to the plate armor is just in the panel that is now in the Istanbul Museum). But, it is just a theory that the panels are representing Dacia conquest done under Trajan. The Tropaeum is a recent reconstruction, and Panels style is far from being associable with the classical style of the time, and that panels have been associated to a later period, even to middle ages. Not to consider that the panel order has been sorted just to resemble the a priori reconstruction... in short, not a significative opposition.

[TerminusFarseeR]

Didn't you even bother looking at the link you're shilling?

No I did not read it all, I like guessing, I'm guessing plate armor became more common after 40 BC, it was only used for citizen legions. I know plate armor wasn't used during the Gallic Wars. What does it say on the site?

[Caratacus]

"Plate" amour (more commonly known as lorica segmentata) was first noted in the archaeological record at a site called Dangstetten, in Germany, some time between 15 and 9 BC. This was the so-called "Kalkriese" form of the armour, where the fitments/leather straps were riveted directly to the iron plates. The name reflects the site of the Varus defeat in 9AD, where some of the fitments were discovered, but the armour was in use some 20 years before that. Evidently, this design was unsatisfactory because it was replaced by the "Corbridge" form, where the leather straps were sandwiched between two layers of brass strip and the rivets were then passed through this sandwich into the iron plates. This form of the armour was in use for the majority of the 1st CAD and into the 2nd CAD. However, this was also unsatisfactory, because a further form came in to use that overlapped with the Corbridge form. This third form is known as the "Newstead" form. It had fewer plates than the Corbridge type, the shoulder hinges were much larger and the method of closure of the girdle plates differed. To that extent, the armour was not 'standardised' - it was, however, developed over a period of time when the perceived weaknesses of the armour were systematically addressed and corrected. Eventually, its use was discontinued because the tactical situation for the Romans changed. Heavy infantry 'shock troops' were just too slow to get to the site of an incursion by mounted enemies from the East. The last recorded find of the armour is from a temple at Stillfried, around 260 AD. This may have been a votive offering.

These different forms of the armour were in use for decades and in many cases the Corbridge and Newstead types are often found at the same sites. To the degree that we can say that the armour was 'standardised' it is worth noting that fragments of the armour (mostly the brass fitments) occur at multiple sites, many of them in the UK but also along the Rhine/Danube frontier. In all these cases the measurements of the pieces show a remarkably constant size. The plates themselves are also very constant in terms of thickness, which has led to the suggestion that the iron plates may have been rolled rather than beaten - or that hammers with larger heads were employed.

The Adamklissi monument does not show any figures wearing the plate armour. However, what it does show are many examples of Roman infantry fighting tactics, such as a thrust around the outer edge of the shield into the lower abdomen of the Dacian warrior. The whole style is that of the early 2nd CAD, certainly not medieval. The sculpture is actually quite crude, although accurate. It has been suggested that the sculpting was carried out by the soldiers of Trajan's army, which might account for the crudity of the figures. Some 46 of the figures (the metopes) are now housed in a purpose-built museum adjacent to the monument site (probably one of the most useful thing that the communist government did.)

A very detailed monograph on the armour was written by Dr Mike Bishop (JRMES, Lorica Segmentata Monograph No.1 and a second Monograph listing some 1,600 finds of the armour was my own contribution (JRMES Lorica Segmentata, a catalogue of finds, M.D. Thomas).

[Dan Howard]

"Eventually, its use was discontinued because the tactical situation for the Romans changed. Heavy infantry 'shock troops' were just too slow to get to the site of an incursion by mounted enemies from the East."

Mail and scale were worn when segmentata was phased out. Both of these armours weighed MORE than segmentata and covered a lot more of the body so both of these were actually MORE suitable for your "shock" troops than segmentata. Nobody knows why segmentata was phased out but it had nothing to do with the "tactical" situation. IMO it was a logistical decision. Mail was deemed to be more preferable for the state controlled fabricas to produce even though it cost more than segmentata and took longer to manufacture.

[Caratacus]

Ah well - we're going to have to differ on that one. Mail armour was in use from at least the 4th CBC and this was probably true for scale armour as well. There must have been some reason for the introduction of the segmentata armour, and likewise for the phasing out of this type as well. The maintenance of the plate armour was quite intensive and had to be carried out by expert armourers - which would have been a negative factor from the get-go. Squamata and hamata could be easily, if temporarily, repaired 'in the field'. Given these drawbacks, why was segmentata brought into service at all? I think that we have to ask the question as to why this segmentata armour, in its various forms, which had been in use for around 3 centuries, was 'suddenly' withdrawn from service.

I would question your contention that scale armour was heavier that segmentata, whilst agreeing that mail armour was certainly heavier. In fact, the latter was considerably heavier, which would suggest to me that it would not have been the preferred type, given a choice. David Sim has carried out extensive work on reproducing mail armour, which has shown that a mail coat took a long time to manufacture - much longer than a segmentata suit. Again, I ask the question, what prompted this (relatively) sudden change? The only consistent thing that makes any sense to me is that there was some sort of fundamental change in the enemies that the Roman infantry faced and therefore in the tactics that had to be used in reply.

[Dan Howard]

Segmentata was phased out when the state took over the armour fabricas and standardised armour production. Logistically, mail is far superior for a long list of reasons:

less spare parts are needed - only three components
few tools are needed
easier to fit to a range of body sizes
easier to store
easier to transport
more flexible
more comfortable
faster to put on and take off
has a longer lifespan
can be repaired in the field with a piece of wire
covers more of the body; if you want protection over the armpit, lower stomach, groin, etc., then segmentata is useless.

Segmentata only has two advantages:
it is lighter than other types of armour (except for a solid bronze cuirass)
it is cheaper and faster to make, which is probably why it was invented in the first place.

Mail might cost more than segmentata up front, but over its lifespan it is a lot cheaper than segmentata. Individual soldiers might prefer segmentata because it costs them less but state-owned arsenals would prefer mail because it costs them less. When the state took over the armour-making fabricas at the end of the third century, segmentata stopped being made.


Scale armour was the heaviest type of metal armour ever developed. It was invented around a thousand years before mail. I wrote an article for AW Magazine that covers this.
https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/an...xii-3.html

[Nathan Ross]

I think that we have to ask the question as to why this segmentata armour, in its various forms, which had been in use for around 3 centuries, was 'suddenly' withdrawn from service.

I think we could also bear these three points in mind, when considering this question:

1. None of our literary sources (I think) tell us that segmentata was replaced by mail and scale. The only source which mentions armour - Vegetius - says that it was dropped entirely right at the end of the 4th century. Finds of 4th-5th century mail or scale armour are extremely rare in any context.

2. The ND lists the fabricae in both east and west c.390. The western section has fabricae loricaria at Mantua and Autun (the latter combined with a fabrica clibanaria). The eastern section also has a fabrica clibanaria, but no fabrica loricaria at all. Where was all the infantry armour being made in the east?

3. Segmentata vanishes from imperial monuments, tombstones and other depictions after the Severan era, approximately. After this there are a number of depictions of troops wearing mail or (more usually) scale. But by far the most common form of armour - the one that appears to stand as a visual shorthand for 'Roman soldiers' in the way that segmentata once did - is neither mail or nor scale, but the muscle cuirass.

[Dan Howard]

"None of our literary sources (I think) tell us that segmentata was replaced by mail and scale."

Mail and scale never stopped being used so segmentata wasn't replaced by anything; it simply ceased production.

[Robert Vermaat]

Segmentata was phased out when the state took over the armour fabricas and standardised armour production. Logistically, mail is far superior for a long list of reasons:

I agree with you on that one - did you cover the reason why it was introduced in your AW article?

[Dan Howard]

I agree with you on that one - did you cover the reason why it was introduced in your AW article?

Briefly. I submitted a subsequent article that covers mail in more detail but it has yet to be published.

[CaesarAugustus]

Segmentata was phased out when the state took over the armour fabricas and standardised armour production. Logistically, mail is far superior for a long list of reasons:


Segmentata only has two advantages:
it is lighter than other types of armour (except for a solid bronze cuirass)
it is cheaper and faster to make, which is probably why it was invented in the first place.

Mail might cost more than segmentata up front, but over its lifespan it is a lot cheaper than segmentata. Individual soldiers might prefer segmentata because it costs them less but state-owned arsenals would prefer mail because it costs them less. When the state took over the armour-making fabricas at the end of the third century, segmentata stopped being made.

I agree on the logistical part, but it is quite hard to demonstrate that segmentata is cheaper than mail, or hamata. Exactly for the logistic reasons you have listed. It requires more tools, each part is done for a specific purpose, includes a lot of accessories...
The mail can be easily scaled up, the component is the same for all the part of the body and even an unskilled legionary can replace a broken part. So, its assembly can be made by servants of the blacksmiths.
It was the ideal for the centralized armories, far from the risks of battles and more interested in fulfilling orders than in sending quality products.

But, I think you have forgotten by purpose the real advantage of the Segmentata: the greater protection level on covered parts.
It is not strange that Segmentata has been introduced following the battle of Carrhae, when Romans saw the low level offered from the Hamata against Parthian arrows.