Wikipedia lorica segmentata article

[Tarbicus]

I'm a bit non-plussed by the Wikipedia lorica segmentata entry, which boldly states that a seg was more expensive to make than hamata? I am also sorely tempted to correct it, as the author states it as a cold hard fact, on the basis that any old slave could make a hamata, but a seg took highly skilled armourers to do so.

However, I was wondering what everyone else's opinion is on the subject? It just doesn't make any sense to me, and the statement I feel is misleading given the lack of sources on the subject. Click on the article's Discussion tab to see a small debate about it.

[Tarbicus]

And [size=150:18weg3xg]STUPIDLY [/size]I clicked on the wrong poll option!!!!! :evil: :evil: :oops: :roll: :? evil:

[Titus Amatius Paulus]

Salve Tarbice

Making chain mail is repetitive and easy, not all slaves could make it but it doesn´t need a big train. Making the lorica segmentata require a well trained blacksmith to make the big plates but it is quicker. I think in compare the prices of each armour we must consider the price of the man work, the quantily of iron used and the time for macking one: the lorica segmentata are cheaper in the quantily of iron and the production time but requires a sepezialize man working than the lorica hamata

I don´t thinks that it is a good article of wikipedia:

Said that the lorica segmentata are the firts armour that exploits greek tecnologhy?!? hock: is the firts time that I hear it; there is any example of greek armour similar to the lorica segmentata? not refers to the "muscle" cuirass?

[Primvs Pavlvs]

I think that maile was easier to produce than seg also. Just look at how many homegrown maile shirts re-enactors have now.

[Tarbicus]

I see the point about ease of manufacture, etc, but the fact that Indian manufactured hamatas still cost up to 5 times more than their segs suggests to me that in a proper mass production environment using cheap labour the segs are easier, and therefore cheaper, to make. The only dodgy area in my opinion is the difficulty in making the inital plate. However, when looking at actual finds of segs we know that their quality was dodgy at best, and not near the standard of even a Deepeeka, except in the leather perhaps. This makes me think that highly skilled armourers possibly had little to do with their manufacture in the first place, more likely less interested trained slaves, and 'kits' of pre-cut plates could easily be assembled by the unskilled and bent into shape comparatively easily. Even now, you can go to a website and download the pattern for a seg. So long as you have sheet steel and a means of cutting it (I'm talking about very thin steel), a means of rivetting, etc, it's fairly straightforward. I personally would much prefer to tackle a seg than hamata.

Introduced during the reign of Augustus, who was responsible for the army (conservative by nature) and the state's finances, I just feel that he would opt for the radically different seg's introduction if it also helped with the finances.

Only my opinion. :wink:

[Neuraleanus]

upon how you cost out labor. Making a truly usable hamata, with alternating riveted and solid rings as the Romans did, takes ALOT of time, but the operations involved are simple. On the other hand, a segmentata takes much less time to make, though some more involved metal working skills are required.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Tarbicus,

We should consider the fact that sheet metal today is easier to produce than in ancient times.

Primvs

[Tarbicus]

upon how you cost out labor. Making a truly usable hamata, with alternating riveted and solid rings as the Romans did, takes ALOT of time, but the operations involved are simple. On the other hand, a segmentata takes much less time to make, though some more involved metal working skills are required.

What's the opinion on the difference in man hours between a seg and hamata? Would a hamata take maybe 5 times the hours to make? That figure would therefore mean that in order to fulfill a quota in a set time (simple business practice) of hamatas it would take 5 times more slaves to house, feed, supervise, care for, etc. Segs must have been a godsend to armourers. All you need do is train them, and it costs a fifth of chainmail to produce. Even if the sheet plate manufacture costs 3 times that of the rings needed for hamata, you're still making a nice profit in comparison. Conjecture, but you should catch my drift?

We should consider the fact that sheet metal today is easier to produce than in ancient times.

See my point above. We know for definite that, although difficult, it could be done. And, if there were more profit to be made then I don't see a Roman businessman/armourer even hesitating in getting it done. Simple business economics.

Bear in mind that we still don't know the composition of a full hamata. John McDermott is experimenting with all sorts of aspects of hamata and to my mind a complete hamata, ready for wear and use, seems possibly more complicated than just putting the rings together. Possibly.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Tarbicus,

Maybe we should speak with Eric Schmid since he is probably the most knowledgeable person I can think of on period maile manufacture.

[Tarbicus]

Paulus, good idea. If in the meantime anyone who has made both hamata (solid and riveted rings) and segmentata could shed any light on how long each one took to make that would be most appreciated.

[Martin Moser]

If in the meantime anyone who has made both hamata (solid and riveted rings) and segmentata could shed any light on how long each one took to make that would be most appreciated.

I can only speak for the segmentata of which by now I have built 4 or 5. It takes me about 40 hours to make a complete one, using modern tools, starting from sheet metal (for both steel and brass) and a leather hide.

[Tarbicus]

Cheers Martin. That includes all of the fittings I assume? So that would be 2 slave working days.

I see Faventianus needed 7 months to make his hamata, and Peronis 2 months. I hope that wasn't slave months!

[Martin Moser]

Cheers Martin. That includes all of the fittings I assume?

Yes, _everything_ that is needed for a complete segmentata ...

[Matthew Amt]

Bear in mind that the solid rings of a hamata are punched from sheet metal, a little thinner than the girdle plates of a lorica segmentata. They don't have to be very big pieces of sheet, but then it's possible that lorica plates were hammered out individually from billets or bars, with a little trimming to shape. So large sheets didn't really have to be hammered out for either type of armor.

Plus, we don't really know how much of any of this was done by slaves. Nor do we know if the armorers made their own sheet or wire stock, or if they simply bought that from another supplier (as was done in the middle ages).

I think it's WAY to complicated a question for Wikipedia to be getting into... (A resource which has done for historical research what India has done for reenactment equipment supply--a few gems if you don't mind wading through tons of garbage!)

Valete,

Matthew

[Tarbicus]

Thanks Matt. I think the problem I have is that the article states things for a hard fact that are utterly unknown, but a lot of people jump to Wiki to check things out so they're being misled. I really fancy changing it, but I want to get my facts straight before maybe doing so.

I think it's also interesting to try and figure out the financial economics of the armour types, using different scenarios of manufacture and payment. Such things could maybe indicate why there was change just as much as combat conditions, and state finances were a big deal with Augustus who had gained an empire that had endured civil wars, and subsequently underwent major reforms, including within the military.