Appreciation all around everyone. What sapient remarks, and the first two responses by Byron and Mike pretty much conform to what I assumed. Thank you.
It seems that plenty of legionaries and cavalrymen still preferred to wear a mail cuirass once the
lorica segmentata became prevalent. True, the
segmentata was lighter (which offered more freedom of movement?) and provided more overall protection (overlapping plates), but the
lorica hatamata spread the effect of a slashing blow more satisfactorily (even though iron plates were not hardened by forging on a
segmentata); the assortment of hooks, hinges, and the fixings between the different plates of a
segmentata, I would think an attribute allowing for greater freedom of movement, could be broken more easily, and were more susceptible to corrosion. Moreover, the leather straps which gave flexibility to the shoulders were vulnerable to sweat and heavy rain. Of course, I am an armchair using deductive logic. I would think that re-enactors do no veritably fight ancient-style clashes, though, yes?
From what I have read, a
lorica hamata did not lack flexibility or reasonable protection, was essentially a good fitting to any soldier's torso size, and its weight could be comfortably spread with the wearing of a belt. But the fact it could be penetrated by significant thrusts and arrows fired from effective ranges probably made the
segmentata the choice for many - if they had the choice. But most of the Roman 'barbaric' enemies were 'slashers', and mail seems to have remained the most common form of body armor for specialist troops such as standard bearers, musicians, and centurions, as well as a muscled cuirass (
lorica musculata), and scaled armor (
lorica squamata). Mail also remained the most common body defense for auxiliary troops, and by the mid-3rd century A.D., mail had outlasted the
segmentata and was once again the dominant form of legionary armor. This was probably due to the maintenance problems, and, as has been mentioned, the
lorica segmentata was costlier to maintian (not necessarily more difficult to initially make?).
But tradition becomes an issue: mail and scale armor were of earlier Celtic and Eastern origin, whereas
lorica segmentata was a Roman invention, thus the presence of more of one in the western provinces and the others in the eastern provinces is not surprising, and an indication of extant industry and that one was not substantially better than the others; they all had their strengths and liabilites against what they were facing.
The Romans were indeed among the greatest military adapters in history, thus they would choose to wear (if the choice was available) which item would be most conducive to matching an enemy's weapons - a natural propensity for any warrior. Indeed, they possessed an amalgam of all types throughout their history.
As for the climate issue, I never have worn any replica of armor being discussed here in a hot climate, or any in any climate for that matter. I can only surmise hypothetically, but logic dictates that heat would be a downfall for the bearer of heavier armor. Basically, in more temperate climates, lighter armors such as hide and leather would seemingly be more bearable, and would not produce much in the way of excess heat - if the climate wasn't too hot, as that material doesn't breathe at all. However, heavy metallic armors could not be worn for long periods of time without exhausting the bearer. Of course, I don't know the acute margins of 'too hot' and 'long periods' would be. Chain and perhaps scale armor, which was even heavier, would seemingly be less susceptible to such a problem, as their looseness (less restricting) and ventilation help keep the wearer cool. As the LegionXXIV.org site tells us,
"...It is also thought that mail remained in wider use in the warmer climate of the Eastern Empire due to its being somewhat cooler to wear than "laminated" segmentata plate armor..."
However, plate armor, I would think, is very hot to wear in an enduring battle in extreme heat, as it doesn't allow for as much air circulation and reflects body heat back towards the bearer. Heat is indeed an endemic problem with heavy armor; the only real answer probably relies on the bearer himself. Generally, a soldier who wears heavy armor would want to keep as little of it on as possible before battle, and will hopefully have time before combat to armor himself fully. Immediately after battle, if alive and well, he will want to reverse the process, cooling himself in time; much would depend on the duration of battle and reserves. But again, a chain-mail cuirass was heavier than a
locri segmentata, but then latter won't allow for as much air circulation. Does this somewhat offset the two in proplematic heat? Thus I think the problem of heat could possibly be addressed with the degree of controlled activity (the best they could) under the conditions, whatever was worn.
Now, wiht all my mentioning of 'air circulation', it should be noted that armor is not comfortable no matter what, if compared to standard clothing; because a mail cuirass is more 'comfortable' to wear than other forms of armor does not mean I think it was comfortable intrinsically.
I have read that Christian crusaders often wore their mail, more effective against a 'slashing' enemy (though broken bones could occur even if the mail withstood), over a padded garment called
aketon (obviously serving the same purpose as the Roman
subarmalis), and wore a felt (?) covering over their armor, which surely was stifling in the climate of the Levant. But they must have felt its advantages outweighed the discomfort, and, as Dan stated, this would indeed keep the metal of the armor relatively cool. It's probably why Romans and Parthians kept such coverings over their armor (in Greece, Palestine and Parthia) until ready to fight (or perhaps a ruse to conceal their intentions till the last moment, or two-fold, serving both purposes?)
Plutarch and
Josephus wrote of this, but didn't specify why (unless I missed something, which is surely possible).
God bless you and your unit Brian; hope you guys made it through OK. The LegionXXIV.org website mentions something in regards to comparing kevlar to mail,
"...The Romans used mail shirts with and without shoulder doublet protection. Mail "Hamata" was generally worn by the Auxiliary troops, in the Empire Period; but legionaries also utilized it. Mail is particularly good as protection against slashing or blunt weapon attacks, but was not as effective as segmentata plate armor as a defense from arrows and stabbing weapons. It requires that a heavy fabric or leather arming gambison garment be worn behind it for maximum protection. It protects in much the same way that modern Kevlar police body armor works, by partially yielding to the blow and then rebounding. It is quite heavy, weighing from 20 pounds up to 40 pounds, but is also more comfortable to wear than plate armor; as it conforms well to the shape of the body. Some of the weight can be transferred from the shoulders to the hips by the use of a waist belt, which was commonly done..."
Dan Howard:
Quote:There was the remains of what James assumed to be felt on the inside of the Sasanian mail found at Dura Europos.
Great trivia, Dan. But perhaps I didn't mean what I stated well enough in the first post: I assumed such remains were not felt or leather, but something akin to linen or hemp.
Felix:
Quote:...There must have been some lulls in longer battles, allowing men and horses to rest and/or drink; even if a battle overall lasted for hours, it is unlikely anyone was swinging a sword for the entire time.
Absolutely. I doubt there was a mutual 'time-out' agreement :lol: , but drinking water and the evaporation of sweat on both men and animals was necessary for the cooling process. Reserves perhaps came into effect.
Doc:
Quote:James,
Do not be so quick to judge Felt as a poor material. Yes, modern felt especially if it is thick, does give the impression of being as you say since it is very dense in its packing.
However, I am currently working on a 3/8" inch thick subarmalis that is to be worn under mail. The person I am working with is a felt expert and has studied felt use and production. It turns out that the fibers used in modern felts extrude nearly all air and thus form thick materials that would not be very good.
In ancient periods sheep breeding was different and the fibers actually used would provide a very strong and shock absorbing medium while providing a rather conformed body fit and sufficent circulation.
Thanks Paolo; this is why I am not the expert on such things. But I merely assumed felt is a material not conducive to breathability, particularly under armor. I have read that the
paenula, a cloak worn in Roman times, was made of either leather (
paenula scortae), or very heavy felt (
paenula gausapina). It seems some type of linen, either more heavily padded with wool or not, was used (surmising, here) to make all undergarments, and what a
tunic was made of. But are there different types of felt? I believe it is the oldest known type of fabric. maybe I'm wrong; maybe it breathed just fine.
Thanks again everyone, James
