Why did it replace the far better lorica segmentata and squamata?

Why did it replace the far better lorica segmentata and squamata?

  1. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >better

  2. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Makes logistics easier, is cheaper and far easier to repair, lighter, and the Romans increasingly had to rely on cavalry so they began spending less time, energy, and money on their infantry. Not to mention, Rome as a state was in decline by this point. By this stage, the needs of the Roman military had shifted. It was less about individual campaigns and more about being able to respond quickly to threats that could pop up anywhere. Crack heavy infantry wasn't as needed as much as high numbers of medium infantry coupled with lots of cavalry.

    Also, it could literally be as simple as old armories going defunct and the new ones not knowing how/not being set up to make that same kind of equipment. We still don't know how many production sites were active at one time to make segmentata. It easily could have been an extremely small number, and thus when something happened to that site/sites, the segmentata may have been lost as well.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      The lorica segmentata was rather expensive to make, and even more expensive to maintain as well. Historically, they're made in small numbers. The lorica hamata has always been the premier armor of choice for most of Rome's history and the Romans thought that the armor is more than enough against their traditional enemies.

      >Not to mention, Rome as a state was in decline by this point. By this stage, the needs of the Roman military had shifted. It was less about individual campaigns and more about being able to respond quickly to threats that could pop up anywhere. Crack heavy infantry wasn't as needed as much as high numbers of medium infantry coupled with lots of cavalry.
      It is also worth mentioning that they suffered a really brutal plague. They didn't have the manpower at that point, which lead to the decline of heavy infantry in the Roman military.

  3. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >far better

    Not really true

    Just like modern equipment Romans had to balance ease of manufacture alongside quality. When you own a fuckhuge portion of land and need to equip a bunch of guys, chainmail is far, far better than segmentata or scale because of how easy it is to make and maintain

  4. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Chainmail doesnt take quality materials or much expertise to make. All you need is time and labor force, which Romans could supply locally even after their empire entered the period of crisis and increasing decentralisation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrY7uwcYsI Also easier to maintain, repair and more comfortable to wear than coat of plates. It was just good enough.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      And a method of making riveted chaimail using handtools available during middle ages and antiquity.

  5. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    This implies that the lorica segmentata has ever replaced the lorica hamata, which was invented centuries before segmentata by the Celts and swiftly adopted by the Romans. From what we can deduce, it's quite likely that chainmail remained the preferred choice for many Roman soldiers as it was cheaper in production despite being more time-consuming, while offering arguably more reliable protection that segmentata.

  6. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    1. Chainmail is old as fuck, celts wore it when fighting Ceasar. Its cheap and easy to make.

    2. Traditionally, the legions wore the lorica segmentata and the auxilia would wear chainmail.

    3. In throughout the Imperial Era the Roman army hovered around 300K. By the time Constantine I was running the show in 330 AD (late Empire) it was 600K.

    4. They doubled the size of the military and were supporting it with an economy and population that had been significantly weakened through plague, constant raiding, constant civil war, dogshit fiscal policy, and, yes, climate change.

    5. By the late Imperial Era the army had gone from distinct and venerable legions manned by volunteers, to indistinct units manned by what were essentially conscripts. The professional core and elite of the army shifted from the infantry to the cavalry.

    Whats the throughline? They needed a big army, they couldn't afford a big army, they cut costs, first cost cut was armor. Even if they could afford armor, what point is there giving expensive gear to a meatbag whos only job is to fix the enemy for the cavalry? Rather spend that money on the cavalry.
    >not even shitting on the late imperial army, it was exceptionally capable and would have mogged earlier versions of the Roman army. Dudes had the first BCT's.

    inb4 anons shit on me, there is lots of information about the decline in the quality of craftmanship of Roman armor in the late era when the focus shifted from "make a helmet that will serve a legionary well over his 25 years" to "holy fuck we lost another battle in the Germania Superior we need another 8000 helmets as fast as possible".

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      Those cheapo helmets designed for mass production were also more comfortable and better protected than the older ones.

  7. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >replace
    Segmentation was never the main or even most common armor among Roman legions. It was essentially a novelty thing they tried out from mid 1st to late 2nd century before ditching it entirely.

  8. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >all these posts
    >they're all shit
    Mail armor was never replaced by segmentata. Mail took longer to produce than segmentata but was far easier to maintain and store. Segmentata required less skilled workers but the individual clasps and small parts often needed replacement. Mail could be stored in sand or oil for years and just need a good shake before use.
    Auxilia and legionaries used both, segmentata was not preferred by the legions, that is just shitty artistic license on Trajan's column. Real monuments erected in Dacia after his campaign shows legionaries wearing mail and scale armor.
    During the principate armor, clothing and gear was produced by private companies, during the later empire they were replaced by state workshops that focused on simple, rugged and effective armor that quickly could equip the massive army. Segmentata was abandoned for being time consuming when the Romans didn't have time.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      How did lorica segmentata prevent enemy swords from just slipping through in between the segments?

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        The plate overlap each other, covering the gaps.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        The plate overlap each other, covering the gaps.

        And they're attached to a man with a sword

  9. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Calvary became far more important. Romans also no longer wanted to fight for the state due to all the civil wars and it was more convenient to contract already trained kraut, hunnic, berber or steppe calvary than foster a native Calvary force.

  10. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Segmentata isnt as good as it seems, its made of iron not steel, was good against thrusts, but was easily damaged and hard to repair, as well as maintain. Segmentata is also significantly less comfortable than either scale or mail, its kind of like a shitty coat of plates except theres no padded backing and all the plates require a ridiculous system of clasps to keep them in place. Segmentata also restricts mobility in a way that mail or scale does not, the arm holes arent cut in enough, and its more like a rigid iron corset than the significantly more comfortable and better designed medieval coat of plates. The shoulders are loose so its fine if youre doing nothing but overhand or forward motions like holding a shield and stabbing forwards or throwing a javelin, but not fine for movements across the body or downwards, such as swinging a longer sword or fighting from horseback with any kind of weapon.
    Mail lorica was used before, alongside, and after segmentata, its a much older armour. Squamata was likewise. Neither were abandoned or replaced by segmentata. Segmentata was innovative but it ultimately wasnt good enough to justify the difficulty in production and maintenance, and the reduction in comfort+movement, and so did not see continued usage, especially as it was unsuitable for usage from horseback and late rome's elite units were heavy cavalry. Yes some kind of plate system couldve been adopted or integrated, the design couldve been changed to be more like a medieval coat of plates, but they didnt. Later on the Greeks heavily use a combination of mail or scale and lamellar for their heavy cavalry, which i suppose is realistically what the late Romans could have done, but they couldnt have afforded to do this for every legionary. Scale and Mail just better for cost and number to be equipped+very good protection still, scale is arguably better than squamata.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      *than segmentata, scale is squamata sorry.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      This is a good post.

      Not enough emphasis is placed on the effect of the rigidity on agility for the wearer when comparing armours. Ive worn mail, aside from a bit of extra weight it just feels like wearing thick clothing. People report being able to go through a whole day of regular active work or travel with very little impact. A rigid armor however would fight you every step of the way when doing basic things. How many times a day do you bend over or twist for example? Sure it will effect how you fight, but its fine because you train for that. You also have to live and travel in the armour, which is 99 percent of the time you spend in it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *