"Why the switch from Lorica Segmentata to chain and other?" Topic

Why did the Romans abondon the Lorica Segmentata for Chain Mail (and other armor)?

From another thread

Doug Pappert* [At what point did the Legionaries stop using the Lorica Segmentata. Essex has a "middle" roman fig that has an oval shield, spear and Lorica segmentata. Is this right? At what point would this still be approiate for "middle" romans?]

My understanding is that Lorica Segmentata was, durable very effective, and is some ways easier to make than chain mail. In fact I have read some historians argue that mail being so very labor intinsive, may have even been more expensive, it's only real advantage was being more comfortable to wear.

So why was the first 'plate' armor abondonded at all?

Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"

It was probably down to a few issues.

The Lorica was a very specialised armour that was probably Celtic in origin, if the knowledge became lost in the civil wars I guess it would be abandoned.

The armour needed constant upkeep and repair, earlier types were very complex in design, while later patterns were cruder (suggesting attempts to simplify the idea). It is probable in a Campaign that thousands of Lorica needing repair would be a burden, alternatively Mail needs very little upkeep and can be repaired relativly quickly, therefore in a masive campaign such as the civil wars, the more complex armour would be abandonded in favour of the simpler one.

Cost, during the civil wars the empire was finacialy ruined, if lorica is expennsive to produce and maintain it would of been ditched in favour of cheaper alternatives. The same happened with the helmets, the fantastic legion imperial gallic was abandonded in favour of the plate helmet.

Change in warfare, the early legions faught in mass formations where speed was not a requirement, later armies were based more on speed and flexibilty, perhaps Lorica wasn't suited to this new form of battle?

Technology improves, early mail was not that robust, but later mail was much more effective at preventing injury, so it may be Lorica was evolved out of its function by better mail.

Lorica continued to be used right to the end of the Empire. Lorica is the term for armor.

Lorica segmentata is the segmented armor that we're all so familiar with from Hollywood.

Lorica hamata is mail armor.

And, lorica squamata is scale armor.

I can tell from experience that chainmail is not cheaper or easier to maintain/make.

Consider that each link must have its ends flattened so that it can be rivetted or else it will get holes with use (we call that "armor moths"). It also requires a hell of a lot of time to "knit" a hauberk. Furthermore, it is somewhat custom fit. I can still wear the hauberk I bought a decade ago, but I certainly can't fight in it anymore.

Based on that, I'm thinking that the premise is incorrect and that Segmentata was used even past the fall of the Empire. However, I've sent a message off to my Roman re-enactor friend to provide clarification as I usually play about 1,000 years after that period.

Stay Tuned,

Wyatt

(who may be appearing in the next Osprey book on Roman fortifications)

My understanding is that squamata or scale is the earliest type, hamata or chain predominated during the Republic, and that segmentata dates to about AD 21 or later, that is quite late into the Empire. So actually the question is why did the Romans change from mail to plate?

Having made both I can tell you that the segmentata is waaaaay easier to make and maintain.

Just a thought....maybe Essex got it wrong? I`ve heard a few critiscms of their medievals for having weird armour combinations. Nobody can be too dogmatic about what was worn when many hundreds of years after the period?

Segmentata is easier to make now because of our access to sheet goods. Mail would still be a bear to make, but segmentata is a lot harder when you start from a bar instead of a sheet.

Rich

Random thoughts, in no particular order:

Don't laugh, but maybe the fashion just changed. A lot of the evolution of arms and armor may have been due as much to changing preferences as cost/effectiveness. Perhaps it was simply less comfortable to wear?

Maybe all those barely Romanized Germans entering the armies simply didn't like the segmentata.

On the other hand, perhaps craftsmen capable of making mail were more widespread, hence it tended to get made and thus used more often.

Its hard to say which type was more expensive for Romans to make. How easy or difficult the two types may be for modern individuals making a few suits for fun may not accurately reflect the historical situation, large numbers of professional armorers spending all day, every day making armor. Perhaps the segmentata, surprisingly enough, was more expensive, and as the cavalry became the pre-eminent arm, the state became unwilling to supply such expensive gear to mere infantry. Lets not forget that the Roman economy had been devestated by plague and civil war.

It seems unlikely that the method of making segmentata was simply forgotten, the Romans were a highly literate people, and it would be an odd thing if something so widely used was simultaneously forgotten about all over such a wide empire.

Is segmentata more vulnerable to an under-handed thrust than mail? I know that scale mail is vulnerable in this way.

I know nothing about this, but do you need higher quality metal to produce plate than rings?

There is a sort of related debate here, which is whether or not the later Romans became decadent and lax in their discipline and equipment. Late Roman information is a little sketchy, but what we have certainly looks pretty pathetic compared to the Republican and Early Imperial infantry. If there was such a moral decay, perhaps the later Romans just couldn't be bothered to equip their infantry as well. Or perhaps poorly integrated peoples new to the Empire lacked sufficient discipline to equip and train them in the old way. So corners were cut, lighter shields, helmets etc were supplied, darts instead of pila and so forth. The men themselves may have been poorer troops, setting up a vicious cycle where the state is less and less willing to spend a lot on their equipment.

Personally, when I see Late Romans, I can't help but think, 'Hmmph, losers....'

Ivan DBA*[Random thoughts, in no particular order]...I had some of the same thoughts...[but maybe the fashion just changed]...I think this is a valid line of reasoning, I have read many times of armor types being adopted, in other eras, for this reason alone...

Dave Crowell*[ So actually the question is why did the Romans change from Mail to plate]...and back to Mail, but I believe you are mistaken about the scale, I could be wrong but I think it wasn't widly adopted untill the mid to late Imperial period and then only for Centurians and the like.

Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"

Don't be so quick to discount the Late Romans. Their infantry was lighter, but their cavalry was infinitely better. Horses were better, saddles were better, and tactics were more flexible.

I'd take a flexible combined-arms force over an infantry army any day.

Lorica Segmentata was a purely Roman invention. It was the Lorica Hamata - the chain mail - that is believed to be of Celtic origin. And even that is dubious.

As for why Segmentata was dropped - well, yes it was easier and cheaper to make than chain mail, but it had it's draw backs. It took precious time to train a soldier on the use and maintenance of the armour, and to acclimatise him to it's feel and weight. Such acclimatising and "breaking in" was comparatively simpler for mail or Scale armour.

Lorica Segmentata was a very high maintenance armour, again, far more so than any scale or chain armour. The Segmentata rusted incredibly quickly when wet, the internal leathers deteriorated rapidly from sweat and heat, requiring regular replacement, and the fastenings were also a problem.

The leather - later metal - fastenings on the Segmentata were notorious weak spots. Sudden movements by the Legionary could wear down, damage or just unhook the fastenings, quite ridiculous for a soldier whose job required him to move suddenly and often. It was also all too easy for the fastenings to be damaged or even severed in combat, rendering whole segments of the armour unusable or a hindrance. This seems an outragous flaw considering men's lives depended on their armour holding together in action.

I suppose the Romans considered it an acceptable risk as the segmentated plates and fastenings gave briliant protection to the upper torso - much more than scale or chain could provide - without restriciting arm and upper body movement. However, what was deemed acceptable appears to have changed over time.

On campaign this type of armour would have been unreasonably difficult and time consuming to upkeep - time and effort the troops didn't always have to spare. And as discipline and training declined in quality and the army became increasingly Germanic in make up, this became time and effort the legionaries perhaps were increasingly unwilling to commit to.

Segmentata is heavy. The Roman's Segmentata was probably not as heavy as modern re-enactor's versions, but it would still have been a burden, especially to a legionary wearing his suit for hours on end. All of the Segmentata weight rests squarely on the shoulders, while chain mail armour's weight can be supported with a belt as well as on the shoulders, distributing the weight around the body and making it seem lighter. The Legions of the early empire may have been able to march all day and fight a battle at the end of it, all while wearing full Lorica Segmentata armour, but this became less and less acceptable and bearable to subsequent generations.

Finally, Segmentata protected only the upper torso, albeit very well, with emphasis on the shoulders. This was ideally perfect for facing enemies that use an overarm blow, such as those Celts or early Germans tended to use. But increasingly the enemies they faced used thrusting weapons which could be aimed at the exposed lower abdomen, groin or thighs. Segmentata was therefore less effective against thrusting weapons. The Romans were masters at adapting to situations. They had probably developed the Lorica Segmentata in the first place because it was the right armour against the right foes. When it stopped being quite so useful, maybe they just realised it was time to adapt again.

And perhaps troops - recruited increasingly from outside the empire and less used to Segmentata - took to feeling a little... naked below the waist. Even the adoption of pteruges would not have solved that problem entirely.

The political situation is also a factor, perhaps the most important. In the 160's AD the army, fresh from a most victorius campaign in Parthia, brought the plague back with them. It spread throughout the Empire, taking many soldiers from the army and leaving it weakened. Not long after, the Germans and Sarmatians, perhaps sensing the weakness in the Empire, and probably experiencing pressure from neighbours to the East, erupted over the borders. They circumvented the frontier defences and rampaged deep into the Empire. With no deep reserves to counter the invasions the Empire proved to be terribly exposed. No where was safe. Greece and Gaul received the worst of it, but even Italy was briefly invaded and ravaged. The Empire was utterly devastated.

The priority of the day became raising as many troops as possible QUICKLY and just getting them onto the field. Fast marches from one side of the Empire to another became routine. With the Empire over run by invaders, and the Roman army standing with it's back against the wall, the supply chain probably broke down somewhat. It could have become quite difficult to keep the troops with Segmentata armour properly supplied. And even if this was not so, the troops themselves probably found it difficult to adequately maintain their armour during the frantic time of crisis. Chain and Scale were readily available from anyone, and could be simply looted from the dead, but Segmentata construction and repair was limited.

So urgent was the crisis that even the Circus Gladiators were rushed into the field. The army, in a state of, well, panic really, can be imagined taking ANYONE - including Germanic recruits - and cutting corners where ever possible, to respond to the emergency and save the empire from what must have looked like the beginning of the end.

With rushed training programmes and fast marches being the priority, there was no breathing room for such things as giving new legionaries time to acclimatise to Segmentata. Even if they COULD be so armoured in the time and situation. Consequently new recruits were probably equiped with Lorica Hamata (chain) or Lorica Squamata (Scale), rather than Lorica Segmentata, which had never taken completely any how. This, of course, is assuming they were still given armour at all. Considering the urgency of the situation it is possible new units went into battle with no more than their Scutum and weapons.

For most of his rule of 30 odd years, from 161 AD to 180 AD, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius struggled to repel the invaders and return peace and security to the Empire. The first invaders were repelled within a few years, but the peace and security took longer, and there were several more attempted incursions and many campaigns before security was again assured.

When the dust settled and the Empire returned to order, the army seemingly saw no need to resume making the bothersome difficult Segmentata, which had been slowly falling out of favour even before the crisis. The Lorica Segmentata had been great for disciplined, drilled, elite legionaries, when fighting largely undisciplined enemies waving weapons above their heads. In it's prime it had been the right armour at the right time. But it's time had gone.

The situation, and the enemies had changed. The Roman army itself had changed. The Legions, although still well trained, drilled and disciplined, were no longer the elitist and utterly superior force they had been. The system of Frontier defence had proved to be flawed, weak and vulnerable. The Legions themselves were increasingly made up of a more diverse make up, perhaps less suited to high maintenance heavy armour. Especially now that fast defensive reactionary marching was the order of the day.

What was now needed was light but reliable armour, that gave overall protection against thrusts to the lower abdomen as well as overarm chops to the shoulders, that required a moderately low level of maintenance, that would be fairly familiar and comfortable and easy to adjust to by all and sundry, regardless of their origins. That just wasn't Lorica Segmentata.

It is interesting to note that also at about this time the Scutum was essentially replaced with the oval shield. I do not think this to be coincidence since the oval shield was simpler and faster to construct - exactly what was required just then.

Looking at the circumstances it is no surprise that, almost overnight in a historical scale, Segmentata fell out of general use. The question really, shouldn't be, "why did they stop using Lorica Segmentata?" But rather, "Why did they use Lorica Segmentata for as long as they did?"

Apologies for the epic post. I get rather carried away on this subject. Sorry. :)

Yettie -- my references support Dave: squamata pre-dated hamata. However, they also indicate that squamata was retained for certain officers, often as a family heirloom, much like early muscle cuirasses were retained by the tribunes.

Thanks for the input Scutatus, well argued!

As promised, I have some answers. Looks like my initial assumptions were incorrect. Chainmail does take forever to make but it lasts much longer.

I've broken it up by original questions:

"Why did the Romans abondon the Lorica Segmentata for Chain Mail ( and other armor ) ?"

No one knows

Speculation …

- Segs cost more to make….. larger pieces of iron each hammered into specific shapes, some sized. A seg has to be sized to fit well.

- High maintenance. The leather strapping lasts about a year, so every year you have to rebuild your seg.

- You need a new one every so often as your body grows. What fit when you were 18 is unlikely to fit at 35. Generally hamata fits anyone…. for decades ( my note: funny, my Brigantine armor still fits, but my chainmail is tight )

"Doug Pappert* [At what point did the Legionaries stop using the Lorica Segmentata. Essex has a "middle" roman fig that has an oval shield, spear and Lorica segmentata. Is this right? At what point would this still be approiate for "middle" romans?]"

First seg's 9AD

Corbridge shortly after that until 120's I believe… then Newstead up til mid 3rd C AD

Scutums.. there is no archeological evidence ( yet ) for the rectangular scutum after 110AD in Britannia until Dura Europas scutum in 3rd C and that may have been a special scutum.. the paint job was way to elaborate for a common soldier… Some sculpture post 110AD show rectangular scutums. The issue is vigorously argued among scholars.

The physical evidence for scutums is generally shield covers.. so far all the shield covers found in West EU after 110 are oval.

"My understanding is that Lorica Segmentata was, durable very effective, and is some ways easier to make than chain mail."

Not easier to make.. large sections of iron are harder to make than small flat pieces that rings are punched from.

Chain is labor intensive.. initially… but once a chain shirt is made it'll last for decades, maybe centuries. A seg has to be rebuilt every year.. thus, over the course of a soldier's 20-25 year career a seg becomes more labor intensive. They also require more daily attention than chain

Durable and effective.. Yes. The rebuilding would be done when a Legio over wintered. I think it only takes about 10 weeks for an entire Legio to retrofit its segs one Centuria ( Century ) at a time.

More information and some good photos:
link

Looks like I'm dressing up in that kit this June.

Wyatt

Scutatus*[ well, yes it was easier and cheaper to make than chain mail, but it had it's draw backs. It took precious time to train a soldier on the use and maintenance of the armour, and to acclimatise him to it's feel and weight. Such acclimatising and "breaking in" was comparatively simpler for mail or Scale armour]...This is a very interesting point, I had never considered training to be much of a factor in armor use (a least pre-Plate armor)...

I know at least a couple of you guys (Wyatt the Odd) seem to have some hands on with Lorica Segmentata I think it would be instructive if you could give us some personal insight on the Training aspect (hint..hint)

Reading about the high maintenance (Wyatt the Odd, Scutatus) was a bit of an eye opener as well. I had assumed that a shirt composed of thousands of hand-made loops of iron would be a bear to maintain, but when you consider that Segmentata....1) Used leather, a material that degrades rather easily....2) The design created points of high wear and consistent failure (where chain would ,I think, tend to spread the wear more or less evenly) I can see that repair would be a constant chore.

Thanks guys, As usual, very informative and well considered replys.

Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"

Scutatus*[Apologies for the epic post. I get rather carried away on this subject. Sorry]....when you write stuff as informative as this post I think you've done all of a service, it's this kind of stuff that I look forward to reading when I drop by this page...

yettie

Didn't the Romans have a sort of mass production system for Mail using slave labour that made it relatively simple to produce using unskilled labour? Also it can be stored, if covered from air and water for an extremely long time. this resulted in old mail being available for equipping legions during periods of crisis. Given that each Legion equipped itself locally as well it would be extremely interesting to see exactly what was being used where and when. What regional differences there were, especially on quiet frontiers would be very interesting.

On the weight side, I know someone who uses a form of Segmentum and he says that it is very light compared to chain.

A pleasure guys, Glad you found it helpful.

Scutatus:

As others said: well done and don't be sorry for a long but informative post!

BTW, this is a most useful and enjoyable thread.

Cheers

Chain mail is fairly easy to make, although very time consuming. Drawing the wire is definitely faster than forging out the strips for segmentata. Forming the rings is very fast with a mandril, the huge time would have come from riveting each ring closed. Historically rings as sall a pencil (internal diameter) have been found rivited.

Scale armour was developed first, scales sewn to a foundation is a fairly obvious design, but seems always to have been the armour of the rich as it is even more time intensive to make than chain.

Interestingly the segmentata seems to have been made from soft iron rather than hard steel. It makes some sense. More likely to give with a blow, not crack or split and let a sword or arrow through.

The segmentata had lousy protection for arms and legs. When facing enemies armed with falx the Romans often faced high casualties as the enemy reached past the scutum and severed limbs. Change in enemies may have had something to do with the decline of the segmentata. Great against Celts, Germans etc, not so great later.

To Scutatus & Others, thanks for a very interesting and informative posting. I really agree with the often stated idea that The Roman army probably adapted to the new situation as shown when they were fighting the Falx, the Legions added extra protection for both forearms and legs.

About the time that segmentum was going out was about the same time that the Empire was having serious economic problems. They couldn't even afford to splurge on government sponsored construction projects anymore. At least one ancient historian commented that the sacking of Cstiphon staved off a bankrupt economy for the next 40 years (180-220 AD). The available spending cash in the empire was more and more being hoged by a few rich families who were never willing to help out costs of empire by supplying the troops with the equipment that would have helped them in the disasters of the 3rd to 5th centuries.

I think the prevailing philosophy was... Your shield is armor enough, if the enemy can somehow get around your shield, then it's your own dam fault. And you deserve to be killed. And your getting paid to much as it is so if you want more equipment, then buy it yourself. Isnt it enough that were supplying you with four squares and a bunk and a nice tent to live in? And now you lazy saps want to get married and have children too?
Ungrateful I tell you!

lol The infamy of it.

Which reminds me of that old Carry On classic...

Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me!

lol yes, I know, it's not at all relevant to the subject, but I couldn't resist. lol

Hi

Again, experience with both.. Not just the leather bits, but the RIVITS also "egg shape" the holes quickly with segmentata. and the various formmed sheets must fit the others, thus a practicality is that a replacement requires a skilled smithy.
Rings, however, fit always. A smithy can do wire by the yard, and minions can do the rings with little skill. The guys I admire are the ones who WELDED the rings closed.

Anyway, early roman sources often use "Lorica Celtica" for chain!

Rocky

Just a thought from a logistics point of view: If you're raising an army quickly, you need to be able to toss a guy a set of body armor and say "put this on", what with invoices making very poor armor. Segmentata requires closer sizing than mail. If it's too big, you can't lower your arms. Too small, and you'll never get it on. It seems that a mail shirt could be taken in or let out with a bit of work (less than doing a whole one from scratch), and wearable even if it is a little too long or baggy.

There is considerable weight in the argument that segmentata was an emergency fill in for the hamata lost by varus.As armour in a legion prior to this point in time was repaired and recycled...the loss of 15,000 sets is quite a fiasco.the recycle nature of roman quartermasters is evident in the gladius pattern....ever see the sub type with the seemingly inward curved cutting edges ...think about your granddads carving knife,worn away in center after decades. of use

Another thing to consider is that iron wasn't smelted - i.e. raised to true melting temperature - in Europe until about 1400 AD. Iron production before then was by hammering the crap (literally) out of semimolten ore, squeezing out the iron.

A small bit of iron can be useful for making mail, but you need a large chunk of iron to make a plate. Nowadays mild steel plate is cheap and abundant, and we forget how that skews the "what is easier to make" discussion.

And don't forget the cheapness of semitrained labor.

Another thought I have is:

It looks like the Romans might have switched to segmentata from early light chain links of the Republic was in response to the Partians ability to penetrate the chain links with there narrow tiped arrows. A narrow tiped arrow could go through light chain like a knife through butter. Not so the segmentata. The segmentata would be able to protect better against bow fire, not having any weak points for the arrows to fall through. The left arm would have been protected by the shield and so would the right arm as all you need to do to defend against those nasty horse archers is to stay behind your shield.

My question is, why did Crasus's troops drop like flies at the battle of Carrhea? Could they not get behind there shields? Maybe that the Parthian composite bow with narrow point arrows at short range could go right through the shields and the light chain armor as well.

In any case, the Romans might have barrowed the idea of segmentata from the Parthians and the Parthians from the Greeks. And latter chain mail might have been thicker with more linkage than the early stuff and therefore less vulnerable against missle weapons.

Believe the main reason was cost. As slave labor was cheaper than that of the artisian. Anyone can be taught to nit-two-loops togather,hit one end with hammer,repeat process.
The other needed to be made,pieced togather,laced-up,etc

AND that upkeep! Just when it fits right a strap would break. Take it off,run down to the tanner,take a number,wait in line.....

spectralwraith*[In any case, the Romans might have barrowed the idea of segmentata from the Parthians and the Parthians from the Greeks]...I have read that segmentata was adopted from designs used in the Gladiatorial games.

As I remember the story the usefulness of this type of armor was made evident during a smallish slave revolt led by a handful of Gladiators. All the other slaves had been killed but the heavily armored gladiators wouldn't go down. They were finally killed when soldiers were given pick-axes from a local quarry to punch through their armor.

Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"

The idea that segmentata was developed to replace losses of equipment in the Varus disaster suffers from 2 problems.

Firstly the legiones lost were not replaced so there was no initial demand for equipemnt.

Secondly segmentata has been found at Kalkriese which is thought to be the site of the ambush.

Hi

Elsewhere I have waxed on about bow versus armor. Someone brought up Carrahae... Chain acts like a "Shotbox" against an arrow and wins by being proof. Plate(segmentata) and Lameller get a lot of benefit from deflection. Wont go into details. Shields work by being a "high drag" environment.
Anyway, your guess about armor piercing arrows is probably not a bad one. For the first few millinia, it was broadheads only which shield do well against(broadheads are high drag blood letters) as does chain. Ca 400B.C. the Skyth start reinforcing broadheads for better penetration(but shorter range). Long tapering armor piercing points are relatively new to this period.(and longer range).
The problem with the model verus the original thread about abandoning segmentata is that the HUNS had better bows AND better armor piercing arrows.
Shields and quilting work better than chain in this situation.

Rocky

It is my understanding that at Carrhae, Crassus' army did not "drop like flies", but was worsted over a period of days, and was defeated as much by marching about in armor in the heat as anything else. The Parthians won the battle at the end by a cavalry charge of their heavy lancers, after days of heat and skirmishing long-distance bow fire from horsearchers had worn the Romans down.

MtM

of course the legions were never replaced but the hard ware was lost.Segmentata is field issue unfriendly ,hamata was,plain and simple, what many readers are mistaken on is ring versus chain ,romans used chain.Segmentata is a good cheap option like russian laminates today,good provided you dont meet the wrong guy. hell the germans didnt only have iron tech,among the hermandurii and suevii ,steel.

Merlin:

According to Plutarch and Cassius Dio, It was the horse archers who did most of the slaughtering, and at close enough range to be effective as the Romans had no archers of there own to counter with. ( Brilliant Crasus ) . The mass majority of the Parthians where horse archers ( 90% ) Many of the wounded, ( by arrows ) , which were left behind had there throats slit by the horse archers.

The Parthian cataphracts killed there share of Romans, but there was no special emphasis placed on casualties by cataphracts over horse archers except for the Gaulic Cav. 500 of which died in a suicide attack on the Partian cataphracts. The Gauls did suffer from the climate according to Dio, but no wholescale death is mentioned because of the hot weather alone. The wounded and battle weary would not last long without a water supply and it would appear that many of Marc Anthony's men died that way at a latter date, but at carrhae, it was the Parthian horse archer which won the day.

Reference Plutarch; caama.ca/carrhae.html
Cassius Dio Book 40 chapters 12-27.

Afrikakorps*[what many readers are mistaken on is ring versus chain ,romans used chain]...What? Chain, Ring, Link, these are just conventions of description.

The fundamental design of Mail armor has never changed. The Romans used the same 4-1 weave (and riveted or welded) that was used throughout the middle ages. The use of denser 6-1 or 8-1 weaves were a medieval innovation but were really no more than a variation of the same basic design. Additionally these denser weaves were never that widely used and never replaced the basic 4-1 pattern entirely.

Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"

size of ring is everything,cheap eastern european rings may be a half inch across ,great for stopping sabres but bad vs thrusting or piercing weapons.some ring mail technologies applied them as scale ,sewn to leather jerkins in belts ,not interlocking them.

Afrikakorps*[size of ring is everything,cheap eastern european rings may be a half inch across ,great for stopping sabres but bad vs thrusting or piercing weapons.some ring mail technologies applied them as scale ,sewn to leather jerkins in belts ,not interlocking them]...yeah I guess, I think you are making some assumptions here. From everthing I've read, the 'chain mail' used by the Romans was mail in the truest sense.Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"

I tried posting some links but I kept getting error messages.

www.rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects97/armour/mail/mail.html

www.legionxxiv.org/loricapage/

www.larp.com/legioxx/hamata.html

Hi

Merlin, while it has been offered that we agree a lot..this is a place where we do not. I have spent a lot of time with Carrahe (do you remember that magazine TV show where they FILMED a game I did! Cracked up the staff when I quipped "I am Crassis, the richest man in the world, after I lose this fight, they will execute me by pouring molten gold down my throat". They had to reshot parts as the cameraman burst into laughter at that).
Carrahe was decided by bow fire. Just as you were obsessed with our rules doing Hastings, I was pretty obseesed with doing Carrahe. I felt we were on the right track when I could sit with the sources and walk through the battle using our rules. Watching Crassis' son die on cue leading the german cav was heart breaking.
Just as you do Hastings, I love Carrahe, and the other battles through time that happened at about the same place. I seem to remember we have done Harran from the First Crusade as well.

Rocky

I sent Sheridan, the gentleman who provided the information in my last post, the URL for this thread when he asked if there had been any commentary. He felt compelled to add the following information to clear up some misconceptions. So, the text below is me "channeling" Sheridan:

Mass production: There was no such thing as mass production of lorica hamata or segmentata... not when each piece could only be made one at a time and by hand... You could have large quantity production which is very different from mass production.. mass production implies a savings in labor cost.. when something is made one at a time it still takes just as many man-hours to make it whether you use 1 laborer or 10.

Weight of a segmentata: In most cases a segmentata weighs less than a hamata especially if the hamata has shoulder doubling

A segmentata is far easier to wear for hours and days at a time than hamata. Becasuse a seg is fitted its weight is distrubuted on the shoulders AND torso unlike a hamata whose weight rests primarily in the shoulders

Seg fittings: The fittings are strong and durable when made correctly. Many modern reproductions use soft brass or bronze which is weak. Many who make reproductions fail to retemper (harden) the brass or bronze after annealing it (softening it further which makes it lots easier to work). When fittings are made correctly they are very durable.

Training for use: No additional time cost at all. It's easy to wear, to work in and to fight in. I've even slept in mine. Every soldier would quickly learn now to maintain his seg and make field repairs.

Upkeep:
- Well, that's a barrel of arguing scholars! An oiled perhaps waxed seg resists rust well and requires nothing more than an oil rub down at the end of the day.. got 5 minutes? A seg that was left forge blackened is even easier to keep rust free.

- Of more concern is wear and tear of internal leather straps. Modern reproductions suffer from failure due to the use of leather from the wrong part of the bovine. Shoulder leather is stronger than side leather and belly leather is horribly weak. If the leather strap is cut from shoulder to side it is weak. Re-enactors also tend to over care for their segs which can weaken leather. Over oiled leather is as weak as sweat stained dry salty leather. Some reproductions use suede or splits or chrome tanned leather which is all weak.

- Another important factor regarding weakness of reproductions is over riveting, rivets that are so heavily hammered that they crush the leather strap making it very weak.

Wyatt (for Sheridan)

If I'm not mistaken they worked chain in soft state then case hardened it with heat treating. It would also have given a more flexible protection by conforming to the body. Maybe not as comfortable but more versitile for protection.

Hi

To all there is no such thing as "chain mail" it is simply called mail, the chain was added in the Victorian era. As I have read that the Eastern Armies used mail for longer than the Western Armies.

Cheers

Andy Brace

Hi

No, there is no way to "case harden" a mail shirt.

R

I stumbled on to this VERY informative site on Roman armor… link

Bill AKA yettie….."Otis"

RockyRusso:

Why not, whats to prevent it.

Ummm, isn't this discussion supposed to be on the ANCIENT board? Not that I haven't found it interesting or anything, I just like things 'in their place'!;-)