Late Roman Army: Why No Lorica Segmentata?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2020
- Some thoughts on why the Roman Army phased out the Lorica Segmentata.
The Lorica Segmentata, though a modern term for the armor, is the most well known form of defensive equipment from the Roman world (excluding, perhaps, the scutum (or shield). It was worn by Rome's military for much of the first and second centuries CE, and we know from numerous tests that it offered remarkable protection when combined with a shield, when compared to mail. Starting in the third century, however, the lorica segmentata began to fall out of use, and by the mid fourth century it appears to have been out of use almost entirely. We don't know the exact reason for why the switch from lorica segmentata to lorica hamata was made, but in this video I offer a few thoughts.
SOURCES:
The Late Roman Army, Southern & Dixon
The Fall of the Roman Empire, Heather
Empires & Barbarians, Heather
Rome's Gothic Wars, Kulikowski
Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, Bishop
The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History, Elton
Pax Romana, Goldsworthy
Roman Body Armor, Travis
Warfare in Roman Europe, Elton
#loricasegmentata
#lateromanarmy
#romanhistory
In the words of Matt Easton "Context!". This discussion did a great job of it. Was highly engaging and thought-provoking. Enjoyed it a lot.
Something you've mentioned before in another video was that weapons and armor fulfill their purpose in relation to their enemies. Does history tell us that the enemy and their weapons technology changed to possibly allow for a "lesser armor" to sufficient?
Thank you! I don't know the specifics of barbarian weaponry in this period, but from what I understand their weapons and armor were growing more complex, which I guess could account for the increased use of mail by the Romans. The coats grow longer and the sleeves do as well, so it offers more protection overall than the lorica segmentata arguably does, even with the manica and other forms of vambrace
Lorica Segmentaria was 1 mm thick while weighing 20lbs while lorica hamata was 1.6 mm thick and weighed 22lbs!
@@TheFallofRome Spatha gradually supplemented gladius.
''Does history tell us that the enemy and their weapons technology changed to possibly allow for a "lesser armor" to sufficient?''
I don't know about 'lessor armors'. The kind of armor change also depends on the economy of scale, per unit cost per volume, and the number of soldiers a nation can afford, also the change of tactic doctrine as well.
@@TheFallofRome ''Thank you! I don't know the specifics of barbarian weaponry in this period, but from what I understand their weapons and armor were growing more complex, which I guess could account for the increased use of mail by the Romans.''
Mail offered more protection for the kind of weapons and the tactical use employed by the barbarians, whose army units were usually smaller than the Romans, and the tactical formation with the greater inner space, which both allowed slashing/cutting attack, which complemented the traditional Barbarian style fighting, who were foremost individual warriors first, rather than a soldier who is a part of unit, first.
''The coats grow longer and the sleeves do as well, so it offers more protection overall than the lorica segmentata arguably does, even with the manica and other forms of vambrace''
Only against, slashing and cutting attack, not involving blunt type weapons.
Against stabbing attack, and blunt type weapons, segmentata and manica/vambrace offered more protection.
Oh I see. Two dislikes. Filthy Carthaginians...
Or Fucking Germs...
F*cking plebs
Very good video, Well done!
Well if it isn’t my favorite CZcamsr! You’re welcome! I’m glad you enjoyed it
Yooooo!! Nobles Ones, Unite! ❤🤍😃
@@TheFallofRome Endorsement from Metatron!
Probably mail is better for "one size fits all" , that means you only need to store a limited variety of sizes to equip men with a different waist/lenght size.
So it has a logistical advantage and waging war has always been(about) 90% logistics and 10% tactics as "the Art of War" AND WW2 has shown.
Maybe! It's something I've come across now and again as an explanation
I also favour the economics and logistics explanation. You can honestly use a mixture of the armour types, so each covers for the other's weaknesses. But that makes upkeep and production more complex.
I've also read that lorica hamata/riveted chainmail was much more comfortable to wear and much easier to maintain. The natural friction of the rings keeps it mostly rust free and you can just roll it around in a barrel of sand to de-rust it. It didn't have the problem of leather straps rotting or the brass hinges breaking down with the segmentata. So the troops probably preferred chainmail for comfort and for less hassle in maintenance. Republic & Principate era chainmail also covers more of the body than segmentata, since it typically extends below the waist whereas segmentata stops at the waist. Late imperial chainmail also extended towards the limbs, covering even more of the body.
Lorica Segmentaria was 1 mm thick while weighing 20lbs while lorica hamata was 1.6 mm thick and weighed 22lbs!
Loricae segmentatae must have been particularly uncomfortable to wear during campaigns in Mesopotamia, which campaigns became more frequent after the re-emergence of the Persian kingdom in 226 CE. Loricae segmentatae were probably also more expensive to manufacture and maintain than scale/mail armor. Both defects at least partly explain the abandonment of loricae segmentatae by the time of Diocletian.
I like this thesis - mail really is more of a mass-production item. Not cheaper, but very easy and amenable to a system of division of labour. It's also easier to tailor a one-size-fits-all (or perhaps only a few sizes) mail shirt than it is to make a breastplate. Mail is also easier and more comfortable to wear than plate - especially the sort that largely lacks rolled edges or ways to distribute the mass more to the hips (lorica segmentata counts on both fronts). A final consideration, in my mind at least, is that wire making processes can work with lower-quality (or more variable quality) iron than the sheet-making process required for a plate-type armour.
Remember that all the iron and steel made at this point was in the form of bloomery iron. The bloomery process is also very fiddly, and depends a lot on local conditions and skilled craftsmen to obtain a consistent product. Even then, a bloom from one area/working group of craftsmen will only be relatively consistent with itself. This is an issue if you have a big factory system taking in stock from all over, because the ingots from one area (which are perfectly usable for making sheets) might get mixed in with ingots from another area which fall apart when you try to work them into sheets. Wire drawing, on the other hand, is the sort of process where you can make use of whatever part of a bloom or ingot is workable, draw out a bit of wire from it, and isolate or discard the bits with lots of inclusions or slag in them. The drawing process would also homogenise the product to a certain extent by drawing out any inclusions.
Basically; its just easier to make a bunch of wire of x quality using a bunch of bloomery-derived ingots from various sources than it is to make a bunch of thin sheets of iron. This probably wasn't the be-all and end-all of production, but it might have helped to drive the switch over towards a form of protection which was good enough for 90% of the jobs it was needed for, and which was easier to hand out to troops of all shapes and sizes.
26:15 Your point about longer mail sleeves can actually be explained by the cooling climate of the time. The Roman Climactic Optimum was a period of unusually warm weather in Europe that lasted from 250 BC to AD 400, it was this warmer and wetter weather that sustained the bountiful harvests that fed the Empire and its economy during its height, with temperatures similar to that of today before cooling down for the next 500 years.
Lorica Segmentata couldve been made redundant in the Late Empire simply because wearing a long sleeved mail shirt over the extra padding provided by warm clothes wouldve provided a decent level of protection for a fraction of the cost.
Oh that’s a good point. I hadn’t considered that
@@TheFallofRome Yeah, the climate angle is something thats surprisingly absent from academic literature which is odd because the replacement of plate armour with padded mail hauberks after 400 AD wasnt just limited to the Late Roman Empire but a trend repeated across all of Europe as temperatures fell. As plate armour has existed since Mycenaean Greece and is far less time consuming to make than mail or lamellar, I find it highly unlikely that everyone suddenly forgot how to make metal sheets at the same time.
Whats more is that plate armour reemerges 500 years later in the early 1100s, coinciding with the start of the Medieval Warm Period when average temperatures rose once more and soldiers would've presumably needed harder armour to make up for wearing fewer layers of clothing.
It stands to reason that the pattern of plate versus padded mail would've likely repeated itself during the Little Ice Age from 1650 to 1850 had the invention of firearms not made all armour obsolete until the 20th century.
Mail has a key advantage of being nearly soldier proof, almost maintenance free and one size fits most.
There no leather straps or fabric to rot or wear out, no hinges to break or plates to bend.
Much harder to make than the segmentata though.
@@PumpkinHoard yes and no, mail is more work but it simpler than shapeing the plates and the fittings of segmenta.
Roman mail is notabley not tailored, its simply a T shaped tube with a slit hole for the head.
This is absolutely amazing, I cannot believe how underrated this channel is. THANK YOU
Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed the video
Like most military changes, it came down to logistics and economics rather then any effect or lack thereof of segmented metal strips. Soldiers are not actually in battle 99% of their career so formatting their equipment for this down time would have been on the forefront of their minds. Hamata provides almost equal protection against missile and hand based weapons as laminata or segmentata and does so in far more comfort. They are much easier to mass produce and much easier to size correctly for said soldiers. They could also get it on alot quicker and easier making it better for troops stationed on the frontier who could come under attack at any time. Most wounds on the battlefield at this time were to the extremities, hands, arms, legs etc so having an armor that could extend to more parts of the body makes more sense as well. The Romans spent ALOT of time fighting themselves as well and having interchangeability was also another big consideration, once one legion or vexelation switched sides you needed to be able to utilize that units supporting personnel. Having trained armorers who could be simply re-utilized for your own forces makes a big impact though rebellion was obviously something they avoided.
You have an opinion, which is fine. However statements presented as facts should be backed up by evidence. You may THINK logistics and economics were the causes, but you would have to provide something to prove the theory. Otherwise it's nothing more than speculation. As for Hamata providing similar protection against missiles and hand based weapons as plated armour, we know that this is not true. It may have covered more of the body than segmentata, but neither maille or scale armour provide comparable protection against arrows, dagger and sword thrusts, or blunt trauma weapons. Throughout recorded history, people have supplemented maille with plates where feasible.
@@another3997 I am not talking about theoretical protection against missiles and I should have specified, regardless I did say ALMOST as much. Once you take into consideration the realities of combat in the ancient world, you really have to think that a spear, javalin or arrow would have to first get through a shield and then penetrate through the armor, padding, clothing and then skin, muscle, bone and finally vital organs. A pretty big job for even the most energized missile though admittedly it did happen.
Your right, my you tube comment on the internet is mostly just opinion. I dont pretend to present anything other then just an opinion. The only part that isnt an opinion is the part of comfort, ease of use and the fact most injuries, just as today, are to the extremities. Sorry but I dont have time for APA citation.
@@another3997The Economics and Logistics isn't a theory lol when you are constantly paying a huge ass army it means you will not have enough money to maintain it in the future and go bankrupt, lorica segmentata is expensive and harder to produce wheress the hamata is much easier and cheaper and easy to mass produce to provide armies. The segmentata on the other hand while effective is expensive and needs good armorsmiths to make them making it way more harder to produce in a large scale. So to say that the economics and logistics is simply a theory with no proof to back it up is just stupid if you take in the facts that the Roman Empire constantly had civil wars, invasions, a whole army that is loyal to people who pays them the most you'd go broke pretty quick and so they chose to manage it by making the Army cost less to maintain by simply using equipment that is way cheaper.
Damn man, you are criminally underrated. Awesome video, looking forward to more!
Sergio Ramos thank you very much! I really appreciate that
Such a great channel. The best history channel I have found.
Wow, thank you!
On a forum a few years ago I saw a late Roman re-enactor wearing a Newstead lorica segmentata with a late Roman ridge helmet. I thought it was ridiculous. Since I figured these two pieces of equipment didn’t exist at the same time. But some people commenting on this made some good points that changed my mind.
One was that the romans probably never just threw out usable equipment. This is evidenced by the large variety of helmets used by them. Older ones are mixed with newer designs in different archeological finds. Which makes sense. If the helmet or armor does it’s job, why throw it out? At least wait till it breaks and becomes unusable, then replace it.
The segmentata was also probably used by auxiliaries as well since it has been found in auxiliary forts and in areas where regular legions wouldn’t have been present. So there was probably a large supply of this type of armor in the Roman supply chain.
I just find it hard to believe that the romans spent all this time and money on the segmented armor just to get rid of it so quickly. To me, that specific armor lived on till probably 300 CE or so.
Also, to comment on the segmentata being hard to maintain: I think that is an interesting point. But I don’t think it’d be as difficult as some people think. Most of the damage done to it can be fixed with a malet. As it is mild steel, any dents can just be pushed back into the normal position. And if one plate becomes too damaged for this, just detach it and replace it with a new plate. The buckles sucks though, that is true. The Newstead type with the hooks is much better
Great video. Would like to see more on the late romans.
That's a great point. It's something I thought about while putting this video together--there's at least one archaeological example of lorica segmentata from the 3rd century from a find in Germany. There's probably more that we haven't found yet. Like you said, if it works, why get rid of it? Eventually the buckles and stuff will break so it becomes unusable, but part of an answer I had been thinking about is that, given the reactionary make up of the late roman army, and the introduction of the fabricae, mail may just have been easier to fix in a pinch. I'll probably release another version of this video at some point once I get more research done
The Historian's Craft I think you got it right. Mail is easier in another way as well, it can be sized to each wearer much easier than plate. You can take rings out or add in rings to adjust for size. If it’s too long you can just trim some of those rings off. Etc etc. Segmentata is far more reliant on proper fitting from the get-go. Unless it is tapered to fit your body shape it really doesn’t fit right and just hangs off of you. Making it exhausting to wear. So having all these new recruits coming into a much larger army that must be equipped quickly would make segmentata a bit less appealing for the late Roman military perhaps.
But I think it’s fair to say the Romans were highly practical people. And they’d keep issuing segmentata till it just didn’t work anymore. My best guess anyway. Like you said, Wel probably never know.
The leather straps could rot and/or wear down as well. As a Roman soldier who had to maintain his equipment, it was probably annoying to fix all the different things that could break down with the segmentata. Chainmail was so much easier to maintain.
Interesting comment!
I would also imagine plate to be more durable than ringmail. Looking at "mail vs. plate" videos on youtube plate seems to be far better in protection in virtually ANY way.
Maybe there is another economic factor to consider: apart from production cost there is a chance that maintainment cost is also higher -> if, say, a piece of the segmentata gets pieced (arrows, spears etc.) you probably want to replace that plate. So not only is the plate (guessing) harder to manufacture than a handfull of rings, it is probably also more material.
That is just speculation and would have to be validated by a blacksmith who does both kinds of armor.
@@arturleperoke3205 Segmentata is NOT plate armor, its segmented armor more comparable to coats of plates and is far weaker than plate.
great video and wonderfully presented
Thank you for watching!
I love this new format of presentation + your face :)
agree.
Tha is for watching!
His face is very nice
I'm glad you got to this bud! I think I brought up this question on a video back
You’re welcome! This one was a lot of fun to put together
Thisvideo just made me think of the parallels between Diocletian and Oda Nobunaga
Yeah they were both extremely important to their respective countries as far as military history goes. I guess they both also unified them
Lorica Segmentaria was 1 mm thick while weighing 20lbs while lorica hamata was 1.6 mm thick and weighed 22lbs!
@@TheFallofRome
I like the back and forth between the emperors.
Gallienus: cavalry are the key arm.
Diocletian: no they're not.
Constantine: yes they are.
Great summary,
Thanks!
Interesting video! I agree that the primary reasons were probably due to economic, logistical, and ease-of-use concerns. Mail was easier to repair & maintain, easier to fit, more comfortable to wear, etc. Furthermore, I think that lorica segmentata might not necessarily provide better protection than mail for the area they covered if their materials had different thickness. If the segmentata was made of thin sheet-like metal, then it would provide less protection than thicker riveted chainmail rings. I've heard a wide variety of different weights for the segmentata, with some people claiming it was a mere 15-lbs. If this version existed, then this would have been composed of very thin sheets of metal. Riveted chainmail that is 25-30 lbs in weight on the other hand would provide better protection as the metal would be thicker. If the segmentata and the chainmail was made out of the same metals (eg. wrought iron or wrough iron with the outer layer case hardened into mild steel) and weighed the same, then I'd agree that the segmentata provided better protection for the area it provided.
Lorica Segmentaria was 1 mm thick while weighing 20lbs while lorica hamata was 1.6 mm thick and weighed 22lbs!
@@marydominguez6033 I've read that there were a variety of weights and thicknesses for both armors, with some segmentata types being thinner and maybe weighing as light as 15 lbs while others were thicker and weighing much more. Same goes for the hamata, as different gauges of rings/thicknesses were used so sometimes the weight varied by quite a bit.
Images are very helpful as well as better at grabbing attention.
A m.j other thing pointed out to me is that in this period Roman shields get bigger again along with (generally) swords. So presumably soldiers were taking more blows with their shields or fending them off with their swords and wouldn't need to rely as much on plate defense.
However I am a very big fan of the "The German soldiers didn't like it." hypothesis.
This video helped me understand the Lorica armor
To me the economic and craftsman argument makes the most sense, we see that statues and coins deteriorate in quality over the centuries so it makes sense that the ability to craft such intricate armor was more difficult to come by, it just makes more sense with more limited resources to opt for cheaper easier armor
The Roman Empire was deteriorating over centuries (from the end of second century on). In my opinion this is the reason for the downfall of lorica segmentata and in general of the Roman military system. That’s my take on this.
Great video! Do we know what sort of equipment the "Barbarians" used before the Hospitalitas period? Could it be that they were already using mail armor of some kind and prefered it enough that when Rome recruited them it was just seen as easier to switch to their style of equipment?
Well we know from the archaeology that the barbarians were using mail, Spears, stuff like that. I’m not sure about scale armor though. It’s likely that some did prefer it over anything else, but since Roman troops had always been wearing mail, I would be careful with how far we run with the idea
Lorica Segmentaria was 1 mm thick while weighing 20lbs while lorica hamata was 1.6 mm thick and weighed 22lbs!
The Germanic people got most of their armour from Roman sources via trade, war, service ect. Eastern Germanic people would also have contacts with the Persians.
@@TheFallofRome
Mail is often said to have been invented by The Gauls, or perhaps by Central Europeans, so it was already pretty well established along what became the Augustan frontiers by the time of that emperor.
I would think the lorica would be hard to produce en mass would be the biggest problem for continual use, that mixed with needing help to put it on, it being expensive and needing very skilled craftsmanship. With all of this in mind, and thinking of the situation the later Roman Empire found itself in its not surprising to me that it fell out of use.
Hey, nice lesson, I'm doing a school project about the Lorica Segmentata and I was wondering if any of your sources were linked to primary sources(maybe pictures or old Latin writing)?
I didn’t consult primary sources for the video, but the secondary sources I all listed use primary sources. I would recommend checking out Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome and go from there
I always wondered why not mixed armor like plate shoulders, and the rest mail. Or single manica and mail etc. They probably did it. The plate protection for the shoulders seems important. Only to come back in medieval plate.
Great video. I think the real answer to this is probably just as complicated as discussing the reasons behind the Bronze Age Collapse.
I’m of the opinion that the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD had a much bigger impact on the Roman military than most people give it credit for. (I am not sure if you mentioned it in your video or not). One reason historians do give for the edict was to increase the recruitment pool for the Roman legions, (the other was more taxes across the empire) but I think that fails to take into account the social and cultural dynamic impact of that decision on the Roman military at that exact moment of time.
How do you account for the ramifications of the edict with two clearly defined and distinct military structures based on citizenship? Ultimately they became Legions overnight, but the Auxilia were still trained as Auxilia, doctrinally utilized as Auxilia, equipped as Auxilia, led as Auxilia, and fought as Auxilia. How do you convert this numerically superior second class army into the now minority Legions? What equivalent ranks do all these former non-Romans get? Do you incorporate the strategic benefits that the Auxilia force brought into the Legions, or do you convert these Auxilia into traditional Legions? Are they going to be equipped to the same standard as the Legions going forward, or do you lower the standards of the Legions to the Auxilia? If so, do you stop using the Auxilia’s logistics and equipment system to bring them all to the same standard, or do you modify the Legions to match the Auxilia system?
The answer to these questions? I don’t think the Romans ever got that far. Auxilia units seemed to still operate as Auxilia by the time we get to the Crisis of the 3rd century, they just had the same pay and rights as the Legions. You effectively had two different styles of military unit (Sounds kind of like a proto Late Roman Army to me) based on social distinction that no longer existed.
Military necessity during the crisis would have blurred the distinction between Auxilia and Legion even more since it would have been impossible for the empire to convert everyone UP to the old Legionnaire standard by the time it happened. By necessity, they probably kept whatever logistical systems that already existed to support the various former Auxilia and Legionnaire systems. As a result, you have more Legions armed like Auxilia with chainmail/scalemail/oval shields than traditional Legions with Lorica Segmentata/Scutum by the end of the Crisis. I don’t think it is an accident that Diocletian later created the Limitanei to re-establish the necessity of border troops, a role traditionally fulfilled by the former Peregrinii Auxilia.
Coming at this from a practical context, militaries often change equipment when their tactics change. My guess is we see this change as the fighting becomes less Empire vs Empire huge set piece battles and more of a continuous low intensity type of conflict. We see this in American history as well (which I will forever argue parallels Roman history to an almost uncanny degree) in the shift from the Civil War army to a frontier garrison army during the westward expansion.
Very Interesting.
I nelieve the rivets on the L. Segmentata were likely being constantly repaired and replaced. L. Hamata and Squamata were more durable, especially after the A tonine reforms where the scales on Sumquamata were affixed on 4 sides. But even Symquamata is harder to keep in woeking order than chainmail whichnis easiest to repair as you are replacing metal rings and not worrying about the leather that backs the scales on Squamata.
That’s just my 2 As.
I request rhat you talk about the transistion from Gladius to Spatha among the legions. Or maybe the shape of the Scutum becoming more rounded over time. Whatever you choose, I look forward to the next video.
Salve
One could theorize that lorica hamata(chainmail) might give more coverage for the same material usage compared to lorica segmentata, thusly more troops could be armored while still having a good quality of protection.
Awesome! Always wondered if armor and swords were made by a state owned institution or not. Should deepen into that, when did that started? Any other antique nation had the same? Production process is interesting
I’m not sure if any other country had a similar system, although it would make sense that large empires did. I should look into and try and to make a video
@@TheFallofRome 🤔😁
@@TheFallofRome I could be wrong but I think the Macedonian's sarissas were standardized and mass produced
It was either Diocletian or Constantine the Great (Constantine I) who set up the empire-wide system of state-owned factories to reliably supply the Roman army with armor, weapons, uniforms, etc., in each theater of command (or maybe even in each diocese). Also during the Later Empire, the Roman government started collecting taxes partly in kind in order to supply those factories with raw materials.
This was mentioned in the video, the higher rate of repair and the complexity in repair needed for lorica segmentata could be a big part of the answer and it gives more weight to the idea that it was bc of economics that this type of armor phased out.
I fking love videos like this!
Your theories about changes to armour are better than most. I'd like to add that the increased numbers of cavalry in the later Roman Army would have necessitated more flexible types of armour because of the nature of cavalry combat. Also, weight of armour would have become an issue for cavalry horses not being as large as in the later medieval period.
it is very interesting that the concept of fabricae seemed to return in the medieval period, with certain regions of europe specialising in the product of different arms and armour (e.g. italian bills being exported to england, sword blades being produced in toledo, milan being famous for armour manufacture).
Middle Ages armor was not mass produced but made to order with the type of armor used varying on your budget. A peasant armor would be different from a man at arms type of armor which in turn a Knight armor would be different from the latter.
They looked at the wall in Germany „Limes?“ and found military boats patrolling, small forts with cavalry, that was catching all groups that managed to cross the rivers or walls.
Look at what replaced it, chain mail. It had the flexibility that the Roman's demanded. It was a lot easier to maintain. Important when Roman discipline is slipping. It also gives good protection against missiles and cutting weapons and the shield could be relied on to take the blunt force impact weapons like the mace and heavy sword.
Great video. However, 1 element from the conclusion bothers me. At earlier Stage, during republic, chainmails were considered expansive because they needed Craftmen skills and many production hours. The lorica segmentata would have needed less Time and skilled.
But you Say the exact opposition. I don't have the knowledge to understand who to explain it?
1. Was the method to produce mails extremely simplified over Time?
2. How long does it takes to produce 1 lorica segmentata vs 1 lorica hamata.
3. What is the level of skills and materials needed for each of them?
Last but not least, if your "industrial" point of view is Key. It would have been interesting to know the opinion from the users. The soldiers themself. Is the hamata prefered for its agility/flexiblity?
Really late to comment here, but there's a near miss on a potential reason for the change. Lorica segmentata loads a lot of its protective value (see weight) at the shoulders to protect against attacks that go over the top of the shield. If opposing forces aren't using weapons like a two handed falx, the need to protect the shoulders to this degree is reduced somewhat. Weight and crafting time can be saved if you know your enemy is using shield-wall-and-spear formations for their infantry by switching to a cheaper armor without costing too much in terms of defensive value. I'm no expert, but I cannot recall a source describing any Alan, Vandal, Goth, Burgundian, or Hun soldiers severing limbs like what we got with Roman accounts of the Dacians.
There is also another more obvious possibility. Roman authorities did not care as much about foederati or soldiers from these tribes enough to spend the extra money. Why hire one barbarian and give him lorica segmentata when you can hire two and give them mail? Why give Afghan national troops night vision goggles when they will just end up on ebay? Oh wait... it's possible the romans had a little more foresight than leaders of later superpowers.
The answer is probably about as complicated as most answers to questions about the late western empire that start with the word "why" ... so you know, it's probably a lot of reasons.
I think it relates to the changing role of the Roman soldier away from a simple heavy infantryman. In the Principate, armies were designed for conquest: to fight pitched battles that had the Roman Legionnaire infantry armed with the heavy pilum javelin and gladius at the core. Throw pilum and charge into ferocious melee, where expensive, protective armour has real value. Skirmishers, archers and much of the cavalry came from lightly armed and armoured auxiliaries: foreign troops.
Roman soldiers in the Dominate, post Diocletian, by contrast were border guards, skirmishers, archers, cavalry men, as well as line infantry. The front four ranks of their eight rank battle line reportedly (according to Vegetus) used long hastatus spears and plumbatae darts, as well as the longer spatha sword, forming a shield wall. The rear four ranks carried multiple javelins, with two additional lines of archers behind them. All Romans, rather than auxiliaries. The tactic was to either hold position and engage from range with sustained missile fire (Viz Strasbourg per Ammianus Marcellinus) or form a cuneus wedge (shields testudo style) and grind forward en masse.
I'd argue therefore that the variety of weapons and roles of these troops, and the changed tactics meant that investment in Lorica Segmentata manufacture and maintenance stopped paying off. They weren't in so many pitched battles and even when they were, they fought much of the battle at range - and when they did close, they fought in robust shield-protected wall / Cuneus formations. Why therefore invest in armour that was covering areas well protected by the shield anyway? Better to use cheaper armour that still did a decent job, and invest in arrows, plumbae, javelins, heavy spears, longer swords and horses instead. This gave an army that could beat both the Goth massed infantry/cavalry in battle, as well as the very mobile Hun horse archers, while also being an occupying and screening force.
Anyway, you did ask! Fun video.
Logistics will play into this. If Rome was super specialized in heavy infantry, you get economy of scale for that type of armour. If you need to armour a more varied army, then you need something like maile, which can be worn light for skirmishers and heavy for shock infantry. The greater emphasis on ranged combat may have also increased the emphasis on armour coverage.
Of course, I would not suggest that better armour wouldn't help them. Roman shields were a perfectly good wall when they were using the segmentata.
@@vanivanov9571 I reckon you have the right of it. As you say, variety in the army means moving from armour specialised for heavy infantry to an armour that can be adapted for different roles. Plus with more missiles flying around, people will want coverage across more of their body, and for the weight and cost, mail was a better solution. They also seem to have introduced gambeson type items at this time, improving mail's performance still further.
Arrian in Array Against the Alans writes that when fighting against enemy cavalry, the Romans had the first four lines of their legionaries used their pila like spears in melee combat and the rear troops use them like javelins.
As for tactics, I don't think the armor change was a reflection of tactics. The lorica hamata was used before and during the time when the segmentata was used. The hamata was probably the most common form of metal armor used during the mid to late Republic when there were many pitched battles of the Punic Wars, Macedonian Wars, slave wars, Italic Allies Wars, and the Roman civil wars.
Basic way of how Roman heavy infantryman fought during late antiquity did not change much.He still used to attack enemy with missile weapon/s and consequently attacking him in close combat using his sword(or spear which was used more than before).What changed was that character of army that get more defensive in general.Good armour was still considered fundamental for this so it is no wonder that it is well attested.Military manual directly written for roman field officers of that time says front rankers and rear rankers(those most exposed)should always be equiped with armour.We know that even from secondary sources like narrative histories which also mention that front rankers had extra strong armor,bigger shields and so on.
@@vanivanov9571 "segmentata"(a modern term,not Roman)was used at the timeframe when both chainmaile,scale and oval shields were in use-including among legionaries(who did not used only rectangular type modernly so heavilly associeted with them despite it was shortest ever used type by them) and rectangular shields were not doing a perfectly good wall like actual really strong shield wall.Their shape was not allowing compact really strong shield wall while oval shields did exactly that.
As I understand it, for the techniques at the time, plate is harder to make -the larger the piece, the harder to make. That would make for fewer people who can make it, and higher costs. Thus ... a certain pressure to use something else that is cheaper (hence cuitboilli as well as mail). Of course, armies dont really throw things away, so existing segmentata would linger for a long time in depots
Picking nits, but Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome is by Bishop & Coulston (Jon wrote half the book, after all, although I did most of the drawing), and you might want to add a reference to the two volumes or Lorica Segmentata, one by me and one by Dr Mike Thomas, both available for free download at lorseg.mcbishop.co.uk/the-books.
I believe economics factors in aswell. Lorica Segmentata was expensive. Diocletian also economized the the Roman Empire.
Can you provide avidence for segmental armour being anyhow significantly more expensive that other armour types?
Lorica Segmentaria was 1 mm thick while weighing 20lbs while lorica hamata was 1.6 mm thick and weighed 22lbs!
very nice.
Thanks!
I imagine it was very obvious to the Roman military command structure that the Lorica Segmentata needed to be phased out, and thus, very few people wrote about it.
Very cool
One thing I would like to know is how Wire was produced in the fourth century
It appears that because of changing times, more critical, dangerous, that mail and scale armor would be mor flexible, though take more time to make.
Your video is excellent as usual and your explanations are plausible. But I fail to understand why lorica hamata and lorica squamata are cheaper to produce than lorica segmentata, especially the later simplified version of it.Furthermore, the fabricae had skilled craftsmen and blacksmiths perfectly capable to produce lorica segmentata on a large scale. But, as a matter of fact, lorica segmentata ,or at least its brass hooks and rivets, were prone to break. During the Principate the legions had their own forges and could easily repair their weapons and armours. Under the Dominate ,due to the new centralised system of mass production, the army did not have this capability any more ,or ,in the best case scenario, had it in a limited extent. Probabily the soldiers could easily repair by themselves a lorica hamata ,certainly not a lorica segmentata. Of course this is only my opinion.
From what I understand, the production of mail, once the wire is drawn, is more time consuming than anything else and can be done by a low skilled worker. Plate on the other hand is more complex
Laminate armor needed to be hand made to fit the soldier. It was done by specialized craftsmen. Mail armor on the other hand could be easier to mass produce and you could have an apprentice or even a slave work on it.
what I find just as curious is how armor like that never shows up again. Instead we go back to mail armor during the early medieval period. As someone who has done quite a bit of blacksmithing(on an anvil rather than with a power hammer), it seems strange that something so relatively easy to produce such as strips of metal sheets that could be assembled to make armor weren't used in that way after the romans. Instead of that they went through the much more difficult and laborious process of drawing out steel into a wire, turning it into rings, cutting those rings, hammering them flat, punching holes in each individual link and then riveting thousands of those together to make a mail shirt. Just the amount of hours of labor... making mail should easily take at least five times as much time as hammering out a bunch of stock into flat steel pieces and cutting them to size.
Also, why didn't the Romans(or those who came right after them) switch to something like a brigandine, and why do those only show up hundreds of years later? that is downright the easiest and most cost effective way of making armor I can think of, even more than the lorica segmentata.
Was segmentata ever worn over hamata?
Segmentata is superior at stopping blows but leaves a lot unprotected. If hamata got better and stronger links, could be it was viewed as providing just as good protection but with fewer gaps in defense. Mail (riveted or welded) is also pretty easy to learn to make, with a lower skillset needed to make the links and fashion the harness, compared to what it takes to make nice looking large iron bands and working brass hinges. So hamata would be easier to source with cheaper labor to make as well.
It sounds like late Rome saw their army equipment get cheaper and easier to manufacture as the quantity and quality of their empire fell. This combines well with late Roman weapons, which were progressively tuned for personal protection and mobile warfare rather than regular line of battle.
What's easier to wear day to day., Mail or Segmentat ? as the Romans made camp nightly on a march, did they set up tents dig the ditches ect , wearing it that every night on a march say for a month in hostel lands .you would have to be in armour most of the time,,,,, I'd say in a month of that in different weather, what's best? dose Mail fit better on different body types
I’m actually not sure. Personal experience with mail leads me to believe that mail is more comfortable, but I can’t really say as I’ve never work Segmentata. It’s a good question though
wow bro look at all those books... really special
16:01 Cavalry used spatha, not gladius. Spatha was used more for slashing, instead of stabbing unlike gladius. For defense against slashing attack, mail was more efficient than Segmanta. Spath gradually and eventually supplemented gladius.
In the times of Principate, shorter Pompeii supplemented longer Mainz style, as the size of armies became bigger, and the formation tighter, which emphasized more stabbing than slashing. Spatha could have done the reverse.
Also, the barbarians tended to emphasize individual combat skills in loose formation over large units.in tight formation.
Also, mail armor can be worn more quickly by a single soldier than Segmanta, which really needed help from another person to put on fast in a hurry.
I'm no expert but I'm assuming it was a necessary evolution of the common soldier.
Adaptation, refinement and advancement was crucial to stay on the top of the game.
While the Roman war machine (in the period of empire building) was excellent in its craft, I'm sure they learned from their foes as well.
Stagnation and over confidence stifles an army, as much as what near peer opponent can do
I wonder if during the high imperial era they had like companies (or blacksmiths I guess?) compete to come up with military technology kind of how we do today? Like someone trying to make a name for themselves making weapons and armor would want to win a contract to invent weapons and armor for the Roman military? And someone just came up with the lorica segmentata that way
Noone really gives a reason, but we can assume its due to the high requirements for upkeep and making.
Lorica Segmentaria was 1 mm thick while weighing 20lbs while lorica hamata was 1.6 mm thick and weighed 22lbs!
I’ve heard that part of it was due to the metal bands not having consistent quality (most archaeology seems to point at Roman metallurgy not being very high quality), where as making rings for mail allowed better inspection making for better overall armor quality. This plus the repair ability of mail being simpler seems to most sense to me as to why segmentata fell out of popularity.
I suspect that simple wear and tear just took its toll on the plate band and metallic fastenings of the segmentata. You can have skilled guys working on repairs, and I'm sure they did, but eventually, entire bands of steel would simply corrode way to something so thin that it became of limited use. Especially if it was still expected to be worn, given the somewhat lesser freedom of movement - although that is debatable. No doubt armor was distributed to men from those who were killed or retired out of the army, and so, it was always a used item - ever more so as it was re-issued.
Mail, on the other hand, was a technology known to most of the armies of that period. Thus, any armorer could fashion replacement rings by the thousands to repair damage. I think rust was the end of Roman segmentata because the quantity of metal required to replace the bands was excessive compared to the relatively simple wire that can be drawn from the same quantity.
I wouldn’t doubt that was a significant factor. Mail is also somewhat self cleaning. As your move around the links rub together and can at least scrub off a bit of rust
The answer is because the empires might was weakening… the economy was falling and the quality if trained soldiers was falling. So switching to an easier to use and cheaper armor was the route they took. Also the empire encountered more mobile enemies and didnt have a good cavalry to match so the more mobile infantry compensated. In the end u can see it wasnt really the best choice and they ended up losing everything mainly due to civil war and corruption
Two factors re most important
1. Armor was uncomfortable for cavalry
2. Rome lost central government, ability to gather large armies and plan and equip them with complicated armor
It seems like making thousands of rings is a lot harder than hammering out a couple dozen metal plates. But maybe by this time the Roman military-industrial complex could handle the labour requirements. If I was a soldier, I’d prefer mail!
You, Thersites, and Maiorianus are the best on late antique subjects. I have the most Petty criticism. When you were holding your arm as if holding the Scutum... you were holding it as if it was a strap and handle. However it was a boss held Shield... Having a knob too hold in the back... just an obsessive-compulsive observation
So Roman Legions had a lot of trades practiced by the soldiers. Each trade has a guild that you belong to for learning and sharing techniques. In an age of constant upheval it is possible to lose the people who understood the techniques died and those who practiced the trade were only able to make certain things.
Also later on the Romans had a centralised fabrication process. So when centralised and requiring items to be transported en mass to the Legions, Auxilia or later unit types you are going to have to make less complex items to get the items to where they are needed. Items have to be repairable and cheap.
So my theory is, loss of local knowledge or resources to make the item. Cheap mass produced fabrications that are easy to repair distributed from central fabricae. So they chose not to make it to expedite production and keep it cheep.
Edit: So with chain it is fast and cheap to produce.
They have people to make the wire.
People to make patches of chain riviting them.
People to connect the larger patches into the design riviting them together.
In this way none of them stop the general in depth tasks and large orders can be filled fast.
Whilst a similar process can be folled for the segmentata it needs to be more bespoke to the individual as sizing is an issue. It can not be too tight or too loose. Of course I am speculating just as much as anyone else.
We also have to remember that as an institution once a long enough period of time happens between people making something and with personel turnover the idea of making it, desire to use it and knowledge of how to make something disapears. So they would have to rediscover the need and desire before they attempted to relearn the skills.
They ditch it because it's not actually that great.
Mail is just better. Not at everything, not every time, but overall. Given the choice, troops choose it.
My evidence is as follows:
1) Mail, in one form or another, has been with us since at least 400 BC, and while other forms of armor has gone in and out of fashion over the years, it has stuck around from its inception. It was a go-to in one form or another until gunpowder took over.
2) Officers are known to have worn Lorica Hamata. The only real reason they would consistently choose this is if it's somehow superior (but probably also more expensive).
3) The areas where we find Lorica Segmentata is primarily where auxilias are known to have operated. This is often hand-waved as incidental, but I think it was because they got the second-rate gear.
So why does the Trajan column depict it as the legionary armor? It's much faster to manufacture long, identical strips of iron than to rivet 10 000 rings, so if many troops were needed quickly, it was the preferred method. Also, the artists of the day may have had no more experience with the military than we do and reasoned the same way we do when we assume it's better: it looks cool and instinctively it "feels" more protective to a layman with a solid plate than the rings of mail does. Keep in mind, though, that this is not the same heat-treated carbon steel that is used in the late middle age/renaissance plate harnesses. It does not offer nearly the same level of protection.
It's the same fallacy that makes people come up with all sorts of irrelevant excuses for why guns took over from bows: bows can be shot faster, and that "feels" like the most important metric to someone with no experience in renaissance warfare.
No lorica segmentata?
Also full of blade paths
Maybe just a case of "Good" vs. "Good Enough".
As a scientific endeavor, it’s perfectly fine to call this a “hypothesis.”
Just want to thank you for calling it maille/mail not chainmail.
They don't make things like they used to. Seems like that was the case even in Roman times.
Probably money and manufacturing related issues, from 100 BC foreword the romans get poorer as each century goes by.
Therefore, it stands to reason that they might not be able to afford something as expensive as segmented armor for most troops.
Also think about the maintenance requirements for this armor, if they cannot maintain it effectively it’s not practical anymore.
Or some other reason, who knows...
...we hovewer have no idea how expensive it was or not.There are no roman data preserved to tell us if segmental armour was anyhow more expensive compared to other armour types.People only often prematurely assumes that it was without having it based on something.
I would say that the changing logistics structure of the Roman Empire was the main reason why Lorica Segmentata was abandoned. The logistics and supply lines of armies tends to be the best indicator of military success. Equipment quality is important, but 'quantity has a quality of its own.'
WW1 and WW2 were largely won and lost on logistics. While industrialization may have increased the importance of logistics, a large part of Romes military success was their ability to have a better logistics system than anyone else. In a way the focus on Lorica Segmentata and its effectiveness is incorrect, instead the logistics and organizational strategy of Roman military forces is what truly lead to their success.
Also Ceasar was an above average general with an incredibly well supplied army. But prehaps not the military or tactical genius many make him out to be.
But how exactly logistic would coused this?
You mention that you have made mail arbor before in the past. Was this the sturdy and lightweigh riveted mail or was it the butted mail sometimes found in LARP equipment? Although there are historical examples of butted mail, I'm under the impression that riveted mail was stronger and more commonly used.
It’s an alternating series of solid rings and rings that are butted. I would like to get a riveted shirt eventually
The dominate's fabricae seem to have much more of a "command" economy, while the antonine army seems to have been supplied by more of a "free market". Perhaps the "free market" is better able to support a complex piece of equipment like lorica segmentata?
What do you mean by free market or command in this context? I was always under the impression it was more of a command economy. If you could call it that.
I thought the Roman state directed the production of arms and armor from these fabricaes?
@@Rokaize I guess he mean't free as in your whole life is not just making weapons just because your dad did.
HistoryFan476ad Could be. But command and free market are specifically used as terms to describe a type of economy. Command would be like the USSR. Where prices and production are controlled by the government. Who tells producers what to produce and how much. Free market is like the United States. Where producers respond to consumer demand and are not controlled by the government.
So, we need to be really careful when talking about the Roman economy. Throwing concepts like "command" or "free market" or "capitalist", etc., is what's known in history as "presentism"--projecting modern day insititutions or ideas on the past in an attempt to explain it. At the heart of the matter, we just don't know that much about how the Roman economy operated. There are huge debates among experts about whether it should be viewed as having something even remotely like a market based economy, or if it should be understood as a subsistence system that happened to involve money (these are two issues among many others). So, while Diocletian's ideas might look like a "command" system, the actual enforcement of the laws...as far as we can tell...didn't really happen, so it begs the question of how much control the government actually had over the system. Certainly they were interested in the production of military equipment, but it can get really messy really fast. I'm not super knowledgeable on the debates surrounding Roman economics though, so it's an interesting concept you bring up, but it'll take more research for me to get to an answer
The Historian's Craft I definitely agree with you that we just don’t understand the economy enough to make any strong statements on it. I shouldn’t have used the word economy when I was talking specifically about the fabricae
The only thing is, I just don’t see how else they could have run the fabricae? As far as I know, individual soldiers during the height of the empire didn’t pay for or supply their own armor or weapons. But it was provided by the state. I just don’t see how this could be the case unless the state commanded the fabricae to make arms and armor and specify how they want these things to turn out.
Maybe they had some sort of other system we just don’t understand yet. Or at least I don’t understand.
Pre watching guess, cost...
I think all the guys who knew how to make it died. Leaving only the consruction of mail. In the east the populrity of scale seems to win out.
Perhaps it was cost.
It, by all impressions, seems like a very excellent piece of armor.
There definitely _is_ an answer as to why they stopped. There has to be, because it's such a major change, these things don't happen for no reason. It troubles me though, that we haven't found this reason yet.
I have a Lorica Segmentata at my house, a recreation. That I can wear, and immediately one problem I recognized was how troublesome it was to put on by myself as it is rather cumbersome and heavy. But also how restrictive it is when it comes to your arms vertical mobility. I had trouble raising my arms past shoulder height because the shoulder plates got in the way. Which made me rather curious, because of formations like the Testudo.
could it also be because as more and more "barbarians" join the Roman army, you would want to equip them with weapons and armour they are used to wielding. Celtic and Germanic tribes have been using mail for centuries. They would be familiar with what mail can and cant do. Instead of having to make and explain how one type of armour is used, another more simple and almost as effective armour that many of the soldiers might even have owned themselves before joining the Roman army may have used would be easier. It's like today. When the Americans were arming the Afgan and Iraqui soldiers, they didnt give them us made m4A1's, they bought a sugarload of AK's and ammunition from the Russians. Why give something new and harder to use to a soldier when you can give something they have all used, can use effectively enough to get the job done. Just an idea.
So the armour the legionaries wear in the Asterix comics is slightly anachronistic.
Oh well!
They wouldn't look like real legionaries without segmented armour.
I think the Romans simply stopped using it as they changed the whole Military and how it operated. They changed their whole approach to warfare, and types of equipment often gets lost during such drastic changes in Civilizations, the Egyptian Military of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom is also dramatically changed. Unfortunately for the Romans, the changes made it more difficult for them to win battles vs their enemies than easier, they were CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT! It didn't help that the leadership became incredibly INCOMPETENT, apparently, Theodosius, who died in 395 A.D., was the last man worthy to be the Emperor in the West. Combined with a Military that was in no way superior to their enemies, using similar equipment and battle strategy and tactics, means they lost North Africa to the Vandals, can't stop Rome from being sacked in 410 A.D., or losing provinces to people like the Visigoths, who actually wanted to be "Romans"! The Italic folk of the core of the Roman realm to the end, seem to have had a terrible Ethnocentric tendency, to consider newer groups of "Romans" of different Ethnicity to be less than, so they would have a tendency to blame them for problems and turn on them. However, in the 400's A.D. that would be an IDIOTIC thing to do, as people of Gothic ancestry were a large percentage of the population by then, and they were in control of both Gaul, and Spain, and were the key peoples to successfully fight Vandals and Huns. Yet, the idiotic Ravenna government did indeed turn on them repeatedly until Odoacer usurped the rule from the government and still tried to turn on them, and that was the true end apparently. The Visigoths and Franks apparently broke with the Ostrogoths and viewed him as illegitimate.
On the subject of the fall of the West being related to the enlistment of barbarians I think that there's a distortion here. The enlistment of barbarians, or perhaps more specifically the failure of native Romans to enlist, was a serious problem which contributed directly to the fall of the Western Empire. However, as you have stated numerous times, this is not because the barbarians were inferior soldiers, nothing could be further from the truth.
The reason the enlistment of non-Romans was such a problem is because the native Romans lost any martial aspect to their own culture, and the foreigners with alien ethnic and cultural identities became the sole arbiters of martial power. Even though they may have identified themselves with Rome at one time or in the beginning of this practice the trend of enlisting non-Romans had a gradual degrading effect on the Empire across time as those who were enlisted became less and less Romanized in the process of enlistment right up until the Visigoths who fought against Attila as a specifically Gothic auxiliary army to the Roman Legion rather than even nominally a Roman force. Some of the early kings of the Visigoths rather quaintly imagined that they would become the new Romans and inherit the Empire intact, but these same kings eventually realized that the Gothic people were wholly incapable of sustaining Rome due to the relative deficiencies in their society. In other words, they could not become Romans no matter how hard they tried. Rather than being Romanized as they entered the Western Roman Empire the barbarians de-Romanized the Western Empire instead.
In simpler terms, the enlistment of the barbarians did not cause the collapse of the Western Empire because the legions became inferior to the legions of previous eras. The enlistment of the barbarians caused the collapse of the Western Empire because the legions simply ceased to be Roman and in short order the Western Empire ceased to be Roman, being a process rather than an event. As with going bankrupt it happened little by little and then all at once.
This does seem to be an aspect of the Roman decline. At the same time, though, I'm not sure I'd call it a 'cause' for it, since I'd say that recruiting the barbarians became necessary for Rome and they would've fallen sooner without them. Perhaps a greater cause is likely all the infighting and civil wars, which forever wounded the Roman empire and its culture? It's amazing it stood as long as it did, with so many corrupt emperors and senators and so much bloodshed.
I wrote a comment you may be interested in, where I pointed out how far Rome had declined, looking at the Byzantines at the battle of Yarmouk. They also inherited the issues of civil war and assassination I mentioned, and their law system got so corrupt and litigious that "Byzantine" is a byword for useless bureaucracy.
I think there's an issue of historians trying to say there was no decline, Rome just fell for no reason. Partially to absolve themselves of trying to pin down what the cause was... or maybe because the idea that mighty empires have fallen due to internal corruption and lack of morals would seem like the writing on the wall, for us today.
Laminate armor like Lorica segmentata aka lamminata was harder to produce because it took longer to make it fit a soldier. Even during the principate it wasn't an universal armor like we see in the movies. Lorica Hamata and also Lorica Squamata was easier to mass produced and even Trajan ended up having to order said type of armor for his soldiers over the Hamata during the Dacian Wars. And with time a larger more mobile Frontier army of the Crisis and later Dominate needed armor that was easier to make and also provide enough protection.
My money is on, well, money. At least in part.
Iirc imperial Rome suffered a nigh-continual devaluation of its currency.
Late Roman armour:
Lorica hamata = Yes
Lorica squamata = Yes
Lorica plumata = Yes
Should we really dismiss the old theories entirely? Saying that there was no moral decline and no loss of discipline or military might seems just as bad putting all the blame on just those points. Typically, there are a myriad of factors that go into a fall.
By the time of the Byzantines, Rome truly seemed like a shadow of its former self. By the battle of Yarmouk, they had totally decentralized command without even a common language, and foreign vassal troops were better than the native soldiers. Their tactics and strategy in that battle were abysmal, and they lost despite countless advances.
You only need to make the comparison between that, and the unified command of the fearful legions of the past, to see something there was a change. The question is simply when it changed and how quickly.
I'm not so sure about the argument that mail suits cavalry better.... You could use a mixture of plates and mail quite easily, if you're worried about flexibility at the joints. And if you're worried about weight, mail is very heavy. It also moves around a lot if you run with it, which is more awkward.
Should we dismiss them? Well, when they're used as explanations for the collapse of Rome in totality, yes we should, because as you said, there are many factors involved, especially with the complete transformation of the Roman World between 200 and 800. But, at the same time, there are some scholars that I think have gone too far in the opposite direction.
As for whether or not the Late Roman Empire was actually a shadow of its former self, that used to be seen as the case, back when Byzantine studies weren't really in vogue. However, over the past fifty years or so that opinion has drastically changed to the point where the LRE is actually seen as probably the high point, especially during the 300s. There is no reason to really suggest that the system would have broken down and collapsed by 500 in the West, when you're examining the state in the fourth century.. There were significant problems, yeah, but not so many that it would have been debilitating. The issues really become apparent only in the fifth century. The best explanation I've come across in a lot of the recent literature was that a series of politically inept emperors bungled a lot of responses, and because of that the situations compounded until they just became untenable, and the Western Empire accidentally killed itself (this is coming from a series of books in which Michael Kulikowski lays out this overall argument).
@@TheFallofRome I added a comment about cavalry armour that may interest you.
Corruption and incompetence compound, and that means a lot can change over the span of a century. By the end of the 5th, Rome had fallen for the first time in 600 years of empire, and once again it was by barbarians. So it's hard to argue that they were stronger.
The question is, when and where the decline started, and where exactly the high point was. 300s seems plausible for the high point, not to say that seeds of decline weren't planted before then.
@@TheFallofRome "politically inept emperors" -- After 395 CE, the Theodosian dynasty in the West was remarkable for its political and military incompetence and especially for the fact that none of the post-395 Theodosian emperors in the West had any military experience. They delegated military command to semi-barbarian "patricians" whom they never fully trusted and who were (I think) almost uniformly Christian heretics (Arians) which, in the eyes of trinitarian emperors, made these patricians especially untrustworthy (I don't know whether Aetius was Arian or trinitarian). We should remember that after 395 CE, religious politics influenced policymaking in both the Western and Eastern Roman Empires.
Why give expensive really good armour to barbarians when you can give them cheaper ok mail armour.
Goddam. Stephen king fan too. Not enough people like you in the world
LORICA WAS DIFFICULT TO KEEP CLEAN!!
Good video but you per ounce it lorēca segmentata
Still watching, gonna say; it was too expensive.
And evidence for it?
Lorica Segmentaria was 1 mm thick while weighing 20lbs while lorica hamata was 1.6 mm thick and weighed 22lbs!
Great video sir!
I did, however, cringe at every mentioning of leather, and armour, in the same sentence, whilst leather is a biological material and as such tends of degrade to generally nothing unless conditions in the ground are juuuuust right (meaning that finds of leather and fabric and the such are rare in the best cases of luck and impossible under most instances). There is written evidence that, whilst leather was used as armour (in rare cases) or a type of sub armour layer, it was no where near as common as people think it was, mostly because leather anythings was actually rather expensive to craft. Generally speaking if you had the option of leather armour, or maile armour, youd pick the maile, not only because its only partially more expensive, but it offers more protection and the Option of Repairability.
You break a few maile rings, (wait a go you! Being on the front and tanking the blows that you really should be dodging!) You get them replaced with fresh ones.
Your leather armour that cost you about the same as about 3 or 4 weeks worth of the tax on your house gets cut or pierced, your kinda stuffed... figurativly speaking, unless it also pierced something important under the armour... your only options there is... buy new armour...
Righto, so thats my happy rant over, very nice video!
I look forward to more!
You're welcome! And I appreciate the rant--always looking for constructive criticism
Mongols were big on leather armors, their toughness impressed even the Japanese.
to state the Obvious, Segmentat didn't work so swell in the Varian disaster.
Non Roman legions and the Gothic wars
I disagree with two important aspects of this very long winded "I don't know" video.
At the end you state that mass production was what (possibly) prompted the switch to maile. Riveting some strips of metal into a vaguely anthropomorphic shape is much cheaper and quicker, especially in a fabrica.
Then you said that "maile is easier, because you've done it yourself". I challenge this statement. I suspect you "weaved some rings", but that's not what it takes to make maile armor. You need to draw the wire first, by hand, then you need to rivet all the links. Granted, you might try to make it a bit easier by punching half of the rings out of sheet metal, but you need to produce the said sheet metal first, then punch those rings by hand.
And they are still the weak links, since they have an edge of sorts. That's why later maile is all riveted.
So maile is neither cheaper nor it requires less skill than segmentata.
Anyway, I propose a very simple solution to this whole conundrum. Segmentata was abandoned because it sucked. That also explains why, despite millenia old fascination with the Roman civilization, nobody really tried to copy this design. (I mean, some people did for show purposes, but not for real.)
I have not drawn the wire myself, but I have riveted links, as well as punched some from sheet metal. You're correct in saying that the punched links tend to be weaker. From what we see in the, admittedly limited, archaeology, segmentata appears to have been recognized as a complex piece of equipment that was simplified--or at least simplification was attempted--by removing buckles, etc. At the end of the day we just don't know why it was phased out. If that was ever any sort of official order or decision the relevant documentation doesn't appear to survive. Most military historians tend to view the construction of maille, especially in fabricae, as quicker to produce and likely easier to repair. Segmentata possibly wasn't even that widespread among the Roman army
@@TheFallofRome " *I have riveted links, as well as punched some* "
Respect! No joke.
Since you've done it, I bet you would be able to rivet some metal strips together too. For once, the rivets are bigger, so it's not as fiddly of a job.
Therefore the skill argument doesn't seem to hold.
" *complex piece of equipment* "
It's all relative, but how come they never rolled the edges, which were in contact with the skin of the wearer? The reenactors wear those scarfs, and I'm sure it's a cool look, but why were those scarfs a necessity in the first place?
Because segmentata sucked.
You said, that shoulder protection it offered was good, and I agree with that, but how about armpit or groin protection?
Later, *proper* plate armor was always covering those gaps, usually with various amounts of maile, depending on how complete the plate armor was.
Segmentata seems like a good missile protection. In melee, especially on horseback, when you expect to be attacked from below, it's not that great.
" *Most military historians* "
I bet most of them never punched or riveted a single ring. Hardly anyone of them ever rode a horse. Am I correct?
It's *really* hard to know what you are reading without having even a basic understanding of the underlying topic. Which unfortunately is often the case. But that's why I like the Internet and free exchange of ideas it offers.
" *maille, especially in fabricae, as quicker to produce* "
I challenge this opinion. First of all, if you would punch only the solid rings for maile from segmentata strips, you'd barely manage to do it. I checked the weights at some point.
Those are the easy ones. The wire is much more labor intensive.
Anyway, you need roughly the same amount of sheet metal for either a whole segmentata, or an intermediate stage of the easy part of maile production.
How could that ever be "quicker"?
" *Segmentata possibly wasn't even that widespread among the Roman army* "
Survivor bias. I may be wrong on that, but I always suspected it could have bean so.
@@bakters Well, military historians not being overly familiar with the niceities of armor and the like holds true for an older generation. This is, from what I understand, changing as more and more military historians are emerging from the re-enacting scene and not from a professional academic area. I did do this video unscripted so I don't recall if I mentioned it or not, but I just checkd by copieed my copies of Travis' and Bishop's books on Roman military equipment, and the general idea does appear to be that maille production was both a part of fabricae and a part of more localized economies, in which case it may very well have been faster and cheaper to produce. Probably a good way to test that idea would be to gather a whole bunch of people and actually have them do this, but I have no idea what funding or organization for something like that would look like. As for your question on armpit and groin protection some sources do mention something called a "sub-armalis" and something called "Lybian leather/hide". We aren't entierly sure what these are or if they're the same thing, but a general idea is that these things were similar to gambesons which might've helped protect those areas
@@TheFallofRome Yes, it's possible that mass production could lower the cost of maile, but by the same token, a mass produced segmentata would be likely even cheaper.
When I was thinking about it yesterday, it came to me that in order to draw the wire, you'd need fairly well refined iron, because the wire would otherwise break. For sheet metal strips you could get away with more slag content, which means less refining, lower losses to scale and higher yield from the same amount of raw bloom.
For me the most obvious "sign", so to speak, that segmentata was a cheap piece of kit, was that they never rolled the edges at least around the neck area.
Oh, one more thing. So they used brass rivets because brass would wear first, and it's easier to replace a rivet then plug a worn out hole in a metal strip. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time on horseback, being jostled around all the time, those rivets would wear out significantly faster. Possibly another reason why riders were not equipped with this armor.
I believe the barbarians did not shower... an the Romans did.
Too expensive
Stop using the CE system