Lorica Segmentata

Having re-read the old posts on this thread as well as the new ones, I see repeated references to legionaries wearing Lorica Segmentata, and Auxilia wearing chainmail. And of course, 'everybody knows' that this was the case. Apart from Trajans column, is there any hard evidence or original source which supports this assertion? I just think it is rather too neat an hypothesis, and Lorica Segmentata has been known to turn up in non-loegionary contexts, such as auxilliary forts.

It is one of the usual assumptions which is not necessarily fully supported by either monumental or archaeological evidence. For several years I have seen some authors start to suggest that both armour and helmets may have been passed around between different units, both auxilliary and legionary. A few even suggesting, as an explanation for some atypical archeological evidence, that military equipment moved from 'better' to 'lesser' units as improvements were made and replacements issued. I am not totally convinced by this as a viable explanation in every instance.

There does seem to be a preference for coolis type helmets and either lorica hamata (chain or ring mail) or lorica squamata (scale mail) amongst auxcilliaries while the legions went through various periods of preference for a type of lorica hamama, lorica segmentata (segmented plates) and only later changed to a preference for lorica squamata.

The version of 'chainmail' with shoulder protection does seem to have been fairly consistently associated with legionary rather than auxilliary units likewise the legion seem to have prefered the various 'Imperial Gallic' or 'Imperial Italic' helmet types.

It is possible that rather than there being a definitive 'uniform' that individuals were charged different rates for different types of equipment. If this was the case then auxilliaries, as is well attested, being paid less than their legionary or cavalry equivalents would have been drawn to the 'cheaper' options.

It is also worth noting that Campbell in his The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook lists several examples of individuals pursuing promotion routes through multiple types of units not necessartily confined to 'regular' legion or auxilliary units.

Unusual types of equipment may therefore have moved between units along with their owners if they were promoted/ transferred between legionary and auxilliary units/ or simply were assigned for a short period to a different unit alternatively receiving a major payout may have allowed auxilliaries to pay for better equipment and legionarries amy have felt that other types of equipment were easier to use or gave more protection.

A major factor with the funerary evidence from memorial stones is that they seem in several instances, at laast in civilan versions, to have been premade to a standard template and only miimally adapted. So someone with enough cash in their funeral fund could have been restricted to whatever image and style of equipment the local carver decided to make as a 'generic' form rather than being a 'true' reflection of the particular equipment the deceased may have actually used.

 

 

It is possible that rather than there being a definitive 'uniform' that individuals were charged different rates for different types of equipment. If this was the case then auxilliaries, as is well attested, being paid less than their legionary or cavalry equivalents would have been drawn to the 'cheaper' options.

 

To me, this is an eminently sensible solution to the conundrum. Then as now, people are people and financial pressures greatly influence people's choice of consumer goods. Assuming that the army continued to deduct cost of equipment from the pay of its members, this would explain why legionaries tended to have the more sophisticated equipment. I think that the assumption is that this sate of affairs was enforced, rather than down to choice based on income. I would imagine that some Auxilliary soldiers would have saved up and bought the higher priced items - hence the presence of Lorica Segmentata at places such as Corbridge.

Don't discount the social ramifications of given allies the same equipent as citizens. The Romans were much more concious of social status than we are.

When exactly did segmenta substitute chain mail as the standard armour of the legionary?

The introduction of lorica segmentata has been dated to around ad45, in the reign of Claudius, although some fragmentary evidence suggests an earlier introduction of ad20-30.

There is a school of thought that states the banded armour was inspired by crupellarii gladiaters from the ludus at Autun. That is possible, but it may simply be that the knowledge of making articulated armour was known to the Romans and that at some point they were bound to try it.

There were also variations. Some banded armour extended down over the thighs, or the upper in arms in fewer cases. In addition, there is a case for believing that legionaries used arm and leg protectors also. Armm protection is known to have been used as early as the 2nd century BC, though leg protection appears to be a feature of imperial times.

The lack of evidence might mean this was not a common occurence and therefore perhaps an individuals initiative, showing some tolerance for variation in the ranks rather than the strict regimentation we normally ascribe to Roman legions. Alternatively, the find of a leather leg guard in the harbour of Narbonne might also suggest that the evidence for wider use of extra protection is missing.

It's also worth noting that scale armour had been introduced at around the same time, in this case a style imported from the east and another example of Romans adopting ideas from occupied provinces. Scale armour did not feature heavily in the west until the 4th century, and although the lorica segmentata is said to have fallen out of use in the 3rd century (I've said the same thing previously), it lingered on as chainmail resumed its dominance of Roman protection.

There are some useful reference books on the subject of Roman Armour which you may be able to find:

H Russell Robinson (1975) The Armour of Imperial Rome, Purnell Book Services provided one of the first overviews of the topic using both iconography and archaeological remains

This was updated by the following:

M.C. Bishop (2002) Lorica Segmentata Vol 1: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour JRMES Monograph No 1 The Armatura Press

and the companion volume

M D Thomas (2003) Lorica Segmentata Vol II: A Catalogue of Finds JRMES Monograph No 2 The Armatura Press

There is a more recent work by the Travis's archaeologist and reenactor husband and wife team which I have only skimmed but seems to argue for some changes in previous interpretations of how lorica segmentata was put together and how it was used.

H & J Travis (2011) Roman Body Armour, Amberly

Bishop and Thomas' books provide very detailed discussion of the evidence for lorica segmentata although less so to hamarta and squamata although Robinson noted that squamata had been used by the Romans for around eight centuries.

The Travis' book argues against some of the earlier findings making the point that, since they have been categorised on the basis of fragmentary remains, the four basic 'types' of lorica segmentata probably had numerous regional and local variations depending upon the workshop in which it was made (pgs 42-43).

They do include a basic timeline which indicates approximate dates of the lorica segmentata variants as follows:

Kalkriese - 10BC to AD 50

Corbridge - AD 40-140

Newstead - AD 130-230

Alba Julia - AD 200-240

It is worth noting that in their discussion the Travis' make the point that segmentata may never have been as universally used by the legions as is usually suggested. As Caldrail has said above they state that it probably fell out of use in the third to fourth centuries but probably went through a period of rationalisation of components and possibly ending up in a composite form of scale and mail as suggested by the Alba Julia sculpture.

Sculptures are not reliable sources as in at least one case they show soldiers without armour at all. That wasn't to depict vulnerable infantrymen but to avoid distracting the viewer from the central figure by unnecessary detail, although we also have to concede that sometimes the Romans painted details on rather than carved them, thus the information available to us is hampered by weathering.

Sculptures are not reliable sources as in at least one case they show soldiers without armour at all. That wasn't to depict vulnerable infantrymen but to avoid distracting the viewer from the central figure by unnecessary detail, although we also have to concede that sometimes the Romans painted details on rather than carved them, thus the information available to us is hampered by weathering.

That is one of the aspects about the books mentioned above which I liked. They all make reference to some degree to limitations of the various forms of available evidence. The Alba Julia armour is a primary case in point of issues surrounding sculptoral evidence being basically only known from a single piece of sculpture.

I know Lorica Segmenta was a great piece of armor. Flexible and strong, I've seen it deflect a scorpion bolt. One thing I haven't seen, however, is its ability to take a hit from a spear/gladius/falx ect.

 

Basically I just want to know how well it can take a hit.

i think it did very well but i do think that like all armor it could be periced the right way

Like any piece of metal, it will eventually give away if you apply enough pressure and/or shock load, but I have to say the armour worn by a re-enactor was a formidable strip of metal nonetheless. The problem with the lorica segmentata, and very likely a major reason for the armours demise, was that it's complexity created difficulties. It required the assistance of another legionary to tie in place and had an unforuunate tendency, if badly worn, to pinch the wearer painfully. Banded armour also kept the wearer hot, uncomfortably so after strenuous activity or warm weather.

I know Lorica Segmenta was a great piece of armor. Flexible and strong, I've seen it deflect a scorpion bolt. One thing I haven't seen, however, is its ability to take a hit from a spear/gladius/falx ect.

 

Basically I just want to know how well it can take a hit.

i think it did very well but i do think that like all armor it could be periced the right way

A few years back the reenactment group I was then part of back in 1999/ 2000 spent several happy minutes firing a reconstructed 'scorpion' dart thrower at a redundent set of lorica segmentata until they succeeded in piercing it. This was so a specific shot could be included in the Adam Hart-Davis TV series "What have the Romans Done for Us".

The point to remember is that although they were firing at 50-60 yards/ metres range for safety reasons, like most if not all reconstructed bolt throwing and ballista devices, the tension of the scorpion was a lot lower than it would have been in real life - consequently both the effective range and hitting power fo the fired dart would have been a lot higher.

Has anyone here actually worn any? How useful was it when the action started? Too heavy? Too cumbersome? It's defensive properties seem to be well documented in this thread, but to what extent will it inhibit an offence?

I had a long chat with a re-enactor about armour a few years back. The weight is apparently well distributed once worn so not actually encumbering, and the worst feature he mentioned was heat, followed in second place by pinching (which depended on adjustments and how carefully the armour is worn). When I asked him whether he would have actually worn this stuff in combat he unhesitatingly replied "Yes".

I had a long chat with a re-enactor about armour a few years back. The weight is apparently well distributed once worn so not actually encumbering, and the worst feature he mentioned was heat, followed in second place by pinching (which depended on adjustments and how carefully the armour is worn). When I asked him whether he would have actually worn this stuff in combat he unhesitatingly replied "Yes".

I've worn a replica of a lorica segmentata, and it really does pinch, especially around the shoulders, while in combination with a woollen tunica underneath, it can also leave you feeling rather hot. I haven't run in it, but I've found the shoulder guards a bit of a nuisance (although I must admit the armour was a somewhat poor fitting). I've never worn a lorica hamata or squamata, so I have nothing to compare my experience with. Anyone here tried all three? I've heard some say they'd take the hamata over the segmentata any day.

I know that there were two distinct schools of thought in the group I was part of. I only wore segmentata a few times but vastly preferred hamata especially after I had finished making my own.

I have one abiding memory of doing some drill practice in full kit one January with snow on the ground and although admittedly wearing a cloack as well as a tunic my upper body was nice and warm inside the hamata. Mind you my feet lost all sense of feeling after splashing through a few ice covered puddles in the road.

I know that there were two distinct schools of thought in the group I was part of. I only wore segmentata a few times but vastly preferred hamata especially after I had finished making my own.

 

I have one abiding memory of doing some drill practice in full kit one January with snow on the ground and although admittedly wearing a cloack as well as a tunic my upper body was nice and warm inside the hamata. Mind you my feet lost all sense of feeling after splashing through a few ice covered puddles in the road.

Yes it is surprising how it manages to keep you warm. I've worn the lorica segmentata outside at night (briefly) and I felt warm enough, although that might've changed if I had stayed out for a long time. I feel sorry for the poor legionaries who had to wear this during Corbulo's campaigns in Amrenia, or during the siege of Masada, or in the many frequent wars against the Sassanid Persians. It must have been hellish.