Lorica Hamata vs Lorica Segmentata
- Thread starter Cornelius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hamata lorica segmentata
Joined Jan 2009
8,548 Posts | 86+
In the Past
Segmantata was in general the best. The only issue was maintanence. It didn't take as long to make. it was cheeper (thousands of rings cost more the simple bands), and it was amazing protection. Oh and it was lighter and had easier mobility.
Hamata really only had better protection from arrows (which shields made mostly pointless), and easier maintanence. Well.. Ok Hamata also offered good protection against jabbing motions, which the Romans used (and thus obviously was a major importance do to civil war).
Hamata really only had better protection from arrows (which shields made mostly pointless), and easier maintanence. Well.. Ok Hamata also offered good protection against jabbing motions, which the Romans used (and thus obviously was a major importance do to civil war).
Joined Apr 2010
16,754 Posts | 16+
Slovakia
Segmentata was used for just very short period of time and than even then did not become more popular than chainmail. There must have been some reason for that. If it was superior, why Romans continue to use chainmail and forgot segmentata altogether?
It is always funny to see all those reenactment groups using segmentata. Hollywood loves it too. For some reason real Romans did not.
It is always funny to see all those reenactment groups using segmentata. Hollywood loves it too. For some reason real Romans did not.
Joined Dec 2009
5,641 Posts | 48+
Canada
It's because it's a real cool looking armour. It's also pretty much alone in terms of grouping armour by appearance. It's the one armour that everyone knows as "Roman Armour".
Hamata was actually not that expensive to make. It took less time to make, but required experienced smiths to make it in quality. Hamata on the other hand, while it took a fair amount of time to actually make, it wasn't overly expensive. A Roman smith could easily have a couple of slaves in assembling it together.
It also had to be custom fitted to each wearer. With Hamata, you generally could make a "one size fits all" piece, and not have to worry about it not fitting properly. Hamata was also easier to take on and off, and overall a more comfortable armour to wear. (I've worn a cuirass of chainmaille underneath my clothing, as a form of strength training like ankle and wrist weights. I didn't seem to notice the weight during the day, and I felt rather fine. When I took it off in the evening, I felt very floaty and fast. It was quite an interesting feeling that you really need to experience yourself).
Segmentata also required constant cleaning to keep it effective and free from rust. Hamata, naturally would be resistant to rust just by wearing it. However, it was easily cleaned. Put it in a barrel or a bag of sand, and roll the barrel or toss the bag around (the bag also functions like a medicine ball, and is a useful way for strength training, while also cleaning the armour).
Knights had their squires toss the sand bags with chainmaille around, so it's not so unfeasible that a legionary soldier wouldn't do it while in the barracks training.
Segmentata was only really better at protecting from blunt force trauma. But if you have to worry about that, while also having a rather large shield (they could take a fair bit of punishment before breaking), then there is a fairly large problem here. Mainly... You're not using the shield properly.
Joined May 2011
363 Posts | 1+
Sweden
The Lorica Segmentata was actually used during two centuries, so thats not really a very short period of time. As for why the Romans eventually abandonded it, thats a very good question. It was more difficult, though cheaper, to make than the Lorica Hamata, so maybe the smiths of the 4th and 5th centuries weren't as good as the ones of the 1st and 2nd centuries? Pretty far-fetched, I know, but it seems to me that the Lorica Segmentata offered better protection against all kinds of attacks, whether it be arrows, spears, thrusts, slashes or stabs. As such, why would the Romans abandon it? Admittedly, it required alot of maintenance, but wouldn't it be worth it?
It is indeed.
Joined May 2011
15,736 Posts | 1,549+
Navan, Ireland
My Legionary Manual tells me that Loricia segmentata is harder to clean and a pain to put on and fit well than mail but also cheaper, stronger and lighter than mail.
(all of which has already been said above).
Than begs the question why stop using it? if it was harder to make might explain it during the decline perhaps craftsman were in short supply, Can not rule out fashion.
However why not go back to it if it was better?
Read an account of the Siege of Malta and there the author describes the Knights of St Johns helmets being very similar to Roman Legionaries after hundreds of years the design was 're-discovered' for it protection etc.
Why stick with mail?
Suspect whatever armchair generals might think the soldiers voted 'with their feet'.
(all of which has already been said above).
Than begs the question why stop using it? if it was harder to make might explain it during the decline perhaps craftsman were in short supply, Can not rule out fashion.
However why not go back to it if it was better?
Read an account of the Siege of Malta and there the author describes the Knights of St Johns helmets being very similar to Roman Legionaries after hundreds of years the design was 're-discovered' for it protection etc.
Why stick with mail?
Suspect whatever armchair generals might think the soldiers voted 'with their feet'.
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Joined Apr 2010
16,754 Posts | 16+
Slovakia
You mean lorica segmentata? I do not think metal which would bend easily would be practical given its construction (it was not made from single piece). If all those segments get bended in battle in different angles, it would be pretty dysfunctional, heavy piece of scrap metal.
That is why I think it probably needed good steel to make.
Perhaps if it would have been made on leather backing ...but it wasn't.
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Bronze isn't flexible though, is it? That's why the Dendra Panoply worked - its basically a primitive version of the Segemntata.
Joined Apr 2010
16,754 Posts | 16+
Slovakia
It is relatively flexible. It is harder than Cooper but definitely softer than steel. That is why it was preferred for canon making. Iron canons cracked when failed. Which meant usually catastrophic results for anybody standing around.
Bronze guns on the other hand did not crack, they developed "bubbles".
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Joined Apr 2010
16,754 Posts | 16+
Slovakia
Well there was not much Bronze armours of this type, isn't it?
There were ......plates made of bronze, but those were usually made of single piece.
In any case, segmentata was not made of bronze so it is kind of irrelevant. My assumption is that for making relatively large piece of steel plate like those, you need better quality steel than for making simple wire, which is then cut in to rings.
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Well there was not much Bronze armours of this type, isn't it?
There were ......plates made of bronze, but those were usually made of single piece.
In any case, segmentata was not made of bronze so it is kind of irrelevant. My assumption is that for making relatively large piece of steel plate like those, you need better quality steel than for making simple wire, which is then cut in to rings.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendra_panoply]Dendra panoply - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Its basically a very primitive version of the segmentata.
Joined Dec 2009
5,641 Posts | 48+
Canada
I wouldn't even call it primitive. It was made in the way that it was due to the nature of bronze. Not to mention there is only one example of it. It was not a very common armour type. It also was not very comfortable, and rather awkward to wear and put on.
Bronze was also notably weak against the weapons used of the day. Trying to make segmentata out of bronze would have been useless as armour.
The problem with LS, is that it takes an extremely talented smith to get consistent thickness, and hardness across a sheet of metal. With chains, it was also made in sheets (wire is actually rather difficult to make), and punched out. However, because of the nature of chain armour, the links did not have to be of consistent thickness or hardness.
The other reason it wasn't used? When it first came into use, there was a change in the legions. No longer were they supplied by Rome. They received a stipend to purchase their own gear.
If anything, I would say that the armouring of the legions is not so consistent as we might think. There likely were soldiers who were wearing Segmentata, others in the same legion wearing Hamata, and likely others who had Squamata.
Discipline was obviously important, but I think we find that we often equate discipline to uniformity. However, the concepts of uniforms don't appear to be common to Roman culture. If the armour was still functioning properly, the soldiers were allowed to wear it. It's why there is such a mix over various time periods.
A uniformed army, differentiated by unit, is really a modern notion. Things that can appear to be uniformity, likely are not. Of course there are some examples in the ancient world, it truly was rare to see an army where everyone was wearing the kit.
Joined Oct 2009
831 Posts | 0+
Ontario, Canada
I think that the lorica hamata armour was probably prefered for mobility. It is much more flexible and moves with you. I presume that it's easier to raise a shield over your head or throw a javelin with the hamata. It's also easier to put on by yourself. Was hamata really more costly. It seems to me that putting links together would require less skill than hammering steel plates to the right size and thinkness. Unskilled labour was very cheap back then.
Also, the lorica segmentata is more maintenance intensive. It has all sorts of leather links and rivets doesn't it? Wouldn't you need to take apart a segentata cuirass to clean it properly. That's not something you'd want to do on campaign where you might be attacked at any time.
Also, the lorica segmentata is more maintenance intensive. It has all sorts of leather links and rivets doesn't it? Wouldn't you need to take apart a segentata cuirass to clean it properly. That's not something you'd want to do on campaign where you might be attacked at any time.
Joined Feb 2010
5,668 Posts | 695+
Canary Islands-Spain
An armour shall protect of:
*Projectiles
*Slash
*Thrust
Segmentata is superior in every field, specially against projectiles and thrusts, while Hamata can deal with slashing attacks.
Other considerations:
*Movility
*Economy
Hamata has the upper hand in both fields. And probably its survival is due to that, specially economical factors.
----------
Now, we aren't correct if we think that the Hamata displaced the Segmentata in every situation. Actually, another armour grew in importance: the Squamata. This armour seen to have replaced Segmentata in the most important troops of the empire, and it was specially important in the cavalry.
Lorica Squamata can stand in front of Segmentata in every field: Projectiles, Slash and Thrust, also in movility and economy. It was weared during the Principate by the most important units of the army, also it was very widespread since the 2th century AD.
Probably we are looking the problem from the wrong perspective: Hamata didn't replace Segmentata, but Segmentata was displaced by Squamata. Althoug it's true that infantry used more often hamata on later times, cavalry increased the use of squamata and later, lamellar armour.
*Projectiles
*Slash
*Thrust
Segmentata is superior in every field, specially against projectiles and thrusts, while Hamata can deal with slashing attacks.
Other considerations:
*Movility
*Economy
Hamata has the upper hand in both fields. And probably its survival is due to that, specially economical factors.
----------
Now, we aren't correct if we think that the Hamata displaced the Segmentata in every situation. Actually, another armour grew in importance: the Squamata. This armour seen to have replaced Segmentata in the most important troops of the empire, and it was specially important in the cavalry.
Lorica Squamata can stand in front of Segmentata in every field: Projectiles, Slash and Thrust, also in movility and economy. It was weared during the Principate by the most important units of the army, also it was very widespread since the 2th century AD.
Probably we are looking the problem from the wrong perspective: Hamata didn't replace Segmentata, but Segmentata was displaced by Squamata. Althoug it's true that infantry used more often hamata on later times, cavalry increased the use of squamata and later, lamellar armour.
Last edited:
Joined Dec 2009
5,641 Posts | 48+
Canada
LS isn't superior in every field when compared to Hamata. The only thing it is superior is in blunt force trauma protection (but not by much, especially seeing as how all armour has a problem with blunt force trauma, when faced by weapons that are specially designed to deliver that sort of damage).
Another important thing to take note of, is that we have no idea of the percentage of armour the legions actually wore. I'd even surmise that the most common body armour, was no armour at all. If you have a large shield to cover your body with, you have a great deal of protection as it is. Add to that a helmet, and sword and pila, and you're equipped better than the majority of armies of the time.
