- Feb 2011
Did I deny that the Romans used this armour for over three hundred years? If so, where?As usual you have completely missed the point. The Romans used this armour for over three hundred years. They had the capacity to make it more protective, yet chose not to. It was obviously fit for purpose and this discussion about how many joules it may have stopped it pointless. It is pretty arrogant of you to think that you know more about this subject than the people who actually developed, manufactured, and wore it. And it is insulting to people like Matt and myself who have dedicated most of our lives to studying this subject and have given up a lot of our time to help others learn about this.
Did I deny that they had the capacity to make it more protective, yet chose not to? If so, where?
Did I deny that it was fit for a purpose? If so, where?
However, it is less resistant to projectiles than the hamata. If it wants to more as resistant, then it needs to have thicker plates and hence heavier. The points you made does not change that fact. If that is pointless to you, then I'm not forcing you to join the discussion. If you find it insulting, that's not my problem. This is what I find interesting, if it's pointless to you, you are free to talk about something else. If you want to talk about arrogance, I'm not forcing you to only talk about what I want to talk about. You are angry when I'm talking about things you deem pointless, I'm not forcing you to join in. So far I'm getting a lot of self-promotion but no hard data. If you are going to say you know this-much-and-that-much, then get the evidence to prove it. Simply saying how much you know, without sharing what you know, that's not good enough.
I don't understand why some people are so upset over this. If the lorica segmentata want to be just as resistant to projectiles as the lorica hamata, then the former needs to be heavier <----- Why is that simple concept so upsetting?
Moving on, I'm afraid I misquoted Crispvs, as that was him quoting about a separate test on the same armor. This was what he said about the test on the cheiroballistra, he said pretty much the same thing so the conclusion won't change:
We did a test on segmentata a few years ago, although at the time we we testing artillery rather than archery. The test results are included in the article 'Scorpio and Cheirobalistra' in JRMES 11 (2000). Without wishing to relay the entire test information to you, we shot a bolt from the cheirobalistra over a distance of 50 metres at a set of segmentata which had been padded and propped up in a way which was intended to provide a similar level of resistance to being pushed back as would be found in a person standing normally. The draw weight of the catapult was 732psi. The bolt only penetrated the armour slightly, piercing one plate but not the plate it was overlapping. However, the force of impact buckled the plates, pushing the armour inwards in such a way as to have caused broken bones and massive internal injuries in a real body. Obviously archery would not be able to reproduce this same level of power. I doubt therefore that arrows would be effective at penetrating segmentata. A caveat here is that our segmentata was made from modern mild steel rather than pure iron, but given the tantalising possibility of case hardening on actual armour the difference might not be as great as might at first be thought.
And from Alan Wilkin's article itself:
The cheiroballistra went on to achieve significant results at 50 metres against a replica of a lorica segmentata cuirass, piercing one of the 1.25 mm thick steel hoops and almost punching through the one underneath it. The 70 g bolt’s unhardened bodkin point hit the dummy legionary at or slightly below his bottom rib, severely denting both plates and the bottom plate below them (Fig. 21). –Scorpio and Cheiroballistra by Alan Wilkins
^These people care about it, they have first hand experience. Why can't I care about it?