Why is the Lorica Segmentata so popular among Roman reenactors?

Earliest segmentata found is 9BC i believe, so it was probably around for a while before that.

Seems to be connected to Augustus's reforms

there has been no confirmed "wide usage" of segmentata ever

it's 9AD in germanigger forest

Actually archaeological studies show it to have been widely used in western Europe, you're just reading the wikipedia pag only, i actually had to edit that shitty article when it claimed the segmentata was ceremonial armour, what the fuck is with people thinking anything with a feather or expense to it is ceremonial. We know it was widely used futher because of its extensive development over 250 years, why would they update and improve on something hardly used? The iron rusts away but the bronzes buckles they used are found in all Roman camps.

Here is the study/book
academia.edu/513011/Lorica_Segmentata_Volume_I_A_Handbook_of_Articulated_Roman_Plate_Armour
>There is plenty of evidence to confirm that lorica segmentata saw heavy and continuous use. That it was not found wanting and continued in service for more than 250 years is presumably some sort of testament to its perceived efficacy
No, 9BC, the Dangstetten find.

>archaeological studies show it to have been widely used in western Europe
it was never anything close to standard issue, or even equipped by majority of the roman infantry, let alone all of them, like in some popular media portrayals.
there needs to be no tangible evidence for this, this is fucking common sense
>what the fuck is with people thinking anything with a feather or expense to it is ceremonial.
there is nothing wrong with presuming segmentata was a mainly a show-off piece of armor, not because it was a shit armor, but because it was a total bitch to manufacture and repair compared to hamata
>We know it was widely used futher because of its extensive development over 250 years, why would they update and improve on something hardly used?
my personal guess is that segmentata was used by a bunch special purpose front line units as a form of "heavier" heavy infantry, but nowhere close to mainstay vanilla legionary gear.

>it was never anything close to standard issue, or even equipped by majority of the roman infantry, let alone all of them, like in some popular media portrayals. there needs to be no tangible evidence for this, this is fucking common sense
And why do you say that? It's found in most Roman sites, its even found continually in sites supposedly only for Auxilia, and over a 250 year period, this is the tangible evidence.
>there is nothing wrong with presuming segmentata was a mainly a show-off piece of armor
There is when the evidence disagrees, why would shitty forts in backwater provinces being using it if it was a show piece? Also why even have an entirely different type of show piece armour and then switch to mail, thats logistically and practically retarded.
>not because it was a shit armor, but because it was a total bitch to manufacture and repair compared to hamata
It was quite high maintenance yes but it was possible to repair in the field
>Second, there is plenty of extant evidence for hasty repairs, often suggested as field maintenance .15
>the Romans not only had no objection to asymmetry in their cuirasses, but actively practised a mix-and-match policy in order to keep as many serviceable sets of armour in the field as possible. This would be the next logical step after the cannibalisation of components to repair damaged armour and, as such, suggests that this armour was not just being worn for parades in peacetime.
>my personal guess is that segmentata was used by a bunch special purpose front line units as a form of "heavier" heavy infantry, but nowhere close to mainstay vanilla legionary gear.
This study suggests that legionaries tended to choose their own armour, with wealthier men probably choosing the segmentata, it also suggests it was specifically designed to fight barbarians using long slashing swords, hence the shoulder defences.

Seriously, read the study its great

It's easy to make and looks distinctive. You look like a real Roman legionary in that shit. If you wear chainmail you look like just another medieval asshole.

this, roman reenactment is not as prevalent as many others, obviously people don't want to look like beowulf or an extra from helm's deep.

everyone will always gravitate to the fancier and higher ranked units too. who wants to be an auxiliary or peasant levy when you can be a knight or legionnaire?

>legionnaire
A legionnaire is a 19th century French soldier, user

romanhideout.com/chimage_img.php?image=movies/gladiator/gladiator_040.jpg

>linking pictures on an imageboard instead of posting the picture

Hello 'dit!

...

After a certain point lorica segmentata seems to have been relegated to use by poorer units like auxiliaries and limitanei.

Though in fairness I do a lot of Late Roman reenactment and people constantly mistake us for Vikings, so you have a point, but I don't know if that's because we genuinely look like Vikings or it's just normies being retarded.

>legionary
yeah sorry, it's 4 AM here tbqh

Very interesting. I would say that Late Roman soldiers tend to look more like Persians and Sarmatians of the same time period than Vikings or other Germanic tribesmen. I'm not sure why, except probably the ornate looking helmets, armor, and clothing, compared to Northern European people at the same time frame.

in a way both, but also because vikings are normie cancer.
vikings are just really appealing to chads for some reason.
though the normie's understanding of MUH VIKANGZ is horned helmets, fur cloaks, and two handed renaissance era weapons kek.

That's probably because you think everything that has colours on it and very ornate is from the "exotic East". For example, when I found that statues and pretty much everything (except clothes of course, unless it was from wealthy romans) was painted it looks more "oriental". It's pretty much a meme about the "luxurious, multicolour Orient" compared to the "stoic, utilitarianist West".

I blame Gibbons and school teachers.

Oh shit I fucked up, it wasn't just Gibbons. It's also the abrahmic fuckers. For example, muslims wanted everything to be non luxurious unlike Persia. So even the orientals had this idea of the exotic Orient, lmao.

Becuse literally everyone used chainmail. Segmentata is more unique and therefore easier to convey to normies that this guys are romans and not some random medieval/barbarian dudes. It's that easy. Although today it's more of a self-feeding thing. Even those who learn about romans extensively enough are predisposed to like segmentata more if they like Rome (specially early imperial) because it's one of the things they saw when discovered those cool guys back in high school.

Soldiers didn't wear their armor all the time, the carried it in wagons or on their backs, then put it on close to battle.

This is why an ambush can be so successful by an inferior force well armored.

Late romans looked more like persians, sarmatians or germanics (or those looked like late romans, it goes both ways really) imho. But random normal people probably imagines persians like turban arabs or 300's black guys and germans like asterix.

>we genuinely look like Vikings or it's just normies being retarded

Both. If you're to select one warrior from those well known by retarded normies then, well, you don't have many options to chose from but vikings are probably the "closer" to late romans.

Romans (and greeks) themselves associated persians and the orient with all those things. So did early muslim (and therefore probably pre-islamic) arabs.

It's cheap (why change?) and normies will see it and say, "Hey look! Romans!"

This plus it's cool.

Asterix

Trajans pillar is garbage made by artists that never saw the Trajan war. The pillars made in Dacia to celebrate victories feature soldiers that almost look alien compared to the Segmentata babies.

We call roman soldiers "légionnaire" too in France, in case you wanted to know

Because it's iconic. Everyone used chainmail, and looking at a chain shirt does little to tell you if it's Roman or Celtic or medieval. Lorica Segmentata, on the other hand, is pretty much solely associated with the Romans.

>After a certain point lorica segmentata seems to have been relegated to use by poorer units like auxiliaries and limitanei.

were armors bought for soldiers by generals kept by them as their property or just on lease? because it'd make more sense that they would have to be returned to inventory and reissued for a long time until they literally came apart than having large amounts of them being produced for every legion raised.

I peronally loathe late roman kit

it's distinctively Roman. Mail and scale was used across various cultures and so have no cultural affiliation, while segmentata is only really associated with Rome.

If you have a strong logistical tail armour like segmentata is actually easier to repair, because you can just swap the damaged segment with a new one. If you lack the spare bits to replace it with it is much harder though

Pleb taste desu

A man with no appreciation for stupidly garish clothing is barely a man at all

because sheet metal is easily available these days. with power tools you can easily cut and shape out the pieces.

those random embed gems on the helmets look like such shit, god

why the fuck did they go back to kingdom-era armor anyway?

what made hamata and segmentata obsolete?
and why did they ditch gladius and keep spatha?

>what made hamata and segmentata obsolete?

too expensive, we poorfag now

>and why did they ditch gladius and keep spatha?

can't train legions with scutum, we barbarian now

As an aside, here is a Roman helmet crest, found in Vindolanda (a fort site several miles from Hadrian's Wall). It is the only one that has ever been found. Made from some kind of moss.

"This object, made of hair moss was found in 2001. The plant produces long, tough, slender 'hairs' which are flexible and reddish in colour. It is an excellent weaving material. The object was found in the ditch system associated with the western gate of the period I fort (c.AD 85-92).
The presumed helmet crest was made from c. 1120 strands of hair moss which were folded in half to form an elongated U shape. Bundles of approximately ten of the these folded 'hairs' or strands where then back stitched to adjacent bundles, at the folded end, using a four strand twist of hair moss which was pulled tightly to produce the rounded lower finish. It is about 58cm in length and the strands are about 23 cm long."

fuck

>what made hamata and segmentata obsolete?
Expensive to produce and not much more or anymore effective than mail armor of the time.
>and why did they ditch gladius and keep spatha?
Warfare had turned from large pitched battles to border skirmishes and raids with the occasional pitched battle. If you are fighting in a looser formation may as well have a longer sword for the reach advantage. The spatha would also be easier to use from horseback, and Rome was putting a lot of their eggs into heavy cavalry.

I think it's more that the striking colours, jewels and quality cause one to associate it with the Near East, while more shield shape (as shown in that guys image) and things like the more general helmet shapes and the lack of familiar Roman look for the layman, causes the Germanic association.

>The spatha would also be easier to use from horseback
Spatha WAS the cavalry sword when Gladius was still infantry standard issue, no?

Yeah. Most likely came from all the Germanic cavalry in the auxiliary, and ended up catching on in the heavy infantry.

>kingdom-era armor
u wot

Kingdom-era armor would be a small square of bronze hung over the torso or even a linothorax. Scale armor was used during the Republic and earlier Empire as well.

>what made hamata and segmentata obsolete?
Hamata definitely didn't go obsolete, it became the standard issue armor. Segmentata was difficult to maintain and difficult to wear, and the construction made it quite prone to breaking, and this just wasn't worth the marginal amount of exta protection it offered.

>and why did they ditch gladius and keep spatha?
this user
covers it pretty well. To expand, there was a wish for standardisation among all troops because arms and armor were now produced in state-owned factories instead of being requisitioned from private workshops, and a spatha can be used by heavy infantry, light infantry, cavalry, archers, etc. whereas a gladius is only really useful when used by heavy infantry. A spatha is also a much better personal defence weapon than a gladius.

This thread's got very informative posts. I'm inclined to think lorica hamata armor during the 1st and 2nd centuries was more common, probably accounting for up to 75-85% of the armor worn by regular legionary troops. By the 3rd century, probably only 15-25% of legionaries used them whenever their peak of usage was. Around the early 4th century, there were probably some soldiers still using them, but not the majority of any legion, and these might have been old by then, used by border limitanei troops.

wasn't chainmail expensive as shit though?
I may only be a medieval pleb, but as I understand it, at times it was the cost of a house and barely any non-nobles had it.
this would be a full hauberk and coif by the way, so that might be a consideration.
but there's a reason crusaders would sell all of their property.

>wasn't chainmail expensive as shit though?

I doubt the average roman could get for a price of a drink but it was probably a lot cheaper than one would have to pay in later medieval times.

it was only that expensive for later snow nig Germanics since they couldn't mine iron ore as well as the romans could.

Chainmail was indeed expensive. The difference was that segmentata had to be fitted to every soldier individually and damaged parts had to be replaced by skilled craftsmen that travel with the legion. If a guy in the hamata was killed, they can just take that shirt, mend the part that was broken and simply give it to someone else.

This was a major reason why scale was popular in late empire; it was as protective as mail, quite a bit cheaper in exchange for a bit less mobility.

Pretty sure cos noone else has armour like it. So you go to your reenactment or movie set and you wanna look like a roman so you wear something only they wore aka lorica segmemtata (tho thats only a thought)

I don't think iron has much to do with it, I mean just look at how much work goes into making it. Nearly 100,000 rings were woven riveted by hand.
The availability and state of the mining industry dwarfs in comparison to the sheer amount of work put into it.

I read that Segementata was cheaper than Hamata, since it required orders of magnitude less parts to make. Reproduction segementatas could be re-sized by adjusting the length of the straps that held the plates together.

However it was considerably harder to maintain, and as the size of the Roman army more than doubled in the 3rd century, the cost of upkeeping segementata became prohibitive.

Ive recently purchased my full set of lorica segmentata and while i love wearing it i can see why they switched back to lorica Hamata.

Its a complete bitch to put on you really need someone to tie the back for you.Ive tried pre tying it but its far too loose.If there was 8 men in a tent and their all doing each other up as someone attacks the camp then i can see why they went back to mail and scale.

Another problem is the subarmalis you really need a thick one with heavy shoulder padding otherwise the armour sags down and puts too much wait on your shoulders.Without the subarmalis its better for photos but it feels terrible and with it your well padded but boiling in the armour.

>try to put on a replica of segmentata
>hang one piece on my shoulder while I bend over to pick up the other piece
>it falls off
>ask my friend to help me
>okay
>both pieces on
>fiddle with the buckles for a bit
>nothing is working
>ask for his help again
>gets me all buckled and laced
>I am basically useless during this whole process
>total time: 15 minutes

>try to put on a replica of hamata
>pick it up
>slide my head and arms through the holes
>wiggle around a bit
>total time: 3 seconds

I imagined they were quite well trained to do it in much less time but I'm wondering if the hassle of putting on segmentata contributed to it falling out of use, especially when you're manning a border fort and might be attacked at any time

Where did it all go so wrong?
was it Germans?
I bet it was the Germans...

Difficulty of wearing lorica segmentata-mind

ummm, no sweety, how about you try to put on a full set of medieval plate?
you're like a little babby.
it's not that hard, just get a competent squire you absolute plebs.

holy fuck I want to strangle something even if someone talks like this just to make me

Well the average Knight decked out in plate armor would have been rich enough to afford a squire or servant to help him. The average Legionary wearing lorica segmentata was some poorfag from Bumfuckinople whose only option was "ayy Titus gimme a hand here senpai"

not to mention Titus needs a hand getting it on as well lol.

I've put on one of these things, it was LARPshit though and I don't do roman reenacting so that's a point, but it wasn't too hard to put on.
It was metal, might have been a decoration or something.

how is it reenacting Romans btw?
I imagine it's much more affordable than medieval, cause you know, you just HAVE to have a full hauberk, coif, helm, tabard, plates, and a fancy sword.
looks comfy tbqh.

>I blame Gibbons
Fuck Gibbons up the ass for adding his shitty biases and axe-grindings against religion and the byzantines and other shit he didnt like, staining his pretty good books with propaganda uneducated plebs still throw around.

I have never read Gibbons' book, but I don't think I will bother. I have had an interest in the Roman civilization from around the year 2000. Gibbons' approach is simply too biased for me.

wait distribution not as good as medieval plate so if your used to that then Roman segmentata wont feel as conformable and it will will be very heavy on the shoulders.But yeah its much cheaper than plate and you dont need anything custom fitted which is a plus.

You should give it a read. His casual disregarding of peoples is hilarious.

I will now consider reading some of it to see what I think.

Big problem is that all the weight is on your shoulders, which is much weaker and more stressful than having the weight on your hips.

Hamata/other chain main is lighter above the waist, and the weight below it is secured to the hips by your belt. Later plate armor also has the cuirass supported partly by the hips.

It looks cool

They were both used nearly equally only legions did not use Lorica Hamata and it gives more of medievel look so film industries use Lorica Segmentata for Roman-related movies.

It just looks really good.

lamontagne.fr/roche-blanche/loisirs/fetes-sorties/2017/07/23/les-arverniales-c-est-reparti-pour-la-guerre-des-gaules-au-plateau-de-gergovie_12494358.html

...

...

...

...

It super easy

just find two autist, and give them some plastic rings

youtube.com/watch?v=cyXeHccKTDs

kek now reenactment and hema websites have poos working a sweatshop 24/7 cranking out full 4 in 1 hauberks for $250
but they're >butted
which is absolutely disgusting

Butted is fine for reenactment

It's a very entertaining work, just don't take it for granted and read more modern books afterwards, he was writing 300 years ago after all.