Why didn't the Romans wear long chain like picture to protect arms and legs? They already had mail...

Why didn't the Romans wear long chain like picture to protect arms and legs? They already had mail, so that doesn't seem like a big leap to me.

They did, it just wasnt as standard as Lorica Segmentada

Too expensive.

They did, it became more common in the Late Roman army thanks to better metallurgy and infrastructure but it was still used pretty infrequently. It's a lot of extra work for not much extra protection.

Source: Hugh Elton's Warfare in Roman Europe

actually the Romans used chain mail much more often than lorica segmantada...both before and after segmentada's use

I think that user was specifically talking about the longer full-sleeved chain tunics that were more common in the medieval era. The Romans did use them, but only rarely.

Protecting your legs with armor is less of a concern when you have a giant shield that covers your whole body, and it's being used in conjunction with other giant shields.

It's the main reason why stereotypical Hoplite armor only really covers the areas not protected by a shield.

Because logistics, and also pic related

From a strictly logistics standpoint, if you were a Roman general with finite state resources to work with, you’d rather use that money to make two mail shirts for two soldiers rather than just pay one soldier with redundancies for wounds which probably wouldn’t be lethal.

Later medieval knights were vassals who provided their own equipment and spared no expense putting themselves in the finest arms and armaments that money could buy.

Better question: Why did knight develop leg armour?
Because knights were in large part mounted on horses. Legs become an exposed target, even with a large shield. When on foot it gets a lot more protected.

That being said, certain infantry did use leg armour. Late medieval infantry did so because they ditched the shield and needed as much armour as you could get. Hoplites used it since the shield would not protect the legs during formation because of the shape of the shield.

So to conclude, the romans were on foot, and used a shield that could protect the legs during the battle

Did all of the Roman soldiers have mail or segmenta? Or were some just equipped with padded armor? That seemed to be common in the Middle Ages and contemporary areas like Persia.

>try to stab through torso
>fail
>stab legs
>soldier boy falls down
>stab him in torso

The Legions definitely were in armor.

Also you can't compare medievalshit military logistics to Rome. Rome had state factories and centralized bureaucracy to mass prod their shit. Medieval soldiers more often than not bought their own gear.

Mail shirts were by far the most common form of armor.

It’s debated whether Romans used leather armor. Early Romans wore simple bronze cuirasses or mail shirts and later scale and segmented armor.

Lorica segmentata was rarer, never in use by the majority of soldiers as it was far less rugged and prone to breaking down and needing replacement pieces which had to be machined and shipped from Italy. Maintaining them was a logistics nightmare, while any local Celtic blacksmith on the Rhine would have been making mail for generations.

Daily reminder that the Roman Republic is overrated as fuck and that the Roman Empire would be as irrelevant to the modern West as the Chinese Empire is if it wasn't for Christianity.

Because a simple mail shirt was easier and cheaper to produce than a full fledged suit of mail. Medieval knights bought their own shit, so of course they would buy the best armor for themselves.

They did, but cost and considerations about mobility outweighed the demand for it. Many armies at the time emphasized mobility and discipline as being determining factors in winning battles and not equipment.

Roman formations also emphasized a technique invented by the Macedonians using their large shields to provide leg protection since lower blows were highly unlikely against a solid testudo. Most attention would be focused at the mid to high range where sword blows would be coming from.

Is this colourised?

>Imperial Romans
>Short sword on right hip
Makes sense, shield is heavy, don't want to cut your inner arm.

>Late Romans
>Longer sword on left hip
>Shield is still large

Can someone explain this for me?

> Why didn't the Romans wear long chain like picture to protect arms and legs?

They likely did, they just did not equip the Roman infantryman with it.

You are comparing the medieval upper warrior class with ordinary infantrymen of Rome, the reason why the former extended the mail armor is because they could afford it, while the average soldier could not.

In fact, mail shirts just like the Romans wore them were common among the medieval soldiery, just not the elites but the commoner and freemen soldiers, who, again, could not afford the extensions.

Lenght of the blade maybe ?

>Can someone explain this for me?

the sword isn't the main weapon, the spear is, thus it's better to have it out of the weapon hand's way when not in use, besides, their shields are arm strap and not boss-held, they will face the enemy with their body turned mostly sideways.