One of my all time favourite suits of armor is the Roman Lorica Segmentata, from my generally limited understanding (using the members here as my criteria :p ), the Romans were one of the only, if not the only force to use this kind of protection.

What were the major flaws of this armor? I know that a well placed underhand stab could slip between the overlapping plates, but where else did this armor fail and why was it generally abandonned for chainmail and over suits of interlocking plates?

Well, the anime cuirasses of 16th-century Europe were also built around the concept of horizontal lames. For good examples, just do A Google search for just about any site dealing with the Polish hussars/husaria. Some 15th- and 16th-century Japanese do (cuirasses) were also made by lacing together a set of solid horizontal lames.

As for the advantages and disadvantages and why the Roman segmented armor fell out of fashion, I don't think I'm qualified to say anything about it. If I'm allowed to take a stab in the dark (sorry for the pun) then I'd guess that the segmented armor was more difficult to customize than mail or lamellar ones.

It's funny to see that mail and solid bronze "muscle" cuirasses were practically the only two kinds of armor that never fell out of fashion with the Romans once acquired.

the COP's (coat of plates also called a pair of plates) in the 14th century also borrowed heavily from the lorica segmentata's design. if you look at some of the finds at wisby there are horizontal plates in the front of many of them-but vertical plates on the sides. but really still the basic concept.

I believe that it still gave the good flexibility of the lorica segmentata but instead of the leathers on the inside the plates were riveted or to an outer (and sometimes inner as well) leather or canvas shell. with the idea being that the plates will still give you a little bit of movement when pressed together.

They did not necessarily fail. personally I think that it was superior to maille. the same thing happened with greek armour-they had their corinthian helms, and they had one piece greaves. then next time you see anything remotely close to one piece greaves that cover almost your entire calf (plus theirs covered the knees as well) was in the 14th century(the knee was an articulating poylen). the next time you see anything close to the corinthian helms is the 15th century barbute.

why this was i have no clue. did it go out of favor? were they disregarded by the defeating army as "the romans used that-we can't be like them". I don't know but it has happened in so many instances, but not just armour.

here is a wisby COP
http://www.aemma.org/images/wisby_coatOfPlates_s.jpg

now granted I admit that the COP does not look a whole lot like the segmentata-but, there is quite a resemblance.

just my $.02,

Aaron

One of the main reasons for the romans no longer using the lorica segmentata was due to the barbarianization of the empire. Most troops were Foederati (who were pretty much just local tribal units hired by the empire and lead by their chieftain) and these units would use their own weapons and armour - chainmail. Also the split of the empire meant that much of Rome's wealth was divided and the empire could no longer afford to make such intricate armour when chainmail was already available and could be made, not quickly, but more easily. This does not mean that the empire stopped using plate armour becasue it was not effective. The cataphract units employed by the eastern empire still employed plate armour but again this was because it was traditional 'barbarian' armour of that area.

There was a massive discussion on this subject a while back on Sword Forum International:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=55605

I'm also pretty sure this is discussed regularly on the RAT forums:
http://www.romanarmy.nl/rat/index.php

Yes, the disappearance of the lorica segmentata has been HUGELY discussed on RAT, more than once. It seems to be going out of fashion at the same time that the army is moving to centralized manufacture of equipment. The most likely reason for mail to have become the more common form of armor was that it needed less skilled work to manufacture, it was far easier to maintain, and it did not have to be as carefully fitted to the wearer. This makes it much better for centralized production and issue. I'm not sure the "barbarization" of the army was much of a factor, except that it certainly had an influence on FASHION--never underestimate the power of fashion!

Oh, one note on getting a thrust between the segments--it's no danger. You'd have to be inside your opponent's shield and be driving your blade vertically between the plates. I do this all the time to show spectators that the blade simply slides up flat against the inside of the armor and doesn't even tear my tunic. If you can get that close, better to go for the groin or throat!

On the question about segmented armor in general, lots of later medieval plate armor styles involve segmented pieces, wherever movement is necessary. I like lorica segmentata too, don't get me wrong, but I think it has more mobility than it actually needs. A decently-fitted solid back and breast with segmented shoulders and fauld really isn't very restrictive at all, and much easier to produce (if it's as plain as a segmentata, that is!).

Valete,

Matthew

I would recommend The Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour edited by David Nicolle. There is plenty of info on hooped type armour from 12th and 13th century Arabic hardened leather examples, with photos of excavated pieces, to 14th century metal hooped armours found at the castle of Kussnach and now in the Schweizerisches Landesmuseum in Zurich. I hope this info is of some use.
Regards,
Norman.

Thanks for the help, everyone. :D