[Dan Howard]

Proposal: Diocletian ascends the Imperial throne in 284 AD. He orders his bureaucrats to take over the privately-owned armour fabricas. They need to standardise armour production - they could make segmentata or mail but not both. If you were a logistician or a commander trying to decide which armour to produce, what factors would you want? Which armour would be most appropriate given that criteria?

This is what I come up with.
* Good protection from anything likely to be faced in battle
* Easy/quick to maintain and repair
* Longevity so the same item can easily be re-issued over and over again
* Being able to fit a range of bodies without having to stock a large range of sizes
* Cheap and quick to make

Mail meets all the critera except for the last one. Segmentata only meets the first and last one. I would have to decide whether the increased cost to produce mail would negate all the other criteria.

[Perry L. Goss]

Very interesting post. McNamara. Vietnam War. .30-06 & .308 versus 5.56 or .223 and .45 versus 9mm. Same type of issue. Might help you figure out which way the bureaucrats versus the soldiers would go.

This should be interesting!

[Jean Thibodeau]

For standardization sake probably go with the segmentata but maybe try to improve it as I believe that even though easy to repair it may have had issues with closures and leather holding it together needing frequent replacement. ( Not sure about the last ).

Maybe some sliding rivets and improving coverage with some sort of fauld.

Even if the cost was increased a bit by improvements they would be worth it if maintenance was reduced so that in the long run it would be cost effective. Obviously I'm bringing in some later armour concepts back into a Roman parallel universe history.

Also, the idea is to be able to armour and field large numbers.

Cheating a little: Rich officers might still be able to commission maille armour or supplement the segmentata with maille voiders under the vulnerable armpits or even maille neck defences. I could also make exceptions for a few elite units like a type of Roman special forces.

But this could be done by private contractors maybe ?

[Matthew Bunker]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Ralph Grinly]

I'd like to vote for the segmentata. Given that at the period that the segmentata was actually used Rome was at it's zenith, then the various fabrica that were set up could construct segmentata on a 'production line style of manufacture. It would be fairly easy to produce the various parts of the armour using fairly unskilled labour at a fairly rapid rate. Also the various individual plates could be easily distributed to the individual legions, along with the standardised hinges, lacing hooks, etc for final construction "on-site" , as it were. There is nothing inherantly difficult in having the legionaires themselves doing the final construction and fitting - all it requires is for the plates to be bent into shape and to have the hinges, hooks and leather straps rivetted in. Once they had been shown how to do it..I suspect it would have only taken an hour or two's work to make the final set., possibly less it the work was spread between a few individuals..say one rivetting on the lacing hooks, one doing the same for the hinges, another the internal leathers, another bending the plates themselves into shape. Also the segmentata is easily repairable by "non-skilled" labour..assuming the parts are available on hand. I suspect that it was the breakdown of the Empire's "distribution systems" that was the main reason for the demise of the segmentata..parts needed to make field repairs just weren't available where they were needed.. Also as the Empire relied less on the old-style legions then regional styles of armour became more prominent and used.
As far as costs are concerned..it's hard to judge which was 'cheaper" at the time. I suspect that the segmentata was cheaper in the long run, given that the actual labour involved could be fairly unskilled. Yes..mail required fewer basic parts..but the actual construction was a fairly time consuming and skilled affair..and skilled labour always costs more than unskilled.

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

Well we know what the Romans did. All we can do is try and work out why.

[Matthew Bunker]

[William P]

[Dan Howard]

People had no problem believing that Roman links were punched from plate so why not cut from iron tubing? Matthew has already said that they had iron tubing for other applications during the same time period.

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26364&start=0

I would think that tool marks would be completely different if the links were punched from plate.

Apologies for derailing my own thread. Could these be moved to the one on tubing?

[Jojo Zerach]

I would vote for mail. Although it would take more effort to make initially, it would be much more durable and much lower maintenance than segmenta. Remember that the hinges on segmenta were weak, and would have needed replacing on a regular basis, while you could probably toss a mail shirt around all day with no ill effect.
And except for blunt trauma protection, mail probably provided better protection all around.

[Matthew P. Adams]

The mail is made from two different parts, solid and riveted links. With those two components you can make any size you want.

Segmentata need many different sized plates, that need to be put together in the right place and order to function. They also, as has been mentioned, need various other parts made from different materials to be assembled.

From a production standpoint, it seems like mail all the way.

[Joshua McGee]

Another vote for mail here for all the reasons already mentioned (easier sizing, easier repairs/upkeep). In addition, mail is easier to store and transport, which makes for a huge logistics plus.

I would also argue that mail is definitely not harder to make than a plate segmentata. It seems to me that making a good segmentata has more margin of error in creation due to the number of precision parts included that have to come together almost perfectly to make a single garment. An expert smith would have to form each plate and buckle specially, whereas setting a rivet and weaving rings can be done by virtually anyone with little training. It may take slightly more time per garment, but when you have a crew constantly making sheets of it, while another crew tailors it, it doesn't seem that it would take that much longer.

Also, the number of expert smiths who could hammer out the pieces to a segmentata would be far fewer than those who could cut rings and assemble a lorica hamata, so, in reality, it would probably be faster to produce more mail garments than plate; 30 men working around the clock in shifts can likely do more than or the same as 6 smiths who can hammer our precision segmentata pieces in the same time.To me, segmentata seems more like an expert craftsman's job while mail seems more like division of labor.

As far as defense, the hamata may not had been able to stand up to blunt trauma as well, but it could cover more of the body (including the groin, and this is important) and, with appropriate padding, could be quite resilient.

So yeah, I think that hamata is actually more practical for mass production than segmentata, which is probably one reason why history went that direction.

[Ahmad Tabari]

I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about this. At first I was absolutely in favour of mail simply because it is an all round superior armour. But then labour concerns popped into my head. Most would agree that Segmentata required far less labour than mail which is highly labour intensive and time consuming to make. In the days of the late republic labour was never an issue since the supply of slaves was plentiful. I dont think this was the case in the 3rd and 4th centuries. So labour costs made me lean towards Segmentata. But then when I took the costs of maintenance as well as the durability of armour into consideration, I couldnt help but feel that mail would have been a better choice for an increasingly centralized state taking control of its arms production. And when I took this in consideration with the fact that mail provided far better coverage against archery than did Segmentata (especially since the abandonment of the scutum), I was overwhelmingly in favour of mail.

So my vote goes to mail. It had better coverage and flexibility than segmentata and provides no less protection for the areas that would be covered by the Segmentata. Yes Segmentata is cheaper, but if it is quality you are after then mail is the winner.

[Gary Teuscher]

Do we have any idea truly how much time was spent in the making of each? Perhaps at least some educated opinions?

[Jojo Zerach]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Randall Moffett]

Dan,

I could see Diocletian doing something like this, even if we cannot prove he did. He was into managing things in a very hands on way. I am fairly sure he was not a short term sort of gent. In fact in most ways he takes the hard way for what he thinks will be a lasting or long term solution. Breaking regional or local power from military leaders, creating a succession system (albeit not working 100% but better than had been to that time in Rome), the guy does all sorts of things that were geared for 50 years or more over 5 years or less. I still do not think mail can be made easier even with tubing than lorica segmentata. Making a tube is not easy by hand and the thinner the more difficult, which is true till machines take it over. This is before the 20+ to one ratio of actual armour creation. That said I am not sure Diocletian would not have pushed for it even if it were much more costly in at least manufacture. He literally took the empire apart and tried rebuilding it with some success as well but it was not an easy job. Mail over lorica, if he or his top officers felt strongly on it to being a long term solution to financial costs for military spending over the long term they could have made it happen if they could save the Empire. The years to 284 were bad. 25 Emperors in 26 years. Aurelian having the longest reign of 270-5 when he was assassinated. Not a great time for sweeping change but Diocletian did it.

I do think the segmentata can have longevity. It is mostly the silly fittings that eat it. These may have been something they mass produced and had in the baggage. The plates seem fairly durable. Simply refitting them at need. Not as easy as mail but still I think they posses a great degree of durability.

Over all your points are largely in favor of mail. I'd like to know if there might be other factors like Diocletian's brother of something owning several of the mail fabricae....

Valete!

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]

I might add that if a lorica segmentata could be produced in a week, it would make it even less labor intensive than clothing. The materials for armour were more expensive, but the time to produce was less than clothing, if going from fibers to finished clothing product.

As far as maintenance goes, you could make a handful of segmentata (24 perhaps?) in the time it took to make mail, so that would seem to make the higher soct of maintenance on a segmentata matter less.

Was not there a problem in the size of a forge operation needed to make a segmentata? I had read that a segmentata required a much larger forging operation, and that was one of the reasons it was not produced towards the end of the Roman era.