| Author |
Message |
Ahmad Tabari
|
 Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 12:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Mail production can be made faster if there were seperate fabricae producing different mail items. For instance one fabrica would produce rings ready for riveting and another would prepare solid rings. Then you would have fabricae preparing mail partches which would be sent to another fabrica for assembly. This would make the labour force far more specialized and efficient but I am not so sure the Romans operated this way.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | A single worker could easily construct and assemble a segmenta armour in a week, while a riveted hamata would probably take at least 6 months. Though in both cases, multiple workers were likely working on a single piece. |
So we are looking at a 24 to 1 ratio in labor to produce? That would make a segmentata clearly cheaper. |
I don't have a Roman source saying that's how long each took, I'm just estimating.
Any armourer should be able to construct a segmenta in a week of sustained work, and I recall a later medieval/renaissance source mentioning it took an armourer about 6 months to complete a mail shirt.
(This is assuming the metal sheet is ready for the segmenta, and the wire is ready for the mail, since those jobs were probably separate from the armourers.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with estimating how long it takes to make each form of armor is that several different industries would be involved with the fabrication of each. Obviously the mining and smelting would be pretty much the same, so if you start from a billet, for the lorica there would have been someone hammering (or rolling?!?) out sheets (not necessarily very large) of high-quality armor stock, harder on the outside than on the inside. For the mail, some of the iron gets worked out into sheet, some goes farther to become wire. I don't think we can assume that the armorer started with billets and made his own sheet or wire.
For a segmentata, even if we assume that the whole thing is made by one guy starting with prepared sheet iron and a supply of sheet brass, rivet stock, leather, etc., I don't think it's going to take him anywhere near a week to get it all done. I'd guess 3 days, maybe 4, working dawn to dusk. Most likely, though, you've got a workshop cutting out plates (3 or 4 standard sizes, maybe?), one making fittings, and one just assembling. Actually, we should probably add in time for finishing the iron plates, since that will take longer than just power-sanding a piece of modern mild steel! But the point is that the plate-makers aren't going to make pieces for one lorica and pass them to the next table. They'll have a number of workers, on cranking out girdle plates, one doing breastplates, one doing shoulder guard plates, etc., or even just working out strips long enough to lop to desired lengths.
For mail, the sheet-maker would get refined billets and make sheet, and sell that to the ring-puncher. The wire-maker might also start with sheet, cutting off thin strips to draw (though he needs his metal to be very clear of slag!). Then the wire goes to the ring-maker, and probably all the rings then go to the mail-maker. Given the rings, I seriously doubt it would take 6 months to assemble a hamata! But I don't have enough experience with riveted mail to give you a better estimate.
Now, overall, I'd also guess that there are more man-hours in a shirt of mail than in a segmentata! I don't know how many more, though.
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | | Actually, segmenta could have been constructed and assembled by fairly unskilled labor. Authentic Roman segmenta is notoriously haphazard, sometimes even sloppy, in it's construction, which would further suggest the bulk of the work was being done by unskilled workers. |
I wouldn't say "unskilled", at all, I'd say they were very experienced but working fast and not concerned with perfection. Many of the little fittings are very delicately made and even decorated, they don't look unskilled at all. Sure, rivets are sloppy and plate edges are crooked, but nothing looks mangled with random tool marks like an inexperienced man would have done. Whoever made these things was trained enough to get the job done quickly and efficiently, if not prettily.
As to the whole driving force behind the changes in the late 3rd century, it's possible that Diocletian simply dictated the centralization of arms manufacturing, and the people in charge of it decided to go with mail. We do know there were times when an emperor micro-managed something or other, but it could have been a case of "I don't care how, just do it!"
Valete,
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
R. Kolick
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
personaly i would go with the segmentata because though the repair on the mail would be easier and it would be easier to make a one size fits most shirt of mail it offers significantly less protection ive seen some moddern tests using reproductions of both the segmentata and a small balista simaler to field artilery and it gave decent protection from the balista they didnt test the blunt force trauma of the hit but it stoped the bolt so it not only could protect against enemy weapons but against their own which was a problem during civil war or when the auxilary forces turned on rome witch was a problem during the latter empire mainly but was probaly common during the whole history of rome
please note my info on the armour is at least 5 years old so the test i am refering to may have been beaten or done with differnt results so if anyone has better info please correct me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R. Kolick wrote: | personaly i would go with the segmentata because though the repair on the mail would be easier and it would be easier to make a one size fits most shirt of mail it offers significantly less protection ive seen some moddern tests using reproductions of both the segmentata and a small balista simaler to field artilery and it gave decent protection from the balista they didnt test the blunt force trauma of the hit but it stoped the bolt so it not only could protect against enemy weapons but against their own which was a problem during civil war or when the auxilary forces turned on rome witch was a problem during the latter empire mainly but was probaly common during the whole history of rome
please note my info on the armour is at least 5 years old so the test i am refering to may have been beaten or done with differnt results so if anyone has better info please correct me |
Were they using butted or riveted mail in the test? Modern butted mail is very poor at stopping penetration attacks like arrows and bolts and isn't representative of what was originally used.
(Some original accounts of mail stopping arrows are listed near the bottom of this page: http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_mail.html )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph Grinly
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
As far as actually assembling the segmentata- from it's constituant parts to finished , wearable item goes, I can vouch , from personal experience, that it can be done in about 6-8 hours. I'm not saying thats how long it takes to *make* everything..just to assemble..and then the only work required is to actually rivet all the parts in the correct places.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R. Kolick wrote: | | ive seen some moddern tests using reproductions |
This has been covered ad nauseum before. You haven't seen any tests that involve decent reconstructins of historical mail because there aren't any except for the one done by Williams. Based on the data collected in the Mail Unchained article it would be reasonable to assume there was no effective difference in weapon resistance between mail and segmentata except for percussion weapons and blunt trauma.
Last edited by Dan Howard on Wed 11 Jul, 2012 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Kolick
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
i think it was riveted all they said was historicaly accurate and i remember only that they looked od to me at the time and this was before i knew that mail wasnt butted so it could have been riveted and it seemed like a significant hole was punched in it
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This has also been covered. "Riveted" does not equal "historical"
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189
Can this please not become another weapons vs mail thread? For this exercise just assume that there was no appreciable difference in protection between the two unless you can make an argument in which blunt trauma would be enough of a problem for a logistician to consider adding to his list of criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | 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. |
This is the most common argument for the phasing out of segmentata. But there is at least a century or two after segmentata stopped being used before anyone could argue that Roman metal fabrication capacity decreased. I would argue that the Diocletian reforms made iron production more advanced and efficient than during the period when segmentata was being used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Rees
Location: Portland, OR Joined: 02 Dec 2010
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Jul, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would also believe that mail is the best long term solution to equipping a large force. The increased logistical challenges and long term costs of segmentata seem to far outweigh its short term savings. The only reservation i have is I wonder which armour was perceived superior by the Roman soldiers and generals? Is there any documented preference?
The church is close but the roads are icy; the tavern is far, I will walk carefully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2012 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
how numerous were the heavy infantry and how were they armed? were they equipped more like marian legionaires or like the stuff soldiers had near the end of the western empire??
had they established the system of comitansenses/ limitanei by this time?
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2012 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Edward Rees wrote: | | I would also believe that mail is the best long term solution to equipping a large force. The increased logistical challenges and long term costs of segmentata seem to far outweigh its short term savings. The only reservation i have is I wonder which armour was perceived superior by the Roman soldiers and generals? Is there any documented preference? |
Usually, whenever armour is mentioned in texts it is simply referred to as "lorica" so it isn't possible to tell which type of armour they are talking about. You could survey the iconographical evidence and see what is being worn by centurions and officers. IIRC there are no depictions of them wearing segmentata.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2012 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| R. Kolick wrote: | | personaly i would go with the segmentata because though the repair on the mail would be easier and it would be easier to make a one size fits most shirt of mail it offers significantly less protection ive seen some moddern tests using reproductions of both the segmentata and a small balista simaler to field artilery and it gave decent protection from the balista they didnt test the blunt force trauma of the hit but it stoped the bolt |
Well, mail must have been good enough for the folks wearing it, most of the time, since it was the most popular form of armor for about 1500 years. Blunt trauma doesn't seem to have been their biggest concern--it takes very little force to lay exposed flesh wide open with a decent bladed weapon. Generally the idea was to go *around* the armor, not *through* it.
| Quote: | | so it not only could protect against enemy weapons but against their own which was a problem during civil war or when the auxilary forces turned on rome witch was a problem during the latter empire mainly but was probaly common during the whole history of rome |
Again, it doesn't seem to have been common enough to make any great changes in equipment, that we can see. They DID start posting auxiliary troops away from their homelands after the big Batavian revolt in 69 AD.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | 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. |
I've heard that, too, but at the same time that the segmentata is going away, they're still making one-piece helmets, not to mention going to longer swords, each with a blade 2 or 3 times the mass of the largest segmentata plate.
Valete,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2012 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | I still do not think mail can be made easier even with tubing than lorica segmentata. |
I don't think you could ever set up a process that made mail cheaper or quicker to produce than segmentata. I've always wondered if there was some kind of innovation in the 3rd century (when segmentata seems to have been phased out) that reduced the difference in cost enough so that segmentata was no longer cost effective compared to mail. Greiner's tubes might just be the innnovation I've been looking for. Though, without a translation of the article I'm just speculating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2012 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | I don't think you could ever set up a process that made mail cheaper or quicker to produce than segmentata. I've always wondered if there was some kind of innovation in the 3rd century (when segmentata seems to have been phased out) that reduced the difference in cost enough so that segmentata was no longer cost effective compared to mail. Greiner's tubes might just be the innnovation I've been looking for. Though, without a translation of the article I'm just speculating. |
A much simpler advance in production of wire or sheet iron would do, or even just a wider application of a known method (which is what centralized factories are all about!). But then, if ease of production was all they were concerned about, there are a dozen ways to make a segmentata easier to crank out! Heck, just leaving off the stupid hinges and brass bling would cut the cost and production time by half, I'll bet...
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2012 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | A single worker could easily construct and assemble a segmenta armour in a week, while a riveted hamata would probably take at least 6 months. Though in both cases, multiple workers were likely working on a single piece. |
So we are looking at a 24 to 1 ratio in labor to produce? That would make a segmentata clearly cheaper. |
Ralph reckons that it takes 6-8 hours to assemble segmentata. Erik estimates that an experienced mailleur can do a 1000 links per day (8-9 hours) and that a hamata has around 20,000 links - so it would take 20 people one day to assemble a hamata, but this is only for assembly. No idea how long it takes to actually make all of the components.
The 1000 links per day assumes that the mailleur had to perform all of the steps: lapping, flattening, piercing, weaving and riveting. If the links were already prepared and all he had to do was weave and rivet then he could do 5000-6000 links per day (assuming alternating solid and riveted links).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2012 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ralph reckons that it takes 6-8 hours to assemble segmentata. Erik estimates that an experienced mailleur can do a 1000 links per day (8-9 hours) and that a hamata has around 20,000 links - so it would take 20 people one day to assemble a hamata, but this is only for assembly. No idea how long it takes to actually make all of the components. |
Was that for 1 person assempling the segmentata? If that is correct the 24-1 ratio might actually be halfway close.
It's amazing to me the difference in labor time to create the segmentata vs mail. I'd guess making articulated plate takes far fewer man hours than head to toe mail? This actyually gives a lot of credence to the idea that one of the big reasons for the transition from mail to plate was for decreased labor costs.\
I think there is the widespread belief that the segmentata was superior to mail in protection, and that was the reason for it, and that the Roman "plate" armour disappeared due to the fall of the empire, going backwards to an age of mail.
One of those common "myths" I guess. Something I must admit that I believed up to a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph Grinly
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Jul, 2012 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thats correct..As I said..it only took me ( relatively unskilled) 6 to 8 hours to ASSEMBLE one set of segmentata..all the parts were finished, assorted holes punched/drilled in appropriate places..all rivets, hinges, hooks, leathers, buckles finished and readily to hand. The only tools need for the finally assembly was a hammer, smallish anvil, and maybe some snips to cut rivets to length before rivetting. Not a task that anyone with reasonable dexterity couldn't do in a similar time frame if shown HOW to assemble and had a lil practice.
I'd also like to comment on a couple of points others have made. Some implied that getting the plate iron was a 'late" developement. I'd beg to differ there..after all..don't forget that for MANY years before the segmentata came into use that the legions were equiped with iron helmets..and that many of these were either spun, or beaten out of PLATE iron..plates that were of roughly comparable size to what was needed for segmentata.
I don't think sementata were a "'superior" form of armour for the legions. But I do think it was, given the roman style of fighting en-mass an ADEQUATE armour. It must have been reasonably effective, otherwise there would have been a large increase in battle casualities. I suspect it's main reason for adoption was it's relative cheapness, ease of manufacture and 'in-field" repair and adequate protection
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jul, 2012 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
my understanding is that segmentata is often lighter than hamata.. id assume that lighter means a more comfortable and easily bearable march to get around to various places especially when we consider the distances legionaires were known to travel.
do you guys think that marching in segmentata is easier than marching in hamata over decen distances?
speaking of maintainence though, one issue with lamellar is that arows that are stopped, tend to still cut the leather lacing, segmentata could be vulnerable to similar issues, such as a sword cut slicing the main buckles/ thonging that fastned the armour at the front..
do you think that the transition might also have to do with a changing army organisation.
well its also worth looking at the events at the time. Diocletian didnt start the trend of phasing out the segmentata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Roman_army#...velopments this article is very citation heavy, though i cant comment on he quality of he citations
| Quote: | the seminal development for the army in the early 3rd century was the Constitutio Antoniniana (Antonine Decree) of 212, issued by Emperor Caracalla (ruled 211–18). This granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, ending the second-class status of the peregrini.[16] This had the effect of breaking down the distinction between the citizen legions and the auxiliary regiments. In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the legions were the symbol (and guarantors) of the dominance of the Italian "master nation" over its subject peoples. In the 3rd century, they were no longer socially superior to their auxiliary counterparts (although they may have retained their elite status in military terms) and the legions' special armour and equipment (e.g. the lorica segmentata) was phased out.[17] <--- 17 = Goldsworthy, Adrian (2003). Complete Roman Army.
|
diocletian seemed to not be the one pushing his change in the first place although its sugesed in this wilki article that , due to plague and whatnot, had more trouble getting troops to volunteer in the 3rd century. and also that the roman army of he late period tended to more frequently avoid seeking a pitched battle like the armies of he principate did
could that tendency of those men being considered more precious, maybe mean they are given more serviceable but initially more expensive amour to keep their survival chances up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic