Comparing Lorica Hamata and Medieval Hauberks (9th-12th)
The question is quite simple: there is a whole hyper appreciation of the Roman Empire in detriment of the Middle Ages. This also ends when we talk about armor. Well then, it is true that the Roman armor was usually superior (of better quality) than medieval ones? Mail armor were more accessible in the times Roman Empire than in it was "Age of Mail" of 11th-12th centuries?

Why lorica segmentata disappeared but hamata and squamata kept up as armor among the romans and the germanic barbarians? According to the forum's article itself, segmentata was easier, faster and cheaper to do (and tecnically plates are better than mail). Therefore there is no reason to mail become the standard armor after the empire's crisis
Hamata can cover more of the body like the armpits and thighs. Mail is easier to repair and has some self cleaning properties which adds longevity to it. It also much more forgiving to large variety or size because of how flexible it is. It can be hastily repaired with twisted wire. Thus is better suited for standardized equipment for large bodies of soldiers than lorica segemata. Also, performance wise, if you haven't developed the rivets and clothing technology and the skilled labor based to produce perfectly fitting limb armor, trying to wear poorly attached and fitted plate can actually burden a shoulder. If you are stuck between something that protects you move in the area it can cover and something that doesn't protect you as well but covers more of your body I think it would be wiser to go with the latter because your opponent with have easier time working around the 1st armour to deliver a lethal strike. Thus there was many good reasons mail and scale survived and segementa didn't.
Re: Comparing Lorica Hamata and Medieval Hauberks (9th-12th)
Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
The question is quite simple: there is a whole hyper appreciation of the Roman Empire in detriment of the Middle Ages. This also ends when we talk about armor. Well then, it is true that the Roman armor was usually superior (of better quality) than medieval ones? Mail armor were more accessible in the times Roman Empire than in it was "Age of Mail" of 11th-12th centuries?

Why lorica segmentata disappeared but hamata and squamata kept up as armor among the romans and the germanic barbarians? According to the forum's article itself, segmentata was easier, faster and cheaper to do (and tecnically plates are better than mail). Therefore there is no reason to mail become the standard armor after the empire's crisis


There is "short term" costs and "long term" costs. Segmentata might be cheaper to produce but mail is cheaper in the long term. It has been covered in this thread.
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26369

Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum