Late Roman Army: Why No Lorica Segmentata? 

In the words of Matt Easton "Context!". This discussion did a great job of it. Was highly engaging and thought-provoking. Enjoyed it a lot. Something you've mentioned before in another video was that weapons and armor fulfill their purpose in relation to their enemies. Does history tell us that the enemy and their weapons technology changed to possibly allow for a "lesser armor" to sufficient?

Very good video, Well done!

Oh I see. Two dislikes. Filthy Carthaginians...

Probably mail is better for "one size fits all" , that means you only need to store a limited variety of sizes to equip men with a different waist/lenght size. So it has a logistical advantage and waging war has always been(about) 90% logistics and 10% tactics as "the Art of War" AND WW2 has shown.

I like this thesis - mail really is more of a mass-production item. Not cheaper, but very easy and amenable to a system of division of labour. It's also easier to tailor a one-size-fits-all (or perhaps only a few sizes) mail shirt than it is to make a breastplate. Mail is also easier and more comfortable to wear than plate - especially the sort that largely lacks rolled edges or ways to distribute the mass more to the hips (lorica segmentata counts on both fronts). A final consideration, in my mind at least, is that wire making processes can work with lower-quality (or more variable quality) iron than the sheet-making process required for a plate-type armour. Remember that all the iron and steel made at this point was in the form of bloomery iron. The bloomery process is also very fiddly, and depends a lot on local conditions and skilled craftsmen to obtain a consistent product. Even then, a bloom from one area/working group of craftsmen will only be relatively consistent with itself. This is an issue if you have a big factory system taking in stock from all over, because the ingots from one area (which are perfectly usable for making sheets) might get mixed in with ingots from another area which fall apart when you try to work them into sheets. Wire drawing, on the other hand, is the sort of process where you can make use of whatever part of a bloom or ingot is workable, draw out a bit of wire from it, and isolate or discard the bits with lots of inclusions or slag in them. The drawing process would also homogenise the product to a certain extent by drawing out any inclusions. Basically; its just easier to make a bunch of wire of x quality using a bunch of bloomery-derived ingots from various sources than it is to make a bunch of thin sheets of iron. This probably wasn't the be-all and end-all of production, but it might have helped to drive the switch over towards a form of protection which was good enough for 90% of the jobs it was needed for, and which was easier to hand out to troops of all shapes and sizes.

Mail has a key advantage of being nearly soldier proof, almost maintenance free and one size fits most. There no leather straps or fabric to rot or wear out, no hinges to break or plates to bend.

26:15 Your point about longer mail sleeves can actually be explained by the cooling climate of the time. The Roman Climactic Optimum was a period of unusually warm weather in Europe that lasted from 250 BC to AD 400, it was this warmer and wetter weather that sustained the bountiful harvests that fed the Empire and its economy during its height, with temperatures similar to that of today before cooling down for the next 500 years. Lorica Segmentata couldve been made redundant in the Late Empire simply because wearing a long sleeved mail shirt over the extra padding provided by warm clothes wouldve provided a decent level of protection for a fraction of the cost.

This is absolutely amazing, I cannot believe how underrated this channel is. THANK YOU

Like most military changes, it came down to logistics and economics rather then any effect or lack thereof of segmented metal strips. Soldiers are not actually in battle 99% of their career so formatting their equipment for this down time would have been on the forefront of their minds. Hamata provides almost equal protection against missile and hand based weapons as laminata or segmentata and does so in far more comfort. They are much easier to mass produce and much easier to size correctly for said soldiers. They could also get it on alot quicker and easier making it better for troops stationed on the frontier who could come under attack at any time. Most wounds on the battlefield at this time were to the extremities, hands, arms, legs etc so having an armor that could extend to more parts of the body makes more sense as well. The Romans spent ALOT of time fighting themselves as well and having interchangeability was also another big consideration, once one legion or vexelation switched sides you needed to be able to utilize that units supporting personnel. Having trained armorers who could be simply re-utilized for your own forces makes a big impact though rebellion was obviously something they avoided.

Damn man, you are criminally underrated. Awesome video, looking forward to more!

Such a great channel. The best history channel I have found.

On a forum a few years ago I saw a late Roman re-enactor wearing a Newstead lorica segmentata with a late Roman ridge helmet. I thought it was ridiculous. Since I figured these two pieces of equipment didn’t exist at the same time. But some people commenting on this made some good points that changed my mind. One was that the romans probably never just threw out usable equipment. This is evidenced by the large variety of helmets used by them. Older ones are mixed with newer designs in different archeological finds. Which makes sense. If the helmet or armor does it’s job, why throw it out? At least wait till it breaks and becomes unusable, then replace it. The segmentata was also probably used by auxiliaries as well since it has been found in auxiliary forts and in areas where regular legions wouldn’t have been present. So there was probably a large supply of this type of armor in the Roman supply chain. I just find it hard to believe that the romans spent all this time and money on the segmented armor just to get rid of it so quickly. To me, that specific armor lived on till probably 300 CE or so. Also, to comment on the segmentata being hard to maintain: I think that is an interesting point. But I don’t think it’d be as difficult as some people think. Most of the damage done to it can be fixed with a malet. As it is mild steel, any dents can just be pushed back into the normal position. And if one plate becomes too damaged for this, just detach it and replace it with a new plate. The buckles sucks though, that is true. The Newstead type with the hooks is much better Great video. Would like to see more on the late romans.

great video and wonderfully presented

I'm glad you got to this bud! I think I brought up this question on a video back

Thisvideo just made me think of the parallels between Diocletian and Oda Nobunaga

Great summary,

Images are very helpful as well as better at grabbing attention.

This video helped me understand the Lorica armor

Interesting video! I agree that the primary reasons were probably due to economic, logistical, and ease-of-use concerns. Mail was easier to repair & maintain, easier to fit, more comfortable to wear, etc. Furthermore, I think that lorica segmentata might not necessarily provide better protection than mail for the area they covered if their materials had different thickness. If the segmentata was made of thin sheet-like metal, then it would provide less protection than thicker riveted chainmail rings. I've heard a wide variety of different weights for the segmentata, with some people claiming it was a mere 15-lbs. If this version existed, then this would have been composed of very thin sheets of metal. Riveted chainmail that is 25-30 lbs in weight on the other hand would provide better protection as the metal would be thicker. If the segmentata and the chainmail was made out of the same metals (eg. wrought iron or wrough iron with the outer layer case hardened into mild steel) and weighed the same, then I'd agree that the segmentata provided better protection for the area it provided.

A m.j other thing pointed out to me is that in this period Roman shields get bigger again along with (generally) swords. So presumably soldiers were taking more blows with their shields or fending them off with their swords and wouldn't need to rely as much on plate defense. However I am a very big fan of the "The German soldiers didn't like it." hypothesis.

I fking love videos like this!

Very Interesting.

Your theories about changes to armour are better than most. I'd like to add that the increased numbers of cavalry in the later Roman Army would have necessitated more flexible types of armour because of the nature of cavalry combat. Also, weight of armour would have become an issue for cavalry horses not being as large as in the later medieval period.

To me the economic and craftsman argument makes the most sense, we see that statues and coins deteriorate in quality over the centuries so it makes sense that the ability to craft such intricate armor was more difficult to come by, it just makes more sense with more limited resources to opt for cheaper easier armor

Great video! Do we know what sort of equipment the "Barbarians" used before the Hospitalitas period? Could it be that they were already using mail armor of some kind and prefered it enough that when Rome recruited them it was just seen as easier to switch to their style of equipment?

Hey, nice lesson, I'm doing a school project about the Lorica Segmentata and I was wondering if any of your sources were linked to primary sources(maybe pictures or old Latin writing)?

Coming at this from a practical context, militaries often change equipment when their tactics change. My guess is we see this change as the fighting becomes less Empire vs Empire huge set piece battles and more of a continuous low intensity type of conflict. We see this in American history as well (which I will forever argue parallels Roman history to an almost uncanny degree) in the shift from the Civil War army to a frontier garrison army during the westward expansion.

They looked at the wall in Germany „Limes?“ and found military boats patrolling, small forts with cavalry, that was catching all groups that managed to cross the rivers or walls.

I would think the lorica would be hard to produce en mass would be the biggest problem for continual use, that mixed with needing help to put it on, it being expensive and needing very skilled craftsmanship. With all of this in mind, and thinking of the situation the later Roman Empire found itself in its not surprising to me that it fell out of use.

Very cool

Really late to comment here, but there's a near miss on a potential reason for the change. Lorica segmentata loads a lot of its protective value (see weight) at the shoulders to protect against attacks that go over the top of the shield. If opposing forces aren't using weapons like a two handed falx, the need to protect the shoulders to this degree is reduced somewhat. Weight and crafting time can be saved if you know your enemy is using shield-wall-and-spear formations for their infantry by switching to a cheaper armor without costing too much in terms of defensive value. I'm no expert, but I cannot recall a source describing any Alan, Vandal, Goth, Burgundian, or Hun soldiers severing limbs like what we got with Roman accounts of the Dacians. There is also another more obvious possibility. Roman authorities did not care as much about foederati or soldiers from these tribes enough to spend the extra money. Why hire one barbarian and give him lorica segmentata when you can hire two and give them mail? Why give Afghan national troops night vision goggles when they will just end up on ebay? Oh wait... it's possible the romans had a little more foresight than leaders of later superpowers. The answer is probably about as complicated as most answers to questions about the late western empire that start with the word "why" ... so you know, it's probably a lot of reasons.

Look at what replaced it, chain mail. It had the flexibility that the Roman's demanded. It was a lot easier to maintain. Important when Roman discipline is slipping. It also gives good protection against missiles and cutting weapons and the shield could be relied on to take the blunt force impact weapons like the mace and heavy sword.

I imagine it was very obvious to the Roman military command structure that the Lorica Segmentata needed to be phased out, and thus, very few people wrote about it.

Great video. I think the real answer to this is probably just as complicated as discussing the reasons behind the Bronze Age Collapse. I’m of the opinion that the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD had a much bigger impact on the Roman military than most people give it credit for. (I am not sure if you mentioned it in your video or not). One reason historians do give for the edict was to increase the recruitment pool for the Roman legions, (the other was more taxes across the empire) but I think that fails to take into account the social and cultural dynamic impact of that decision on the Roman military at that exact moment of time. How do you account for the ramifications of the edict with two clearly defined and distinct military structures based on citizenship? Ultimately they became Legions overnight, but the Auxilia were still trained as Auxilia, doctrinally utilized as Auxilia, equipped as Auxilia, led as Auxilia, and fought as Auxilia. How do you convert this numerically superior second class army into the now minority Legions? What equivalent ranks do all these former non-Romans get? Do you incorporate the strategic benefits that the Auxilia force brought into the Legions, or do you convert these Auxilia into traditional Legions? Are they going to be equipped to the same standard as the Legions going forward, or do you lower the standards of the Legions to the Auxilia? If so, do you stop using the Auxilia’s logistics and equipment system to bring them all to the same standard, or do you modify the Legions to match the Auxilia system? The answer to these questions? I don’t think the Romans ever got that far. Auxilia units seemed to still operate as Auxilia by the time we get to the Crisis of the 3rd century, they just had the same pay and rights as the Legions. You effectively had two different styles of military unit (Sounds kind of like a proto Late Roman Army to me) based on social distinction that no longer existed. Military necessity during the crisis would have blurred the distinction between Auxilia and Legion even more since it would have been impossible for the empire to convert everyone UP to the old Legionnaire standard by the time it happened. By necessity, they probably kept whatever logistical systems that already existed to support the various former Auxilia and Legionnaire systems. As a result, you have more Legions armed like Auxilia with chainmail/scalemail/oval shields than traditional Legions with Lorica Segmentata/Scutum by the end of the Crisis. I don’t think it is an accident that Diocletian later created the Limitanei to re-establish the necessity of border troops, a role traditionally fulfilled by the former Peregrinii Auxilia.

I think it relates to the changing role of the Roman soldier away from a simple heavy infantryman. In the Principate, armies were designed for conquest: to fight pitched battles that had the Roman Legionnaire infantry armed with the heavy pilum javelin and gladius at the core. Throw pilum and charge into ferocious melee, where expensive, protective armour has real value. Skirmishers, archers and much of the cavalry came from lightly armed and armoured auxiliaries: foreign troops. Roman soldiers in the Dominate, post Diocletian, by contrast were border guards, skirmishers, archers, cavalry men, as well as line infantry. The front four ranks of their eight rank battle line reportedly (according to Vegetus) used long hastatus spears and plumbatae darts, as well as the longer spatha sword, forming a shield wall. The rear four ranks carried multiple javelins, with two additional lines of archers behind them. All Romans, rather than auxiliaries. The tactic was to either hold position and engage from range with sustained missile fire (Viz Strasbourg per Ammianus Marcellinus) or form a cuneus wedge (shields testudo style) and grind forward en masse. I'd argue therefore that the variety of weapons and roles of these troops, and the changed tactics meant that investment in Lorica Segmentata manufacture and maintenance stopped paying off. They weren't in so many pitched battles and even when they were, they fought much of the battle at range - and when they did close, they fought in robust shield-protected wall / Cuneus formations. Why therefore invest in armour that was covering areas well protected by the shield anyway? Better to use cheaper armour that still did a decent job, and invest in arrows, plumbae, javelins, heavy spears, longer swords and horses instead. This gave an army that could beat both the Goth massed infantry/cavalry in battle, as well as the very mobile Hun horse archers, while also being an occupying and screening force. Anyway, you did ask! Fun video.

I nelieve the rivets on the L. Segmentata were likely being constantly repaired and replaced. L. Hamata and Squamata were more durable, especially after the A tonine reforms where the scales on Sumquamata were affixed on 4 sides. But even Symquamata is harder to keep in woeking order than chainmail whichnis easiest to repair as you are replacing metal rings and not worrying about the leather that backs the scales on Squamata. That’s just my 2 As. I request rhat you talk about the transistion from Gladius to Spatha among the legions. Or maybe the shape of the Scutum becoming more rounded over time. Whatever you choose, I look forward to the next video. Salve

Awesome! Always wondered if armor and swords were made by a state owned institution or not. Should deepen into that, when did that started? Any other antique nation had the same? Production process is interesting

One could theorize that lorica hamata(chainmail) might give more coverage for the same material usage compared to lorica segmentata, thusly more troops could be armored while still having a good quality of protection.

This was mentioned in the video, the higher rate of repair and the complexity in repair needed for lorica segmentata could be a big part of the answer and it gives more weight to the idea that it was bc of economics that this type of armor phased out.

I always wondered why not mixed armor like plate shoulders, and the rest mail. Or single manica and mail etc. They probably did it. The plate protection for the shoulders seems important. Only to come back in medieval plate.

As I understand it, for the techniques at the time, plate is harder to make -the larger the piece, the harder to make. That would make for fewer people who can make it, and higher costs. Thus ... a certain pressure to use something else that is cheaper (hence cuitboilli as well as mail). Of course, armies dont really throw things away, so existing segmentata would linger for a long time in depots

Great video. However, 1 element from the conclusion bothers me. At earlier Stage, during republic, chainmails were considered expansive because they needed Craftmen skills and many production hours. The lorica segmentata would have needed less Time and skilled. But you Say the exact opposition. I don't have the knowledge to understand who to explain it? 1. Was the method to produce mails extremely simplified over Time? 2. How long does it takes to produce 1 lorica segmentata vs 1 lorica hamata. 3. What is the level of skills and materials needed for each of them? Last but not least, if your "industrial" point of view is Key. It would have been interesting to know the opinion from the users. The soldiers themself. Is the hamata prefered for its agility/flexiblity?

It sounds like late Rome saw their army equipment get cheaper and easier to manufacture as the quantity and quality of their empire fell. This combines well with late Roman weapons, which were progressively tuned for personal protection and mobile warfare rather than regular line of battle.

it is very interesting that the concept of fabricae seemed to return in the medieval period, with certain regions of europe specialising in the product of different arms and armour (e.g. italian bills being exported to england, sword blades being produced in toledo, milan being famous for armour manufacture).

what I find just as curious is how armor like that never shows up again. Instead we go back to mail armor during the early medieval period. As someone who has done quite a bit of blacksmithing(on an anvil rather than with a power hammer), it seems strange that something so relatively easy to produce such as strips of metal sheets that could be assembled to make armor weren't used in that way after the romans. Instead of that they went through the much more difficult and laborious process of drawing out steel into a wire, turning it into rings, cutting those rings, hammering them flat, punching holes in each individual link and then riveting thousands of those together to make a mail shirt. Just the amount of hours of labor... making mail should easily take at least five times as much time as hammering out a bunch of stock into flat steel pieces and cutting them to size. Also, why didn't the Romans(or those who came right after them) switch to something like a brigandine, and why do those only show up hundreds of years later? that is downright the easiest and most cost effective way of making armor I can think of, even more than the lorica segmentata.

I believe economics factors in aswell. Lorica Segmentata was expensive. Diocletian also economized the the Roman Empire.

Your video is excellent as usual and your explanations are plausible. But I fail to understand why lorica hamata and lorica squamata are cheaper to produce than lorica segmentata, especially the later simplified version of it.Furthermore, the fabricae had skilled craftsmen and blacksmiths perfectly capable to produce lorica segmentata on a large scale. But, as a matter of fact, lorica segmentata ,or at least its brass hooks and rivets, were prone to break. During the Principate the legions had their own forges and could easily repair their weapons and armours. Under the Dominate ,due to the new centralised system of mass production, the army did not have this capability any more ,or ,in the best case scenario, had it in a limited extent. Probabily the soldiers could easily repair by themselves a lorica hamata ,certainly not a lorica segmentata. Of course this is only my opinion.

wow bro look at all those books... really special

Picking nits, but Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome is by Bishop & Coulston (Jon wrote half the book, after all, although I did most of the drawing), and you might want to add a reference to the two volumes or Lorica Segmentata, one by me and one by Dr Mike Thomas, both available for free download at lorseg.mcbishop.co.uk/the-books.

I suspect that simple wear and tear just took its toll on the plate band and metallic fastenings of the segmentata. You can have skilled guys working on repairs, and I'm sure they did, but eventually, entire bands of steel would simply corrode way to something so thin that it became of limited use. Especially if it was still expected to be worn, given the somewhat lesser freedom of movement - although that is debatable. No doubt armor was distributed to men from those who were killed or retired out of the army, and so, it was always a used item - ever more so as it was re-issued. Mail, on the other hand, was a technology known to most of the armies of that period. Thus, any armorer could fashion replacement rings by the thousands to repair damage. I think rust was the end of Roman segmentata because the quantity of metal required to replace the bands was excessive compared to the relatively simple wire that can be drawn from the same quantity.

Two factors re most important 1. Armor was uncomfortable for cavalry 2. Rome lost central government, ability to gather large armies and plan and equip them with complicated armor

They ditch it because it's not actually that great. Mail is just better. Not at everything, not every time, but overall. Given the choice, troops choose it. My evidence is as follows: 1) Mail, in one form or another, has been with us since at least 400 BC, and while other forms of armor has gone in and out of fashion over the years, it has stuck around from its inception. It was a go-to in one form or another until gunpowder took over. 2) Officers are known to have worn Lorica Hamata. The only real reason they would consistently choose this is if it's somehow superior (but probably also more expensive). 3) The areas where we find Lorica Segmentata is primarily where auxilias are known to have operated. This is often hand-waved as incidental, but I think it was because they got the second-rate gear. So why does the Trajan column depict it as the legionary armor? It's much faster to manufacture long, identical strips of iron than to rivet 10 000 rings, so if many troops were needed quickly, it was the preferred method. Also, the artists of the day may have had no more experience with the military than we do and reasoned the same way we do when we assume it's better: it looks cool and instinctively it "feels" more protective to a layman with a solid plate than the rings of mail does. Keep in mind, though, that this is not the same heat-treated carbon steel that is used in the late middle age/renaissance plate harnesses. It does not offer nearly the same level of protection. It's the same fallacy that makes people come up with all sorts of irrelevant excuses for why guns took over from bows: bows can be shot faster, and that "feels" like the most important metric to someone with no experience in renaissance warfare.

As a scientific endeavor, it’s perfectly fine to call this a “hypothesis.”

One thing I would like to know is how Wire was produced in the fourth century

Was segmentata ever worn over hamata? Segmentata is superior at stopping blows but leaves a lot unprotected. If hamata got better and stronger links, could be it was viewed as providing just as good protection but with fewer gaps in defense. Mail (riveted or welded) is also pretty easy to learn to make, with a lower skillset needed to make the links and fashion the harness, compared to what it takes to make nice looking large iron bands and working brass hinges. So hamata would be easier to source with cheaper labor to make as well.

The answer is because the empires might was weakening… the economy was falling and the quality if trained soldiers was falling. So switching to an easier to use and cheaper armor was the route they took. Also the empire encountered more mobile enemies and didnt have a good cavalry to match so the more mobile infantry compensated. In the end u can see it wasnt really the best choice and they ended up losing everything mainly due to civil war and corruption

It appears that because of changing times, more critical, dangerous, that mail and scale armor would be mor flexible, though take more time to make.

Just want to thank you for calling it maille/mail not chainmail.

It seems like making thousands of rings is a lot harder than hammering out a couple dozen metal plates. But maybe by this time the Roman military-industrial complex could handle the labour requirements. If I was a soldier, I’d prefer mail!

I'm no expert but I'm assuming it was a necessary evolution of the common soldier. Adaptation, refinement and advancement was crucial to stay on the top of the game. While the Roman war machine (in the period of empire building) was excellent in its craft, I'm sure they learned from their foes as well. Stagnation and over confidence stifles an army, as much as what near peer opponent can do

16:01 Cavalry used spatha, not gladius. Spatha was used more for slashing, instead of stabbing unlike gladius. For defense against slashing attack, mail was more efficient than Segmanta. Spath gradually and eventually supplemented gladius. In the times of Principate, shorter Pompeii supplemented longer Mainz style, as the size of armies became bigger, and the formation tighter, which emphasized more stabbing than slashing. Spatha could have done the reverse. Also, the barbarians tended to emphasize individual combat skills in loose formation over large units.in tight formation. Also, mail armor can be worn more quickly by a single soldier than Segmanta, which really needed help from another person to put on fast in a hurry.

Noone really gives a reason, but we can assume its due to the high requirements for upkeep and making.

You, Thersites, and Maiorianus are the best on late antique subjects. I have the most Petty criticism. When you were holding your arm as if holding the Scutum... you were holding it as if it was a strap and handle. However it was a boss held Shield... Having a knob too hold in the back... just an obsessive-compulsive observation

I wonder if during the high imperial era they had like companies (or blacksmiths I guess?) compete to come up with military technology kind of how we do today? Like someone trying to make a name for themselves making weapons and armor would want to win a contract to invent weapons and armor for the Roman military? And someone just came up with the lorica segmentata that way

What's easier to wear day to day., Mail or Segmentat ? as the Romans made camp nightly on a march, did they set up tents dig the ditches ect , wearing it that every night on a march say for a month in hostel lands .you would have to be in armour most of the time,,,,, I'd say in a month of that in different weather, what's best? dose Mail fit better on different body types

You mention that you have made mail arbor before in the past. Was this the sturdy and lightweigh riveted mail or was it the butted mail sometimes found in LARP equipment? Although there are historical examples of butted mail, I'm under the impression that riveted mail was stronger and more commonly used.

Maybe just a case of "Good" vs. "Good Enough".

Also full of blade paths

could it also be because as more and more "barbarians" join the Roman army, you would want to equip them with weapons and armour they are used to wielding. Celtic and Germanic tribes have been using mail for centuries. They would be familiar with what mail can and cant do. Instead of having to make and explain how one type of armour is used, another more simple and almost as effective armour that many of the soldiers might even have owned themselves before joining the Roman army may have used would be easier. It's like today. When the Americans were arming the Afgan and Iraqui soldiers, they didnt give them us made m4A1's, they bought a sugarload of AK's and ammunition from the Russians. Why give something new and harder to use to a soldier when you can give something they have all used, can use effectively enough to get the job done. Just an idea.

No lorica segmentata?

So Roman Legions had a lot of trades practiced by the soldiers. Each trade has a guild that you belong to for learning and sharing techniques. In an age of constant upheval it is possible to lose the people who understood the techniques died and those who practiced the trade were only able to make certain things. Also later on the Romans had a centralised fabrication process. So when centralised and requiring items to be transported en mass to the Legions, Auxilia or later unit types you are going to have to make less complex items to get the items to where they are needed. Items have to be repairable and cheap. So my theory is, loss of local knowledge or resources to make the item. Cheap mass produced fabrications that are easy to repair distributed from central fabricae. So they chose not to make it to expedite production and keep it cheep. Edit: So with chain it is fast and cheap to produce. They have people to make the wire. People to make patches of chain riviting them. People to connect the larger patches into the design riviting them together. In this way none of them stop the general in depth tasks and large orders can be filled fast. Whilst a similar process can be folled for the segmentata it needs to be more bespoke to the individual as sizing is an issue. It can not be too tight or too loose. Of course I am speculating just as much as anyone else. We also have to remember that as an institution once a long enough period of time happens between people making something and with personel turnover the idea of making it, desire to use it and knowledge of how to make something disapears. So they would have to rediscover the need and desire before they attempted to relearn the skills.

Late Roman armour: Lorica hamata = Yes Lorica squamata = Yes Lorica plumata = Yes

They don't make things like they used to. Seems like that was the case even in Roman times.

I think all the guys who knew how to make it died. Leaving only the consruction of mail. In the east the populrity of scale seems to win out.

So the armour the legionaries wear in the Asterix comics is slightly anachronistic. Oh well! They wouldn't look like real legionaries without segmented armour.

Probably money and manufacturing related issues, from 100 BC foreword the romans get poorer as each century goes by. Therefore, it stands to reason that they might not be able to afford something as expensive as segmented armor for most troops. Also think about the maintenance requirements for this armor, if they cannot maintain it effectively it’s not practical anymore. Or some other reason, who knows...

I think the Romans simply stopped using it as they changed the whole Military and how it operated. They changed their whole approach to warfare, and types of equipment often gets lost during such drastic changes in Civilizations, the Egyptian Military of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom is also dramatically changed. Unfortunately for the Romans, the changes made it more difficult for them to win battles vs their enemies than easier, they were CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT! It didn't help that the leadership became incredibly INCOMPETENT, apparently, Theodosius, who died in 395 A.D., was the last man worthy to be the Emperor in the West. Combined with a Military that was in no way superior to their enemies, using similar equipment and battle strategy and tactics, means they lost North Africa to the Vandals, can't stop Rome from being sacked in 410 A.D., or losing provinces to people like the Visigoths, who actually wanted to be "Romans"! The Italic folk of the core of the Roman realm to the end, seem to have had a terrible Ethnocentric tendency, to consider newer groups of "Romans" of different Ethnicity to be less than, so they would have a tendency to blame them for problems and turn on them. However, in the 400's A.D. that would be an IDIOTIC thing to do, as people of Gothic ancestry were a large percentage of the population by then, and they were in control of both Gaul, and Spain, and were the key peoples to successfully fight Vandals and Huns. Yet, the idiotic Ravenna government did indeed turn on them repeatedly until Odoacer usurped the rule from the government and still tried to turn on them, and that was the true end apparently. The Visigoths and Franks apparently broke with the Ostrogoths and viewed him as illegitimate.

Perhaps it was cost.

I would say that the changing logistics structure of the Roman Empire was the main reason why Lorica Segmentata was abandoned. The logistics and supply lines of armies tends to be the best indicator of military success. Equipment quality is important, but 'quantity has a quality of its own.' WW1 and WW2 were largely won and lost on logistics. While industrialization may have increased the importance of logistics, a large part of Romes military success was their ability to have a better logistics system than anyone else. In a way the focus on Lorica Segmentata and its effectiveness is incorrect, instead the logistics and organizational strategy of Roman military forces is what truly lead to their success. Also Ceasar was an above average general with an incredibly well supplied army. But prehaps not the military or tactical genius many make him out to be.

My money is on, well, money. At least in part. Iirc imperial Rome suffered a nigh-continual devaluation of its currency.

It, by all impressions, seems like a very excellent piece of armor. There definitely _is_ an answer as to why they stopped. There has to be, because it's such a major change, these things don't happen for no reason. It troubles me though, that we haven't found this reason yet. I have a Lorica Segmentata at my house, a recreation. That I can wear, and immediately one problem I recognized was how troublesome it was to put on by myself as it is rather cumbersome and heavy. But also how restrictive it is when it comes to your arms vertical mobility. I had trouble raising my arms past shoulder height because the shoulder plates got in the way. Which made me rather curious, because of formations like the Testudo.

Pre watching guess, cost...

On the subject of the fall of the West being related to the enlistment of barbarians I think that there's a distortion here. The enlistment of barbarians, or perhaps more specifically the failure of native Romans to enlist, was a serious problem which contributed directly to the fall of the Western Empire. However, as you have stated numerous times, this is not because the barbarians were inferior soldiers, nothing could be further from the truth. The reason the enlistment of non-Romans was such a problem is because the native Romans lost any martial aspect to their own culture, and the foreigners with alien ethnic and cultural identities became the sole arbiters of martial power. Even though they may have identified themselves with Rome at one time or in the beginning of this practice the trend of enlisting non-Romans had a gradual degrading effect on the Empire across time as those who were enlisted became less and less Romanized in the process of enlistment right up until the Visigoths who fought against Attila as a specifically Gothic auxiliary army to the Roman Legion rather than even nominally a Roman force. Some of the early kings of the Visigoths rather quaintly imagined that they would become the new Romans and inherit the Empire intact, but these same kings eventually realized that the Gothic people were wholly incapable of sustaining Rome due to the relative deficiencies in their society. In other words, they could not become Romans no matter how hard they tried. Rather than being Romanized as they entered the Western Roman Empire the barbarians de-Romanized the Western Empire instead. In simpler terms, the enlistment of the barbarians did not cause the collapse of the Western Empire because the legions became inferior to the legions of previous eras. The enlistment of the barbarians caused the collapse of the Western Empire because the legions simply ceased to be Roman and in short order the Western Empire ceased to be Roman, being a process rather than an event. As with going bankrupt it happened little by little and then all at once.

Laminate armor like Lorica segmentata aka lamminata was harder to produce because it took longer to make it fit a soldier. Even during the principate it wasn't an universal armor like we see in the movies. Lorica Hamata and also Lorica Squamata was easier to mass produced and even Trajan ended up having to order said type of armor for his soldiers over the Hamata during the Dacian Wars. And with time a larger more mobile Frontier army of the Crisis and later Dominate needed armor that was easier to make and also provide enough protection.

LORICA WAS DIFFICULT TO KEEP CLEAN!!

The dominate's fabricae seem to have much more of a "command" economy, while the antonine army seems to have been supplied by more of a "free market". Perhaps the "free market" is better able to support a complex piece of equipment like lorica segmentata?

Goddam. Stephen king fan too. Not enough people like you in the world

Why give expensive really good armour to barbarians when you can give them cheaper ok mail armour.

Still watching, gonna say; it was too expensive.

Good video but you per ounce it lorēca segmentata

Great video sir! I did, however, cringe at every mentioning of leather, and armour, in the same sentence, whilst leather is a biological material and as such tends of degrade to generally nothing unless conditions in the ground are juuuuust right (meaning that finds of leather and fabric and the such are rare in the best cases of luck and impossible under most instances). There is written evidence that, whilst leather was used as armour (in rare cases) or a type of sub armour layer, it was no where near as common as people think it was, mostly because leather anythings was actually rather expensive to craft. Generally speaking if you had the option of leather armour, or maile armour, youd pick the maile, not only because its only partially more expensive, but it offers more protection and the Option of Repairability. You break a few maile rings, (wait a go you! Being on the front and tanking the blows that you really should be dodging!) You get them replaced with fresh ones. Your leather armour that cost you about the same as about 3 or 4 weeks worth of the tax on your house gets cut or pierced, your kinda stuffed... figurativly speaking, unless it also pierced something important under the armour... your only options there is... buy new armour... Righto, so thats my happy rant over, very nice video! I look forward to more!

Should we really dismiss the old theories entirely? Saying that there was no moral decline and no loss of discipline or military might seems just as bad putting all the blame on just those points. Typically, there are a myriad of factors that go into a fall. By the time of the Byzantines, Rome truly seemed like a shadow of its former self. By the battle of Yarmouk, they had totally decentralized command without even a common language, and foreign vassal troops were better than the native soldiers. Their tactics and strategy in that battle were abysmal, and they lost despite countless advances. You only need to make the comparison between that, and the unified command of the fearful legions of the past, to see something there was a change. The question is simply when it changed and how quickly.

Non Roman legions and the Gothic wars

to state the Obvious, Segmentat didn't work so swell in the Varian disaster.

I believe the barbarians did not shower... an the Romans did.

I disagree with two important aspects of this very long winded "I don't know" video. At the end you state that mass production was what (possibly) prompted the switch to maile. Riveting some strips of metal into a vaguely anthropomorphic shape is much cheaper and quicker, especially in a fabrica. Then you said that "maile is easier, because you've done it yourself". I challenge this statement. I suspect you "weaved some rings", but that's not what it takes to make maile armor. You need to draw the wire first, by hand, then you need to rivet all the links. Granted, you might try to make it a bit easier by punching half of the rings out of sheet metal, but you need to produce the said sheet metal first, then punch those rings by hand. And they are still the weak links, since they have an edge of sorts. That's why later maile is all riveted. So maile is neither cheaper nor it requires less skill than segmentata. Anyway, I propose a very simple solution to this whole conundrum. Segmentata was abandoned because it sucked. That also explains why, despite millenia old fascination with the Roman civilization, nobody really tried to copy this design. (I mean, some people did for show purposes, but not for real.)

Money… lol Late Roman Empire was hemorrhaging money.

Stop using the CE system

Please drop that “BCE/CE” crap. It’s “BC/AD”. Otherwise, great video.

I love that you talk about "a bit of Ukraine" in the 4th century. If you listened to Putin, Ukraine basically never existed and was created by Russia in the 20th century, what a tadpole.