legionary vs longsword

[Legionary_Pullo]

oh please give me a break, as like u said u are repeating i too repeat that it has been seen that the segmenta was given to the citizen army and if it was in any way cumbersome then the romans would have dropped it.

but the romans did not drop it they in turn tried to simplify it further that is why we get different variations of the segmenta and even the gladius was simplified as i think all would agree with me here.

the knights plate armor was way toooo expensive and could not be dreamt of been given to the normal infantry but the segmenta as a version of plate was good against arrows and gave good protection against slash attacks too.

that is clear advantage as romes enemies like rome now fielded many skirmishers and in close melee fighting like we all know that if u want to stab at a legionary its way too difficult and if u slash, the legionary will be behind his shield and the impact will be less after it hits the shield and the armor and there can be no possibility of a clear shot at the armor unless from behind or at one on one combat.

so the roman legionary by any definition was more better armored than anybody of their time and now to think of it even romes enemies elite soldiers used mail and by fighting them if it had been found that the segmenta was weak then they would have reverted to the mail and none of this happened during romes golden period and happened only at the time of peril because after losing the riches of the east the western empire just couldnt afford it.

so guys i appeal please think it from a logical point of view keeping a lot of nerve breaking conditions in mind.

[Kythras]

Also, the Roman's metalurgy skills were not as advanced as medieval smiths, and having blades of medieval lengths was impossible, as they often had to be rebent after every swing (when made from unoxydised iron), or they snapped (whan made from over-oxydised steel).

I don't think I have to reitorate the tactical reasons behind the gladius' use, as that's probably been stated more than enough times here...

[Plutarch]

ive learned from past historical posts, that ThiudareiksGunthigg is quite accurate in his historical knowledge, esp armour, weaponry etc.

I would consider researching the topic in much more depth, (if forum opinions arent what youre looking for) and you can find out for yourself if the information Ringneck and he have provided you is correct or not.

[Flavius Nevitta]

oh please give me a break, as like u said u are repeating i too repeat that it has been seen that the segmenta was given to the citizen army and if it was in any way cumbersome then the romans would have dropped it.

but the romans did not drop it they in turn tried to simplify it further that is why we get different variations of the segmenta and even the gladius was simplified as i think all would agree with me here.


so the roman legionary by any definition was more better armored than anybody of their time and now to think of it even romes enemies elite soldiers used mail and by fighting them if it had been found that the segmenta was weak then they would have reverted to the mail and none of this happened during romes golden period and happened only at the time of peril because after losing the riches of the east the western empire just couldnt afford it.

so guys i appeal please think it from a logical point of view keeping a lot of nerve breaking conditions in mind.

Your arguments have several big flaws.

You say Rome's enemies wore mail and if the segmentata was so weak they would have reverted back to mail. thing is:

-Segmentata was never worn by the majority.

-Segmentata was most common in the western area, where the majority of enemies wore NO armour and often didn't even use metal weapons or weapons of relatively bad quality, while in the east where they faced armoured heavy troops they wore mail.

-you seem to have some serious problems with the timeframe. As stated in the other thread. The segmentatae already disappear long before the problems you mentioned or the loss of the eastern empire. same happens with the switch from gladii to spathae. So your economical arguments simply aren't correct.

[Odovacar]

Seems to me that many people still think gladius, lorica and scutum to be the keys of roman success.
In the reality empires are not made solely by good weapons, rather by dynamical society, advantageous location and other factors.

[Ringeck]

Not that Pullo actually wants to listen to us (that's how it goes sometimes, I guess), but plate armour in the medieval period, once they started rolling steel plates "industrially" (using the term very liberally) with waterpower in the 14th century, were relatively cheap...and rather common overall. You see it in illustrations and the declining price lists we have on armour. The fully-enclosing "full plate" style was expensive, of course, but breastplates, neckpieces and non-form fitting arm/leg armour pieces quickly led to maille becoming less and less popular in the late middle ages and early modern period.

Also, the Roman's metalurgy skills were not as advanced as medieval smiths, and having blades of medieval lengths was impossible, as they often had to be rebent after every swing (when made from unoxydised iron), or they snapped (whan made from over-oxydised steel).

It is true that the medieval period, from the 12th-13th century had more efficient methods of producing iron and steel, and more access to labor-saving devices when this was necessary (if you have the manpower, it seldom pays to invest in expensive machinery) but metallurgy is not really a good way of describing it - it was a practical, empirical approach rather than a theoretical one, and remained so until well into the modern period. That being said, roman-era iron and steel has been a bit underrated in earlier times. At least from early imperial times they used the bloomery for producing iron and steels(the same method that was used in early medieval times, or in 17th century japan for that matter) and were quite adept at case-hardening and quenching iron and carbon-iron alloys (Steel is iron with a certain carbon content, the quality depends on the cooling process and how hot it got in the bloomery). Pattern-welding was becoming more commonly available by the 3rd century (possibly adapted from the germanic peoples) for those decorative patterns and increased flexibility, and steels of varying quality was avaiable from before the imperial period.

And what Odocavar said just now is so true it should be repeated endlessly.

[Legionary_Pullo]

as far as i know Cinna the east did not rely on heavily armored troops, the parthians and sassniads knew how to deal with them because civilizations before romans like selucids also used heavy infantry and the east resisted them excellently not with infantry but with cavalry.

secondly, the roman auxillaries and republican legions were equipped with mail and ofcource many mail making workshops must have been set up to supply the huge amounts of mail and as mail was still given to the legions in the imperial era, with the setting up of new foundry for making segmenta obviously the production would have been low but nonetheless it was given to the western legions including the praetorians guard.

and if roman metallury was so piss poor then even the other civilisations would have been the same way having low quality weapons and sorry to say that u r trying to indirectly prove that the roman were idiots because u mean to say they did not know the difference between good and bad armor as i said u completely ignore the period when segmenta was used against mail.

ok let us simply assume that the naked barbarians did not have armor and as the legions themselves had worn both types of armor wouldn't they have resisted that the auxillaries have better armor than the citizens.

the celtic swords were definitely of good quality by the standards of those times and by fighting them the legions did not find the segmenta cumbersome just because there is a change of time that doesn't mean that technology and skills also rises. example, the pyramids of egyptians let us try to build them in the same way again.

i have read in the twc forums itself that the roman metallurgy was very good so the armor were of good quality and whatever irons was supplied for mail the same would have been supplied for segmenta.

and again ppppppppppppppplease think from that period point of view dont go to toooooo far or toooo back and as i said hard evidence nothing more nothing less.

[Legionary_Pullo]

the conclusion that i draw out is that the romans were successful not because of their weapons but by their commitment,discipline.

good weapons do help but in battle there is no substitute courage.