What percentage or how many Roman Legionaries wore Lorica Segmentata

>>1730490
Segmentata is extremely iconic and was used in the most commonly represented period, but hamata was always the most commonly deployed armor. I can't give you percentages but I doubt segmentata ever reached above the 20% mark.

What was missing from Roman metallurgy understanding to make full plate-mail?

Or was it possible but unpractical given the way the Roman armies operated?

File: greek hoplite reenactor.jpg (331KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 640x424px

>>1730532
>Or was it possible but unpractical given the way the Roman armies operated?
Probably this, as something similar to full plate (albeit in bronze form) existed all the way back to the Archaic age.

>>1730532

You didn't have the sorts of forges that could work a single piece of iron roughly the size of a man's chest, which you need for that sort of iconic, Renaissance plate armor. Instead, the limit of ironworking was smaller pieces, which required fitting them together to cover a man, which in turn meant that there were always vulnerable joints somewhere.

>>1730655

Bronze is a hell of a lot easier to cast than iron is.

>>1730663
>what is lorica musculata

>>1730684


I've never heard of one not made out of bronze.

>>1730693
They got made in rigid leather too.

>>1730766
Contested, or at the very least its military usage.

>>1730693
>what is the Corfu cuirass

>>1730532
>What was missing from Roman metallurgy understanding to make full plate-mail?

Blast furnace and the trip-hammer

>>1730820
>at the very least its military usage
What other use is there for it? It's cheap and protective. Certainly if someone wanted ceremonial armor they'd use bronze instead.

>>1730864
>It's cheap
it's not.
>and protective
it's not.

>>1730981
Dude it's a tougher version of the buff coat renaissance pikemen wore. It IS protective.

>>1730490
Some will try to tell you that the Segmentata was almost never worn and was extremely rare. These people are wrong, they are memers believing memes on the internet, they're the same sort of people who say soldiers didn't wear plumes on their helmets incase the enemy grabbed them, or that every piece of armour with some nice decoration would have never been used in combat.

Recent archaeology shows the segmentata up all across the Roman world. We don't find whole pieces of it, almost never, it was iron and turns to rust. What we do find, consistently, are the bronze buckles and hinges that held the bands together.

If you find these you find evidence of segmentatas.

This paper is the latest and best on the Segmentata, if you're really interested OP, have a skim though. I'll share some interesting bits.
https://www.academia.edu/513011/Lorica_Segmentata_Volume_I_A_Handbook_of_Articulated_Roman_Plate_Armour?auto=download

>Likewise, the proportion of loose fittings from segmental armour for any given period far outweighs the number of components for either mail or scale, for the same length of time. Could this have been due to the fact that segmentata was far and away the most common form of armour, or was it just more prone to falling a part ,thus ending up over-represented in the archaeological record?

> Our evidence seems to point fairly convincingly to the fact that segmental body armour was primarily a legionary (and praetorian) form of defence. This does not mean that legionaries used it to the exclu-sion of other types, since there is ample evidence for the use of scale and mail amongst the legions throughout the Principate (and arguably on into the Dominate), simply that it was a form of armour thatseems mainly (on the limited evidence exclusively) to have been issued to the legions and the Praetorian Guard.

>>1731060
Lorica segmentata was a form of body armour thatlasted in Roman service for more than 250 years. Assuch, despite many apparent shortcomings, it can only be judged as a success. It was a lightweight and flexible defence that could be patched up in service by any soldier and maintained to a higher standard by any competent craftsman. It also arguably provided the best available defence for the shoulders of an infantryman

>>1730532
They couldn't make large enough pieces of steel.

>>1731006
You do realize the buff coat is among the least protective armors, right?

>>1731070
>flexible
Not so much, particularly with hamata around.

>that could be patched up in service by any soldier
Again, that was more the case with hamata.