Lorica Segmentata - Uses

Uses

The question as to precisely who used the armour is debated. There is a clear difference in armour between the two corps shown on Trajan's Column. This is a monument erected in 113 in Rome to commemorate the conquest of Dacia by Emperor Trajan (ruled 98-117): its bas-reliefs are a key source for Roman military equipment. Auxilia are generally shown wearing mail (lorica hamata) cuirasses or simple leather corslets, and carrying oval shields. Legionaries are uniformly depicted wearing lorica segmentata and with curved rectangular shields. On this basis, it has been supposed that lorica segmentata was used by legionaries only. However, some historians consider Trajan's Column to be inaccurate as a historical source due to its inaccurate and stylized portrayal of Roman armor: "...it is probably safest to interpret the Column reliefs as ‘impressions’, rather than accurate representations."

The view that auxilia were light troops originates from Vegetius' comment that "auxilia are always joined as light troops with the legions in the line". It is true that some specialist units in the auxilia, such as Syrian archers and Numidian cavalry wore light armour (or none). But they were a small minority of the auxilia. Most auxiliary cohortes contained heavy infantry similar to legionaries.

However, on another Trajanic monument (the Adamclisi Tropaeum) the lorica segmentata does not appear at all, and legionaries and auxilia alike are depicted wearing either mail or scales (lorica squamata). Some experts are of the opinion that the Adamclisi monument is a more accurate portrayal of normality, with the segmentata used rarely, maybe only for set-piece battles and parades. This viewpoint considers the figures in Trajan's Column to be highly stereotyped, in order to distinguish clearly between different types of troops. In any event, both corps were equipped with the same weapons: gladius (a close-combat stabbing sword) and javelins, although the type of javelin known as pilum seems to have been provided to legionaries only. Goldsworthy points out that the equipment of both corps were roughly equal in weight.

In recent years archaeology has found fittings of lorica segmentata in many fort sites that are thought to have been garrisoned by only auxiliary troops, i.e., where the legions were not based. If the legions were, indeed, broken up and distributed around all these small bases, then it implies a tactical use of the legions that has not previously been considered. Hitherto, the legions were regarded as shock troops employed only en masse and not broken up into detachments. M.C. Bishop, however, has argued that we need to examine the way in which the various troop types were armed and deduce from this what their battle roles were, rather than trying to consider who-wore-what. Succinctly put, the legions were armed and trained for close-order combat while the auxiliary forces, just as numerous, were more accustomed to open order fighting, although they could be employed as the legions were (e.g. at Mons Graupius) if circumstances demanded this.