In Skyrim Should I Be A Roman Or Spartan

Why did lorica segmentata armor fall out of use in Rome?

Late medieval and early renaissance plate armor is by and far some of the best armor out there. It's superior to Roman lorica Segmentata in almost every way. Almost. Segmentata has two benefits to full plate armor, 1.) Cost, 2.) Weight.Look at that, if you wouldn't have guessed I'm the guy in the back leading the gladiator along because he gets to be part of the entertainment.I just spent the last weekend in Roman attire as a legionnaire, in 100 degree Fahrenheit temperature. Here's what I learned by wearing the stuff, it's heavier than chainmail, it breathes a bit better, and it spreads out shock better. The one thing that is difficult about it is putting it on, the stuff is heavy and has lots of ties and buckles; chainmail slides on like a shirt.Is the segmentata better than chainmail? In terms of protection, yes. In terms of manufacturing, if you have a press it is easy to make. But it's a lot of work to maintain, it's harder to scrub down and eventually the leather wears out and needs replacements. The thing is, a blacksmith can make the stuff for chainmail, you need an armored with a press to make segmentata.So after having actually used it, I can give you an opinion on how the items compared. Lastly for some reason people like to swing sharp swords at you to prove the armor works.There I am in a chainmail shirt. Lighter, simpler for a blacksmith to make, but not as good at taking sword cuts.So as to why this became preferred? It was likely cheaper, it had been around longer, and more people could work on it for you. The segmentata was great armor superior to mail in almost ever way. Unfortunately economics is a huge part of armies and so occasionally better quality things lose out. Also as Rome declined chainmail was simply easier to produce compared to specialized armor like segmentata or scale.Onto addressing a few more things. The segmentata’s protection could be bolstered with other armor pieces but the Roman's usually didn't find them cost effective. In rare occasions they did wear manica[1]. It is important to realize that a lot of the Roman military decisions were by economic or stylistic thought not sheer military purpose. Groups like the extremely well funded Praetorian guard wore scale shirts for the looks so facts like these must be taken into consideration when discussing the times.Footnotes[1] The Manica

Are the Imperials in Skyrim a different version of the ancient Romans?

Yes. In fact all the major races are based on real world cultures.The similarities between the Imperials and the Romans are quite interesting. The are many visual similarities such as the armour, but the major ones are that both cultures created the most powerful empires, in their respective worlds, and both their armies are structured similarly. Elaborating on the second point, the Imperial Legions are based on their Roman equivalent, and even ranks like Centurion and Legate were used by the Romans. There are many other similarities like, both the Imperial city, and Rome were the largest cities in their respective worlds. Tiber Spetim and Augustus Caesar, who were the first emperors of each of their cultures' empires were both deified.The Imperials are greatly influenced by the Altmer, even their Capital was founded by them, and the Romans were greatly influenced by the Greeks. Rome's founding myth follows that Aeneas, a Trojan prince, was the ancestral founder of Rome. Trojans weren't Greeks, but what I can gather- especially from the Ilaid- they were culturally quite similar.The Roman Emperor’s bodyguards, the Praetorian Guard, were an order older that the office of the emperor, and were extremely powerful, for instance, they once auctioned the office to the highest bidder. The blades, are similar in their importance within the Empire, and the age of their order, but greatly different, in that they come from Akavir, which is based on Eastern cultures, especially Japan, and they weren't as corrupt as their real-world counterparts.Even, Imperial names are directly taken from Roman names. Some of these are Tiber, Titus, Constans, Zeno, Severus.What I find most interesting is that religon played a major part in destabilising both these empires. For the Elder scrolls, it was the banning of Talos worship, and the for the Roman empire, the numerous sects of Christianity. This was especially true for the African provinces.I won't go into detail about the other races, but these are what I think are their real-world equivalents:Nords - Nordic (Viking) culture.Bretons - Britons and the English.Bosmer - The Maori.Altmer - Greeks.Redguards - Moors.Argonians - A generalisation of Central African tribes.Khajit - Berbers.Dunmer - Isrealites.I honestly don't have any idea about the Orsimer.

Why do people say one-handed swords aren't primary weapons when Roman legionnaires used short one-handed swords as their primary weapon?

I have to agree that a legionairy isn’t primarily armed with a sword. He's primarily armed with a shield, which he pairs with a sword. From a fencing perspective, the shield is the most relevant factor. That is the weapon that most changes the shield-armed fencer’s tactics, and the threat against which the opponent must primarily contend.To put it another way: a guy with a shield and sword fights more like a guy with a shield and axe (or even a shield and knife) than he does like a guy with an unaccompanied sword.That said, I think “primary weapon” is something of an ambiguous term. It can mean “weapon that is too big to be a sidearm,” but it can also mean “sole or only weapon.”In the latter sense, swords have been the “primary” (sole) weapon of many people - sometimes by design, as in the case of certain cavalry or the many people throughout the Renaissance who wielded greatswords - and sometime not.But as to the former sense, it's an undeniable fact that the vast majority of swords throughout history have been small enough to wear on the belt, and were worn on the belt, including the gladius. That makes them sidearms, by definition, and if you choose to define “primary weapon” in opposition to sidearm, it also makes them not primary weapons.Personally, I think this is the more useful of the two definitions. But I can't speak for other people whom you may have heard.

Who would win in a war Rome or a medieval style civilization?

Rome lasted a long time, and the Middle Ages weren't short but for the sake of argument I'm going to say Late Republican Rome against the high mediaeval period.After a bit of skirmishing the two armies line up to face each other on the field. In the centre the Romans have their incredibly successful legionaries while on the far side of the field the incompetent enemies have put … cavalry? And they don’t even know how to hold lances, holding them under their arms? This is going to be a massacre.And a massacre it is. Since the reformation of their legions under Marius the Romans haven’t really gone in for pike blocks, and the charge of armoured knights with couched lances and better armour than the Romans have ever seen before is overwhelming. Even the discipline of the legions break and in a shameful display the Romans flee the field. It’s a massacre, the worst since Cannae (although it resembles more the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest).The medaeval armies then leave to go home and bring the harvest in, convinced they’ve won. The Romans, meanwhile, do what they do best. They dig in, they learn, they redesign their armies (and bring back pikes), and they keep the war going without fighting until they think they are ready.At Cannae the Romans assembled their biggest army at that point in history, of 86,000 people. They were out-generalled and the entire army was either killed or captured - the largest army the Romans had ever fielded in one of the greatest military disasters in human history. The Romans, however, didn’t give up and they went on to win that war. The medaeval style civilisation almost certainly didn’t have a large standing army although the Romans would be savagely out-teched.