Bracers: worldwide campaign to eliminate

[richsc]

We may never get rid of the trooper helm, but if there is one thing RAT can campaign for, it could be the elimination of bracers. I do believe this has been discussed over the past 13 years, and we have an understanding that they don't belong. A lot of Italian groups love them, but can we get them off them? At least that is a relatively easy goal.

[Luka Borščak]

We have a problem with bracers in medieval reenactment too.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I thought splint bracers were in use by the Turks, Nomads, and Romans after their introduction by the 8th century Khazars?

[Athena Areias]

I thought bracers were introduced in the 1920's by Hollywood Romans to hide their wristwatch tan lines...

[Graham Sumner]

I suppose they fall into the category of the type of thing that soldiers in action may have used but were not part of the 'official' kit if such a thing existed. A bit like the leg wrappings or bindings in the early empire, bracae, or supposed native style tartan cloaks, tunics and trousers.

They are popular with groups who engage in simulated combat, in much the same way as those who wear gloves on the shield hand and I guess that there are those who feel that if the Romans did not think the arm was worth protecting, why did they have manicae?

Presumably if your group does not engage in any form of combat then there is no need to wear them.

It may have been Hollywood that popularised them and in all probability it was a mistaken interpretation of the bracelets like those worn on the tombstone of M. Caelius.

I know they are also popular with a lot of Dark age - Viking re-enactors but I do not know why they and any Late Romans who use them cannot wear them hidden under the tunic sleeves.

Last year I did quiz some Early Medieval re-enactors who were wearing them, what the evidence was. The reply was that they were used by the Romans!! :o :whistle: :? :whistle:

I think they were slightly offended by my snort of haughty derision! :wink:

Graham.

[Medicus matt]

I thought splint bracers were in use by the Turks, Nomads, and Romans after their introduction by the 8th century Khazars?

Earliest Western European splinted vambraces/bracers come from the Valsgarde 8 boat burial in Uppland, Sweden.
Dated to the late 6th/7th century.



The splints are dimensionally correct replicas, the mail gauntlet is extrapolated from the remains of mail at the hand end of the splints.

[mcbishop]

We may never get rid of the trooper helm, but if there is one thing RAT can campaign for, it could be the elimination of bracers. I do believe this has been discussed over the past 13 years, and we have an understanding that they don't belong. A lot of Italian groups love them, but can we get them off them? At least that is a relatively easy goal.

You'll find Coulston and me supporting that campaign. Next comes sundry tubes of cloth on lower limbs for no good reason ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Graham Sumner]

Mike Wrote: Next comes sundry tubes of cloth on lower limbs for no good reason ;-)


While there is certainly no sculptural evidence of soldiers wearing them in the fist centuries AD there are literary references to them. Unlike the bracers there is certainly both sculptural and painted versions worn by soldiers from the early fourth century A.D.

Graham.

[Luca]

I agree with this campaign. In our group are formally forbidden with the exception of a small one on the left arm to protect the hand for the hits of the shield. I use it also to hide my watch because during reenacting I check time every two minutes to follow the program timetable.

We forbid also the bandanas introduced by Gladiator movie that are widely used by italians reenactors.

[A_Volpe]

When Hollywood, TV and Video Games stop having their Romans with bracers, that hopefully will mean the [near] end of the damned things.

As mentioned by others, it's a similar problem with Medieval, Renaissance and Renaissance Fantasy Faire stuff. (although I'm no longer as irritated by cavalier-types or the ubiquitous "pirate" or "warrior" wearing them and other black studded leather wear at fantasy faires), but certainly does not belong in any portrayal/group claiming accuracy.

There seems to be a lot of "Heritage" or "Festival" groups that just love to wear horribly bad clothing and gear…Despite any attempts to offer them better options or just correction on clearly bad research (if any is done at all).

I've heard the [argument] that the reason Bracers keep showing up is because it makes the character look "more badass". Yet, the more I see it, the more ridiculous and pointless it looks to me. Sort of like the infamous Women's Armor that has just armor on the bust and hips, nothing for the exposed belly. (if there's any "Armor" or clothing at all) But showing skin sells comics and many other products.

[Scipio Second]

Ah, what a pleasure to observe the frenzy of purists. Perhaps they recall the Roman heroes they were in a former reincarnation. We have observed their puerile, yet confident pronouncements too frequently over the years. Frankly I do not know, nor do they really, of exactly what additional armor or equipment a Roman legionnaire or for that matter a Greek Hoplite might have worn. Or whether it might have varied depending upon location or local custom. As a career soldier I do know that soldiers, and especially officers, tend to augment issued equipment to suit their particular wonts.

Even more disturbing is the assumption of authority to condemn re-enactors for failing to meet their proposed standards of purity and perfection. Re-enactors no doubt make errors in regalia with respect to authenticity. But that misses the point, does it not? Re-enactors do it for fun. As a re-enactor I confess I have never been asked to inspect another re-enactor's regalia for authenticity, though I might comment if certain equipment was terribly wrong or out of character.

There is also no doubt that re-enactors are often influenced by Hollywood. But purists again miss the point. I am grateful when films of Roman history are produced. But I understand they are made for entertainment, not historical accuracy. So when someone says armor or other garb worn in a film is not historically accurate, I am compelled to remind that individual that the average moviegoer would not distinguish between a cuirass or a lorica segmentata. To that moviegoer it's just chest armor. The question is, is the film entertaining?

So, I care little for what the purists attempt to dictate to me and others regarding Roman regalia. I continue to wear greaves and vambraces. I venture I receive more attention at a historical festival than do most purists. If not, do I care?

With due respect,

Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus
(aka Pierre Kleff)

[richsc]

Old habits die hard.

"Mr. Richard, you will find a lot of our guys wear bracers, although it may be historicaly incorrect, it is like this for all the 20years of group history,so it is an old habit and we know how it is with old habits"

[Medicus matt]

I continue to wear ...vambraces

But why?
Serious question, not a snarky one.
What purpose do you believe they serve, particularly if they're made from leather?

[Thomas Aagaard]

Ah, what a pleasure to observe the frenzy of purists.

Not sure if I should just have reported this to the mods for trolling.

That reenactores look more to movies and other reenactores is they reason why so many reenactment groups simply suck at actually showing an authentic representation of what ever period they try to reenact.
And it is the exact same problem with viking period, medieval period or american civil war groups. It is just worse, since the sources for the 19th century are so plentiful.. including photographs.. so there are no excuse with "we don't know"

this makes it so much harder for the people who actually work professional with teaching history... And that is disrespectful. Bot to the professionals and to the people who come to watch what you are doing... since you are teaching them something that is not correct.

[Crispianus]

I suppose they fall into the category of the type of thing that soldiers in action may have used but were not part of the 'official' kit if such a thing existed. A bit like the leg wrappings or bindings in the early empire, bracae, or supposed native style tartan cloaks, tunics and trousers.

They are popular with groups who engage in simulated combat, in much the same way as those who wear gloves on the shield hand and I guess that there are those who feel that if the Romans did not think the arm was worth protecting, why did they have manicae?

Presumably if your group does not engage in any form of combat then there is no need to wear them.

It may have been Hollywood that popularised them and in all probability it was a mistaken interpretation of the bracelets like those worn on the tombstone of M. Caelius.

I know they are also popular with a lot of Dark age - Viking re-enactors but I do not know why they and any Late Romans who use them cannot wear them hidden under the tunic sleeves.

Last year I did quiz some Early Medieval re-enactors who were wearing them, what the evidence was. The reply was that they were used by the Romans!! :o :whistle: :? :whistle:

I think they were slightly offended by my snort of haughty derision! :wink:

Graham.

Personally I always wore full contact martial arts arm guards under my sleeves(dense rubber foam in an elastic sleeve not too bulky and doesn't really show)...
though they had no elbow protection, and I used a wrist strengthener made from goat skin (laced up) to support my wrist which I also found helped when blacksmithing or any heavy manual work...
This was primarily purely a re-enactment combat safety expedient though and was finished of with a custom made mail armoured glove(the only thing that showed) with a mostly bare grip area as I hate the loss of grip/feel from wearing a glove...
Broken fingers used to be pretty common at least in early medieval re-enactment.... safety first... ;-)

Obviously the Roman Soldier on some occasions felt the need for arm protection and of course evidence for this exists..... I think though the kind of Vambraces that are being discussed here there is no evidence for, at least I don't know of any... I would like to be proved wrong particularly if their leather as I can add them to my display....

The oldest gloves I know of are Egyptian textile gloves 14th century BC quite a bit older then the Roman era....... any surviving Roman ones?