+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD (/showthread.php?tid=9583)
Pages:
1
2
Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Aurelianus - 06-03-2007
I’m re-enacting the time from 75 until 105 AD. I hear very different meanings about wearing a greave on the shield shin, on both shins and no greaves. I’m a supporter of wearing a greave on the shield shin. Particularly since we have re-enacted some fights against spear leading Germanics (they have always attacked our legs).
My experience in gladiatorial combats (fighting with big shields ~ legionnaire scutum) second this view too. I believe the Legionnaires had even padded their shield foot with some material which has been available (old tunica, focale, ….)
Are there any sources about wearing greaves this time? Thank you very much for your help!
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Peroni - 06-03-2007
Greaves certainly appear on soldiers depicted on the Tropeum Traiani metopes.
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Aurelianus - 06-03-2007
Are there any earlier sources/finds?
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Tib. Gabinius - 06-03-2007
Earlier in first century? Or earlier in all?
In republican time, we've an example of spain, 1st century bc. ,Epesta.
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Alexandr K - 06-03-2007
Hi,
Quote:In republican time, we've an example of spain, 1st century bc. ,Epesta.Interesting! I didn't know that. Can you please provide any references?
Thanks
Alexandr
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Tib. Gabinius - 06-03-2007
Sure.
Published in "Römisches Spanien. Denkmäler der Römerzeit" 1993, Mainz am Rhein.
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Alexandr K - 06-03-2007
Thank you, Tobias.
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Marcus Mummius - 06-03-2007
Salve Aurelianus,
Very interesting discussion!
You say you believe the legionaries would have padded their shield foot. What do you mean by that? The foot or the shin? Can you tell me why?
I can see the need for leg protection for legionaries. in training fights with the rudis and a rectangular scutum the legs are one of the targets that are easiest to hit.
Vale,
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Magnus - 06-03-2007
I would think both would require it, especially the one not protected by the scutum since it was more vulnerable to a debilitating attack by an enemy weapon.
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Et tu brute - 06-03-2007
But that leg would be further back than the Scutum leg would it not? If so then you would probably have to over stretch to reach it (though it may be easier with a spear) therefore leaving yourself vunerable.
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Aurelianus - 06-03-2007
Quote:Earlier in first century? Or earlier in all?
In republican time, we've an example of spain, 1st century bc. ,Epesta.
Yes, I mean earlier in first century! From early republican time greaves (greek greaves) for soldiers are well known.
Quote:You say you believe the legionaries would have padded their shield foot. What do you mean by that? The foot or the shin? Can you tell me why?
I mean for the shield shin the greave (probably padded ) and for the foot a improvisation of padding (with old focale or strips of an old tunic, ....).
Even if you have the greave the foot is still very violative. This would have been the same reason why some gladiators had this padding. Especially manifested is this by the Murmillo and the Secutor. Both have a very similar fighting method like the legionnaires!
Quote:I would think both would require it, especially the one not protected by the scutum since it was more vulnerable to a debilitating attack by an enemy weapon.
It's always a question of proportionality between benefits and disadvantage. In case of the greaves between protection and handicap (weight, …). So I personally would resign on the second greave.
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Marcus Mummius - 06-03-2007
How would this improvisative padding on the foot look like? Would it be bound around the foot? Over the hobnails? You would loose the grip they provide...
Vale,
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Aurelianus - 06-03-2007
The "strips" of the Caliga would provide enough possibilities to attache sone padding with some lines I think. So the sole must not be tangented.
Re: Wearing greaves 75 until 105 AD - Aurelianus - 06-05-2007
No source?
Reviving an old topic...and opening a can of worms - L. Marius Victor - 01-19-2008
I have trouble believing that Roman Legionaries did'nt wear greaves during the first century. Why would they go through the trouble of providing torso protection but no leg protection? It doesnt make sense to me, logically. When you look at pictures of reenactors in their battle array, marching toward the camera with their shields held up in front of them, the thing that jumps out at me is how vulnerable their shins are. And any military commander worth his salt would tell his archers/slingers/javilinmen to aim for the legs.....so, Im going to list a couple of theories historians/reenactors claim is the reason why greaves were not worn, and my reasons why those theories dont hold water. Please, if im missing anything let me know.
1. Sculptures: Artisitic license!!! I have seen far too many sculptures, paintings, movies, what have you, picked apart by historians as being incorrect. My problem is that if even one item in a Roman sculpture can be discredited as "highly stylistic" and "unprobable" then everthing portrayed in it seems doubtful. For example: medieval paintings depicting 14th century battles and everyone (including common soldiers) wearing 15th century armour. American Civil War paintings with C.S. infantrymen wearing perfectly matching uniforms (in reality, issued uniforms would vary in color, light grey shell jacket, dark grey trousers, blue grey forage cap, and thats only if the soldiers had'nt discarded the issued uniform items for civilian clothing). And, in our modern era, movies. In 2000 years someone is going to watch "Rambo" and think that all American soldiers in Vietnam wore bandanas and fired their M60s' from the hip.
2. Weight: Somewhere on this forum someone had said that the weight of the greaves would have discouraged its use. Modern test usage of limb defence in Iraq was used as an example. Apparently the limb defence was heavy and unwieldy, and therefore the project was abandoned. I would like to point out that modern infantry combat is drastically different from ancient infantry combat (I know, I was an infantryman in the Marine Corps). The modern infantryman is constantly moving. He has to move quickly like light infantry while geared up as heavy infantry. It would be hard to take cover, sprint to your next position, and so on, while wearing limb defence. Also, as heavy infantry, I doubt Roman Legionaries would mind an extra 5 lbs if it means keeping your shins intact.
3. Archaeological evidence: Ok, now this is what I want to see. I dont have any comments so much as questions. How do we know that the greaves found either belonged to cavalry or officers (and what evidence is there that only officers wore greaves)? How many greaves have been found in comparison to Lorica Segmentata findings? Where are greaves usually found (battlefields, camp sites, etc.)?
Anyways, most of what we do as Roman reenactors is conjectural, from the armour and clothing to tactics and weapons use. So, because of the lack of definite information, I try to approach these things in a logical manner based on my own real world experience as an infantryman. Would I wear greaves in their place if I had the choice? Hell yeah! I can cope with a couple of extra pounds because i know how much it hurts to get kicked in the shins, let alone stabbed, clubbed, shot through with an arrow......