08-04-2008, 04:09 PM
I don't think that's so much a modern perspective as a tactical one. No matter what time period, the usual goal in a battle is to kill your enemy, or, failing that, to cripple him and take him out of the battle. Sometimes that's even better than outright killing, because then the enemy needs to use manpower and resources to feed and care for someone who can't fight.
If his body and head -- the usual lethal targets -- are too well protected by armor or shield, the legs and arms become obvious secondary targets. There's nothing particularly modern about seeing the shins as a good target; the fact that many other armies, before and since, armored them is testament to that. If the Roman army of the early Empire period didn't see greaves as necessary, maybe we're overlooking something else -- perhaps something in the way the formation worked -- that made them hard to strike.
I think the large scutum is one likely point of protection. Other ideas?
If his body and head -- the usual lethal targets -- are too well protected by armor or shield, the legs and arms become obvious secondary targets. There's nothing particularly modern about seeing the shins as a good target; the fact that many other armies, before and since, armored them is testament to that. If the Roman army of the early Empire period didn't see greaves as necessary, maybe we're overlooking something else -- perhaps something in the way the formation worked -- that made them hard to strike.
I think the large scutum is one likely point of protection. Other ideas?
Wayne Anderson/ Wander
