Greaves and Vambraces in the rank and file

[Matthew Amt]

Geez, this one just isn't going away...

A lot of unsupported assumptions are being made in this thread: Weapons mostly slicing and chopping, not breaking bones

Sorry, I was just going on the old assumption that spears were the main weapon. Swords are also more likely to slice and cut rather than just break the bone--I *think*. Breaks without cutting would seem to be something that a blunt weapon is needed for, and while we know clubs were in use by some people, they really don't seem to be *common* in most ancient cultures. Same with maces, at least during the Roman era. If my assumption is incorrect, I will cheerfully change it.

Local doctors being too expensive for the everyday citizen

Again, sorry, and this isn't really something I have done hard research on, but my understanding is that going to a doctor cost money back then, and that *good* doctors cost *more* money. So speaking very generally, the best doctors would be available mainly to wealthier patients. Of course, that does not mean that there could not be some back alley quack who was particularly good at setting bones! So I'm happy to back out of the discussion of medical practices and leave it to those who have done more research.

Hmm, seems curious--if broken legs and good repairs are significantly more common on gladiators than on civilians, and we commonly see greaves worn by gladiators, then what conclusion can we logically draw about military greave use even if we had comparable statistics about broken legs, which we don't have?...

I was hoping that someone would have some references related to the treatment of leg wounds by roman military doctors to illustrate that perhaps since treatment was available (and effective) for leg injuries that greeves
may have been considered less necessary for most troops.

Sorry, but to me that just seems like a backwards approach to the question! Sure, we know there were skilled doctors, and we know the military was a good place for them to practice and learn. BUT if you want to know whether greaves were worn, it seems simple to me: Look at the artwork, look at the finds, look at the literature. If you can find some corroborating--or contradicting!--hints in medical statistics somewhere, terrific! But I just don't think you're going to find enough mass or detail in medical references to prove or disprove the whole idea of the wearing of greaves.

Or are there other practical reasons greeves wouldn't be deposited and later found as often as other armor items?

All we can do on this is speculate wildly and pointlessly, UNLESS there is a reliable ancient reference that is reasonably unambiguous on the point. Such a reference would most likely be common knowledge by now.

Or perhaps due to how they were made maybe they didn't survive after deposition as well as other items?

Those that I've seen appear to be comparable to lorica segmentata plates, of which we have plenty.

So jump in everyone anything known to support/refute any on the above?

Support is great if it's there, but we don't have to refute anything. The burden of proof is on the person making the theory, especially if it contradicts the commonly-known evidence. That's how the study of history works.

Matthew Amt wrote:

What about them? Hold your shield up and hunker down.

If this was the reasoning of the time, then why use helmets or loricas at all.

Many ancient warriors did not! Gauls, Germans, Thracians, Numidians, Britons, Roman Republican velites, some Hellenistic hoplites and other troops, etc. Going to battle with just a shield was very common. Not all legionaries from the late Republic and early Empire wore body armor.

Even today we "mark" our gear. Our first and middle initial and last name has to be marked on specified areas of our personal equipment. I own a Vietnam era flak jacket a Marine used in that war, and his name is still marked inside. I also own an M1 helmet dated 1943 with the soldiers name written inside the helmet liner. Does this mean that they owned the gear? Absolutely not. Soldiers have always marked their gear as a means to identify it as being the gear you are financially responsible for. The fact that there are artifacts with several names marked on them reinforces this theory.

Several literary sources state that legionaries were required to furnish their own gear, and there are surviving records from the Principate that show payroll deductions for equipment. We have letters that soldiers about getting weaponry from their families. We find from other records that the state only began *issuing* equipment in the 3rd century AD, so the soldiers would have had to pay for their own in the first century even if it was made and provided by the army. The preponderance of evidence that Roman soldiers owned their equipment outweighs the comparison to modern practice. That's how the study of history works.

Well, sorry, but the guys who were there at the time apparently disagree with you! We learn history from the EVIDENCE, not from modern opinion.

Which guys? The artists. Artists are, well, artists. You know, artistic license. Modern Hollywood directors are artists, too. I think that's all I have to say on that.

Perhaps you can read some of the extensive discussions on this board about Roman artwork. There is much debate about what sorts of artwork are more reliable than others, debates carried on by trained art historians, I might add. Bottom line, we have to use the visual depictions of the time as some sort of framework for our reconstructions, because that's what we have. That's how the study of history works.

And many of the "Historians" of the period are one or two centuries removed....not all of them, but many are.

But they are the people who lived back then!! They understood their culture far better than anyone today, and they were intimately familiar with many of the practices back then. Dismissing them all as unreliable is incredibly arrogant.

If you dismiss the artistic evidence as fantasy, and the literary evidence as political hype, and the archeological evidence as somehow skewed or hopelessly incomplete, WHAT THE HECK IS LEFT?? You cannot study history without these sources! All you are doing at that point is making up what you want it to have been like, and scoffing at any attempts to inject some scholarly evidence into the debate. That is not how the study of history works.

Much of the modern information on this period is based on theory and conjecture. There are far too many missing pieces to put your foot down and claim it as fact.

I am not claiming it as fact. I am saying that the preponderance of historical evidence points at a certain conclusion. If more facts are uncovered that point to a different conclusion, I will be thrilled, and will cheerfully change my point of view. I have done that many times in the past 30 years or so. That is how the study of history works.

Also, the tactics we use today are nothing like the tactics used in the 1st century AD.

Then there is no point in trying to prove an ancient Roman practice by comparing to modern practices, is there? They did not fight like us, they did not think like us. As you said, "There are far too many missing pieces to put your foot down and claim it as fact." So if you want to believe that first century legionaries commonly wore greaves, it doesn't look like evidence is going to change your mind, and that's your right. But if you go in front of the public and present your theory as fact or even strong possibility, you will be flying in the face of all the known evidence--artistic, literary, and archeological--and you will be teaching an untruth. It is my duty as one who loves and teaches history to try to convince you to stick with the evidence we have, rather than what we want to believe. THAT IS HOW THE STUDY OF HISTORY WORKS.

Valete,

Matthew