VEMBRACES

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Garrelt,

From that Period on there is some clear evidence of Splinted protection.

Is it not telling that as soon as we changes in the swords (quillions?) we also begin to see clear evidence of wrist protection? Of course I agree with you and Matt about evidence and the absence of it, but I think this development also tells us a lot.

What is also a little bit strange is that there is evidence of lower leg guard(s), written and Archaeological, from the whole Roman era but so little from protecting the lower arm/hand.
This is also strange because the bones in the lower leg are almost the same length as those from the lower arm, so a lower leg guard could easily be fitted to the lower arm.

Exactly. We do have evidence of shin protection (ocreae), yet no vambraces. I would say that this indeed points to a different sword technique, where the shield offers enough protection for the sword arm. Apparently the shield was not dropped to protect the leg, especially the left leg which was often in front of the right one (manuals tell us that at least the left leg needs to be protected).

Now, can anyone explain to me that while the arm did perhaps not need protection, but the leg apparently did, why the feet were not protected at all? hock:

There are more scratches of weapon contact on my Vambraces than on my lower leg guard. Same goes for my metal Manica that I use as a Gladiator.

Wel, this is telling us much about your fighting technique then? Apparently, your outstretched arm is in front of your shieldrim, and perhaps Roman legionaries fought in a different manner.

After Wolin my protective glove had to be repaired after being in contact with a 2 handed axe and my lamella needs a complete rebuild a lot of the Rawhide, which hold the plates together, was broken due to the impact force of the fighting.

I guess this happened a lot to every soldier in battle.