Greaves and Vambraces in the rank and file

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I think there's some validity to that last point you mentioned Wayne. Our guys going to Afganistan are buying tons of locally made kit. I wonder if the Romans did something similar, or used item A if it wasn't issued, but could be bought instead. Especially from local or the legion's armorers.

I reckon having a pair of greaves made by the local blacksmith at the vicus would not have been too difficult. Like I postulated above, the actual piece of kit must have been down to individual choice, paycheck and so on.

[Crispvs]

Bear in mind that the greaves depicted on the Adamklissi metopes seem to end just below the knee, so they would't be any good as knee pads, they just don't seem long enough. General wisdom holds that the greaves which extended over the knee were the preserve of centuriones. Certainly Calidius Severus, Favonius Facilis and Sertorius Festus all fit this pattern.

Crispvs

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

In Telamon (Italy) there is a statuette depicting a centurion (I hink, he wears the swords on left) of late republican/early empire wearing greaves covering the knees too (in both legs).
I can't find an image.

There is another of a cornicen (Osuna, Sevilla, España):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image ... %29_01.jpg

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Perhaps these were were reserved for officers, as the extra space allowed for more elaborate decorations?

[Marcus Mummius]

There is another of a cornicen (Osuna, Sevilla, España):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image ... %29_01.jpg

Great, I had never seen a cornicen depicted with greaves until now!

[Crispvs]

Neither have I - good find! I think that deserves a laud point.

I think a small point should be made about swords worn on the left. The depictions of swords worn on the right are certainly correct and we all know from experience that it is child's play to draw from the right, but at the same time there is evidence for soldiers wearing their swords on the left. Josephus specifically describes swords as being worn on the left and there is always this chap from Mainz, who is often cited as a centurio but I see no compelling evidence to think so:

Courtesy of RAT imagebase

See also here for a discussion on the matter:
http://www.romanarmy.net/artleft.htm

Crispvs

[A_Volpe]

Maybe for spearmen it would have been easier as you are less vulnerable due to the distance.

I think having a spear is a much worse perdicament, as you're likely holding it with both hands, and if a Roman got "inside" your spear (since there is only one pointy end going towards said Roman), your arms and torso are more exposed...But, I can't explain this well enough, I wish I had pictures...This reminds me to get onto that project sometime. *roll*

I just imagined as the legionaries were pretty much armour clad (Helmet, Lorica/Hamata, Scutum) perhaps a barbarian would opt to strike at a vulnerable and less protected spot, like the legs.

Well, we don't have "proof" that every single Roman was in armor - those Mainz reliefs help question that notion. So, a shield and helmet, helping to cover the body and head, is certainly I think a priority for armor. (afterall, it works just fine for other soldiers/warriors later on; ie Norse/Viking) but as you said, if you're a smart barbarian and don't want to damage your sword (or spear...) by hitting the shield or armor, as you'd know that's not going to do you much good, perhaps you would take the risk and go for the legs or something else exposed....And as I described, I think you'll end up in a heap of trouble doing that.

Also, one of the points I try to make in programs I give - You don't just worry about the Roman infront of you who you're fighting, you have to worry about the other Romans in the line next to your opponent covering him, too!

As for the greaves being worn on the left leg in the Republic period - My side theory is perhaps they wore the greave as a protection from the Scutum itself! Maybe they were using the greave to help brace the shield up onto the shin, and fighting around the scutum (if, say, their arms were too tired from holding them up - if they did that; I know it's exhausting to hold up a Repub. scutum up for a few minutes! And trying to walk with the thing "faced front" I bash my legs into that thing constantly....But then I'm not used to that weight as a Roman would probably be)

I think this comes into play when we see the greave 'return' in the 100's AD - perhaps the greave is not only to cover the shin, but also to help brace for the shield, as well as protect the leg from the shield rubbing up the leg.

There is a great sculpture of a Gladiator in a 'classic gladiator pose', I forget the name of it unfortunately, but, he's got his shoulder into the shield, and it's braced up on (or very near) his knee, and I'm pretty sure he has a greave on the left leg - He is thrusting over and down the top of his shield.

Unfortunately I don't know cavalry so I can't comment on that

[Wander]

I've always seen the greave on the left leg as a function of the fact that, when you're right-handed, your shield is on the left arm, so that's the side you lead with. The left leg, in the classic position, is far more vulnerable than the trailing right leg.

I hadn't thought of it protecting the leg from the shield, though that makes some sense, too.

[Tarbicus]

I've read recently, somewhere, that the fighting stance was right leg forward, not left. Anyone else come across this? When you think of a boxer, the forward leg is the same as the leading hand. I know, I know, it doesn't fit with the accepted logic, but I definitely read it somewhere.

[Wander]

I remember very clearly a relief showing a Roman soldier with the shield and left leg forward, right leg back, with the sword in the right hand at gut-opening level. Now I'm gonna look for it, but I bet someone will find it before I do...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I read that somewhere too just recently Jim.... :?
I think it was a post on here....

[Matthew Amt]

Maybe for spearmen it would have been easier as you are less vulnerable due to the distance.

I think having a spear is a much worse perdicament, as you're likely holding it with both hands...

Huh? MOST spearmen had a shield! The spear was a one-handed weapon--are you thinking of a pike?

One reason for Centurions to wear greaves of the classic over-the-knee form was simply fashion. Same reason their armor had the rounded bottom edge, copying the form of the Classical muscled cuirass. They don't seem to have followed the Hellenistic style as closely as aristocratic officers (tribunes and legates), but the influence is still there.

Valete,

Matthew

[Robert Vermaat]

Your shins are pretty tough as they are. You're likely to survive a hit or cut or gash on the front of your legs, as opposed to a gash in your side or head. Sure, getting hit in the shins is not fun, but, survivable as opposed to a sword through your head or body.

All good and well, but you're out of the fight immediately. Same with the shoulders, if you get a hit (more than just a scratch of course) in the shins you can walk anymore, and maybe not stand. So you're out. That's why greaves are a must, at least for the left leg which is supporting the scutum.

I disagree with Matt about shields covering the leg well enough, but that depends of course on my Late Roman glasses, through which I see long spathae and hastae being aimed under shields at the feet and shins.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yeah, a wee girl can slow a big man down if she nails him in the shins.... :wink:

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

All good and well, but you're out of the fight immediately. Same with the shoulders, if you get a hit (more than just a scratch of course) in the shins you can walk anymore, and maybe not stand. So you're out. That's why greaves are a must, at least for the left leg which is supporting the scutum.

I disagree with Matt about shields covering the leg well enough, but that depends of course on my Late Roman glasses, through which I see long spathae and hastae being aimed under shields at the feet and shins.

Yeah, a wee girl can slow a big man down if she nails him in the shins.... :wink:

Thats my point, seeing as the typical legionary was armour clad, the enemy, who mostly had celtic long sword and spears, would have go to for the next best vulnerable area, which is the shins and so on. These were not an instant kill zone, but too you out of the fight nevertheless.