Quote:There is little or no evidence of many things that logic dictates would have been used. It just makes sense. I am not a shareholder of "BracerWorld" stock. It just makes sense to protect your wrist. It is a cheap, effective technique to prevent your "money-maker"- your sword hand/ wrist from crippling damage when exposed to normal combat.
When a swordsman thrusts his hand and forearm are exposed and extremely vulnerable and a juicy target of opportunity! If my hand is wounded I am a casualty! My military career and probably my life, are over. Is there any evidence for one-handed Centurions? Most of the dudes on Trajans column appear to have both!
The ancients did a lot of things that don't make sense to us today. If they used bracers then there would be a lot more evidence for them.
I must disagree. I believe they were akin to sweaty gym socks that were thrown away. Nothing worth putting on a monument or engraving into bronze. I think the manica is proof enough that military men sought to protect the hand and wrist, if they had the resources to do so.
Quote:Is there any evidence for one-handed Centurions? Most of the dudes on Trajans column appear to have both!
Yes. Get a copy of Ross Cowan's book, For the Glory of Rome. One centurion, having had his hand hacked off, went mental and beat a ship's crew into submission. Scars were also a sign of military prowess.
Quote:I must disagree. I believe they were akin to sweaty gym socks that were thrown away. Nothing worth putting on a monument or engraving into bronze. I think the manica is proof enough that military men sought to protect the hand and wrist, if they had the resources to do so.
The manica was used by a small number of soldiers for a very short period of time. It doesn't tell us anything particularly insightful since we don't know which soldiers it was issued, which weapon it was intended to defend against, or why it wasn't used more widely.
Quote:The manica was used by a small number of soldiers for a very short period of time. It doesn't tell us anything particularly insightful since we don't know which soldiers it was issued, which weapon it was intended to defend against, or why it wasn't used more widely.
I really didn't want to continue this thread, but I must object. Manica were used from at the very least AD21-106 (and if I recall correctly, through at least AD150) and we have several examples of manica from several parts of the Empire. If I recall correctly the crupellarius had an excellent defense against everything the Roman's tried against it, and it was effective enough to use against the "dreaded" Dacian falx. So we know of at least two weapons it worked well against, and like segmentata (because it really is segmentata) I would assume it would provide a moderate defense against blunt trauma.
Aren't there images of manica in a 4th century context? Not just the notitia but also on the columkn of Arcadius?
However, that's beside the point. If you're going to make an arguement for vambraces based on nothing but 'they MUST have worn them for protection' then you might as well do the same for gloves/gauntlets. That's not how we should work as re-enactors.
There's no evidence that they were commonly worn by soldiers so, rather than saying 'logic dictates that they must have done because some modern re-enactors get forearm/wrist/hand injuries' surely the logical conclusion is that they didn't get frequently get smacked on the wrist/hand like some modern re-enactors do?
I've fought with steel weapons for over 20 years now and have taken a few smacks to the hand. Every time it's been because I've been fighting in an inauthentic manner. Either I've been using my weapon to parry rather than my shield (which is stupid..that's what your shield is for) or because I've been out of formation using a spear in open order combat with both hands. A bit of chipped bone, a few bruises and a few swollen knuckles. These are all nature's way of telling you to improve. I've never felt the need to wear a vambrace.
In reality, the former would only occur if you'd lost your shield....in which case you'd be dead shortly afterwards as some bloke with a spear would finish you off in seconds.
THe later only occcurs because I'm not allowed to use the spear properly and stab my opponent in the face, meaning he has the opportunity to close me down and start hacking at me, which can lead to smacks on the hand.
Real classical and early medieval warfare involved staying in formation and stabbing into your opponents face, throat, belly or feet. Vambraces weren't neccesary. Deal with it.
I don't mind people wearing forearm protection on the field but I do prefer it if they either wear it under their tunic sleeve if possible ,or at least accept that it's an anachronism.
Yes. Get a copy of Ross Cowan's book, For the Glory of Rome. One centurion, having had his hand hacked off, went mental and beat a ship's crew into submission. Scars were also a sign of military prowess.[/quote]
So- this is your great historical precedent? Gimme a break! :lol:
Quote:So- this is your great historical precedent? Gimme a break! :lol:
It's a far more solid historical precedent than any offered for the wearing of vambraces here so far. It's also an example of a soldier not swooning and out of the game with an amputated sword hand (he used his shield to take the ship). After Cannae, a Roman with both arms broken was found amongst the dead, lying on top of a Carthaginian having almost bitten off the latter's face.
Quote:The manica was used by a small number of soldiers for a very short period of time. It doesn't tell us anything particularly insightful since we don't know which soldiers it was issued, which weapon it was intended to defend against, or why it wasn't used more widely.
The Tropaeum Traiani has plenty of manica on view, Dan. Manicae been found in Richborough, Corbridge, Eining, Leon, Carlisle, possibly Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. They've also been found in Pergamon, and one in Ai Knaum is dated to ~150BC, in an Hellenistic context.
[attachment=1512]AquiliferwBracer.gif[/attachment]
Here is a rather famous monument that illustrates what may be a vambrace... Were they issued? Probably not. Do you NEED one to accurately portray a Roman Legionary Aquilifer? I personally do not think so. Is this man a left-handed archer? I could not tell you and I doubt that anyone on this forum can. Is this jewelry? Maybe... but what I see is a monument to a soldier, esteemed enough to be immortalized, who is wearing a Nike tennis bracelet on his right wrist. Sorry, fellas couldn't feint the jab... LOL
