Greaves and Vambraces in the rank and file

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hi,

I did a search on Greaves and mostly all the results were in reference to Greek hoplites, Centurions and so on. As for the vambraces I am aware that it was usually worn by archers.

However, I began to wonder after reading about a re-enactment society (american I think, can't remember which one - post 2nd century AD) in which nearly all of the unit, and not only the Centurio as we are accustomed to see, wear Greaves.

Why did this form of armour not become so 'common' ammong rank and file, as it was with the Hellenistic armies? Why did it remain solely in use with the centurions? Is it lack of evidence, sculpture displays and so on depict them without it?

I find it strange such a useful piece of armour would be reserved to the higher classes. A swift sideways blow beneath the sctutum would not only maim you but also meant you are effectively out of the battle. If more time consuming and labour intensive pieces of armour, such as chain mail were mass produced, why was this an exception? Especially with a people reknown for discarding indigenous arms and weapons if foreign ones proved superior, as was the case with the Gladius Hispaniensis.

And as for vambraces, I am aware that after the Dacian Wars the manica became quite popular, but what about those soldiers that could not afford them, or chose something less bulky, such as a leather or bronze vambrace that covers only the lower arm? Was this piece also only available for officers?

Can anybody point me towards any reading material that covers these queries?

Thanks.

[Tarbicus]

Greaves were used throughout the Republican period and into the late Roman period. Republican legionaries wore one on the left leg it seems, there are depictions on the Adamklissi monument of legionaries wearing them, and late Romans wore them.

Vambraces seem to be a Hollywood fantasy.

Do a search on 'greaves' on RAT. Therre's plenty of discussion.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Greaves were used throughout the Republican period and into the late Roman period. Republican legionaries wore one on the left leg it seems, there are depictions on the Adamklissi monument of legionaries wearing them, and late Romans wore them.

Vambraces seem to be a Hollywood fantasy.

Do a search on 'greaves' on RAT. Therre's plenty of discussion.

I did and the first couple of pages were all about Greeks and so I gave up.

Why did it fall out of fashion though? The greaves I mean?

Also, even if it is hollywood fashion, why is it so implausible? Like I said, it would offer decent protection to the sword yielding arm, is cheaper and easier to construct than a manica, etc.

Why did the romans do without?

Yuri

[Tarbicus]

Greaves never fell out of fashion, and vambraces on Romans never existed from what we can tell. You may as well ask why didn't they use the katana, or stick to the aspis, or cover themselves comletely head to toe in mail?

Just one of those things I guess.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Greaves never fell out of fashion, and vambraces on Romans never existed from what we can tell. You may as well ask why didn't they use the katana, or stick to the aspis, or cover themselves comletely head to toe in mail?

Just one of those things I guess.

Hmmn, well from most re-enactment groups I see today I would say greaves were limited only to officers. That is the impression I think we give.

I know republican soldiers often wore one, and the triarii two, but it would seem to almost no re-enactment groups portray theur soldiers wearing greaves after 50BC and before 250AD (broadly). Why is that?

As for the vambraces, oh well.

[Tarbicus]

I think Imperial greaves are mostly associated with Late Roman and Dacia, and as most re-enactment is 1st-C AD then it kinda makes sense they wouldn't be seen much. There is good reason to suppose they weren't in use much in the 1st-C AD I guess, but some (including me) don't see why they would suddenly disappear then reappear.

I can't say I've ever seen vambraces in sculpture, even though I've thought a couple of maybes.

[Crispvs]

The Adamklissi metopes, in addition to showing manicae also show soldiers wearing short greaves which end just below the knee. A lining from one of these greaves was supposedly found in Chichester harbour as well (although I have never seen a picture of it and have often suspected that the identification may contain a large element of wishful thinking) which would suggest that they may also have been worn during the invasion period.

Crispvs

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

There is good reason to suppose they weren't in use much in the 1st-C AD I guess, but some (including me) don't see why they would suddenly disappear then reappear.

Exactly! That is what I don't understand. Is it because of sculptural evidence (or lack thereof) that most 1st-C AD re-enactors do not display with greaves? Why would such a useful, time and combat tested piece of armour which was relatively easy to construct suddenly disappear?

Would there be anything wrong with say, a contubernia displaying with greaves, and the Option and Centurio also, but with more elaborate and perhaps extended to the knee? Or would this be innacurate? And if yes, then why?

[Tarbicus]

If we only by gravestones, pretty much none of us would be wearing segmentata.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As much as it may grieve some to hear this, I plan on doing my 180AD impression with greaves....short greaves.... :o

[Magnus]

Maybe it's kind of like the lack of evidence we have of pugio usage in the 2nd century.

We use greaves Yuri, but mostly because we're a recreated Dacian War unit, and they were a big requirement during that campaign.

The only thing I can think of is the size of the scutum may have against some enemies using certain weapons, negated the use of greaves.

Economics isn't a factor I don't think...so who knows. Could just be a lack of sculptural evidence...

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Maybe it's kind of like the lack of evidence we have of pugio usage in the 2nd century.

We use greaves Yuri, but mostly because we're a recreated Dacian War unit, and they were a big requirement during that campaign.

The only thing I can think of is the size of the scutum may have against some enemies using certain weapons, negated the use of greaves.

Economics isn't a factor I don't think...so who knows. Could just be a lack of sculptural evidence...

Thanks Matt, it is what I thought also. I understand the 'heavy' armour usually comes into play if anybody is re-enacting the Dacian Wars - Manica, reinforced helmets, greaves, etc.

I was just wondering about other time periods. Either the late romans re-used greaves due to changing circumstances in warfare, and this would raise the question of what made this change (perhaps the scutum becoming oval and the loss of some lower protection) or greaves never really went out of fashion, we simply do not have the solid evidence we have for republican and later roman times, as Jim said:

If we only by gravestones, pretty much none of us would be wearing segmentata.

So technically there would be nothing wrong in portraying say a late first century miles with a pair of greaves. I think it is a logical step towards more protection for the safety conscious soldiers (which would come out of their pay probably) with a practical form of armour that was never really phased out of service. I can imagine it would have also been popular with cavalry troopers, as they would be particularly vulnerable to a side blow, and even more vulnerable when going on a head-on charge.

[Komanos]

I know of one Etruscan representation of vambraces, on the Francois tomb frescoes, depicting the execution of Trojan captives. A leader (presumably Achilles) wears a bronze cuirass, greaves, and iron vambraces. But again, its Etruscan and from the second half of the 4th century.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I know of one Etruscan representation of vambraces, on the Francois tomb frescoes, depicting the execution of Trojan captives. A leader (presumably Achilles) wears a bronze cuirass, greaves, and iron vambraces. But again, its Etruscan and from the second half of the 4th century.

Interesting. I suppose it would not have been too great a leap to go from shin protection to forearm protection, both forms of armour use the same principles. For swordsmen it would probably make more sense, as for swings and such your arm extends quite far forward and sideways, making it vulnerable to a counter swing which without the vambrace and depending on the point of impact could pretty much cleave your arm/hand off.

[Sean Manning]

I think this is one of the points where we can just say "It made sense to them!" Hand and forearm protection seems to have been one of the last things added to an ancient or medieval warrior's armour. Gauntlets are expensive and somewhat cumbersome, but forearm protectors less so.