Greaves and Vambraces in the rank and file

[Tarbicus]

Sounds fine to me. Here's a reference:

(9.) Alexander and Nicholas Humez, A B C Et Cetera: The Life and Times of the Roman Alphabet (Boston, Godine: 1985), p. 46. To its credit, Roman medicine also included a degree of practical knowledge of trauma repair, in part from the valuable if grisly anatomical exposure of deep flesh wounds in the hospitals (valetudinaria) attached to such gladiatorial schools (lanistae) as that of Pergamum in Asia Minor.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su ... 914911_ITM

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sounds fine to me. Here's a reference:

(9.) Alexander and Nicholas Humez, A B C Et Cetera: The Life and Times of the Roman Alphabet (Boston, Godine: 1985), p. 46. To its credit, Roman medicine also included a degree of practical knowledge of trauma repair, in part from the valuable if grisly anatomical exposure of deep flesh wounds in the hospitals (valetudinaria) attached to such gladiatorial schools (lanistae) as that of Pergamum in Asia Minor.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su ... 914911_ITM

Hocus pocus! :lol:

There was a very good program on this subject a while back.
I think it was discussed once before on here as well.

Thanks for the link.

[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

[jkaler48]

Well put Matt!!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, a scutum edge will break bones too.
Also the detritus of the ancient battlefield would be a leg breaker if there ever was one. Slim, equipment and bodies to trip and wedge in.

Many ways to break a leg there.

Like you say though Matt, we don't have statistics for comparison, but the Pergamon grave case study is the best case I have seen.

But do we have statisics for any area of comparison in ancient history?

Ones that can really truely prove any theory without a shadow of a doubt?

One can always use a disclaimer if you want to do an impression in a certain way, surely?
i.e. "This is just my interpretation of what a legionari may have looked like, the equipment is as authentic as I can get ahold of, but it may or may not have been worn in this exact combination....." sort of thing.

[Tarbicus]

Actually, I'm not so convinced of using gladiators as an example of military injuries and practices any more. How many gladiators wore heavy body armour? The heavy use of limb and bonkers head protection merely suggests that it made the opponent concentrate on the torso more than the extremities, making the fight more exciting for the audience. I know that in one instance the gladiators were actually told to not go for the kill, but only injure.

In close combat during battle, it would be enough to disable an opponent where they could no longer participate or threaten you, then move on to the next opponent and a tactical objective. A broken limb is actually more likely to achieve that objective than a cut.

They might both be combat, but completely different arenas.

[L. Marius Victor]

Matthew Amt wrote:

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.

So if they had to pay for it, maybe greaves would have been optional? And would also explain why chain mail was used by Legionaries right alongside the Segmentata? It may also be possible that Legionaries were given a sort of required gear list to fill, and anything beyond that was optional. Just a thought.

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.

I'm not dismissing them, nor am i calling it fantasy. I'm just saying take the info with a grain of salt. And I'm not scoffing at anything.

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.

So is it your duty to be disrespectful to a person who is only trying to have a healthy debate? You have called me arrogant, and have been condescending by repeating "THAT IS HOW THE STUDY OF HISTORY WORKS". Thanks for that. I am trying to keep this post as respectful as possible, which is hard right now, because I dont want to get kicked off the site. Those who know me would be surprised, as I am not an easy man to get along with, nor am I one to take any bull. The problem is I'm not bowing down to your unquestionable knowledge, and you're taking it personally.
I also love history, specifically military history as it applies to the common infantryman. Having actually been an infantryman, this is where my interest lies. I also reenact Civil War and WWII.
I have not taught my own personal opinions as fact, but I do bring up the subject for debate (which is what a teacher is supposed to do, isnt it?). When the kid asked me about the lack of greaves, I was quite impressed because most of them were asking questions like "how many bullets does a machine gun shoot" (but hey, they were third graders). I responded by saying that most historians agree that greaves were not worn during this period, but some disagree. At the time, by the way, I wasn't wearing greaves. I'm giving another presentation in February about the Civil War soldier, but to 8th graders, I'm looking forward to the type of questions I'm going to get.....

[Robert Vermaat]

MODERATOR NOTIFICATION (not a warning - yet)

Gents, I see tempers flaring. Be sure to read wht the opponent has to say, and please refrain from 'shouting' (a moderator's prerogative), shall we?

[Matthew Amt]

Sorry, Robert!

So if they had to pay for it, maybe greaves would have been optional? And would also explain why chain mail was used by Legionaries right alongside the Segmentata? It may also be possible that Legionaries were given a sort of required gear list to fill, and anything beyond that was optional. Just a thought.

Very possible. I'd even venture that it is likely. Heck, seems to me there are even more questions for the Dacian campaigns, where we DO see legionaries wearing greaves as well as manicae. were those *required* items, if only for front-rankers or other limited numbers of troops? Were they "officially recommended"? Was it just something the troops did themselves? "See those falx thingies, lad? Put your greaves on!"

I'm not dismissing them, nor am i calling it fantasy. I'm just saying take the info with a grain of salt. And I'm not scoffing at anything.

Fair enough. Just as an aside, once in a while a new find crops up that verifies some ancient author that everyone had dismissed for years as an exaggeration--the Venerable Bede's description of the cathedral at York is a classic example. (He described it as larger than the current one, which everyone assumed was wrong. A few years ago, they found the foundations--and he was right!) So I tend to trust the word of an ancient author a little more than many historians. A grain of salt, absolutely, I just think we might use too much salt sometimes!

So is it your duty to be disrespectful to a person who is only trying to have a healthy debate? You have called me arrogant, and have been condescending by repeating "THAT IS HOW THE STUDY OF HISTORY WORKS". Thanks for that. I am trying to keep this post as respectful as possible, which is hard right now, because I dont want to get kicked off the site. Those who know me would be surprised, as I am not an easy man to get along with, nor am I one to take any bull. The problem is I'm not bowing down to your unquestionable knowledge, and you're taking it personally.

Mea culpa, I went a little overboard. It seemed to me that you had gone through 4 pages of evidence on the topic and concluded that your own personal experience bore more scientific weight. That was just the impression that I got, and I was very frustrated. I should have moderated my tone a bit more.

I have not taught my own personal opinions as fact, but I do bring up the subject for debate (which is what a teacher is supposed to do, isnt it?).

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you. I also try to impress on the audience that this is all "best guess" based on what we know, though that can certainly be harder to get across with the younger kids. They do ask some great questions, don't they? I don't often get into "maybe" debates about each piece of gear during a demo, mostly because I have SO much to say in the time alloted, so I stick to basics.

Folks around here will tell you that I'm not usually a brutal jerk, either! But they'll also tell you that my mantra is "Show me the evidence!", and I will come out and whack people with it now and then. I'm a little fanatical about evidence.

Oh, I also must thank you for being a Marine! I often wish I had the courage and strength to serve in the military.

So I hope we'll see you here on RAT for years to come. Valete,

Matthew

[L. Marius Victor]

Greaves are definitely shown being worn by Legionaries on the Adamklissi monument, which everybody already knows. So, has there been any Roman artifacts recovered from ancient Dacia? And if so, has there been any Greaves recovered? I'm only asking because, as Matthew and others have pointed out, there is a lack of archaeological evidence supporting the use of greaves. But we know, based on the artwork, that greaves were used in Dacia, so there must be archaeological evidence to support this (I did a quick search on this, but couldn't find anything). I think this is very important because if greaves haven't been found in "Dacia" where they should be found, then we cant expect to find them anywhere else.
Also, how do we know that the greaves that have been found (not only in Dacia, but all over the Roman Empire) only belong to higher ranking soldiers? I'm seriously curious, I'm not trying to be a smart a**. How do we know for certain that some of those greaves didn't belong to the common ranker? If I have to pay for my own greaves then I'm going to have them make me a nice stylish pair. We accept the idea that some Segmentatas had fancy lobate hinges (corbridge type A), and others have plain lobate hinges (corbridge type B), while still others had just simple square(ish) hinges (Kalkriese lorica), but that all types were worn by the common grunt. So why cant the same guy wear nice greaves (or plain ones at that)? Maybe its been in front of us the whole time but we've been misidentifying the owners. Just a thought.
And one last thing. Am I wrong to believe that the greaves at the beginning of the 2nd century were made from iron? I know this is a shot in the dark, and I hesitate to ask this. But what if, due to the fact that a greave is a simply shaped hunk of iron, it would corrode at a higher rate of speed (and more completely) that iron which is bulkier, such as the Lorica Hamata with its overlapping rings? Therefore, all you find is the few copper based fittings, which are then misidentified as fittings from some other equipment (once again, its a shot in the dark).

Ive worded these questions as, well, questions, instead of statements, due to some people thinking that I actually believe I know what I'm talking about. I only want to challenge the status quo, because I've read enough and seen enough to know that there are times when historians (scientists, politicians, etc) just accept the obvious, and sometimes miss the not so obvious which can change things....I'm not saying that any of these questions will do any of that, but...yeah.
And, Matthew, sometimes I quickly read over the posts on a thread in order to catch up, then I enter the fray. After reading over the posts again, this time slower, I realize that some of my earlier questions/comments were already addressed, I apologize.

[Tim Edwards]

To me the problem with the surviving greaves is not who owned them, but when

Most that I know are of a later era, and may not be of a pattern relevant for the late first/early second century.

One valuable clue I can give you - a suspected greave lining was excavated at Vindonissa (my favourite site!!!) which could give you a valuable clue as to the shape and dimensions of first century examples.

If you can beg, borrow or steal it, read:

Gansser-Burckhardt, Das Leder und seine Verarbeitung im römischen Legionslager Vindonissa, Basel 1942

Though it aint easy to get hold of, good luck!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Is that a different one than the one discussed on here on another thread?

[Tim Edwards]

Not sure what you are referring to Byron!

Anyway here's an image:

From this helpful website:

http://www.roma-victrix.com/armamentari ... _aalen.htm

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It looks the same or a similar shepe to the one I recall, just cannot remember the find site. Perhaps there are a few of these then?

[Tim Edwards]

You may be right, I'm fairly certain another greave lining was found at Dura Europos in Syria.