Greaves and Vambraces in the rank and file

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

I wonder if some of this speculation is too much through modern eyes and is actually telling us we may have an incorrect view of combat in the period.

We see the shines as an obvious target so we think greaves would be a must or very sensible, however, if they weren't common it may suggest that our thoughts on combat are wrong - after all we are not involved in fights where we are trying to kill people or have people trying to kill us.

[Magnus]

Good point Nik.

On Jim's point about having the right leg forward....ok, not to use a modern perspective on it, but wouldn't that put the scutum to the rear and present the unprotected sword side? Otherwise to have the right leg forward as well as the left shoulder and shield would be very awkward.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I wonder if some of this speculation is too much through modern eyes and is actually telling us we may have an incorrect view of combat in the period.

We see the shines as an obvious target so we think greaves would be a must or very sensible, however, if they weren't common it may suggest that our thoughts on combat are wrong - after all we are not involved in fights where we are trying to kill people or have people trying to kill us.

Yes of course you are right, and that is what prompted me to ask the question: If it seems to us to be such a vulnerable area (and that in past roman times was decently protected - perhaps proving modern thinking right, then why was it eventually abandoned - pointing at what you said, maybe or also changes in warfare/tactics/organisation and so on)

[Wander]

I don't think that's so much a modern perspective as a tactical one. No matter what time period, the usual goal in a battle is to kill your enemy, or, failing that, to cripple him and take him out of the battle. Sometimes that's even better than outright killing, because then the enemy needs to use manpower and resources to feed and care for someone who can't fight.

If his body and head -- the usual lethal targets -- are too well protected by armor or shield, the legs and arms become obvious secondary targets. There's nothing particularly modern about seeing the shins as a good target; the fact that many other armies, before and since, armored them is testament to that. If the Roman army of the early Empire period didn't see greaves as necessary, maybe we're overlooking something else -- perhaps something in the way the formation worked -- that made them hard to strike.

I think the large scutum is one likely point of protection. Other ideas?

[Sean Manning]

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.

All I can say is that historically, greaves on infantry weren't common outside of the Iron Age Mediterranean. They were rare in China, the Middle East, and Medieval Europe. An infantryman was well off if he had a helmet and body armour. As with gauntlets, apparently most ancient soldiers didn't think greaves were crucial.

[Wander]

And that brings up what the individual -- or whoever's paying for the armor -- can justify, or feels is actually worth providing. You obviously armor the head and body (including shield) first; after that you start prioritizing. How often to hands get hit? How often do legs get hit?

And exactly how disposable do you consider your soldiers? Are they elite troops with years of training, difficult to replace? Or are they cannon fodder, peasants you handed a shield and a spear to, in order to make your army look bigger, or to distract the enemy while your crack troops circle around the enemy's rear?

I have the feeling that a lot of the armies you mention were largely considered food for the meatgrinder by their commanders. Not a modern perspective, but I'd guess it's been accurate through most of history. (We're soft.)

[Robert Vermaat]

I wonder if some of this speculation is too much through modern eyes and is actually telling us we may have an incorrect view of combat in the period.

We see the shins as an obvious target so we think greaves would be a must or very sensible, however, if they weren't common it may suggest that our thoughts on combat are wrong - after all we are not involved in fights where we are trying to kill people or have people trying to kill us.

Yes of course you are right, and that is what prompted me to ask the question: If it seems to us to be such a vulnerable area (and that in past roman times was decently protected - perhaps proving modern thinking right, then why was it eventually abandoned - pointing at what you said, maybe or also changes in warfare/tactics/organisation and so on)

While the influence of modern thinking is always to be considered, in this case i see no cause whatsoever to fear the influence of that. You put your left leg forward to support your shield, and your shield has to be at a certain height to protect the body. What's unprotected below is vulnerable. Hence the invention of ocrae in the first place.

Why were they abandoned during the Roman period? We don't know that. they seem to appear less in art, but that may be coincidence, for in late Roman times they re-appear/are still there.

So why do they disappear, or why do they seem to be a Mediterranen thing (are they)? That's because the Roman empire was a rich empire, providing enough means for the army to buy armour in large amounts, or receive it directly. During the 5th c., Europe especially went into a sharp economic decline, and the successor kingdoms never managed to create similar circumstances for the bulk of their forces for many centuries. Swords became rare and expensive, helmets are disappearing from the artistic record, body armour becomes rare and just for the nobility. Arm and leg defenses only reappear for the armoured knight.

Next question - why were the feet not protected in Roman times?

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

So why do they disappear, or why do they seem to be a Mediterranen thing (are they)? That's because the Roman empire was a rich empire, providing enough means for the army to buy armour in large amounts, or receive it directly.

Quite possibly a mediterranean thing - off hand I can't recall they were ever common (if used at all) in China for infantry which was during its major imperial periods at least as big and at least as rich as the Roman empire and very well organised. Presumably they were not deemed necessary.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

So why do they disappear, or why do they seem to be a Mediterranen thing (are they)?

Next question - why were the feet not protected in Roman times?

Quite possibly a mediterranean thing - off hand I can't recall they were ever common (if used at all) in China for infantry which was during its major imperial periods at least as big and at least as rich as the Roman empire and very well organised. Presumably they were not deemed necessary.

Well, maybe they are a mediterranean thing due to the fact the phalanx was a mediterranean invention. Im not sure about this, but weren't the greeks the first ones to use greaves en-mass (so to speak) to arm their hoplites? From this it spread to asia minor, the middle east and so on. Eventually even thracians and other barbarian tribes (illryrians) came to use them, not to mention the hellenistic states. Pretty much any people to come in contact with hellenism adopted one or more ideas, and in military terms we have a lot, phalanxes, hoplites or imitations thereof, bronze cuirasses, greaves - the latter even being adopted by the early romans.

So its no surprise grieves only really appear in the mediterranean. And indeed, perhaps they were not deemed necessary by the romans at some point, simply fell out of fashion for one reason or another, or continued in use just as they once did, but we lack the literary and sculptural to prove so.

[Magnus]

You know Vorti, I always wondered how legionary feet (or anyone else's) weren't mangled more in combat. You would think if it was an issue:

a) it would have popped up in the literary record, or
b) there would be armor for the feet in the archaeological or sculptural record.

The only thing I can think of is that the feet are fairly small in comparison to other body parts, and were likely always moving thus making them extremely difficult to hit. But, you'd think that getting stepped on or crushed by other people would have occurred regularily.

As a "later" note, the only foot armor i can think of was those gothic booties on full plate armor, as well as a few japanese examples from the sengoku era.

[Matthew Amt]

You really should be able to dip the scutum down a little to cover the legs if you see a shot heading in that direction. After all, if you aren't watching your opponent's weapon, you're dead anyway!

It should also be noted that in the later middle ages, when knights fought fully armored on horseback, they typically discarded the sabatons (foot guards) when fighting dismounted. In the 16th century, "three-quarter" armor became common, covering the man fully from the knees up, but the lower legs and feet protected only by his boots. Mind you, this is all after shields were pretty much discarded by the upper classes! Seems the feet really weren't in that much danger. These were men who rode to battle and had plenty of money for whatever protection they wanted, and plenty of servants to take care of the stuff for them.

A legionary knows he's going to be marching a lot, very often. But it may be a long time before he's in a battle, and even then it's quite possible he'll stand around in the rear ranks, waiting to get close enough to chuck a pilum. Who needs greaves?

Valete,

Matthew

PS: Hey, Magnus, you forgot these Greek foot guards!

http://www.larp.com/hoplite/BMgr1.jpg

Obviously very rare things.

[M. Demetrius]

Adding in to Matt, the feet can be moved more quickly...a sword or spear stroke to the foot requires that the foot be still. A simple shift of the weight, and the target is removed, yet the attacker is still out of position. All sorts of counters for that, mostly involving attacking the sword arm come to mind.

Soldiers in that situation know what is likely, and one of the basic training maneuvers was a hop over a low blow, along with a duck under a high blow. That twirling, thumping log gizmo (don't know the name) is a training tool that has been used as long as there's been organized soldiery with hand weapons. Sort of fallen out of use nowadays, of course.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

In archaelogical data from the battle of Wisby (Sweden-1361) we can see that 50% of the injuries was on the head and the 70% of the 450 skeletons found had a serious injury on the leg.
It shows that leg was a vulnerable point.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Would the Wisby warriors tended to have used shields?

[Matthew Amt]

Would the Wisby warriors tended to have used shields?

Some at least, though the shields of that time (1356) were about half the size of a Roman scutum.

I'm not saying that Roman legs were never targets, nor that they were not in any danger in battle. I'm just saying that according to all the best evidence--and the best "logic"--greaves were just not common among legionaries c. first century AD.

Valete,

Matthew