Wounds in Front

[john m roberts]

The brochure for the upcoming "Ancient Warfare" magazine contains a fascinating article on the political importance of battle scars during the Republic (would that we had such a requirement now). I was struck by the numerous scars on the chest attested in the ancient sources. Since these were upper-class men who could afford the best armor, why so many chest wounds? I speculate that it was because armor, while protective, was not perfect and the occasional point or edge got through, enough to cause a superficial wound. Also, the men running for the highest offices probably did most of their soldiering on horseback and carried small, light shields and generally wore less armor than the foot soldiers. Any other thoughts?

Incidentally, wonderful brochure. Congrats.