Roman Full Plate Armor?

[Matt Lukes]

I must too admit a fair amount of ignorance about the intiricacies of medieval systems, but I do wonder if the 'requirements' (which are fascinating to learn about) may be more of a product of the feudal system- necessary to make sure a Baron, or whomever, would outfit his contribution to a war such that the King's forces are not outclassed. And the 'requirement' for nobles to have this or that might have been as much to be sure those with power weren't killed off and thus the King's support decreased as to it being a true necessity with respect to the nature of warfare of the time. Plus of course those with money have a whole lot more to lose, so wanting to be sure one isn't maimed or killed is a motivator to improve protection to be sure :wink: It would seem to me that knights or nobles are not a proper analog to examine with respect to Legionary kit- but rather the simpler Man-At-Arms (the hirdman in the Norweigan text?).

...the common foot soldier, professional legionaire or hirdman or levied hastati or leidangsman, probably could not afford to equip himself with the best equipment. Considering how (relatively) rare conflict would be even in a career soldier's life, more armour might not have been the first thing a soldier would have bought...it was, after all, very expensive.

Perhaps so- Imperial Roman soldiers were issued with arms and armor and the cost came out of their pay- however given the decoration of most pugiones, the use of precious metals in sword acoutrements, and so on certainly begs the question of whether or not extra money was spent on better things or 'prettier' things... afterall, something cool-looking has more 'use' than functional armor one might use in battle once a year or every few years.