Vambraces - possibly a reason for their use

[Tarbicus]

Tarbicus, rather than opt for the leather vambrace/archers arm bracer type support, have you thought of binding the weaker wrist with a linen strip?

Many soldiers that were injured would have wrapped anything that was available around a weak or cut hand/wrist.

You could then explain to the public that a wild blow from a Dacian falxman managed to get through your shield and damage your wrist!!

Hi Peroni,

Yes, I understand that as an option and it's a good one. However, my point, I suppose, is that although there is no evidence a leather support (I'd call it that rather than a vambrace) was used, I feel there were circumstances when they would be worn on a fairly regular basis to alleviate any problems under extreme physical conditions caused by old injuries, rather than fresh ones. Why lose a soldier, or risk the rest, if all it took to make a weak link in the chain strong again was a piece of leather support. Maybe not even leather, but it is the obvious candidate.

I'm really looking at the question from a physical rather than decorative aspect. In an age when prosthetics and 'plastic' surgery was used, and physicians seem to have carried a certain amount of authority within the army, why not?

Forget Hollywood, I'm really not interested in the decorative or costumed look, I'm posing the question from a practical and medical point of view. The option would be to have a man alongside you in the front line who may well have his wrist broken as soon as the fighting starts and the shield defence is instantly breached. That doesn't make sense, especially given how practical and common-sensical the Roman army could be.

Already someone has said that they wear one for the same reasons I would, so there is actually an identified need for it from people who probably don't actually undergo the wear and tear that a legionary would have. And we know they did undergo severe physical wear and tear from written accounts in the record, when it comes to mutiny as an example ("feel these gums" etc.).

As for there being no documentary evidence, it's true, and I'm not trying to impose an opinion that people should wear them. However, athletes never have their picture taken wearing a sports support (unless it's to advertise it), and a grave stele is a similar thing - an image for posterity. That, I feel, is where there is a possible weak spot is in the argument that they were never worn because we have no pictures of them. There are plenty of other things that are accepted because the interpretation of them make sense, and I just feel there is a justification for "supports" from a medical standpoint.

They may also not be on Trajan's Column for example, but it is clear that if we take that as proof then everyone needs to change their segs.

Does any of that make sense?