Republican Army

[drsrob]

On a related matter, this specifically about the equipment of Roman soldiers (which is rather related to the original point of this topic :lol: :wink: ). [...]
Now, I haven't seen any depictions of Roman legionaries this late in history wearing any greeves, much less one. Though this seems like the logial choice and I hardly remember once hearing something along these lines, I can't seem to locate any other sources that back the greeve bit, this includes Roman re-enactments. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is the Word of God, but is this perhaps an area still open to question or merely an oversight?

Opinions are welcome.

On an extended point, would it therefore be accurate for a re-enactor to wear a single greeve when doing a legionary impression of this period?

The question of greaves is complicated. No ancient author ever says the Romans wore only a single greave on the left leg, certainly not Polybius. What little pictorial evidence there is points to two greaves or none.
There is little if any pictorial evidence of greaves during the 1st century BC. The altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus (early 1st Century BC shows none, except on the hellenisticly equipped officer, who may be Mars. However, it does not show footwear either.
Even more confusingly the monument of Aemilius Paullus (168 BC) doesn't show them either, while we know from Polybius that greaves were used at that time.
In the 1st century AD greaves were not used apparently, except by centurions. The trophaeium Traiani at Adamklissi, does however show legionaries with greaves (and armguards). A lot of decorative greaves dating from the 2nd and 3rd century have been found. They are generally classed as cavalry sports equipment, but I wonder about that.
The consensus however is that the 'transitional' legionary did not wear greaves.