Roman Full Plate Armor?

[john m roberts]

We may be approaching this question from the wrong direction. The proper question may not be "Why didn't the Romans cover themselves with armor for greater safety?" but rather, "Why did the Romans wear so much armor?" We know that during the Republic legionaries wore more armor than in later years - the hamata was almost knee-length, the scutum was almost chin-to-ankle length, the hispaniensis was longer than the later Mainz and Pompeii models. It has long been my suspicion that the senate decided that this level of protection was encouraging a defensive mindset, that the soldiers were hovering behind their big shields and poking with their excessively long swords instead of stepping right up in the other guy's face and stabbing him like proper Romans. They may have reduced the size of the shield, the defensive quality of the armor and the length of the sword to encourage a more aggressive style of fighting.