VEMBRACES

[M. Demetrius]

I do believe we might be 'missing' something in how the handles and such were constructed

As I always say, we're missing that perhaps their hands were smaller, and we're making the bosses/hand holes to fit hands smaller than our own.

[kranger3]

Mmmm... Personally, I have never bought the argument that people in the past were smaller than us. Maybe a small difference in the mean average of a population due to nutrition and genetic variations (if we assume that legionaries all have a common genetic background), but definitely not enough to justify a whole new set of fighting gear with different measurements. Furthermore, I know a good bunch of people who are 3 to 8 inches shorter than I am, and are lot bulkier with larger hands. These Roman soldiers were in shape and had a grain base diet, so their body must have accumulated more lipids and muscles than even a good number of us today. This in turn could, in some cases, make them bulkier, at least enough to make up for this "size difference".

We either:
1. have the shield construction wrong,
2. do not hold the shield the right way,
3. miss a small detail that was added on the shield/hand,
4. or it is possible that it did hurt them back then as much as it does us today. Firearm drills during the last 300 years (and even today) did/do have ways of holding a weapon that were/are sometimes awkward and do hurt your fingers, wrist and arm, during a prolonged march or use. It's part of using a weapon. And like all good soldiers, you suck it up and carry on!

Or, you may be right in a sense: if we make a broad assumption that some pieces of gear like shield bosses were made in different sizes to accomodate the user, than maybe we're facing a bias in the archaeological record. Pieces of gear with sizes that are on the outside range of a normal distribution (like a bell distribution graph) are discarded faster than the other sizes which are used until they fall apart/are recycled. It's like why collectors of WWII gear have an easier time finding uniforms made in very small sizes than normal sizes: it's not that soldiers were smaller in the 1940s, it's because the normal sizes were worn until they fell apart, while the smaller ones ended up in military stores and were seldom issued compared to the bigger sizes. OK, this whole thing is quite farfetched in a Roman setting, especially in regard to shield bosses, but it is just an example of how we must be careful in interpreting sizes vs use.

My two cents!

[M. Demetrius]

Well, let's look at it this way:

What size are the helmets that we find?
What size are the shoes that we find?
What size are the finger rings that we find?
What size are the belts that we find?
What size are the shield bosses that we find?
What size are the skeletons that we find?

If these are smaller than today, and are in proportion to a normal human body, then it seems safe to conclude that the people of that day were smaller, too.

[Forty-One]

Do enough sword grips survive in sufficiently good condition to compare their average size with that of the shield bosses that have survived?

[SEANjohn37683]

I will admit to wearing them at reenactments, but only because they're a great place to keep a knife, and if it's cold( which it tends to be at the events I always end up at) put a bit of cloth or fur under them to insulate and they help keeping the hands warm, well warm-er anyway. Don't know about their historical accuracy, but they're practical for those two purposes. I know they give next to no actual armor or protection, but for those two purposes,(especially keeping my hands warm) they're effective.

[kranger3]

You have a point David, but if I may point out, Dr Estelle Lazer did an interesting comparative study of the human remains at Pompeii and her conclusions show that the average height of males was 167cm, or almost 5ft 6 inches, so roughly the same as the modern day population average of Naples. Now, if the modern Italian reenactors are anything like their Roman counterparts, they should tell us if the shield hurts them also...

[The_Mariner]

In the movies, even emperors wear them.
Why do they need vambraces? Is it something to do with orgies? :roll:

Never did me much good, maybe I had the wrong sort :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

apparently you go to some very rough orgies....

I should think most would involve not wearing anything, but maybe its a
different crowd where your playing :lol:

[Alanus]

I think vambraces worn at orgies were the Trojan variety.

As for the SIZE of your average Roman soldier, Italian, Germanic, Celtic, I always figured he was no smaller than I am today (being an Italian Celt). :roll:

If anything is wrong with our equipment, be it a shield or sword-grip, a probable ill cause could be the modern maker of the repro, aka the Indian craftsman-designer. My India-made spatha has a grip for Tom Thumb. Helmet bowls are designed for people with mini-skulls.

It's the Indian craftsman who's smaller. 8)

[M. Demetrius]

What, then, is the average diameter of a Roman shield boss?
...an average Roman helmet?

[Cacaius]

Yes, but if you're an archer you only need one

I have read and heard in the past some explanations, that : "roman legionaires could have them .. stealing idea from archers. And that this is very important item for archers .. and that it was very common in middle ages for archers "

etc ... bla bla bla.

Wrong wrong wrong ...


We need to understand that this leather "something" was invented in Holywood and Robin Hood movies in modern times etc.




When you look into the sources for many different cultures and historical periods, you will clearly see .. that PEOPLE in the past didnt need such invention.

Its all about knowing how to keep the bow in correct position.

No vambraces at all ....

[Gaius Colletti]

I don't buy into the whole "people were smaller back then", we have several soldier skeletons to tell us that the Romans were not that much smaller than we are today. The Herculaneum soldier was 5'7" I believe. Julius Caesar was 5'7" though some reports have him labeled as taller, Augustus was considered short and still was probably only 5'5".

Marius even stated that the minimum height of a soldier should be 5'10" (in Roman feet mind you), and this rule was most likely rarely followed).

Even if they were "shorter" that does by no means establishes they had hands any smaller than someone today who is "shorter" as well

[Alanus]

Yes, but if you're an archer you only need one

I have read and heard in the past some explanations, that : "roman legionaires could have them .. stealing idea from archers. And that this is very important item for archers .. and that it was very common in middle ages for archers "

etc ... bla bla bla.

Wrong wrong wrong ...


We need to understand that this leather "something" was invented in Holywood and Robin Hood movies in modern times etc.




When you look into the sources for many different cultures and historical periods, you will clearly see .. that PEOPLE in the past didnt need such invention.

Its all about knowing how to keep the bow in correct position.

No vambraces at all ....

You nailed it on the head-- keeping the bow in correct position. I teach this position to my archery students. HOWEVER, mounted archers firing arrows at various degrees from a moving horse DID wear a single "wrister" on the bow-arm. Perhaps they were not technically "vambraces," but we have enough archaeological examples surviving made of wood and even carved stone. When firing arrows at many angles and twisting your body, you cannot always shoot from a "correct" position. Look at modern photos of competative horse-archers... and they are using bows oft less than a 40-pound draw-weight. Out on the steppes, the bows usually exceeded 100 pounds of pull, and when that string slapped a wrist it drew blood. :wink:

The pictures you show are all of standing or kneeling archers in the "correct" postition on the ground. (Frankly, some of the illustrations are not even technically or historically accurate, while others are.) This is not a fair representation of horse archery. :roll:

[Nurglitch]

Chester 2011 - the bracers were everywhere, something like 20% of the reenactors wore them. This madness needs to stop!

[SeanRichards]

Why does Hollywood have actors wearing wrist guards?

Answer: to hide the watch shadow.

I know, I know many here are too young to remember actually wearing a wrist watch. Back in the olden days many of us had white bands on our wrists in the shape of our wrist watch.. all the skin around the watch being exposed to the sun and thus tanned.

Make-up rubs off of the wrist quickly as wrists tend to rub on things.

Hibernicus

[M. Demetrius]

They give costumers more of a reason to charge the prices they do. Good for their business.