VEMBRACES

[Tiberio]

Those arm braces are just like these so called "Trapper chairs" they have spread so much that you can find them in almost every thinkable period, from US-civil war, Napoleonic, medieval, Viking etc. a real plague. Only amusing thing when you ask the people do you have referances for it, you get no answer at all.


Martin

[Alanus]

Hey! I just discovered something. Vambraces didn't originate in the movies, like most of us think. They show up first in nineteenth century operas. Even Valkyries wore them, along with the heavy-damage breast plates and winged helmets.

I figure if we attach wings to vambraces we could fly like Mercury.
Whoosh!
"Hey, Mercury!"
"What?" (looking down from 2000 metres above Olympus)
"where d'ya get the wing-tip shoes?"
"At Selfridges. On sale. How you like the vambraces? I'm gaining more altitude."

[Lessa]

Hey! I just discovered something. Vambraces didn't originate in the movies, like most of us think. They show up first in nineteenth century operas. Even Valkyries wore them, along with the heavy-damage breast plates and winged helmets.

it's the same for viking's horned helmets. It started alla from Wagner.
About the point expressed by cacaius...there are clear evidence that populations like Nuragic Sardinians, and bell-beaker used this kind of protection with the bow.




of course stone armlet are the copyes of more pratical leather ones.

[garrelt]

Leather armour has been used in Europe in Late Medieval times.
Some parts have survived, but most of the time not on display in museums.
There is a original leather Vambrace known from a Dutch excavation and dated around the 16th century.
It covers the lower arm from the wrist extending a bit over the elbow.

I disagree with those who say Leather does not give much protection.
A single layer of 1mm not, but build up from 3mm to 9mm thick it protects well against sword cuts and bruises.
I never go into a battle without them.

Correct, in a lot of (Early) Medieval manuscripts you don't see Vambraces depicted .
These can easily be worn under a tunic.
I would not say this, if I had not tried it.

Question:
If Leather Vambraces are not done, why are the Leather Gladiator Manica generally accepted as being accurate.

OT.
I saw a post about a Leather lowerleg protection but can't recall in which section of the forum.

[Gaius Colletti]

Garrlet makes a good point, leather does offer more protection than we give it credit for, especially if it is hardened (some sort of boiling does that I believe). Surely Vambraces were used somewhere and just became overused, thats all.

Really when you think about it. If you are wearing segmentata and do not have access to manica, a vambrace would offer a decent amount of protection on your sword arm if it protected your forearm from possible slashes other barbarians might attempt as you extended your arm out to stab a buddy of theirs.

I believe there are accounts from the Battle of Watling Street that Boudicca's men would come running back with stubs where their arms used to be, indicating that arm chopping took place in battle moderately.

Because a vambrace would only cover some or part of the forearm only, it would not hamper ones mobility or flexibility of the arm(s)

[Nurglitch]

Making a suit and shirts with double cuffs (plus cuff links) was completely within Roman capabilities. So what? So nothing. They could have made suits, they could have made zippers, they could have made crossbows. But they didn't. Saying that something was logical doesn't mean it existed. Pretty much any and every part of any military kit in history was in some way logical. It doesn't in any way, shape or form that Romans used every part of any military kit.

Basically if you claim Roman soldiers used vambraces, show some proof. This is what it all boils down to.

[Gaius Colletti]

I'm not claiming that the Romans used vambraces, what I am saying is that it is very common ancient soldiers in general to be depicted with vambraces. Someone had to have them, we didn't just invent them 50 years ago. There were 500,000 soldiers at any one time, someone surely had one, am I saying that we should all wear one? No, I'm just stating that they come in handy should you get slashed at, I don't think the idea is ridiculous.

And please lets not play the "If there's no evidence then it didn't happen" game. We have no evidence the Roman soldiers wore red tunics, red was a more expensive dye, it would be impossible for everyone to have a red tunic, but yet we a consider it generally acceptable for everyone to march around with red tunics.

Another thing, the artists that did these "columns" that we all love, we very talented, but still were not perfect. If we went by what these reliefs we would all assume segmentata looked like this: http://www.legionsix.org/Equipment/Basic...gmenta.htm

No soldiers on that link are wearing a balteus with danglies, so should we assume that no soldiers wore them? Of course not, it probably just wasn't feasible to chisel them in, just like chiseling segmentata correctly was not doable either (unless the artists got it right and all the excavators and archaeologist are way wrong).'

I think we take too seriously hard evidence, that is a good thing that helps us be accurate, but I think also gives us tunnel vision

[Tarbicus]

And please lets not play the "If there's no evidence then it didn't happen" game. We have no evidence the Roman soldiers wore red tunics, red was a more expensive dye, it would be impossible for everyone to have a red tunic, but yet we a consider it generally acceptable for everyone to march around with red tunics.

Madder was the most common dye, and there's also bedstraw and lady's bedstraw (galium verum), according to Graham Sumner's book, anyway. Then we have natural red-brown wool from sheep, such as those from Carnusium. The jury may be out on why soldiers were nicknamed russati, but it's fifty-fifty as to whether it referred to the colour most associated with soldiers. Even the Thorsberg tunic has lately been found to have traces of red and purple, and is now thought to have been red in colour.

Another thing, the artists that did these "columns" that we all love, we very talented, but still were not perfect. If we went by what these reliefs we would all assume segmentata looked like this: http://www.legionsix.org/Equipment/Basic...gmenta.htm

I think examples such as the Adamklissi metopes and grave stelae are seen as far more reliable. They're certainly my choice of reference. With specific reference to Trajan's Column, I personally see no reason why the sculptors would have seen a Roman unit in full battle gear in their lives, let alone a soldier in full armour, being probably based within Rome's walls. But I look forward to Jon Coulston's book on the subject.

I think we take too seriously hard evidence, that is a good thing that helps us be accurate, but I think also gives us tunnel vision

You can't take the hard evidence seriously enough, IMHO, otherwise most re-enactors could be running around in buckle-fastened leather segs :-)

[Dan Howard]

Someone had to have them, we didn't just invent them 50 years ago.

Happens all the time. One sloppy historian makes a spurious claim and everyone afterwards assumes that he knows what he is talking about and doesn't bother to verify the statement.

[Gaius Colletti]

I'm not making a spurious claim Dan, I'm stating that the concept of vambraces didn't just pop out of the blue. Take care using peoples quotes out of context and calling them "sloppy historians"

I couldn't help but notice you are wearing vambraces in your avatar picture... damn sloppy historians feeding you bad information!

[Tarbicus]

I couldn't help but notice you are wearing vambraces in your avatar picture... damn sloppy historians feeding you bad information!

I think it's more a case of Dan recreating what was found in the ground.

The panoply includes both greaves and lower arm-guards. The arm-guard is unique but greaves, probably made of linen, are often depicted in late Mycenaean art.

Hard evidence, not conjecture.

[garrelt]

There is nowadays enough evidence of the use of leather and leather armour in Roman times then 20 years ago.
Back then you were ridiculed when you were wearing a leather segmentata,but when you take a look at picture 191 on page 144 of the book "Arms and armour of the imperial roman soldier 2009" you really have to rethink this.
Also in the same book on page 149 picture 204 you see a "Decorative fragment of a probable funerary monument" which seems to depict a segmented right hand glove.

A lot of things are possible but not everything.
For Roman times, except from gladiatorial sculptures, I have not yet see any Artifactal evidence, for leather/metal vambraces, but this is not going to stop me from using them only in a re-enactment battle with wooden or steel weapons it saves my arms from being injured.
If this is the only compromise to make, I'm happy with it.
And as far as I understand Manica means the arm itself, is there a roman era word for Hand, forearm?

In Roman times there was cloth, rope, wood, nails, glue construction expertise (Vitruvius) but is there any evidence that the Romans had gliders/sailplanes? :twisted:
No, so please don't come with the argument they had the knowledge and material so they could have had/made/used it just to justify something where you don't have an answer for.

Those so called Trapper/Viking chairs, originally somewhere from central Africa, make excellent firewood. :wink:

[Tarbicus]

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

Julius Caesar was considered tall by his contemporaries. It hardly makes him 6'4". The Herculaneum soldier may have been ~5'8", but all of the males lying around him averaged 5'5". I've looked into this subject before.

Osteometric variability

Worthwhile measurements were recorded from nine crania and ten mandibles associated with the crania. Of these, eight were male skulls, and two female. The cephalic indices of the male ranged from 70.0mm to 78. 1mm, with a mean of 75. 1mm. The mean cephalic index compares well with the 74.4mm (Belgae), 75.6mm (Dobunni), and 75.7mm (Brigantes) of the Romano-British period (Goodman & Morant 1940). The mean also compares very well with the male Romans from Great Caster-ton - 75.0mm (Denston 1970).

The reconstructed stature of four females ranged from 1.543m (5ft 0¾in) to 1.613m (5ft 3½in) with a mean of 1.562m (5R 1½in). The stature for the males ranged from 1.619m (5ft 3¾in) to 1.803m (5ft 11in), with a mean of 1.714m (5ft 7½in). The mean stature for the males is 6mm (¼in) shorter than that for the males at Great Casterton - 1.720m (5ft 7¾in), and 38mm (1½in) in excess of the 1.676m (5ft 6in) of males from Maiden Castle (Trevor 1954). The mean of 1.562m (5ft 1½in) for the females is 32mm (1¼in) more than the 1.530m (5ft 0¼in) for the combined

Now, if we knew which part of the skull was being measured...

Note also that the Roman skeletons at Great Casterton are cited as being on average 5' 7¾". This is also a common height from the other sources I have found, which I'll post once I've finished my searching.

A report on remains from a suburbia in Rome puts the average male Roman height from a 1st/2nd C necropolis at 166.6 cm (just over 5' 6" I believe).

I like my gear to be at least 5% larger than the original find.

And smaller stature as an inherited racial characteristic does, IIRC, mean smaller hands.

[Dan Howard]

I'm not making a spurious claim Dan, I'm stating that the concept of vambraces didn't just pop out of the blue. Take care using peoples quotes out of context and calling them "sloppy historians"

One historian looks at a sculpture and misinterprets a glove cuff as vambraces. The next historian who reads this doesn't bother to look at the sculpture himself and just repeats the dodgy claim. In a decade it becomes a "fact" that Romans wore vambraces. As I said, it happens all the time. Like Roman horse collars choking horses, and stirrups being needed for couched lance warfare, and spears being able to penetrate 3mm of bronze plate, and hoplite panoplies weighing 120 lbs, and Roman segmentata made of leather, and knights needing cranes to mount their horses.

[Gaius Colletti]

You have certainly done your homework Tabicus, but do you really consider a male from 2000 years ago who was 5'5" or 5'7" to be exceptionally smaller? I am 5'7" but I my hat size is a 7.5 which is considered large and my hands are just as large as someone who is taller than me.

Ancient people were shorter, no doubt, but did they have significantly smaller body parts in ratio of their body compared to the ratio of contemporary humans.

And for the record. I didn't say the Romans certainly used vambraces, nor did I encourage reenactors to wear them. I said the concept of vambraces had been around, and according to Dan's impression date at least back to Mycaenean times.

Next time I post something, I'll make sure it isn't as easy to take out of context. Also I will make a more conscious effort to make sure that if it there is no archaeological or written records, it simply did not exist, and I am crazy for simply implying that something such as Vambraces which out date the founding of Rome by some 900 years, could have possibly been used. If tree falls down in the forest, and no one is around, and no written accounts are taken, I guess we should not assume that there was no noise when it fell?

Some of you guys have all the intellect, but none of the logic. I'm done with this thread, you guys make some things way to unpleasant.