[attachment=1513]AquiliferwBracer.gif[/attachment]
You are probably right... He is probably quite a Lady killer. My point all along is how do you know that a Legionary soldier did not bind his wrist with a peice of leather or cloth to protect the wrist when it is obviously not a waste of time, or money and is quite disposable? Now here is evidence that many seem to demand and it is immediately written off as a "Barbie bracelet" or maybe a Rolex.
I think there should be some HARD evidence presented that CLEARLY Prohibits or forbids the wearing of a vambrace. THIS does not appear ornate, like jewelry and much detail has been added to the mail and phalarae adornments. If it were not important, why was it sculpted into the monument at all? My point is that, perhaps, some used them and others preferred not to.
I am not a big fan of Hollywood schlock and huge bracers with 3D Dragon heads and the like, but here is a highly decorated "Hero" who has something on his wrist that could very well be meant to be functional rather than to be pretty. Maybe it is a bandage?
Lets just agree to disagree, there is no need to drag this on further. There is nothing to be gained and only tension to be built. While we may not have direct evidence for a bracer, we don't even have complete examples of Kalkriese segmentata, infact we only have part of a breastplate, despite it being the longest lived segmentata we only have a few partially incomplete examples of the Newstead, we have absolutely no idea how the Egyptians built there pyramids, lack of evidence certainly does not give cause that it never existed.
I can only imagine what a legionary would think if he were told 2000 years from now people would be arguing if they wore vambraces, or did they wear white or red runics, or how come the segmentata is depicted differently from reliefs than archaeological finds. I think they would laugh that we used such advanced technology to argue across continents about half the things we debate
But Matt, there is really NO evidence for vambraces. We have evidence for the Kalkriese Seg and others. Your logic doesn't really fit here. And they do in fact have several theories, many of them plausible on how the Pyramids were built.
It's a fine line to walk, inventing something out of nothing. At least stretch what we know...not what is made up.
____________________________________________________________ Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité
The bracelet probably is depicted because it is a military related award of some significance to the deceased. The Romans weren't fencing with their Gladi they were killing! Modern soldiers aren't adding arm armor to their kit despite despite a possibly even greater threat. It is the old added protection vs heat stress and mobility problem that seems to almost as old as combat itself. Photo Dendra panopy reconstruction around (fifteenth century BC)
They are pure hollywood...something I for one don't want to propagate. I don't mind when people stretch something but stay within plausible limits. I just don't want to re-enforce what bad media is pushing as "roman".
John, I don't believe arm armour is used today because a) cost, and b) it's too damned hot in desert theaters.
____________________________________________________________ Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité
Quote:But Matt, there is really NO evidence for vambraces. We have evidence for the Kalkriese Seg and others. Your logic doesn't really fit here. And they do in fact have several theories, many of them plausible on how the Pyramids were built.
It's a fine line to walk, inventing something out of nothing. At least stretch what we know...not what is made up.
Agreed. Although while we have plausible theories on how the Pyramids, I believe every one has been debunked for one reason or another, for these reasons: Each side is nearly perfectly facing each direction NSEW without the use of a compass being only 1/12 of a degree off, as well as being no more than 3 feet or so difference in length on each side, The Great Pyramid of Egypt covering 13 acres, climbing to 485ft, constructed out of 2.3 million stones each of which is weighed between 2 tons-70 tons, the fact that the total perimeter corresponds correctly with the amount of days in a (solar and modern) century (36,524), as well as a bunch of other fascinating and impossibly coincidental facts and trivia. It is impossible for the Egyptians to have built what they did with the technology available to them to what we understand, a ramp required to get to the top of the pyramid to push these several ton stones would need to be miles long, and a spiraling ramp would be impossible. Sorry to get off topic.
Let me be clear, I am not arguing that reenactors should wear vambraces, I am not stating that there is proof that the Romans used vambraces. It is not only logical and stupid not to protect your most important and clearly (by Roman styles of fighting) most vulnerable extremities. I grit my teeth when you guys say "Roman reliefs don't depict *insert whatever here*" When at the same time your beloved reliefs clearly do not correlate with archaeological finds.
As I told you before Matt, I will never wear vambraces in reenacting simply because we do not have the evidence. But I do not agree that anyone is stupid for implying or questioning that some sort of arm protection is reasonable. Such reasoning as many of you impose is not only dogmatic, but makes for poor historians if we do not think outside the box.
I also have been sword fighting for over 30 years and gauntlets are mandatory in Australia. Vambraces are not everywhere but I have mandated that a vambrace is compulsory at our local Easter gathering (400ace-1100ace period) but is loosely defined and can be as little as a roll of woven fabric bound about your leading wrist because wrist injuries were a notable high proportion in intergroup combat.
On an aside I had a fight weraing a very thin brass bracelet many years ago and was impressed that at the end of the fight the bracelet had been struck and was lying on the ground and I had not even noticed the blow- proving to me that jewellery is functional of as armour.
Also- what was the name of that traitoress who was bashed to death by soldiers with shields in republican?tarquin? times when the soldiers asked what she wanted as a reward she ventured the bracelets on their arms??? I was told that story years ago but have no idea of its origin- but it made an impression on me-and is evidence(?) of jewllery worn in combat (for at least the heroic period?????
Quote:Looking at Gn. Musius´tombstone I rather see armilla.
[url=http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,8/Itemid,94/][/url]
That's just what I thought, to go with the rest of his decorations ...
Cerco 21 post=294225 Wrote:Actually it's quite interesting, having practiced historical fecning for 10 years now, I can trully say that good gloves ARE importante.
One word.
SHIELDS.
On your sword arm? Come on...
We do fight sword/shield. Axe spear etc. All the polearms expose your hand and wrist more but hand strikes are not rare or uncommon.
Much like Richard Robison says we have a mandatory "gloves on" policy because hand injuries were the highest of any injury.
But with respect to all of your experiences, and you as well Matt...do any of you fight on a regular basis in any thing resembling the legionary way? I expect not. As such at best you are offering speculation based on different fightng styles.
Matt, if you want to think outside the box you are in the wrong hobby. If you want to experiment with things...you may want to back it up with a few years of actual reenacting experience.
____________________________________________________________ Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité
We did some training as legionary, from the typical strike I can infer that your sword arm is very exposed.
Now we have to compute this with all other factors such as formation and the enemy capability(at fencing - if we can call it that).
From my experience I'd say that a sword arm was a good target, but my fencing notions are modern so I know what I'm looking for and I'll be fighting on a one to one basis. So within these constraints (we don't actually have a scale comparing the several fencing technics over the ages)I'd say that you'd soon learn to protect your hand(s).
Maybe it was irrelevant considering how the legion fought, or simply it was irrelevant enough to mention/represent like the gym sock mentioned earlier.
Quote:We did some training as legionary, from the typical strike I can infer that your sword arm is very exposed.
What's the typical strike? I'd have thought that in close order you'd thrust your gladius into your opponents groin/guts/ribs/face through the gaps in the shield wall without exposing your hand at all.
Surely that's why the legions were so effective? Because they didn't run around waving their swords all over the place like barbarians, viz Vegetius:
Quote:They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action.
