VEMBRACES

[garrelt]

What is also a little bit strange is that there is evidence of lower leg guard(s), written and Archaeological, from the whole Roman era but so little from protecting the lower arm/hand.
This is also strange because the bones in the lower leg are almost the same length as those from the lower arm, so a lower leg guard could easily be fitted to the lower arm.

It's not strange...it's a matter of technique. And your viking-era training is taking over too much of your thought process. It's quite simple and obvious. If there is no direct evidence of the Romans wearing lower arm protection than something made it possible for them not to need it. If you do not thrust your sword guard past your shield rim, and you should not have to when in combat, then the shield protects your arm!!! We have proven this time and time again at Lafe.

There are more scratches of weapon contact on my Vambraces than on my lower leg guard.
Same goes for my metal Manica that I use as a Gladiator.

And the tactics and shield shape are clearly different. They are apples and oranges, and makes any comparison irrelevant.

Garrelt, I have no doubt you are an accomplished fighter for your Viking era steel and wood combat. But I must respectfully point out that the style of combat is very far removed from that of Roman. I must humbly question what relevance any of it has to this discussion.

In which way is there a difference between "Roman era fighting or Viking Era fighting"?
If you mean here, the just for show entertaining the public, Long hard blows you are correct.
But if you mean here the close combat fighting with a 45cm blade M-type short sword in combination with a 80cm round or a 70x50cm rectangular shield than it is a different ball game.
Well the discussion is still about Vembraces and not about Fighting styles or battlefield tactics, for this there is the combat section of this forum.