Vambraces

[Matthew Amt]

John, your argument, that people wear less armour as they travel further to war seems to me to fail in every instance I consider. Romans going to Germany and Britain; Hoplites in the Anabasis and under Alexander; Crusaders, in every Crusade; Spaniards going to South America. Which examples did you have in mind? (No sarcasm intended).

Well, Republican legionaries commonly wore one or two greaves, and used tall shields, while most of their wars were short-term and local, and there were plenty of servants and a large baggage train to carry everything. In the late Republic, armies are marching a lot farther, with less baggage (men are required to march in their armor and carry their own gear), so greaves go away and shields get shorter. The Romans who invaded Britain WERE the stripped-down version, in other words.

Same with Alexander's troops--most of his infantry probably only had shield and simple helmet. The front-rankers would have more armor, but probably some of it was carried by cart or pack animal (just educated guess, here!). They were a lot more lightly equipped overall than the Classical hoplite, who generally travelled with at least a shield-carrier.

Crusader *knights* also had plenty of carts and waggons to carry their armor, they didn't march in it. The footsoldiers generally only wore padded gambesons, and helmets. No leg armor. Could be a similar situation with the Conquistadors, but I don't know the details for them.

Khairete,

Matthew

[Tiberius Claudius Vindex]

Could be a similar situation with the Conquistadors, but I don't know the details for them.

Alot of them adopted native cotton quilted armor since it was lighter and cooler than the armor which they (the wealther men that is) brought with them but was good enough to stop an obsidian bladed weapon.

[Anonymous]

What you describe, Matthew, remains a fairly heavily-armed chap, in most cases (especially the Romans' - and they seem to have gone back to more armour after the Dacian wars). But John does seem to be arguing for a reduction in quantity of armour, not a total loss of it.

Having your armour carried in a cart can't be viewed as doing without it, though.

I've seen some of the armour that survives from the Spanish Conquista and at least some of those chaps ( the ones whose names have come down to us) were wearing an astonishing amount. This may have been partly a tribute to the psychological effect of appearing like a giant insect to the enemy.

Looking back at what John wrote, I don't think our views are as far apart as they seemed on first reading.

[john m roberts]

The armor you hang on to is the sort that protects your life, i.e. your helmet and torso armor. A wound to either place can easily mean death. Limbs can be protected when convenient or take their chances when not. It is interesting to contrast the armor of soldiers with that of gladiators. The latter usually left the torso bare while variously armoring the limbs - soldiers were armored against getting killed, gladiators against getting crippled. Gladiator helmets were often huge, redundantly protective affairs, meant for maximum show and to keep the fights from being too short. You don't need the equivalent of a medieval greathelm for fighting a man whose sword is not much more than a big dagger, but for gladiators the show was everything.

As to conquistadores, Bernal Diaz states that they always had at least helmet, body armor and gorgets. By implication, the limbs were seldom protected except among the few horsemen, some of whom wore full plate while others were armed a la jineta (Moorish-style, as lightly-armored lancers). He often refers to armor as padded, but it is unclear whether this was because it was regarded as better armor or out of necessity. Remember that the Cortez expedition did not set out from Spain, where armor was easily obtained, but from Cuba. Diaz states that Cortez had padded armor for the expedition made in Cuba and had the local smiths hammering out helmets. Some of this armor must have been very crude in appearance, though undoubtedly serviceable.

[Anonymous]

As I said before, it is becoming apparent that our points of view are not as different as they seemed. Incidentally, I now expect some colleagues from Mexico at the First International Ancient Greek Festival, so if the Conquista is a period you're interested in...

[hoplite14gr]

Every man will carry as much portection as he can affort finacially or pysicaly. In my opininon the "hevying" "lightening" and then again "rehevying" armors has to do with the availability of finaces, materials and above all skilled craftsmen.
Tactrics and weapons also influence the issue. Firearms effectveness negated metal armors. They were not worth the trouble anymore.
Suddenly they became popular after 1960 because they were made of lighter material and they were again of some use (against ordonance.)
Kind regards

[john m roberts]

Hoplite's point about the skill of the craftsmen is cogent. Those upper arm guards, thigh guards and foot guards were made with what seems to us unbelievable craftsmanship. The Romans didn't even have the clip-on greaves. Apparently the craft had been lost. Those supplemental pieces of armor may have been just too clumsy, as made by smiths available at the time.

[hoplite14gr]

Well the did have vambraces and advanced foot protection in the Bronze age:
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour4.htm
Check middle/bottom of the page.

Kind regards

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

That is one heck of a page, Stephanos... I tried to click on some of the others but with no luck...

The "ankle guard" does look suspiciously like a hand guard for a Japanese amour and some 14th century European gauntlets... If it is a hand guard it might be for the left hand which makes sense if holding two handed spears which were in contemporary use. When I first looked at the upper illustration I got this impression. Seeing the lower illustration... I dont know. The near protrusion in the first photo looks like a thumb guard. But then, I have not seen the actual item.

Anyway. Links to this period and anything from the Archaic are greatly appreciated.

LYKAON
(Ralph Izard)
who is impressed with this link and wished I could access the rest of it...

[hoplite14gr]

Well most of these arm and foot protection comes from the Thebes Bronze age arsenal date roughly 1200 B.C.
Please try again. Andrea Salibeti has improved the pages.
Well it is a fact that BA economy was better and definitely could sustain more "extravagant" troops than classical era.
Archaic arm guards and foot guards of the "foot-knight" type of hoplite exist in the Olympia meuseum and this is a good reconstruction based on them:
http://www.soldiers-russia.com/new_sold ... _pb223.htm

Kind regards

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

OK...

I found the index page:

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/index.htm

But it does not seem to link to the first page you posted... although I can get three of the "Armour" section links. But not the rest, helmets, weapons, etc.

It's an informative site... some of the panoplies using bronze strips look workable...

LYKAON
(Ralph Izard)
who's wife, when told I wanted a Mycenaean amour for the living room said: "[expletive deleted]".

[hoplite14gr]

Many pages are still under construction Ralf.
Hope you liked the link with the archaic "foot night". He is historicaly accurate.
Kind regards

[Felix]

Another usage of arm protection, from the Hellenistic Era:

"Again, as an injury to the left hand may disable the horseman, we
would recommend the newly-invented piece of armour called the
gauntlet, which protects the shoulder, arm, and elbow, with the hand
engaged in holding the reins, being so constructed as to extend and
contract; in addition to which it covers the gap left by the corselet
under the armpit. The case is different with the right hand, which the
horseman must needs raise to discharge a javelin or strike a blow.
Here, accordingly, any part of the corselet which would hinder action
out to be removed; in place of which the corselet ought to have some
extra flaps[6] at the joints, which as the outstretched arm is raised
unfold, and as the arm descends close tight again. The arm itself,[7]
it seems to us, will better be protected by a piece like a greave
stretched over it than bound up with the corselet. Again, the part
exposed when the right hand is raised should be covered close to the
corselet either with calfskin or with metal; or else there will be a
want of protection just at the most vital point."

Xeonphon, On Horsemanship http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/hrsmn10.txt chapter XII