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