Vambraces - possibly a reason for their use

[Tarbicus]

This I think applies more to the Roman gang here, hence I didn't post in the Greek thread.

I've fractured my left wrist three times through various football and other youthful antics. My point being that my left wrist is pretty weak, and the scutum is still fairly heavy, and especially with the shocks it could take I feel there could be instances where vambraces would be worn as a support. As an example of how easy it can fracture, the last time was through a simple fall to the ground and all I did was stop myself when I hit.

I'm thinking more of the leather support type, not metal decorative thingies. It would just seem a practical measure to take and help keep a soldier battleworthy and less prone to further injury during combat, or even construction, which would be a massive inconvenience to everyone, especially in the heat of combat.

This could be especially with veteran soldiers who had sustained a number of injuries in their career. I really can't imagine a soldier being invalided out just because he had a fracture that had healed but left the limb with a weakness.

Any thoughts?

[Matt Lukes]

Well I know that the common image of Roman soldiers wearing bracers is a Hollywood invention, but just for the heck of it, I made myself one of thick leather and found that wearing it on my left wrist for carrying/ using my scutum was quite useful. I can definitely see it being advantageous even if one doesn't have a previously injured wrist.

Matt

[hoplite14gr]

Well if we follow the same line of thought for the Greek hoplon, it migt not be unrealistic. Any commnets?
Kind regards

[tlclark]

Well when it comes to the representational evidence, one of the few things we can say with confidence is that we see no vambraces from the early to high empire.

Late empire...maybe, but it's a big maybe.

Expect a rant against vambraces from Matthew Amt in about 5...4...3...2...

[Marcus Germanicus Ferox]

Hi Tarbicus

I started the other "vambrace" thread as I too have used them for the same reason as yourself, especially for the left wrist. I realise that the use of such devices are frowned upon in this forum, but on a practical level they do work. I too have made both short and long vambraces (no decoration) from plain, thick cowhide offcuts I aquired from a local tannery. I have found them extremely useful when being involved in re enactment over a long period of time ie whole weekends.

And Hi again Stepanos

I can't see any reason why they wouldn't have been used here and there in Greece. Give it a go - surely a bit of experimental archaeology is what we're all about!

Kind regards to all

Ferox

[Tarbicus]

Indeed, there being no representational evidence at all makes it a dodgy area. But I am only talking about maybe a few in a hundred, tops.

However, athletes wear supports if needed, but they don't pose for publicity photographs wearing them ... posterity and all that, which is similar to grave stele.

Press photos are a different thing altogether, but I can't see a 1st. C sculptor catching the moment quite quickly enough :? Monuments are also for posterity of some type and another, so can't be called 'documentary' either, as with murals really (even though they can sometimes offer more everyday subject matter).

[Peroni]

Salve,

Tarbicus, rather than opt for the leather vambrace/archers arm bracer type support, have you thought of binding the weaker wrist with a linen strip? Perhaps a linen wrapping over a more sturdy (leather) support.

Many soldiers that were injured would have wrapped anything that was available around a weak or cut hand/wrist.

You could then explain to the public that a wild blow from a Dacian falxman managed to get through your shield and damage your wrist!!

Just a thought.

Regards,

[Tarbicus]

Tarbicus, rather than opt for the leather vambrace/archers arm bracer type support, have you thought of binding the weaker wrist with a linen strip?

Many soldiers that were injured would have wrapped anything that was available around a weak or cut hand/wrist.

You could then explain to the public that a wild blow from a Dacian falxman managed to get through your shield and damage your wrist!!

Hi Peroni,

Yes, I understand that as an option and it's a good one. However, my point, I suppose, is that although there is no evidence a leather support (I'd call it that rather than a vambrace) was used, I feel there were circumstances when they would be worn on a fairly regular basis to alleviate any problems under extreme physical conditions caused by old injuries, rather than fresh ones. Why lose a soldier, or risk the rest, if all it took to make a weak link in the chain strong again was a piece of leather support. Maybe not even leather, but it is the obvious candidate.

I'm really looking at the question from a physical rather than decorative aspect. In an age when prosthetics and 'plastic' surgery was used, and physicians seem to have carried a certain amount of authority within the army, why not?

Forget Hollywood, I'm really not interested in the decorative or costumed look, I'm posing the question from a practical and medical point of view. The option would be to have a man alongside you in the front line who may well have his wrist broken as soon as the fighting starts and the shield defence is instantly breached. That doesn't make sense, especially given how practical and common-sensical the Roman army could be.

Already someone has said that they wear one for the same reasons I would, so there is actually an identified need for it from people who probably don't actually undergo the wear and tear that a legionary would have. And we know they did undergo severe physical wear and tear from written accounts in the record, when it comes to mutiny as an example ("feel these gums" etc.).

As for there being no documentary evidence, it's true, and I'm not trying to impose an opinion that people should wear them. However, athletes never have their picture taken wearing a sports support (unless it's to advertise it), and a grave stele is a similar thing - an image for posterity. That, I feel, is where there is a possible weak spot is in the argument that they were never worn because we have no pictures of them. There are plenty of other things that are accepted because the interpretation of them make sense, and I just feel there is a justification for "supports" from a medical standpoint.

They may also not be on Trajan's Column for example, but it is clear that if we take that as proof then everyone needs to change their segs.

Does any of that make sense?

[Caballo]

Good idea from Peronis.

I spend a fair bit of time coaching youth rugby and wrist injuries happen frequently. A fair number of players at all levels strap up their wrists/ forearms - and Roman warfare would be even more of a contact sport! (See pic below)
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/ ... 00x238.jpg

Suggest that a long strip of leather worn spirally (bandage like) around the wrist and upper arm- potentially covered by linen as well) would simulate the protective effect of the rugby-style tape and elasticated padding and also be authentic?

And a challenge- how about photo-shopping the Gareth Thomas picture above into either a Celt or a Roman?

Cheers

Britannicus

[Tarbicus]

how about photo-shopping the Gareth Thomas picture above into either a Celt

wink:

[Caballo]

Another thought. Most legionaries and auxillaries were also trained in archery, and as such you would wear a brace on the left arm. (See Hamian pic below)


So your impression could be of a Roman soldier who also practised archery (made even more convincing with a bow strapped to your back)??

Cheers

P

[Tarbicus]

a Roman soldier who also practised archery

Aha!! Mr. B., nice solution!! If you needed one on your right wrist, could you be a left handed, archery trained legionary? From what I understand archery training was fairly common, and being left handed for archery shouldn't pose the problems a shield wall would have, surely?

[Marcus Germanicus Ferox]

Hi Jim

Mark again - purely as a foot note, I always keep in mind what Derek Forrest said in one thread, a long serving member of the Ermine Street Guard, who helped me in my first ever display, - "Just because there is no evidence in the archaeological record, that does not mean that it didn't exist"

Later

Ferox.

[Marcus Germanicus Ferox]

Hi Comerus

Missed your point chap - can't seem to get the image up - over to you.

Ferox

[tlclark]

They may also not be on Trajan's Column for example, but it is clear that if we take that as proof then everyone needs to change their segs.

:lol: Yeah but they aren't on the Adamklissi monument, or any other either.

In basic, I agree with you. I can't imagine being in that close quarters waving my arms about and not having some sort of protection. I'm constantly getting whipped around the wrists.

So it seems perfectly logical. As far as the vambrace being the 'jock strap' of it's age (I'll never look at wrists quite the same way) and being intentional excluded from representations, I think that considering all the mundane stuff we see in Roman art, its casualness and candidness, I have a hard time buying that, but you never know.

So who knows?

Travis.