Vambraces - possibly a reason for their use

[tlclark]

"Just because there is no evidence in the archaeological record, that does not mean that it didn't exist"

More importantly, just because it exists in the archaeological record, that doesn't make it more accurate. Any accidental survival might be an anomaly, but because it's in the "archaeological record" we trust it.

Travis

[FAVENTIANVS]

In this picture says that is based in Trajan's colum, it has small one.


This can't be called vambraces right? but plated guars, he?

Yes, as well as the manicae but I think they are exceptions to the norm.

[Caballo]

I'm not sure that I would agree that smaller wristguards are exceptions to the rule. For example, this from Corinium.

http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/media/museum/Roman/A160.jpg

The write-up states:-
"Brief Description: Romano-British sculpture, fragment from a military tombstone showing a hand grasping a lance. Found at Watermoor Road, Cirencester.

Dimensions: Depth = 60 mm

Physical Description: This is a well-carved fragment; the hand is approximately half-size and grasps the shaft of a lance cut square rather than round; on the wrist is a band circa 0.015 m. to 0.02 m. wide with turned-over terminals. Griffiths has noted a similar feature on the tombstone of the trooper, T. Flavius Bassus, of the Ala Noricorum, who was buried at Cologne, and also on that of the centurion M. Caelius of Legio XVIII, who wears a broad band on both bare wrists (no doubt hinged at the back). The Aquilifer Cn. Musius, of Legio XIV Gemina, is shown on his stele at Mainz with a band of four ridges fastened to the wrist of his right arm only. Finally there are faint indications of a band on the right wrist of Flavius, standard bearer of the Ala Petriana, whose tombstone is in Hexham Abbey. As all these wrist-bands are different, it must be presumed that they were personal items and not normal equipment. They would have provided protection to the inner side of the wrist where the blood-vessels are near the surface and therefore vulnerable to sword cuts. "
http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/nqcontent.cf ... jectId=600

[FAVENTIANVS]

Interesting indeed...

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

Simple rule in my Legion: Document it, and you can use it! Several of my troops already wear bracelets or armillae. Any archer is welcome to wear a proper archer's bracer on his left wrist. If any Italian tribal warrior from the 4th century BC is wearing a neat bronze vambrace on his sword arm, I'll be very excited! Or a fully armored cataphract, super! But show up with anything beyond that, and no documentation, and I will politely and apologetically sever the arm at the elbow. Muahahahahaaa....

Now, for modern medical needs, hey, talk to me! I'm not a COMPLETE s.o.b! But I'd still prefer something like the linen wrappings already suggested, perhaps over a splint of some sort, jus to avoid the stereotyped Hollywood look.

Sorry, but I'm still of the opinion that making up little unnecessary details just because we think they COULD have or SHOULD have existed is a very dangerous thing. After a few steps, it's really fantasy, not history any more, making up our own cool little version of things. No, we certainly don't know everything, and yes, every time some wild new archeological discovery turns up we are all stunned by things we've never seen before (Otzi the Iceman springs to mind). But really, let's wait for those discoveries, and stick to what we have right now for the time being. If nothing else, it cuts down on the arguments.

Mind you, for some basic necessities, we HAVE to speculate or make interpretations or leaps of faith, or we'd never be able to equip ourselves and take the field. But keep that all to a bare minimum, and "when in doubt, throw it out". (Okay, that was my Dad's philosophy on room cleaning!)

A rant, Travis? From lil' old me? Perish the thought!

Valete,

Matthew the Frothful

[jsantell]

The group seems to be approaching this topic as a discussion of a piece of extra equipment. Perhaps an examination of the medical manuscripts and records of the time would shed more light. This is after all a piece of orthopedic equipment. What do medical records say about the treatment of week joints? Surely there must be something written about it.

[Sassanid]

Hi Comerus,

This can't be called vambraces right? but plated guars, he?

What book is this image of the cavalryman from please. I have never seen it before.

Thanks,

Andrew

[Nathan Ross]

What book is this image of the cavalryman from please. I have never seen it before.

Both the cavalryman and the legionary picture from Comerus' post are taken from John Warry's 'Warfare in the Classical World'. Warry is still my favourite illustrator of Roman militaria, and as far as I know this was his only book!

[Sassanid]

Thanks

[Tarbicus]

Hi Comerus,

Nice find! May not be medical, but it ain't a handbag (purse).

[Crispvs]

Comerus,

Thanks for posting the pictures up. I find though, that I cannot accept that they are vambraces as such. The legionary in Warry's book looks more as if he is wearing armilliae than wrist protection (and don't forget that this is an artist's impression rather than a photograph of a real Roman soldier). Armilliae, in case anyone has been confused by the term, were military decorations, which were awarded for some aspect or other (I can't remember if I ever knew what) of military service and were worn on the wrists. I would identify M. Caelius' wristbands as armilliae too, on the bases that a) they are too narrow to offer much real protection and b) as he is also shown wearing the higher awards of torques, phalerae and in particular what may be a corona civica, it would be natural to expect him to be wearing armilliae as well.

Caballo,

Here is a photo of T. Flavius Bassus:



He is normally identified as wearing a long sleeved tunic with a turned back cuff, like that worn by the Vacheres warrior (seen here:



Sorry the statue is turned at an angle where the cuff is difficult to see. This was the best I could come up with using a quick image search on MSN. I do have better veiws of the cuff but, not being equipped with a working scanner, I cannot post them up.

Looking at the stele of Flavinus both in pictures and in person a few years ago, I would be inclined to say that here again is a long sleeve, rather than a wrist band (although the stone is quite worn and it is concievable that he is wearing armilliae). Certainly, there does not seem to be a line on his arm indicating a short sleeve.
Here he is:



Be careful of using any compuer reconstruction of a sculpture. The picture of the archer from Housesteads which you put up contains a high degree of supposition on the part of the artist and others. The original stele is extremely worn and it is difficult to tell precisely what was originally shown. The axe, so commonly stated to be part of his equipment, is in fact one longish horizontal groove which is roughly parallel with his hand with another shorter groove (which may be nothing more than damage to the stone) running not quite parallel below it. There is a school of thought which says that it could be an arrow, whilst I have even heard it suggested that it might be a second knife. To point out another common assumption about him, it is generally stated that he is wearing a pointed helmet. That said, there are those who believe that he is in fact bareheaded. The stone is not in a good condition and past the fact that it shows an archer wearing a short tunic there is not very much which can be said with absolute certainty about it. Next time you take a trip north, see if you can stop into the Museum of Antiquities in Newcastle upon Tyne and have a look at it for yourself. Sorry I cannot find a suitable web-based picture of the original to post up.

Regarding the idea that Roman soldiers might have worn a leather wristband to provide support, I agree wholeheartedly with Peronis's statements above. I think that cloth wrapped tightly around the wrist (such as boxers use) would be much more likely (not to mention effective) than a piece of leather whose tension could not be adjusted all that much. I would also like to add into the mix the fact that Roman soldiers trained incessantly (or so we are led to believe) and so in all likelihood, by the time they actually went into battle their wrist muscles would be likely to very strong anyway. That, of course, does not remove the possibility of injury, but it does reduce the odds somewhat.

Crispvs