Republican Army

[Matthew]

The question of greaves is complicated. No ancient author ever says the Romans wore only a single greave on the left leg, certainly not Polybius. What little pictorial evidence there is points to two greaves or none.
There is little if any pictorial evidence of greaves during the 1st century BC. The altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus (early 1st Century BC shows none, except on the hellenisticly equipped officer, who may be Mars. However, it does not show footwear either.
Even more confusingly the monument of Aemilius Paullus (168 BC) doesn't show them either, while we know from Polybius that greaves were used at that time.
In the 1st century AD greaves were not used apparently, except by centurions. The trophaeium Traiani at Adamklissi, does however show legionaries with greaves (and armguards). A lot of decorative greaves dating from the 2nd and 3rd century have been found. They are generally classed as cavalry sports equipment, but I wonder about that.
The consensus however is that the 'transitional' legionary did not wear greaves.

Yes, this is a good breakdown of the situation. It reminds me very much of the Bayeux Tapestry that depicts the majority of the armoured combatants without Mail Chausses, excepting for William himself and a small number of others. Conventions of art, perhaps? A comment on wealth?
I suspect it wasn't normal issue, but I find it hard to believe that a Roman Legionary who could afford to wouldn't choose to wear a Greave. On the other hand, the habits of Soldiers are difficult to predict!

Matthew James Stanham