Comments by "Evan" (@MrEvanfriend) on "Response to the Comment Section About Roman Armour vs Medieval Armour" video.

  1. I've never done any reenacting myself, because I've seen WWII reenactors do their thing, and they looked ridiculous. People with no military training attempting tactical maneuvers and whatnot just look like clowns. I was in a real war, and have never felt the need as an adult to play at war. Obviously Roman legionary reenactors have no actual training and will be doing it wrong. That being said, the general lack of armor for the right arm specifically strikes me as odd to say the least. I can think of two possible solutions: First, that the Romans figured it wasn't worth the logistical hassle of having another piece of gear to give to troops who would probably just lose it or break it anyway (at least if Roman legionaries were anything like US Marines, and I suspect they were). Second, they may have decided that armor on the arm was an encumbrance, that any protective value it may have had was offset by reduced effectiveness at throwing a pilum, or something to that effect. All armor is a compromise, and armor that protects you but prevents you from fighting effectively is not a good one. It would be interesting to see statistics from Roman campaigns about where on the body most wounds were taken, and I suspect that it would be the right arm/hand, but I don't think any such data exists.
    2