until early empire legion,
did they wear panties?
no. pants are for uncivilized savages.
No why would they? As long as you aren't riding a horse you don't need pants
It always baffled me why leg protection was disregarded prominantly in ancient warfare. The leg might be a harder target to hit than the torso or arms, and has the benefit of being shielded better, but still.
>>1350135
Walking around in full armor is hard enough without leg protection. Mobility is key.
>>1350135
You only have so much material and craftsmanship, plus it has to be practical to equip and use.
Maybe they didn't have comfortable or secure enough design.
Some of these niggas running around naked even, so as some point you just roll with whatever you got on.
>>1350031
Pants are stupid in hot areas. I live in NC where the heat and humidity are quite high and all I ever wear are shorts. I'd go naked from the waist down if I could.
It's pretty fucking hot, and I see all these retards walking around in pants and sweating their asses off and I just don't understand it.
>>1350161
Just do it!
Fuck society!
>>1350135
>It always baffled me why leg protection was disregarded prominantly in ancient warfare.
It was just the fucking Romans- the Post-Marian ones- who had to state-arm legions and didn't have time for that shit.
Meanwhile the Greeks, Celts, Iranics had leg pro.
>>1350161
>Pants are stupid in hot areas
Tell that to Persians and Southeast Asians.
>>1350349
fluffy pajamas aren't pants.
>>1350135
>It always baffled me why leg protection was disregarded prominantly in ancient warfare.
Swords generally were shorter then. For example the Pompeii Gladius type ranged from 60–65 cm and greek the xiphos 50-60 cm. Axes were still used some what commonly and in backwaters area even clubs.
A medieval knightly sword would be about 90cm in total. That is a lot more reach. Also outside of close formations underarm spear use, if you are also using a shield, is generally worst then over arm.
>>1350135
The overwhelming majority of ancient military campaigns involved marching to and from battles. We're talking weeks of movement for a few hours of actual fighting, followed by another few weeks of constant marching. They weren't dumb, you can do that faster and more effectively without covering your legs in shit you probably won't need.
>>1350347
>didn't have time for that shit
Its more like
>why would you bother creating greaves when you big fucking shield covers you from chest to toe
Romans in formation had literally nothing to fear about leg wounds unless it was something big/strong enough that a greave wouldn't matter anyways.
>>1350135
The roman legionaries used leg protection.extensively. Polybius tells us that the basic armour for a roman soldier (i.e a hastati) was a shield, a helmet and greaves. Only after they gotten their hands on that did they purchase some sort of chest armour.
>>1350135
It's wasn't prominantly disregarded, at least not what I'm aware of. The problem was that people prioritised buying a helmet and a shield over anything else as they provided the most vital protection. Anyone that could afford greaves aswell as all the equipment that is of higher priority would probably have bought it.
>>1350335
they didn't go naked mind you, the clothes did cover down the the knees, and they still worse some fine undies underneath.
i don't know why it went out of style.
>>1350031
Yes. Its an exaggeration that pants were considered barbarian. Perhaps thats true for the early and mid republic when they fought mostly in the warm med but as soon as the Romans got to colder areas they wore trousers. Romans were the masters of copying other people ideas.
>>1350135
Greaves were used extensively, leg protection wasn't disregarded.
>>1350508
The most common weapon in antiquity was the spear. The legs were a very real target, hence why hoplites and Romans wore greaves
>>1350141
That's how it's like in video games?
>>1351504
>>1351426
can't find a single source for Hastatii using greaves as a standard piece of equipment. It was helmet and chest plate first for them. At most they seem to have only used one in the right leg, if Gladiator gear is anything to go by.
Principes and Triarii maybe since they were wealthier, older ones and didn't do so much manouvering in combat
>>1351544
Hastati were fairly poor so perhaps not them but they sure would have liked greaves.
Some reliefs from the marian period show greaves on only one leg, it may have been to do with how they stood in battle, sideways not front on.
>>1351510
it was the Romans' logic too. They could make closed helmets as protective as late medieval ones but prefered not to because good vision and hearing was far, far more important for the kind of combat Legions engaged in.
