There is a high chance of this being a repost, but I skimmed through recent topics and searched some and could not find this specific question. If it is a repost let me apologise in advance

I am newly getting into the field of medieval arms and armour and one thing that strikes me as odd is the absence of metal greaves and vambraces from a large portion of the middle ages. I understand why (full-)plate armour only came on late, but it seems to me that steel greaves and vambraces should have been producible much earlier. As a layman it does not seem more difficult to produce such amour compared to a helmet (half-helm great-helm etc.). It would appear to be lighter than mail and no articulation would be required, because of the large rigid body-parts.

Still in all sources I find both the under arm and shins covered by mail.

Greeks seemed to have used bras greaves in the antique times and Vikings seem to have used boiled leather vambraces.

The only reason I can think of for the disappearance of these armour parts is the possible gaps it would leave in the armour, but that could be remedied by some intelligent design.

Please let me know what you think on this topic

I have often wondered the same, but the fact is that there is a huge gap between greek vambraces and greaves and the next appearance in high medieval period. And even greeks and romans used vambraces rarely. I remember no roman vambraces actually, only manica which is for the whole arm. And in greek era, vambraces seem to be rarer than greaves... There is no evidence for boiled leather in viking age, so no leather viking vambraces. Only iron splinted vambraces and greaves in Vendel (pre-viking) grave. So between roman manica and 12th century full length mail shirts, it seems that warriors were not really concerned with lower arm and leg defences... At least in western and central europe.

Thank you both for your answers,

You both make very valid points. Though there remains one part that still bothers me and that is that in the beginning of the 2nd half of the middle ages (11th and 12th century) you do see images of lower legs and forearms/hands being covered by mail armour. A few examples of these can be found in the Bayeux Tapestry on the Norman Knights among other sources.

I would expect that mail armour is heavier and more cumbersome than plate in those places and since mail also seems to be more labour intensive to make it would possibly be more expensive

Rolf,

If your argument is correct, why would they not have immediately replaced the entire hauberk of mail with plate, or coats of plate, and not only the limb protection?

There's absolutely huge amount of things that can, and do, seem 'obvious' and necessary once one had already seen and used a lot of them.

But it doesn't change the fact that statistically, huge majority of people in history had never actually used that.

And today more things they would never otherwise imagine seem obvious to us - because we can see them in any media, in huge amounts of information completely unknown in the past.

And still, in 100 years there will be obvious things in use, and people will wonder 'why didn't they think about it".

And then, after this all, of course, actual practical and economical reasons kick in, which can be just as important.

Leading to no greaves, even if they seem to us to be very obvious answer.

It wouldn't necessarily be more expensive to make - the economics of mail production depend a lot on the price of labour, and so if labour is cheap you can have a number of minimally trained apprentices doing bits of the preparation stage.

Plate greaves and vambraces are quite cumbersome to wear without the rest of the plate supporting them. The simple strapped-on ones you see for sale as costume now are a lot less wearable than a tailored mail shirt or set of hose. The Greek bronze greaves get round this through perfect shaping, but that's also an expensive step, especially in iron.

They're also much less necessary for foot combat. I find it interesting to wonder why the Greeks even used them, but I'd guess perhaps to protect against arrows. However, from what we can tell massed archery was much less common in Viking warfare, so that would have been a less important factor.

Where we have people fighting on horseback, they are still used - the Vendel graves are the most obvious example, as they're attired and equipped as late-Roman cavalry officers, and have greaves to go with it.

Looks like it's been made clear enough that there were no vambraces in the Viking era, but it's a point that bears reinforcement! Beware of Hollywood...

I think it should also be pointed out that complete armor was not some kind of "default" back then, and that anything less than THE BEST protection was seen as some kind of disadvantage or problem to be solved. The default was NO armor--it was perfectly common for many warriors to go to war with shield and spear, and they don't seem to have spent a lot of time worrying about their supposed lack of protection. So *any* armor was gravy. A simple shirt of mail was a nearly impenetrable and infinitely flexible metal skin that could be put on in seconds. Compared to the guy in the wool tunic, that's an incredible advantage. It might also be noted that odd bits like the splinted defences from Vendel show up here and there early on, but get dropped even as society, economics, trade, and production are on the rise. There was absolutely no technological reason that limb defences could not be built or used, and the people who would have used them were certainly wealthy enough to afford something like that.

All we can safely conclude is that complete protection was not the only consideration for the man getting armored up. Weight, comfort, and just the chances of being *significantly* injured were probably all part of the equation. Bottom line, it worked for them!

Matthew

I am aware of the limitless shortcomings of Hollywood and even most 'historically-accurate' documentaries. I must admit that I was under the impression that Vikings used vambraces of leather or thick cloth as arm protection, since a lot of reenactors depicting this era use them (my thanks for correction my misconception on that part).

I know that armour was not common on the (early) medieval battlefield and that the common soldiers had to make do with padded clothing, but I think I am safe in assuming that most all of the early knights did own a suit of mail.

I have a mail hauberk myself (unfortunately not tailored..) and know that it is quite easy to wear and move in, if suspended by a belt.

I got to this topic because I want something on my legs to finish of the armour, at first I was thinking of greaves, but after research I only found mail 'trousers' for leg protection, which is how I got to my question

Thank you all for giving me more insight into to how and why :)