Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
As opposed to what? Growing thicker skin? No matter how good a weapon is at it, more armour will always be more difficult to cut through than less. The fact that they felt that what they already had was not enough to protect them speaks more for AP than it does against it.
Aww, I wanted to post something quite similar.

I agree with TCV. In effect, you are saying that more armor would not be helpful against the little clubs that the Illyrian Pirates use, since clearly, more armor cannot help you against the game's AP weapons.

As to why the Romans added more armor to defend against falxes, I feel it may actually have to do with protecting against blows which had already been blocked by the scutum. Because the blade of a falx curves inwards, it is entirely possible that blows which were caught on the end of a Roman shield would end up causing damage anyway by means of the sharp point of the blade reaching around behind the shield and cutting into the shield arm, neck, shoulder or any other area that the legionary thought he could protect by bringing his shield up to defend. A clean shot with a falx onto someones forearm would likely not be stopped by a bracer anyway. Even if the metal was thick enough to resist the blow, which is doubtful, chances are the blade would simply run down towards the hand and lop that off, or up to the elbow. Glancing blows can't count in this discussion since a glancing blow with an axe or kopis is easily brushed aside as well by a small amount of armor as well. So I feel that this is the reason why more armor was added. Plenty of other weapons the Romans faced were capable of lopping off limbs and yet they did not add more armor. However, the scutum did not defend completely against the curving blade of the falx and this may very well be why the additional armor was needed.