Pretend it's 2000 years from now.
Just out of curiosity, what do y'all suppose the accepted "truth" would be about US armed forces and their uniform/equipment if the "evidence" found through archeology is the Vietnam War memorial statue at DC?

That US soldiers may have routinely gone into battle with no clothing on their upper bodies, except for a vest of padded armor? That they were issued or wore no protective head gear except some form of soft cloth hat?

Assuming the statue survives intact (unlikely) what would be the academic truth accepted about the weaponry? Some went into battle almost totally unarmed? Those with the heavier weapons went into battle with a single belt of 100 rounds or so wrapped around their chests?

What theories do you suppose would win in the academic cult of personality to become the truth that explains that? Large cadres of supply runners must have kept a constant ferry of bullets coming from the trucks that had to be close? That they took turns running back to get more ammo as they shot theirs up in a sort of round robin?

Since reenactors base their outfits and actions upon the generally accepted academic truths of the period they want to portray, how do you think they might decide is the best answer?

I obviously have no clue about whether or not lorica or any other form of armor was used by whom or when. My only contention, and pet peeve, is how often academic truth tends to be as much a product of intellectual inbreeding and adherence to a cult of personality based around a favored author or professor with often laughably little real evidence.

I am not attempting to label anyone here or elsewhere as stupid or in any way be insulting. I am merely pointing out an all to often overlooked issue when strong personalities get involved in attempting to win debate over the realities of ancient days when by the very nature of the beast, the evidence is at the very best sketchy and always incomplete.