Historical accuracy questions

[HumphreysCraig00]

I have just had a few quick battles in E.B. and a couple of thing I want to clear up.

I am probably wrong I just want to know if you looked these up and what proof you have.

From what I know of the greek successor armies

1) The hypastpits were an extremely lightly armed (no armour other than thier aspi, greaves and helmet) Yet you have them depicted as a heavy macedonian phalanx.

2) The Foot companions were a high class phalanx who were also well equiped and trained for melee., where as you have them depicted as a Hypastpit (I cant spell this word well sorry if its wrong) force.

3) The agyraspids were the elite corp of the elite hypastpits werent they?

4) Werent the auxiliaries recruited by the romans from the greek states equiped like Super heavy peltasts, rather than classical hoplites/hypastpits.

5) Why do the Triarii's helmets look so wierd, is that how they actually looked?

6) Most of the greek forces seemed to be wearing illrian pattern helmets, but werent chalcidian helmets more common around 300-100Bc in greece?


As I said this is more so I can be better educated rather than saying you are wrong. and if I improve the mod by noticing an un-noticed innacuracy then thats a plus.



Also as an aside all the aspi equiped troops when I play on the 2nd, maybe 3rd LOD thier shields float around behind and to the right of them and when they run spin in giant circles around them, is this a known bug?

Or do you want a screenie?

[HumphreysCraig00]

Also I see often that hoplites were poor one on one fighters due to thier equiptment but I dont see why that is so I would also like to know that, after all they have big protective, but also reasonably mobile, shields, decent weapons and greeks liked to keep themselves in shape so would have been reasonably fit and strong, how were they poor fighters one on one?

[MeinPanzer]

I have just had a few quick battles in E.B. and a couple of thing I want to clear up.

I am probably wrong I just want to know if you looked these up and what proof you have.

From what I know of the greek successor armies

1) The hypastpits were an extremely lightly armed (no armour other than thier aspi, greaves and helmet) Yet you have them depicted as a heavy macedonian phalanx.

There's a lot of debate about the equipment of the hypaspists and the conclusion that most come to is that they were probably heavily equipped as phalangites but could also switch roles to function as lighter troops as well. It's probably safest just to depict them as a heavy phalanx, though.

2) The Foot companions were a high class phalanx who were also well equiped and trained for melee., where as you have them depicted as a Hypastpit (I cant spell this word well sorry if its wrong) force.

What do you mean? Also, to remember how to spell Hypaspist- their name literally meant "under a shield"- hypo (like a hypodermic, "under the skin," needle) and aspis (shield) combine with an agent suffix to make Hypaspist.

3) The agyraspids were the elite corp of the elite hypastpits werent they?

The Hypaspists were converted to the Argyraspides towards the end of Alexander's life (I can never remember when, exactly).

4) Werent the auxiliaries recruited by the romans from the greek states equiped like Super heavy peltasts, rather than classical hoplites/hypastpits.

Recruited when? During the early empire?

5) Why do the Triarii's helmets look so wierd, is that how they actually looked?

There's no way to know how they actually looked; we only have Polybius's description of them as having three black or purple feathers crowning them.

[HumphreysCraig00]

Thank you for the answers.

[quote]Recruited when? During the early empire?[/quote[

Well if they recruited diferent types in different periods then Id like to know all of them lol but I didnt have a specific period in mind when I stated that.

[Watchman]

5) Why do the Triarii's helmets look so wierd, is that how they actually looked?

The ones that look like Corinthian helmets lifted up ? Yeah, they were really made to look like that. "Italo-Etruscan" or something along those lines is what the type's usually known as. I think there have been a couple of specimen excavated here and there.

'S a fashion thing you know. One assumes the Italians liked the Corinthian look but found the original design too restrictive.

Imitation designs were incidentally issued to some elite Napoleonic cavalry forces as well.

[Geoffrey S]

About the triarii helmets, someone posted a screenshot of them in the bug forum looking strange at high details; that may be what is being referred to.

[Fondor_Yards]

1) Also as an aside all the aspi equiped troops when I play on the 2nd, maybe 3rd LOD thier shields float around behind and to the right of them and when they run spin in giant circles around them, is this a known bug?

Yea that's a funky bug, but I think it's known. Baktrian Agema also have this bug, as well as Agema Hellenikon *probably due to their shared model*.

Also I see often that hoplites were poor one on one fighters due to thier equiptment but I dont see why that is so I would also like to know that, after all they have big protective, but also reasonably mobile, shields, decent weapons and greeks liked to keep themselves in shape so would have been reasonably fit and strong, how were they poor fighters one on one?

Hmm, they seem to be just as good as most other meele fighters for me. What difficulty are you playing on, and who were they fighting.


Also to see some of the new roman auxillia units you get can after the marian and augustian reforms, look here. They are very kick ass, almost makes me want to play as those dirty romans.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=64068

[Xtiaan72]

Humphreys has a point. In most of my readings of Alexander hypaspists are depicted as lighter troops that were often detached from his main body of troops. They were capable of keeping up with Alexander's cavalry on long forced marches. This would lead one to believe they weren't carrying big lumbering pikes.

I just did some fishing on the internet and found a couple of contrary sources. One said that by the time the reached India they did indeed carry 12 foot pikes and were fully armoured. ( although that isn't a long pike by Macedonian standards).

Another source said they were adapted to fight guirella warfare in Afganistan and Baktria. But it doesn't clarify what that change in equipment was.

They should probably be depicted as a hoplite that can fight better than a hoplite when not in phalanx formation. They should definately still be pretty effective when not in phalanx formation. In other words, they should be more versatile than a standard hoplite. A fast, light hoplite?

But I'm talking out of my ass here because I haven't played as Macedon and maybe they are depicted as a versatile unit...

[QwertyMIDX]

Well first, our hypaspistai are exactly that, they use the same formation as our classical hoplites. They might be like in .80, but they are in the internal version and .8 was the first pat of the transition to using our new classical hoplite formation. Second, the issue with equipment for a lot of these successor units is that troops could fight in more than one role, and often did. Unfortunately RTW doesn’t allow you to re-arm your best warriors for the needs of the situation.

[Xtiaan72]

Second weapons are modeled and there is a formation button. So technically couldn't they just fight really well with their second weapon when out of phalanx formation?

[Fondor_Yards]

Second weapons are modeled and there is a formation button. So technically couldn't they just fight really well with their second weapon when out of phalanx formation?

They don't fight in the RTW style phalanx formation. They fight a very tight group of spearmen. And they do have swords as a secondary weapon, and do kick a lot of ass with it.

[Xtiaan72]

Sounds like they are as they should be....Makes me want to start a Macedon campaign

[O'ETAIPOS]

From what I know of the greek successor armies

1) The hypastpits were an extremely lightly armed (no armour other than thier aspi, greaves and helmet) Yet you have them depicted as a heavy macedonian phalanx.

I know at least 4 different theories about Hypaspist equipment. This super light is one of less probable and is based on inability of heavy armed troops to do what Hypaspist did. This is obviously wrong, as this "heavy equpment" was not heavier than this of modern soliders, or roman legionares.

2) The Foot companions were a high class phalanx who were also well equiped and trained for melee., where as you have them depicted as a Hypastpit (I cant spell this word well sorry if its wrong) force.

What do you mean?

3) The agyraspids were the elite corp of the elite hypastpits werent they?

Argyraspids were oldest and most experienced soliders (in Makedonia) and elite "standing army" of Selekids. On most ocasions they appear as pikemen.

4) Werent the auxiliaries recruited by the romans from the greek states equiped like Super heavy peltasts, rather than classical hoplites/hypastpits.

In EB you can recruit classical hoplites and peltasts, you can't recruit hypaspistai. at first romans were not "recruiting" auxiliary soliders. They ordered client states to send forces, the composition was more up to the sending state decision.

6) Most of the greek forces seemed to be wearing illrian pattern helmets, but werent chalcidian helmets more common around 300-100Bc in greece?

most common were different forms of "Attic" helmets (some called "attico-thracian or "thracian") - and this type is mostly used in EB.

Also I see often that hoplites were poor one on one fighters due to thier equiptment but I dont see why that is so I would also like to know that, after all they have big protective, but also reasonably mobile, shields, decent weapons and greeks liked to keep themselves in shape so would have been reasonably fit and strong, how were they poor fighters one on one?

they were not trained to do so, as for long time it was considered unnecesary. In fact for the most time majority of hoplite armies were almost untrained, as they were militias.

[Thaatu]

1.) Didn't hypaspists fight on the right flank of the battle line, as the right hand of the phalanx? If so I would say they needed more armour against phalanx armies. Could be wrong though...

2.) You must have mixed up the units, for pezhetairoi are "a high class phalanx who are also well equipped and trained for melee".

3.) The argyraspidai were the elite corps of the pezhetairoi.

[Watchman]

1.) Didn't hypaspists fight on the right flank of the battle line, as the right hand of the phalanx? If so I would say they needed more armour against phalanx armies. Could be wrong though...

Most sources I've seen agree on if nothing else on the hypaspists, or in any case Philip's and Alex's original ones, to have acted as a mobile "link" between the pike line and the Hetairoi. Sort of as backup for the cavalry, to prevent an unacceptable disjointing of the line as the horsemen inevitably outpaced the pikemen and, presumably, elite flankers who started rolling up the enemy line from the side once the Hetairoi had punched thrhough.

Anyway, the big limiter on phalangite mobility was the need to mainatin formation integrity without which the sarissae were next to worthless for most purposes. The Hypas were presumably either armed with something else - "hoplite" type weapons loadout would seem sensible - not requiring quite as rigid maintenance of ranks or so much better drilled they could be more maneuverable than the grunts. In either case they should've been able to wear anything up to bronze plate and still be more agile than the rank-and-file pike units; it's not like that armour is so heavy anyway, especially for elite soldiers.

Dunno how exactly the Successors used theirs though.

[HumphreysCraig00]

-About the triarii helmets, someone posted a screenshot of them in the bug forum looking strange at high details; that may be what is being referred to.

No I was refering to them looking like pushed up corinthians, though I have noticed the bug you speak of too.

-Hmm, they seem to be just as good as most other meele fighters for me. What difficulty are you playing on, and who were they fighting.

No I mean in reality, appently thier equiptment made them poor individual fighters (just thier equiptment, nothing to do with thier individual proficiency) but I cant see how.

-Also to see some of the new roman auxillia units you get can after the marian and augustian reforms, look here. They are very kick ass, almost makes me want to play as those dirty romans.

Again I was talking about real life not the game, but I have read that the romans used more heavily armoured versions of heavy peltast type hellenistic forces as auxilaries from the hellenistic provinces as they most closely mirrored the legionary infantry way of war.

This is obviously wrong, as this "heavy equpment" was not heavier than this of modern soliders, or roman legionares.

You have to take into accout that modern soldiers are both physically stronger and more durable, due to both lifestlye improvements (a more nutritious and reliable food system) and better training.

And.

Modern soldiers equiptment in fight is actually quite light, in combat they wil only carry at most 40 lbs.(they drop thier bergans/rucksacks)

I cant remember how heavy a roman legionaire is but something around the region of 40-50 lbs combat wieght comes to mind, Im sure you know though.

A greek hoplites equiptment (With bronze curass and such) is supposed to be around 70 lbs from the sites ive read, so If the hypaspists were heavily aurmoured they would tire quickly, even if they were as fit as modern elite soldiery..

Meanwhile if they were lightly to not armoured this would be more achievable.

Still these are just my observations, they probably mean diddly FA.

-What do you mean?

WHat I meant is from what ive read and seen they would act like a strong phalanx usually but if needs be or if it would be better they could drop thier sarissas and charge with just thier sidearms and still be effective (the normal phalangite had a poor sidearm which meant he had trouble when close in)

But that seems to be wrong.

[Zaknafien]

That's uh, not quite true. and my equipment is heavy as hell, by the way.

[Watchman]

70 lbs is along the lines of 1600s "bulletproof" three-quarter plate armour you know. And that was Cavalry Only for strictly practical reasons.

[HumphreysCraig00]

That's uh, not quite true. and my equipment is heavy as hell, by the way.

Whats uh, not quite true?

If it is about the modern wieghts then yes it is, M16 loaded, 3.6kg, (7.92lbs)

120 rounds in Magazines 2.8kg. (6.16lbs)

3 m67 grenades 2.1kg (4.2lbs)

US interceptor body armour 7.4kg (16.3lbs)

US infantryman carries 34.58lbs of neccesary equiptment (I rounded upto 40 as there will be stuff like radios and the helmet which I havent thought of that will add wieght.

And the veterans ive spoken to say that when theyre coming underfire they drop thier rucksacks and any other un neccasary wieght they have so they can move faster,

70 lbs is along the lines of 1600s "bulletproof" three-quarter plate armour you know. And that was Cavalry Only for strictly practical reasons.

I know thier body armour is heavy, but I dont know how heavy exactly, but 70 lbs is a figure that keeps popping up when I search for the wieght of a hoplites equiptment.

[HumphreysCraig00]

And if its about the fitness diet thing.

I know roman males were on average 5 foot 2 (when histroy shows state this over and over it gets ingrained on your mind) due mostly to an inferior diet And I am assuming the same is true of the greeks.

Plus now scientific theory is applied to training rather than ritual which means the training should be more effective

[Zaknafien]

well excuse me, but I happen to be a US soldier, and recently returned from a year in Afghanistan, engaging in combat, in mountainous terrain. First of all, your standard interceptor vest is loaded with loads of nick-nacks, 12-15 magazines, compasses, GPS, various radios, medical kits, flashlights, flex cuffs, batons, etc, etc, etc. Youre also not counting your side plates, shoulder pads, crotch plate. We kept our rucks on more than we did not, you would never know when or if you would be able to retrieve it under fire.

[Bava]

I know roman males were on average 5 foot 2 (when histroy shows state this over and over it gets ingrained on your mind) due mostly to an inferior diet And I am assuming the same is true of the greeks.

You´re sure about that? 5´2´´ on average seems a bit too small imo.
I dont think the diet was that bad in agriculturally high developed societies like Rome, Greece and Carthague (ok, they probalby had a lower protein intake).
I even read somewhere that one of the requirements for becoming a legionary has been a height of at least 172 cm, but i could be wrong.

5´3´´to 5´5´´ was the average for a male from 14-17th century in middle europe but that was due to a "small" ice age and the 30 years war.

[HumphreysCraig00]

well excuse me, but I happen to be a US soldier, and recently returned from a year in Afghanistan, engaging in combat, in mountainous terrain. First of all, your standard interceptor vest is loaded with loads of nick-nacks, 12-15 magazines, compasses, GPS, various radios, medical kits, flashlights, flex cuffs, batons, etc, etc, etc. Youre also not counting your side plates, shoulder pads, crotch plate. We kept our rucks on more than we did not, you would never know when or if you would be able to retrieve it under fire.

First off, congratulations on being a better person than me, unless your lieing about being a US soldier.

Anyway

I assumed the wieght for the interceptor vest included all the plates as I have been on a site where a (I think he was a marine, may have been us army though) said he did all his exercise in his bulletproofs with all the plates in and it wieghed a bit under 20 lbs.

Also does all that stuff add up to much as the non military equivelents i have had my hands on werent very heavy at all.

And I didnt know there was enough room for 12 to 15 mags, as I was either told or read that they only held 3 (7 at most) ready mags and all the rest of the ammo was loose..

We kept our rucks on more than we did not, you would never know when or if you would be able to retrieve it under fire.

As I said the people i talked to said they always took it off so I stated that as fact.

Why were you worried about losing it though? Wouldnt anything you lost be replaced reasonably soon?

And I thought you wouldnt try to retrieve it until youd killed or chased off the insurgents.

Then again ive not been there so I dont know.

As an aside do you support the USs strategy in the middle east or not? (Alot of the soldiers ive seen state thier opinion on this have but they hadnt actuaky served there they had served before now)

I dont think the diet was that bad in agriculturally high developed societies like Rome, Greece and Carthague (ok, they probalby had a lower protein intake).

No the shows did say 5 foot 2 was average.

And im sure genetics played a part in it but the ones that said why rather than just said 5'2 was the average said it was due to a poorer diet, they didnt go into any specifics though

[Sarcasm]

First off, congratulations on being a better person than me, unless your lieing about being a US soldier.

Anyway

I assumed the wieght for the interceptor vest included all the plates as I have been on a site where a (I think he was a marine, may have been us army though) said he did all his exercise in his bulletproofs with all the plates in and it wieghed a bit under 20 lbs.

Also does all that stuff add up to much as the non military equivelents i have had my hands on werent very heavy at all.

And I didnt know there was enough room for 12 to 15 mags, as I was either told or read that they only held 3 (7 at most) ready mags and all the rest of the ammo was loose...

Considering the nature of the terrain and the type of units deployed, you're supposed to carry more than your average mechanized infantry chap.

As I said the people i talked to said they always took it off so I stated that as fact.

Why were you worried about losing it though? Wouldn't anything you lost be replaced reasonably soon?

And I thought you wouldn't try to retrieve it until you'd killed or chased off the insurgents.

I suppose his CO's wouldn't be terribly happy if he lost half his kit and had to replace it. Not to mention the personal things he doesn't like to leave behind.

You seem to think of insurgents [love the designation], can't hold any ground on the country. You can't exactly justify a potentially dangerous movement to retrieve lost kits either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Zak: 12 mags? In your vest? Where do you find the space.

My belt kit, fully loaded but without ammo comes in at around 35lb, not including a 2 litre platerpus on my back. I've never worn body armour but I can quite believe it weighs in at another 20lb. Then you'll probably have a small pack with extra rations/ammo/water on your back as well. Then there's your weapon. M16, irrc is over 9lb loaded.

So I can well believe that the modern British Infantryman in Iraq is lugging around upwards of 70lb, not including the poor sigi carrying the radio.

Marines I know carry as much as 120lb as a matter of course not including special tools or weapons.

In my view this is far too much, you simply don't run very fast carrying that much gear. There's only so much power in your legs and if you're not a big guy, like me, your legs are only so long. You can run, but not fast or very far.

Roman gear in battle was considerably lighter, the shield was not more than 20lb, the mail-shirst about the same. The helm is quite light and weapons are weightless compared to everything else. Over all probably no more than 50lb.

As to height, I think you'll find that 5'4 is closer the mark. Averages are fairly screwed up because they seem to include things like slaves, which brings it right down. It's like saying the average life expectancy for a Roman male was 25 when legionary service was 20 years.

It doesn't add up. In fact I'm sorry to say none of your numbers add up.

As an aside I would just like to say I have never served in combat or been a regular soldier, however I have trained with the kit.

[Spectral]

I know thier body armour is heavy, but I dont know how heavy exactly, but 70 lbs is a figure that keeps popping up when I search for the wieght of a hoplites equiptment.

Maybe they're wrong ?

Incidently, yesterday I was just browsing through this :


http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtop...r=asc&start=20

OK, (fanfare please), here are the results on muscle cuirass and helmet I promised:

Greek bronze muscle cuirass:

Breastplate: 2.25 pounds

Backplate: 3 pounds

Total: 5.25 pounds (even lighter than I thought!)

Helmet: 2.875 pounds

Total for cuirass and helmet: 8.125 pounds

I don't have calipers handy, but it appears the cuirass is only about 1-2mm thick.

The helmet is beefier. The edges are all thickened and are about 3-4 mm thick, so figure the entire helmet to be 2-3 mm thick.

Matt, I took some nice exterior and interior shots of the helmet as requested, and will post them as soon as practical.

Now the breastplate is for a very small, gracile individual, maybe even a young teenager. Also, there has been some metal loss over the years and a few areas are restored or filled with epoxy compound. But I'd say the metal surfaces are about 90% intact. And even if you double the weight of the cuirass, you're still talking about only 10 pounds or so.

So going strictly by what we've measured so far (your hoplon and my cuiurass and helmet), the totals are:

Hoplon: 18 pounds

Helmet & Cuirass: 8.125 pounds (actual) / 13 pounds (with conjectured double-weight quirass)

Total: 26.125 pounds (actual) / 31 pounds (double-weight cuirass)

So, to meet VDH's 70-pound estimate, the hoplite's greaves, spear and sword have to add up to between 39 and 44 pounds.

Not bloody likely!

Lots of myths lying around, like the impossibly heavy medieval swords and armour....

[Xtiaan72]

No the shows did say 5 foot 2 was average

.




Well, I wouldn't base your research on a television show. Best to go to first hand historical sources. Some of the best evidence that Roman soldiers were small in stature are their accounts of their military encounters with Germans and Gauls, Who were evidently huge by Roman standards. The Romans were not too keen to fight the "giants" one on one. It's their tactics that kept their spirits up.

Of course the fact that Gauls and Germans were larger in stature compared to Romans throws a wrench in the theory that diet was the controlling factor here. There is no compelling evidence to back up that Gauls and Germans had a better diet than Romans, certainly. So more likely we are talking about hereditary and racial differences rather than cultural.

There is also no reason to assume that "small" Romans were not in excellent condition. The training and daily rigors of the legion would have made them extremely fit by any standard. Short guys that are extremely strong can lift a pack as good as anyone...me thinks. This tid-bit was on Wikipedia and the article was well referenced:

The main pre-requisite for a member of the Roman Army was fitness, given the long distances they were expected to march. They commonly trained by running, chopping down trees and doing obstacle courses. Every month a legionary had to do an 18 mile route march with 60 pounds of equipment and armour and weapons to carry. It was common practice for a legion being readied for deployment to spend the previous weeks in long field training drills, some of which required that they build three field camps a day. Requirements for non-legionary troops were not as severe.

I think it's a stretch to claim the average Roman was 5'2...Where did those figures come from? That would assume that a great many Romans were close to or under 5 ft tall. Friggen hobbits. Does that figure factor in that men are generally taller than women? Or that the legions had minimal physical standards that all men might not have met? Even if the average Roman was 5'2 that doesn't mean the avg legionnaire was that short. It is highly doubtful that there were very many 4'11 hobbits fighting off hordes of marauding Gauls!

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

On the subject of short Romans, I took this EB in game picture that relates to the subject. Tiny general:

It is mostly due to the angle and the way the Gallic auxilia are positioned higher in the saddle.

unless your lieing about being a US soldier.

Proof, and cool pics.

[HumphreysCraig00]

I suppose his CO's wouldn't be terribly happy if he lost half his kit and had to replace it. Not to mention the personal things he doesn't like to leave behind.

You seem to think of insurgents [love the designation], can't hold any ground on the country. You can't exactly justify a potentially dangerous movement to retrieve lost kits either.

I know he wouldnt be happy about it but im sure the fact that he was avoiding being shot would justify it, wouldnt it?


And I get alot of my info from tv (e.g. I call them insurgents as the news calls them that and its stuck), sometimes its good other times (like this :)) it seems to be a bit crap, anyway from what ive seen on the news and on documentaries the insurgents (I cant think of another all encompassing term) generally run away when faced with stiff opposition, unless thier aim is to self detonate.

Thats not the usual then?

In my view this is far too much, you simply don't run very fast carrying that much gear. There's only so much power in your legs and if you're not a big guy, like me, your legs are only so long. You can run, but not fast or very far.

Thats why when I was told they drop thier packs I accepted it as fact without question, as it makes sense.

Roman gear in battle was considerably lighter, the shield was not more than 20lb, the mail-shirst about the same. The helm is quite light and weapons are weightless compared to everything else. Over all probably no more than 50lb.

At least one of the figures i'd seen on the net was right about something...

As to height, I think you'll find that 5'4 is closer the mark. Averages are fairly screwed up because they seem to include things like slaves, which brings it right down. It's like saying the average life expectancy for a Roman male was 25 when legionary service was 20 years.

The shows (although numerous) seem to be wrong again then.

I didnt think theyd take slaves into account though as they werent technically roman were they?

There is also no reason to assume that "small" Romans were not in excellent condition. The training and daily rigors of the legion would have made them extremely fit by any standard. Short guys that are extremely strong can lift a pack as good as anyone...me thinks. This tid-bit was on Wikipedia and the article was well referenced:

Every month a legionary had to do an 18 mile route march with 60 pounds of equipment and armour and weapons to carry.

How long did they have to do this 18 mile march with 60 lbs


As I know from previous experience I have no trouble (apart from slight sweatyness) going 5 miles in less than an hour and a half with 110lbs in a backpack. (I used to do it thinking It would get me fit quick but it had no effect :( )

So if it was say 18 miles in say 15 hours maybe , then thats hardly going to make you extremely fit once a month.

(BY THE WAY IM NOT DOUBTING THEY WERE FIT IM JUST SAYING SURELY THEY DID HARDER EXERCISE THAN THAT)

I think it's a stretch to claim the average Roman was 5'2...Where did those figures come from? That would assume that a great many Romans were close to or under 5 ft tall. Friggen hobbits. Does that figure factor in that men are generally taller than women? Or that the legions had minimal physical standards that all men might not have met? Even if the average Roman was 5'2 that doesn't mean the avg legionnaire was that short. It is highly doubtful that there were very many 4'11 hobbits fighting off hordes of marauding Gauls!

Bleeding ankle biting romans!!! :)

[Watchman]

Weights I've seen quoted for the bronze muscle cuirasses (both plates, mind you) are in the 30 pound range. Which sounds credible enough; AFAIK most decent-coverage mail shirts weigh about the same (although there can be very considerable variation due to "cut" alone), and good steel breastplates rather a bit less. (Early Modern "proof" cuirasses, with double-thick 4mm front plate, are about 25-30 pounds; normal-thickness ones about 75% of that.) 'Course, exact coverage, design, thickness and such can vary the figures quite a bit.

Not that it really matters. Medieval knights fighting dismounted could cheerfully be wearing full mail, a coat-of-plates over it for serious torso protection (and neither armour is exactly light by itself), plus helmet and sundry additional limb defences plus weapons, and normally didn't have too much trouble with the load. They didn't cover ground all that fast of course, but then if they needed to be mobile they'd stay on horseback to begin with.