Pteruges

[NapoleonMaster]

I've noticed that many cultures in EB2 share the pteruges, from the Celts to the Persians, they all used them at some point and even it survived till the late middle ages.

But what I always did not know is what kind of purpose the pteruges had besides looking fancy and why it got popular in ancient antiquity and in Medieval Greece.

I've always noticed that in the early Roman republic, high ranking officers (Legatus, Consuls, Equites, e.t.c.) would use the pteruges very often and the regular soldiers would not use it as much, but in the late republic it seems that it's use spread very fast. (maybe it's because of Mariu's reforms and greek influence?)

In the case of the Greeks and the Diadochii it was widely used and there wasn't any major differences in pteruges between the regular soldiers and the higher ups. (with the exception being that the latter ones were more ornamented)

The Celts seem to have used it too but not as much as the Greeks or Romans.

The Carthaginians seem to have been influenced by the greeks in equipment and tactics so you would see a lot of similarities between the two in terms of pteruges.

The Persians and Parthians also used it but I guess it depended on the troop since their armies were so diverse.

In the case of the german tribes, it seems that the pteruges was never used by them (maybe i'm wrong).

In conclusion, it seems that the pteruges was very popular between the ancient mediterranean civilizations and it makes sense since the helenistic age was still kicking in in EB2's timeframe.

Some images :

[Nightsh4de]

Doesn´t seem surprising that it was widely adopted as the solution is elegant enough to protect a vital area and retain the high level of mobility required by the hips.

[Septentrionalis]

Doesn´t seem surprising that it was widely adopted as the solution is elegant enough to protect a vital area and retain the high level of mobility required by the hips.

It is easy to understand that the design allows very good mobility as there is probably nothing restricting it at all. I just came to think that horseback riding might be a prime example of their usefulness. That would correspond to NapoleonMaster's observation that they originated with the higher ranks.

What I don't quite grasp is what kind of protection those little strips offer, which is what I assume NapoleonMaster had in his mind as well. They don't really insulate and probably do not deflect blows either. They also leave knees unprotected, but that might not be such a big deal in the times before riflemen, as one did not have to hit the dirt to engage the enemy. And the drawn models are wearing knee protection anyway, although I do not know if such was commonplace.

In modern military use, I hate it when they replace "baggy" camouflage uniform pant designs with more presentable-looking narrow-sleeved ones. Especially in cold climates where you need to wear layers, restricting movement can become a real issue. Soldiers today are required to perform all kinds of tasks in low positions, and chafing and breaking your pants is an unwelcome addition to the military life.

As a side note, it is a curious thing that while so many civilizations in the west wore things like these (and things like hakama in Japan etc.), there is now a big social stigma for men wearing anything that resembles a skirt. The Celtic dresses are a notable exception, but even those are a subject of humorous or even ridiculing remarks sometimes.

[tentaku]

Are these strips hard enough to offer any protection? Are they like leather or something?

[Septentrionalis]

Are these strips hard enough to offer any protection? Are they like leather or something?

I am a bit embarrassed for taking so long to realize something. As I assume that the soldier's actual strips worn on campaigns (as opposed to possible ornamental ones in a parade uniform) were most likely leather with metal parts or ornaments attached to them, their protective effect is not necessarily intended against the enemy's blows at all but the fact that one is handling a sharp blade and surrounded by others that do that. Just imagine someone accidentally brushing his sharpened gladius (or kitchen knife) against your thigh; you might end up with a bleeding gash that is likely to get infected in campaign conditions.

Some civilians have been surprised to learn that a (fairly) modern metal military helmet does not offer protection against a bullet (more modern composite ones do to some degree), and have asked me why do we wear them in the first place. The reason is that in combat there are many kinds of accidents that can hurt your head besides direct enemy fire. Explosives send stones flying, shrapnel can hurt you coming from far way, and you are likely to bump your head into many things, including your own rifle if worn on your back when you trip and fall. In fact, I was once running in difficult forest terrain during an exercise and paying so much attention to my step that I banged my head really hard against a low-hanging branch. I am thankful for the helmet that would not have stopped a rifle round but let me get up after a short while of confusion and keep going.

All in all, the purpose of the pteruges might have been to protect the user from himself and his comrades, much like protective gloves or steel-capped shoes in many professions today.

[athanaric]

All in all, the purpose of the pteruges might have been to protect the user from himself and his comrades, much like protective gloves or steel-capped shoes in many professions today.

Seems like a rational conclusion, but I think they should also provide decent protection against lateral or diagonal slashing attacks, and/or perhaps blunt trauma. Wearing them, I'd still be worried about stabbing weapons though.

[Septentrionalis]

Seems like a rational conclusion, but I think they should also provide decent protection against lateral or diagonal slashing attacks, and/or perhaps blunt trauma. Wearing them, I'd still be worried about stabbing weapons though.

Agreed. There just might not be an alternative if the design really originates with knights (equites) or other upper-class soldiers who need to mount a horse and ride it. Anything solid that covers both thighs will restrict movement. Except wearing some kind of separate thigh padding or plates underneath the pteruges.

One thing to consider is that soldiers spend an overwhelming majority of their time (up to 100%; there is no telling if an individual soldier will ever engage an enemy) moving and doing hard physical labor while having to either wear or carry all of their gear. Managing the realities of hunger, hygiene, dehydration, illness, exhaustion, and fear is a much more central issue to a unit's survival and ability to fight than having as much of your body covered as possible. If enough people start getting blisters in their feet or succumb to heat stroke, the entire unit will become dysfunctional because they have to tend to those who cannot proceed on their own. On the other hand, if the unit gets unexpectedly engaged by an enemy, there is no time to start putting on your fully protective suit of armor that you won't be able to wear at all times. I can understand why full body protection was not a priority in the armies of the classical antiquity, very much lilke it is not a priority today.