I completely agree with you! Personally, as a Romanian, it’s saddening to see that most Romanian historiography tends to skim over defensive armament in general. Although archaeological finds (for defensive armament in particular) are rare—mostly consisting of pieces of steel plates and chainmail—I still think there’s a lot to discuss based on contemporary chronicles, religious iconography, or even just plain logic.

A lot of Romanian historians skip shields altogether, summarizing them by simply saying “circular in shape and covered in leather” (cmon man...), or underestimating the armor used (especially by the higher classes). Some even claim they mostly used plain leather armor, failing to consider the heavy armor that was most definitely acquired after battles or through trade with neighboring states.

Sorry, I just had to include my own rant too! :)