Why didn't the Romans wear shins?

During the Dachian War, Roman legions were hard hit by the Dachian weapon, the two-handed Lompia. And then, as an alternative, we put armour on the shin and the right arm, and after the Dachian War, these armor disappeared again. Wearing armour and shin pads does not make the movement very uncomfortable, but it also did not weigh uselessly.

Even before that, when you fought Hannibal, you had a shin holder before you were completely free from Hellenism, and from the time of Marius' military reform to the later stages of the Lorica Segmanta, the shin holder disappeared, so no matter how big a shield you believe in, you can't ignore it

You had a neighboring Christian shinner, Macedonia had a shinner, and besides barbaric enemies, Rome's "enemy" enemies, the Hellenistic military culture that Rome had learned about, so why did Rome give up its shinner?

The Roman legions did not need a shin, but rather their own unique style of battle. The typical tactic of the Roman army is to throw a spear like the Philum-Pilah to confuse or damage the enemy's ranks and go right into battle. The characteristic of the Roman army here is that they protect themselves with shields and attack with Gladius, a short sword about 60 centimeters. To attack with a sword of about 60 centimeters, the distance from the opponent must be that short. It's a situation where the shield and the shield collide, so to speak. Here, the enemy line in the front, the ally line in the rear are pushing hard, so you have to get close to the enemy, and it's almost impossible to bend your back and attack your legs here, and even if you do, you expose a serious loophole. The vital point is not in the leg, and the attack becomes difficult. You'll see if you bend down and swing the knife yourself. Rather, the risk of attack on the shin is greater in the unwalled, spear-like weaponry that gives some space between each other. Sword spacing is very close. In order to attack the legs, the posture collapses and you have to bend your back, which makes you unable to balance and rather make a stain on your defense. In kendo, there is no technique for attacking legs, and in Western swordsmanship, they only attack the groin and thigh level without breaking down their posture. (ARMA: There was a shin attack in the video. Your posture completely collapses and you bend down like crazy. By contrast, weapons such as Unwoldo and spear can attack any part of the upper, middle, or lower body without breaking down their posture based on long distances. In the case of Greece, it was mainly long spear dust, and for this reason, it was necessary to defend the shin, and in the case of Rome, it was not really necessary because it emphasized dagger warfare. By comparison, the Dacians' pulse, the Rompia, was the first unwalled weapon that the Romans had ever experienced. The amputation of the arms and legs that we've never experienced before, while maintaining a reasonable distance, was probably helpless against the attack that the Romans had never seen before. I remember the damage to the Roman army was concentrated on the helmet, the right hand with the sword, and the legs. If you put out a sword, you would have kept your hands spaced, and if you came up with a shield, you would have kept your legs spaced again, and if you came up with a shield to defend your legs, you would have hit the pitch with a sharp sickle-like tip. The spear could be brushed off, but the weight and speed of the axe-like pulse, the pitch could not have been relieved for Rompia. A similar example is that in Japan, young kendo men and ajumma naginata competed and the kendo men lost by 5:1. (I'll check the authenticity more clearly, but it's a very famous story anyway.) I think this is a prime example of how advantageous a soldier's flag is when the gap is maintained. Also, I think it is the reason why there must have been a cutting military flag around the world, including Islam, India, Asia, and Europe.  Rome would have done a lot of research, and I think the analysis of the causes of Rome's defeat was very accurate. In the Second Dacian Expedition, the Romans were deployed with armor on the exposed right hand and a grieve on the exposed shin. The result was to prevent the immediate loss of combat capability in the attack of Pulse, Lompia, while also forcing the enemy to fight at a narrow interval where Gladius could win. For this reason, I think the issue of the Roman legged equipment is convincing.