Analysis of Greek prehistoric combat in full body armour
journals.plos.org
journals.plos.org
Spears are meant to keep the enemy at a distance. Aiming for the foot would require some reaching, putting you in significant danger of counter attack. Armies lined up in row and each man covered the man to his right so reaching in battle would be a risky maneuver.
As for protection against arrows only requires a thin layer of armor to deflect, and that armor is best located above the knee since arrows come from above. Alexander’s phalanx did not utilize foot or leg protection except for the most prestigious officers. Their thin shields were wide enough to cover their body, and it was noted that a phalanx with their spears raised, could scatter a volley of arrows along the spear shafts.
Keep in mind all of this equipment needs to be packed and marched long distances, in the summer heat since armies did not campaign in the winter due to challenges with provisioning a sizable armies in wintertime. The wealthy elite could have baggage trains to carry superfluous equipment, but the bulk of any army marched on their own two legs and carried everything they went to war with on their backs.
It's worth mentioning, that the armor was found with an arm guard, greaves, two swords, no spearheads and no shield.
Additionally this is from 1500 BC. If you have a guy in phalanx wearing this in mind, you are probably wrong.
Full body armour (probably expensive), along with swords suggest that’s this was probably the armour of someone high ranking, rather than a common soldier.
https://acoup.blog/2019/05/03/collections-armor-in-order-par...
He talks about the economics of bronze age warriors, how most soldiers were generally expected to bring their own arms and armor which could be costly, and how soldiers would prioritize armoring their heads and torsos before other body parts.
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-...
If you aren't familiar with acoup.blog, highly highly recommended.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
It looks much higher than a medieval bevor and very impractical. You wouldn't be able to see much of attacks to your torso or legs.
Another previous discussion on this subject (links to Ars article referencing/based on the linked paper): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40522939
The apparent "impractically" of the armor is one of the very reasons it's being tested. I think the apparent reduction in visibility is probably being exaggerated in some of the pictures that they've chosen to use. In addition, since a lot of the fighting would be with spears, I'd assume there would often be enough distance that the high visor wouldn't obstruct too much relevant vision.
Big shields also have similar issues with visibility. They can protect you, but they also cut visibility.
https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/site/assets/files/2766/...