[familyofman]

If Greek art of the time is anywhere near accurate - a lot of those 'warriors' were probably naked. At least when they competed in the original Olympic games they were.
Not counting armor & helmet - how many of the combatants do you think even wore a skirt?

[Hildy]

Eric Bana (Who in my opinion is WAY sexier than Brad Pitt) said that on some talk show...that these guys didn't realy wear anything in those days. OUCH.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

They would have worn a skirt of heavy leather pleats over a heavy leather belt with a support garment attached. A very decent form of protection for the upper legs/groin/lower abdomen that allowed for good movement and decent breathing. The armor, from the few clips I have seen, looks pretty good.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Whenever men get so uptight about anything outside the black/gray/blue straight-edged completely-hides-everything (opposite of women, going more naked) post-Civil War baseline outfit, I just have to bring up that very fact: before the Civil War era lots of fashions were "girly". Yet the men could hardly be called so.

Are we impugning Romans for wearing "skirts" any more than Greeks or tons of others in time? I would dare you to call any of them girly men to their faces.

Of course, it also depends on weather conditions. Those areas were on the warmer side so skirts wasn't a bad idea to avoid heatstroke, et al.

But I prefer the "tights" look of the Renaissance-19th cent. Esp. 18th cent breeches w/calf tights. Makes me crazy! Of course I'm biased for my favorite era, but....

[Old Professer]

Men - not women but men - in even the most primitive societies have always provided some support or protection for their private members since they first walked upright; the very notion that they would go into battle swinging and flailing about from both ends is ludicrous.