is there any prove that legionaries used leather cuirasses ? i've seen a reenactor wearing only a leather cuirass. (no seg., no squa., no ham.)

rgds

You mean like those leather segmenata things?

Salve,
I am afraid that they did not wear this cuiras as well as leather lorica segmentata.

No evidence of legionaries wearing them...not much for officers either. Even then, the evidence for officers using leather musculata is open to a lot of interpretation and speculation.

Aulus Perrinius wrote:You mean like those leather segmenata things?

yep

tnx! could it be possible that because it's organic material we don't have prove for it but that images do show them?

rgds

On page 144 of the book "Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier", by D'Amato and Sumner, there is a picture of what is labeled "leather banded armour" found in Egypt. This is definitely not an example of leather segmentata. Moreover, its military context is unclear. It might as well be something that a chariot driver would of worn.

He also shows, on page 137, examples of leather shirts, found at Vindonissa, that he claims to be armour. Again, I have doubts. Judging from the photo, these could just as well be a subarmalis.

Quintus Aurelius Lepidus wrote:tnx! could it be possible that because it's organic material we don't have prove for it but that images do show them?

No. We have tons of leather artefacts dating to the Roman period. Even leather components of metal armour. The only evidence for "Roman" leather armour is a piece of lamellar from Dura Europos. No musculata and definitely no segmentata.

Before anyone starts arguing semantics I define "armour" in this thread as an item designed to protect a person from various weapons in a military context. So I don't consider costumes to be armour and I don't consider chariot racers' equipment to be armour.

Quintus Aurelius Lepidus wrote:

Aulus Perrinius wrote:You mean like those leather segmenata things?

yep

Well Magnus pretty much answered that question. But, no, there is no evidence for a leather segmenata outside movies. If someone finds one there'll be a lot of red faces on RAT

Nicolle has a couple of examples of segmented leather armour in his Arms and Armour compendium but these are Middle Eastern and date a thousand years too late. They are also constructed in a completely different manner to Roman segmented armour.

ok tnx !

Has anyone looked at the following factors to either help prove or deny the use of leather as a a realistic form of protection for this era?

Production time from prospected ore to metal armor (hamata, squamata, segmentata) vs slaughtering of the cattle and curing the hides to a suitable leather form of protection? I know David Sim did some work on this with metal artifacts, but I have never seen anyone work it on the leather side of the house/argument.

Weight of metal Roman armor vs weight of proposed leather armor to be able to provide about roughly the same protective qualities. A friend of mine that does work in leather has shown me a few examples of leather breastplates that would be protective, but they weigh a lot more than any of the Roman metal armor that I own.

Freedom of movement and flexibility. Byran Angel actually mentioned this in a earlier post. A soldier has got to have a good degree of flexibility in his armor, and be able to not only use his weapons as designed and instructed, but also be able to march and do other soldier like duties in them.

Performance in all weather conditions over prolonged periods of time. How would leather fair vs metal armor in a Junhkelmen like expedition? While leather used to make caligae, baldrics, belts, etc seems to hold up pretty well, how does a hardened version of it hold up, even if boiled in wax, oil, etc. Does it even need to be hardened in the first place?

The armor would also, of course have to based off designs of either known finds or period artwork.

I have my own speculative thoughts, but I am unaware of any experiments of this nature.

R/

We know that leather armour was worn during this time by many cultures. The trick is to demonstrate that the Romans wore leather which can't be done using the above analysis.

What we do know is that leather segmentata cannot be constructed using the same method that the Romans used for metal segmentata. In order to provide any protection at all,the leather plates have to be much much thicker, which would lead to the type of assembly that Nicolle's Middle Eastern examples have. To put it simply, it is not possible to make leather segmented armour look like the depictions on Trajan's column. The only way to do it is to make the leather too thin to provide any kind of protection, which means that it no longer fits the definition of "armour".

Dan,
in other words, while leather armor was used by other cultures, how armor is depicted in Roman art and lack of leather archeological finds still makes it highly; improbable that it was ever used during the Imperial period by the Roman War Machine.

MC Bishop's Article on The Military Fabrica and the Production of Arms in the Early Principate along with Roths's Logistics of the Roman Army at War also got me thinking on the more practical logistical aspects of whether or not leather armor was even practical, sustainable and feasible; especially on campaign.

How practical it would have been for use in the Roman Army keeps me coming up currently with my own speculative thoughts. I lean towards it not being practical based on what we know currently, despite some new research recently by D'Amato and Sumner which has been successful in at least making me rethink and relook the subject once again.
R/

Neuraleanus wrote:He also shows, on page 137, examples of leather shirts, found at Vindonissa, that he claims to be armour. Again, I have doubts. Judging from the photo, these could just as well be a subarmalis.

Or simply a civilian shirt. Leather clothing (sheep, goat, reindeer, etc) was common in Northern Europe. Is it me or do the Italians have a fetish for leather armour? Italian reenactors seem to love it.

The idea that 'segmentata' armour was made of leather is an old myth that refuses to die !! It originated with early studies of Trajan's column ( 19C and before). No-one knew what the segmented armour worn by the legionaries on Trajan's Column was made of before modern archaeology.

On the base of the column is carved, life sized, a tropaeum of captured arms which includes Sarmatian armour of horizontal strips, though depicted as flexible in the torso, and significantly the front strips are fastened with buckle-and-straps, like a series of leather belts! (Tacitus famously tells us that some Sarmatian armour was made of "toughened leather" Hist.I.79)

What more logical than to assume that the similar 'strip' armour shown on the column above being worn by legionaries was also leather?
..........and thus a myth was born which exists to this day, despite archaeology demonstrating many years ago that this armour was iron.......

P.S. The sarmatian armour in question is just below the window to the right....

The Sarmatians and many other cultures at the time wore hardened leather or rawhide armour - scale and lamellar. I'm even open to the idea that Romans wore this type of armour. But it would take more than Dura Europos to make a case. Every argument I have seen that tries and argues that other Roman typologies (segmentata, musculata, etc.) were made of leather seem pitifully desperate. Once you actually define what constitutes "armour", all of the so-called evidence evaporates.

Hmmm, interesting discusion... So I also try to add my personal oppinion.

Yes, no doubt that the other cultures and nations used hardened leather armor but I am really not sure, that Romans did. AS I can remember, we have no evidences about leather segmentata or leather musculata using by the Romans. Yes the counterargument may be, that a leather could not survived to our times but: We have a lot of finds (caligae, baldrics etc.). Yes, the leather segmentata is lighter than the iron one and a leather is not corrosible but.. The level of protection against weapons: I have no experiences from battles but I am quite sure, that iron is harder than hardened leather and also firmer than leather one. Yes, a hardened leather is firm (my friends have said that it is really dificult to cut through) but... an iron armor is more effectively - I am sure about it.

And I am also quite sure that also Romans have known it. They have been able to produced iron loricas and we have a lot of evidences about it. But we have no evidences about leather armoring by the Romans.

So I am afraid, that leather loricas using by the reenactors is based on the myth. I do not want to insult anybody but the true is that If I had seen this loricas, it has been in the Italy...

valete and regards

Argumentative it doesn´t really make sense to debate the usefulness of leather armour per se. As we know our ancestors often made / did things which do not make a lot of sense to us. Using leather armour might be one of these. It makes more sense IMO to simply study the sources.

IMO the sources have been a bit stretched by Mr. D´Amato in this regard. The interpretation IMO lacks some knowledge about the nature of Ancient Art as established by Classical Archaeology. As one example out of many I would like to point at the "green leather cuirass" shown on Etruscan urns, such as the example below. Mr. D´Amato seems not to be aware of the Ancient industry of patinizing bronze by purpose, discussed at length within the discipline. The industry patinized bronze wares in different colours ranging from green over brown to black. A hint to this could also be the green shield rim, as we know from archaeology were often made of bronze as well, simultaneously green helmets on other urns. (if they are not just mere conventions, resp. there were just no other colours available for the painter at the moment etc.) OR green is used here to represent iron, which would explain the green swords, which were certainly not made of green painted leather, I´d say. A similar argument could be made for the "dancing centurion" from Pompeji. Also I don´t see how a smooth sculptural surface is able to give information about the nature of the displayed material. It could in all cases be fabric as well. Last but not least, a technical difference between rawhide and leaather should always be expressed, however Mr. D´Amato is frequently subsuming rawhide under leather.

Ohh, i forgot one my theory: Is not it also a comfort of some reenactors? Leather cuiras is not so weighty as iron one, itnot corrodes, looks cool etc.