+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) (/showthread.php?tid=4789)
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Theodosius the Great - 03-25-2007
Quote:In 'Roman Military Clothing 3' there was a reconstruction of a late Roman Senator wearing leather armour based on finds from Ballana in Nubia.
You know, I forgot that this thread was titled "Leather Armor". My argument was / is much more limited to leather musculata, which has to do more with semantics. If leather musculate existed, I dispute the assumption that it was used as armor. To me, it would seem to be a costume, or dress / parade uniform.
I don't dispute the existence of leather lamellar. It seems to be very effective and flexible because of the layering effect.
Anyway, back to the book : Was Nubia ever part of the Empire at some point ? Your caption says it was probably made in Egypt, but is this supposition ?
Let's assume it's from Roman Egypt for the moment. (It sure is irritating when archaeologists give themselves a wide window when dating an artifact. The leather fragments in question could date from the reign of Constantine or as late as the reign of Justinian. Almost a 300 year span to play with.)
But putting that aside, the garment (which is what it looks like to me) doesn't look like it can take a blow like leather lamellar can. Is this leather merely assumed to be "armor" or could it be a fancy costume like the crocodile suit ? (incidentally they're both from Egypt)
~Theo
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - RUBICON - 03-25-2007
would not cause so much body sweat ?
Waterproofing leather??
hock: I too would be interested in this method! As for sweating, leather does not breathe, it gets very hot under the sun, almost unbearable to hold if left out.
With years of experinece in leathergoods through saddles, chest straps, leg boots, leather girths & saddles, i have never heard of waterproofing leather....and for no sweating....let me give you my tall riding boots after a day's riding....and a nose peg!
I agree with Theodosius, without special care, leather if gets wet is soon rotted, or dires out and cracks not making it very presentable...even todays leather gear on our horses, when it gets wet, mixed with sweat and teh sun...is soon useless if not oiled & cleaned daily! This keeps the leather soft...not hard!
Re: leather armour - Tarbicus - 03-25-2007
Quote:Nevertheless I think there has been an unfair bias against leather armour in the recent past, probably because it appears in Hollywood films so often and they can not be right can they!Graham, the arguments against are usually based on its properties as actual armour, and there have been those who have pointed out that hardening was not an option to the Romans. How does your archaeologist believe this was done?
The question is, if you had to illustrate an entire legion for an illustration, or even a cohort, would you feel comfortable depicting them wearing leather armour and would it only be restricted to a certain period? What we often see from Hollywood and Cinecittà would have us believe it was standard issue.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Sulla - 03-25-2007
I know my reservations about leather come from the material itself and its trade offs over bronze etc not a bias from movies.
Leather - Graham Sumner - 03-25-2007
Lots of questions raised hope the following helps.
Quote:Graham, the arguments against are usually based on its properties as actual armour, and there have been those who have pointed out that hardening was not an option to the Romans. How does your archaeologist believe this was done?
I think the main objection is lack of hard evidence. However it would be naive to think that every piece of leather found, even in recent times has been properly identified, cataloged and illustrated and then published or put on display in a museum. Given the recent standard reference works on Roman armour I think it would be a brave archaeologist indeed who found a piece of leather which was clearly not a boot and thought mmm..... armour. I should have asked how it was made but I simply accepted that it was and that pieces of leather can be moulded into shape as well. As there is obviously a great interest in this subject all I can do is ask again.
For the time being J.P Waterer from the Museum of Leathercraft had this to say in 'Roman Crafts' eds Strong and Brown, 1976. " Leather could be made firm by rolling or hammering........it could be made tough yet pliable by impregnating it with dubbin, a mixture of cod-oil and tallow. leather... made water resistant with oil or grease. .......objects intended to hold liquids such as bottles, flasks, buckets, pitchers or tankards lined with pitch or natural resin.
Quote:The question is, if you had to illustrate an entire legion for an illustration, or even a cohort, would you feel comfortable depicting them wearing leather armour and would it only be restricted to a certain period? What we often see from Hollywood and Cinecittà would have us believe it was standard issue.
Much as I personally would like to, I think it would be equally misleading to show an entire Roman army of any period looking virtually identical. Although having said that in the early third century they seem to be getting there. I have already illustrated soldiers in leather or linen armour and there are more examples in the new book. Hollywood does show the same armour worn throughout the Roman era as can be seen in the latest offering 'The Last Legion'. However Roman artists do too so can you really blame them.
Quote:let me give you my tall riding boots after a day's riding....and a nose peg!
No thanks!
Quote:As for sweating, leather does not breathe, it gets very hot under the sun, almost unbearable to hold if left out.
Whereas iron........ :wink:
I have come across one of the last traditional leather manufactures in the UK. I will contact them if you like and ask their opinions about hardening leather and it's possible use as armour. However the idea of leather armour did not seem to be a problem to Mark Beaby who is the leather worker for the Royal Armouries. He has made leather helmets for example.
Pliny said Hippopotamus armour was useless when wet. Is that evidence that leather armour was never used or evidence that at least Hippopotamus armour existed and that it was useless when wet ?
Quote:Let's assume it's from Roman Egypt for the moment. (It sure is irritating when archaeologists give themselves a wide window when dating an artifact. The leather fragments in question could date from the reign of Constantine or as late as the reign of Justinian. Almost a 300 year span to play with.)
My example was just to show that some leather armour existed, now you want to know what is the exact date, there is just no pleasing some people!
Quote:Interesting comments and even teasing us with pteryges
Naturally I did ask permission to use a picture but no joy. Sadly I will have to wait like everyone else.
Graham.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - RUBICON - 03-25-2007
I see no dramas in leather being attempted to be used as armour....how effective it would be? Not very though it may offer a little protection rather than bare skin.
Upkeep would be a drama though.( based on years of experience cleaning leather)
I cant see why it would have not existed in roman or any other civilisation, simply a shame we have no proof of existence.[/i]
leather - Graham Sumner - 03-25-2007
Stefano wrote:
Quote:I see no dramas in leather being attempted to be used as armour....how effective it would be? Not very though it may offer a little protection rather than bare skin.
Not forgetting the first lines of defence, the soldiers sword, shield and his mates on either side.
Quote:Upkeep would be a drama though
whereas iron........ :wink:
Quote:I cant see why it would have not existed in roman or any other civilisation, simply a shame we have no proof of existence
See above for evidence of existence. I think we are beginning to agree that leather armour did exist. It is more a case now of what form it took and when.
Graham.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Theodosius the Great - 03-25-2007
Quote:Pliny said Hippopotamus armour was useless when wet.
Hmm...what was the context in which he said this ? Was he talking about Roman armor ? I have Pliny but don't know the reference. It's not another one of these thingsis it ?
Quote:My example was just to show that some leather armour existed, now you want to know what is the exact date, there is just no pleasing some people!
Just wanted to know if it was Medieval or Roman. A witty answer would be : Byzantine :wink:
If Roman leather could be waterproofed there are still problems I see with long term use. Leather would seem to be more susceptible to battle damage AND more difficult to repair. It might be cheap to buy a replacement but you could probably outlive several of them in a lifetime. So, the costs add up. Better to buy something that'll outlast the wearer, I think.
~Theo
leather armour - Graham Sumner - 03-25-2007
Hello Theo
Quote:Hmm...what was the context in which he said this ? Was he talking about Roman armor ? I have Pliny but don't know the reference. It not another one of these things is it ?
I looked in Bishop and Coulston who mention the quote but turns out do not give the reference from Pliny the Elder! Fortunately it is in the Penguin translation which is as follows.....an impenetrable hide used for shields and helmets, unless soaked in water. Book VIII Land Animals 95 The section on The Hippopotamus. There are also some existing crocodile skin helmets as well! Possibly late Roman or Byzantine or even Arab if you prefer. I think Aitor has posted pictures of them earlier.
I just think it odd in this case that the reference to leather armour being useless when wet is seen as evidence that leather armour did not exist full stop, rather than it existed but was useless when wet.
Quote:If Roman leather could be waterproofed there are still problems I see with long term use. Leather would seem to be more susceptible to battle damage AND more difficult to repair. It might be cheap to buy a replacement
It probably would be cheaper to replace rather than repair although Bishop and Coulston do mention that the Romans frequently repaired and also recycled their leather. It was certainly easier to replace boots for example, rather than repair them unless circumstances dictated otherwise. At Vindolanda there is evidence that they repaired their boots and wore them till they had almost worn the nails down which was unusual but there is a letter from there complaining about the poor state of the roads!
The soldiers on the other hand seem to have put up with all those lorica segmentata hinges and buckles dropping off for over two hundred years, so far without any recorded complaint. :wink:
In my opinion there is no reason why the Romans could not have leather armour of a variety of types but I appreciate that for many people nothing short of a full suit of leather armour found in an undeniably Roman military battle context will suffice.
On another matter do you have any more information regarding the exhibition in San Francisco?
Graham.
leather armour - brennivs - tony drake - 03-25-2007
Find enclosed a picture of my leather lamella .I have found it very good piece of kit ,and will take some punishment however,I if I was hit by a sword I would still suffer from blunt trauma .It is light and better than nothing. Regards Brennivs
sorry I dont have a picture of me wearing it
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Magnus - 03-25-2007
Light armour makes sense for everything but heavy infantry and cavalry. Even leather lammellar has it's limitations.
Thats why in D&D leather armour has a crappy AC and is always the cheapest.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Felix - 03-25-2007
It has been pointed out by a fellow named Christian Koepfer that hide and leather are radically different materials, and should not be confused. This is difficult in the written record, as the ancient authors or the modern translators may not have emphasized the distinction, but it is quite real. These materials are as different as cast iron and wrought iron.
Hide, such as hippopotomus hide mentioned by Pliny, does make excellent shields and armour. Aside from it's Classical mention, buffalo rawhide was used for shields by the Amerindians of the Great Plains, and rhinoceros hide was favored for shields in China. It is very tough, hard to penetrate, and rigid. It softens dramatically when wet, and can be molded into a variety of forms once it is well soaked. It has little defensive value when wet, and it rots readily when wet - so it needs to be protected from moisture. Rawhide makes fine lamellar armour - but it was often, if not always, lacquered to protect it from moisture.
Leather is not inherently rigid, is softer and easier to penetrate and cut, and (if properly cared for) stands up much better to moisture. Thin leather can be sewn, while thin dry hide cannot (at least I can't do it). Leather is a pain to paint, while hide absorbs colors easily. Koepfer specifically discusses the makeup of Roman shields, which could be faced with one sort of skin, and then needed protection of a shield cover, also made of skin. We all know about the scutum covers.
Now, by the nature of the materials, hide would be a lousy choice of cover. It is itself vulnerable to moisture, and it is rigid, which would make taking it off or putting it on a shield problematic. A leather cover would make a lot more sense. Now the shield itself would benefit more from a hide facing - it is much more protective, it doesn't need to be flexible, it is easy to paint, and it's vulnerability to damp would justify having a shield cover in the first place.
Hide can be molded into a cuirass, but this would be as rigid as a bronze one. Hardened leather (i.e. cuirbouilli) is also rigid. Also, modern re-enactor experiences have shown that hardened leather is useful against blunt trauma, due to its rigidity, but not so good against penetration - unlike hide.
When the nude statues with the draped "musculata" were shown earlier in this thread, the question came to my mind - if the leather were truly that thin, so as to drape like the sculptor shows, what kind of protective value would it have? Virtually none. It would be the thickness of glove leather.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Theodosius the Great - 03-26-2007
Hi Graham,
Quote:I looked in Bishop and Coulston who mention the quote but turns out do not give the reference from Pliny the Elder!
Oh, "the Elder" ! I don't have his works, I thought it was the Younger. :oops: Thanks for looking it up, though
Quote:I just think it odd in this case that the reference to leather armour being useless when wet is seen as evidence that leather armour did not exist full stop, rather than it existed but was useless when wet.
Understandable. But it isn't apparent to me why attributing the use of leather armor to the Roman army is the most probable explanation. For example, why is it not equally possible that he was describing gladiatorial armor ? Maybe it (they ?) was a novelty.
Another alternative I was pondering was the possibility that Pliny was observing the native customs of a certain province that he was either visiting or in charge of administering at the time.
In any case, I don't have enough information about the context of his observation.
Quote:the Romans frequently repaired and also recycled their leather. It was certainly easier to replace boots for example, rather than repair them unless circumstances dictated otherwise.
In the case of leather armor how likely is it that Romans would've been wearing leather armor that had stitches all over it ? The idea conjures up an unattractive image doesn't it ? Image seems to have been a high priority for legionaries (which was discussed on a recent thread).
Besides "image", I'm dubious about leather armor retaining its original strength after being repaired. This isn't an issue with metal armor.
Quote:The soldiers on the other hand seem to have put up with all those lorica segmentata hinges and buckles dropping off for over two hundred years, so far without any recorded complaint.
I think that helps illustrate my point. When the Pax Romana ended, the entire Roman army ceased being a peace-time force, permanently. Early during the ensuing, military turmoil the army ditched segs due to their high maintenence. When there's no peace there's little time to devote to constantly repairing shotty armor.
But, somehow, leather armor is thought to have outlived segmented armor ? How is this belief reconciled with the army's abandonment of segs ?
Quote:On another matter do you have any more information regarding the exhibition in San Francisco?
I'll PM you on this soon, Graham.
~Theo
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Theodosius the Great - 03-26-2007
Ave Brennivus,
That looks great !
Quote:...very good piece of kit ,and will take some punishment however,I if I was hit by a sword I would still suffer from blunt trauma
Do you wear a subarmalis underneath it ? If not, can you ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ave Felix,
Quote:Hide can be molded into a cuirass, but this would be as rigid as a bronze one. Hardened leather (i.e. cuirbouilli) is also rigid. Also, modern re-enactor experiences have shown that hardened leather is useful against blunt trauma, due to its rigidity, but not so good against penetration - unlike hide.
When the nude statues with the draped "musculata" were shown earlier in this thread, the question came to my mind - if the leather were truly that thin, so as to drape like the sculptor shows, what kind of protective value would it have? Virtually none. It would be the thickness of glove leather.
As far as the leather musculata goes, my thoughts, exactly.
~Theo
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Dan Howard - 03-26-2007
I have never had a problem with the existence of leather armour - even in the Roman legions. My only problem was that it was of a musculata or segmentata typology. I think we are repeating ourselves here. Go back to the first few pages of this thread.