Macedonians used leather helmets?

[MeinPanzer]

Everything discussed here by us is the subject of debate....

Of course it is the subject of debate. Every little thing in ancient history is the subject of debate. That doesn't mean that there isn't one argument which is strongest or most plausible (and in this case, there is).

many scholars believe there is no evidence of the 'kausia' being worn before Alexander, for example,( so hardly 'traditional' Macedonian)

And Saatsoglou-Paliadeli argues strongly against these scholars in her abovementioned article, which cites some literary passages, often ignored, referring to the kausia being worn before Alexander's campaign.
Notably: Polyaenus 5.44.5, in which the kausia is worn by troops in 336 BC to trick their enemy into thinking they are Macedonian allies.

and some statues of Hellenistic kings, the Herculaeum 'horned ruler' for example, are shown nude but with chlamys (rectangular in this instance, not semi circular BTW!) and krepides boots to indicate "Macedonian"...shown as going well up the calf, more or less solid laced boots as are those on the two tomb depictions I referred to......and very different from the 'Agios' open sandals coming barely over the ankles....they are so different from each other that both cannot be 'krepides'

Firstly, I'm not familiar with the Herculaneum statue you're referring to (could you perhaps post a picture?). Secondly, there is no


Both can be krepides in the same way that a Thracian's crescent wicker shield and a Macedonian phalangite's round bronze shield can both be peltai: the definition is not a rigid one, and probably changed over time and from place to place.

Here is a definition:
"There is some debate as to what sort of shoe the krepida was. They are generally referred to as some form of thick soled boot/shoe that is laced up.
Shoes which covered more of the foot than did the simple thonged soleae/sandal. The krepidae are boots/half-shoes with soles to which an upper of leather was attached, enclosing the heel and the sides of the foot, were fastened across the instep by straps or bands laced through holes set in the side pieces, sometimes had straps but most often sported high up on the foot and calf a complex network of cutwork designs."

...which is not at all what the 'Agios soldiers' wear.....( a type of ankle length sandal, of straps, not cutwork) but once again a potential subject of debate!

The bit about the upper leather enclosing heel and shins comes form Xenophon's "Peri Hippikes," which is firstly prescriptive (this follows the passage in which he recommends that Athenian cavalry should wear parameridia) and secondly non-Macedonian. More general definitions, such as that of the Suda, defnie it as something with a thick sole that holds the feet, deriving from its primary definition as groundwork, foundation. Otherwise its general meaning came to be simply soldier's boot or half-boot, which is what LSJ defines it as. There is no reason to think that a high sandalwork boot with a thick sock couldn't be a krepis.

...uu..mm, yes, actually - early Villanovan round shields have their handles directly affixed to the bronze back, for example( and for that reason have been sometimes dismissed as parade/votive shields, but I am not so sure.....)

Okay, so in the early first millennium BC. Any from the latter half?