06-29-2013, 05:42 PM
Hello Larry,
I too agree with Dan about what he said BUT his comment holds true even for the Imperial period. Why would the Romans go from very effective and protective metal armor to something less efficient. For leather to protect someone, it would have to be way thicker than its metal counterpart. Then if it gets wet, could you imagine the weight? If you leave the leather at 1-2mm thickness, it can easily be penetrated by a weapon. So, what exactly would the reason be for a leather musculata?
I cannot understand what the morbid desire is with leather. I am not saying its impossible and neither is Dan. All we are saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE IN ANY TIME PERIOD (Greek or Roman) OF LEAHTER MUSCULATA. It cannot even be argued for consistency. If the Greeks had used a leather musculata then you could have somewhat of an argument. but they did not. There is simply no reason for it at all. The time machine argument has been used several times here on RAT BUT it has become cliché and does not add to the argument.
Again, I go back to presentation, display etc. If you have the armor displayed in your house as a prop, then you can also go with plastic. If you want the most accurate representation to date for a musculata, then ONLY METAL can be used. Anything else is a supposition without support for this particular armor.
Besides, if a person can afford musculata why buy cheaper leather armor?
I too agree with Dan about what he said BUT his comment holds true even for the Imperial period. Why would the Romans go from very effective and protective metal armor to something less efficient. For leather to protect someone, it would have to be way thicker than its metal counterpart. Then if it gets wet, could you imagine the weight? If you leave the leather at 1-2mm thickness, it can easily be penetrated by a weapon. So, what exactly would the reason be for a leather musculata?
I cannot understand what the morbid desire is with leather. I am not saying its impossible and neither is Dan. All we are saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE IN ANY TIME PERIOD (Greek or Roman) OF LEAHTER MUSCULATA. It cannot even be argued for consistency. If the Greeks had used a leather musculata then you could have somewhat of an argument. but they did not. There is simply no reason for it at all. The time machine argument has been used several times here on RAT BUT it has become cliché and does not add to the argument.
Again, I go back to presentation, display etc. If you have the armor displayed in your house as a prop, then you can also go with plastic. If you want the most accurate representation to date for a musculata, then ONLY METAL can be used. Anything else is a supposition without support for this particular armor.
Besides, if a person can afford musculata why buy cheaper leather armor?
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Paolo
