07-22-2013, 01:37 PM
Reply to Dan Howard
The cuirassier helmets with iron skulls were not stopping sword cuts - at the Battle of Aspern-Essling - but Charles Parquin of the Imperial Guard thought that a leather shako would. That is my point, metallic armour is not always superior to other forms of protection. Homer speaks of leather helmets and bull's hide shields. He specifically asserts that bull's hide shields, made of layers of hide, could stop a thrown javelin. The Zulus used cow-hide shields which were intended to stop ixthwa (assegai) spear thrusts.
As far as reconstructed muscle cuirasses and their performance, then there are two valid interpretations:
1) hardened leather does not make very good armour
2) the treatment of the leather was sub-optimal and better armour is possible if the leather treatment is optimised.
Given that there are a number of examples of Medieval horse armour barding elements made of leather in existence, and leather armour for humans is found in a number of recent non-European cultures, then interpretation #2 is more conservative than interpretation #1.
The cuirassier helmets with iron skulls were not stopping sword cuts - at the Battle of Aspern-Essling - but Charles Parquin of the Imperial Guard thought that a leather shako would. That is my point, metallic armour is not always superior to other forms of protection. Homer speaks of leather helmets and bull's hide shields. He specifically asserts that bull's hide shields, made of layers of hide, could stop a thrown javelin. The Zulus used cow-hide shields which were intended to stop ixthwa (assegai) spear thrusts.
As far as reconstructed muscle cuirasses and their performance, then there are two valid interpretations:
1) hardened leather does not make very good armour
2) the treatment of the leather was sub-optimal and better armour is possible if the leather treatment is optimised.
Given that there are a number of examples of Medieval horse armour barding elements made of leather in existence, and leather armour for humans is found in a number of recent non-European cultures, then interpretation #2 is more conservative than interpretation #1.
Martin
Fac me cocleario vomere!
Fac me cocleario vomere!
