Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[tlclark]

Fair point and it must be conceded. Some however dismiss the usefulness of leather out of hand.

No. They dismiss the usefulness of FLEXIBLE leather armour which is perfectly reasonable based on physical and documentary evidence and practical experiments. The only leather ever used as armour was rigid (e.g. cuirbouilli) or used in a composite construction (e.g. leather scale).

Well there is no physical archaeological or documentary evidence, so as the saying goes, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" There is however representational evidence as in the form of sculpture, which you continually do not want to deal with. I've addressed the practical evidence, conceded that these might be ceremonial, or meant to be layered with other forms of protection. That seems reasonable. That being said, what else could these things be but leather armor?

The rigidity of cuirboulli, is a continuum, not a static state, including semi-rigid and fully rigid as possibilities. Your assertion that only the hardest most rigid varieties were used exclusively for armor is only that, an assertion.

What we see, as in the bergama example is clearly within the spectrum of hardened leather, though it may not be as rigid as you think it should be.

I can't think of a single example of armour made from FLEXIBLE leather and I can't find any in the segmentata thread.

Graham lists several semi-rigid, and more rigid examples. That being said, even if we didn't have those samples, we still have these floppy cuirasses thrown over tree stumps and we would still have to account for them. I can't think of any other way than to suggest boiled and molded leather.

So let's stop bickering over this point and let me ask a couple of direct questions.

If these cuirasses are not boiled leather, then what are they?

If these cuirasses which are leather are totally insufficient and useless in battle, as you seem to suggest, why is the emperor so unabashedly unashamed to be associated with them?

Is it possible that their image as status symbols completely overwhelms any problems with their practicality, or perhaps they are not as impractical as you suggest?

If nearly all of the cuirasses we see without figures in them are most likely leather, given their depictions, why should we assume that when we see them on figures they are most likely metal? especially during the same time period and when they have all the same features of the ones we see to the sides of figures.?

Assuming they aren't meant to be leather, then what are they? Why do they look EXACTLY like the metal musculata? Do they have one set for campaigns and another made in leather just for portraits? Why bother? Why not use the 'real' set in the art? If these aren't 'real' what motivation exists for their existence?

Bottom line. We have a very troubling image, and no real way to account for it if we don't consider leather as a material. Also, the objection that this is not 'real' armor but only a uniform is semantical. It looks just like the musculatae everywhere else and no one doubts that those are armor. Ceremonial perhaps, but it's definitely meant to convey the essence of 'armor'.

If you find the above reasoning faulty, please explain how these are either not armor or not leather or both.

Travis