Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[tlclark]

I'm not sure I should be reviving this but I found Williams' cuir-bouilli data.

Well, I'm going to try and be as diplomatic as possible, since my usual flippancy tends to get me in trouble. So let me just say that none of this is personal and that we probably will never agree, but I think your last point pretty much gives the game away and supports my point exactly.

Let me explain.

One sample of 5mm cuirbouilli required 90 J to penetrate with a blade and 30 J with a spear/lance. Another required 50 J to penetrate with a blade and only 20 J to pierce with a spear/lance.

Ok, assuming J is joules, that's still a considerable amount of energy. So we can agree that definitively that leather DOES provide additional protection, correct?

Well that's all I've ever said. I've never said it was superior to plate, I've never said it was the BEST armor, only that it did provide some protection and must have been reasonable serviceable given its association with the emperor. I've also suggested that by the Antonine period it may have been largely ceremonial, but I hold that it might have had some functionality.

Now let's get to your comparison with linen.

Compare with the amount of energy for a blade to penetrate layered linen
100 J - 5th layer
120 J - 9th
140 J - 16th
160 J - 23rd
180 J - 26th

According to this, a pissy 5 layers of linen is superior to 5mm of hardened leather.

So leather is not as good as linen, right? Fine. Let's admit that. Now my next question.

So what? As long the leather provides some protection, my point is made. Any other judgements comparing two materials in this case linen and leather is irrelevant. It imposes a modern contemporary and ARBITRARY standard on leather that is meaningless.

It doesn't take into account the motivations of the Romans or the evidence.

Let me state my case explicitly.

I have this statue, and a whole of other evidence to suggest that leather was used.

If we didn't have this evidence, the only thing we would have to go on is experimental archaeology like the tests you cite above. In such a case, we might be on even-footing, as it is, we are not. Why? Because I have representational evidence. Your response to that evidence?

You basically dismiss it and ignore it. Why? leather isn't as good as linen. Case closed. Why? Because you say so, that's why.

This is the very definition of arbitrary. We have no idea is this same consideration was in effect in Roman times, and there are many reasons to suspect it was not.

I am tired of knocking down strawmen too. I never suggested that leather was the "best" only that it was obviously "good enough" by the standards of the day.

You disagree based on ONE criteria and one criteria ONLY. That is arbitrary. There is far more to consider, I have offered many, you have ignored all of them.

There are many reasons that leather, despite its lower performance than linen might be preferable to linen and used in the Roman world.

1.) It can be molded into snazzy muscled shapes, unlike linen
2.) It was strong enough given the context that officers were not likely to be on the frontlines.
3.) It could have been layered, in fact we know it WAS layered with a subarmalis.
4.) From the artwork we know it was always seen with a subarmalis. What added protection the subarmalis offered is debatable but assume it is low, only about 50 j. That would mean that a leather cuirass/subarmalis combination would have a protective value HIGHER than that of a mere "pissy" 5 layers of linen. If the subarmalis was better that 50 j, then the cuirass is, as my father used to say, all gravy.
4.) The musculata has a high pedigree that may outweigh more practical concerns.

Now it's obvious that that one standard is so important to you, that you are willing to reject any other argument.

That's certainly your right, but it does make any further discussions rather tedious.

On a different note, thanks for the info about the iron linothorax from the Vergina finds.

Travis