03-25-2007, 10:52 PM
It has been pointed out by a fellow named Christian Koepfer that hide and leather are radically different materials, and should not be confused. This is difficult in the written record, as the ancient authors or the modern translators may not have emphasized the distinction, but it is quite real. These materials are as different as cast iron and wrought iron.
Hide, such as hippopotomus hide mentioned by Pliny, does make excellent shields and armour. Aside from it's Classical mention, buffalo rawhide was used for shields by the Amerindians of the Great Plains, and rhinoceros hide was favored for shields in China. It is very tough, hard to penetrate, and rigid. It softens dramatically when wet, and can be molded into a variety of forms once it is well soaked. It has little defensive value when wet, and it rots readily when wet - so it needs to be protected from moisture. Rawhide makes fine lamellar armour - but it was often, if not always, lacquered to protect it from moisture.
Leather is not inherently rigid, is softer and easier to penetrate and cut, and (if properly cared for) stands up much better to moisture. Thin leather can be sewn, while thin dry hide cannot (at least I can't do it). Leather is a pain to paint, while hide absorbs colors easily. Koepfer specifically discusses the makeup of Roman shields, which could be faced with one sort of skin, and then needed protection of a shield cover, also made of skin. We all know about the scutum covers.
Now, by the nature of the materials, hide would be a lousy choice of cover. It is itself vulnerable to moisture, and it is rigid, which would make taking it off or putting it on a shield problematic. A leather cover would make a lot more sense. Now the shield itself would benefit more from a hide facing - it is much more protective, it doesn't need to be flexible, it is easy to paint, and it's vulnerability to damp would justify having a shield cover in the first place.
Hide can be molded into a cuirass, but this would be as rigid as a bronze one. Hardened leather (i.e. cuirbouilli) is also rigid. Also, modern re-enactor experiences have shown that hardened leather is useful against blunt trauma, due to its rigidity, but not so good against penetration - unlike hide.
When the nude statues with the draped "musculata" were shown earlier in this thread, the question came to my mind - if the leather were truly that thin, so as to drape like the sculptor shows, what kind of protective value would it have? Virtually none. It would be the thickness of glove leather.
Hide, such as hippopotomus hide mentioned by Pliny, does make excellent shields and armour. Aside from it's Classical mention, buffalo rawhide was used for shields by the Amerindians of the Great Plains, and rhinoceros hide was favored for shields in China. It is very tough, hard to penetrate, and rigid. It softens dramatically when wet, and can be molded into a variety of forms once it is well soaked. It has little defensive value when wet, and it rots readily when wet - so it needs to be protected from moisture. Rawhide makes fine lamellar armour - but it was often, if not always, lacquered to protect it from moisture.
Leather is not inherently rigid, is softer and easier to penetrate and cut, and (if properly cared for) stands up much better to moisture. Thin leather can be sewn, while thin dry hide cannot (at least I can't do it). Leather is a pain to paint, while hide absorbs colors easily. Koepfer specifically discusses the makeup of Roman shields, which could be faced with one sort of skin, and then needed protection of a shield cover, also made of skin. We all know about the scutum covers.
Now, by the nature of the materials, hide would be a lousy choice of cover. It is itself vulnerable to moisture, and it is rigid, which would make taking it off or putting it on a shield problematic. A leather cover would make a lot more sense. Now the shield itself would benefit more from a hide facing - it is much more protective, it doesn't need to be flexible, it is easy to paint, and it's vulnerability to damp would justify having a shield cover in the first place.
Hide can be molded into a cuirass, but this would be as rigid as a bronze one. Hardened leather (i.e. cuirbouilli) is also rigid. Also, modern re-enactor experiences have shown that hardened leather is useful against blunt trauma, due to its rigidity, but not so good against penetration - unlike hide.
When the nude statues with the draped "musculata" were shown earlier in this thread, the question came to my mind - if the leather were truly that thin, so as to drape like the sculptor shows, what kind of protective value would it have? Virtually none. It would be the thickness of glove leather.
Felix Wang
