06-21-2007, 12:32 AM
Quote: ... Rather the item is clearly armor as indicated by 500+ years of visual tradition. The nature of those depictions suggest leather. That is all. Neither do I think a boot is a piece of armor, because it is made of leather. Rather I see armor that is made of a material that can not be explained, except as leather.
When it comes to the value of leather armor I couldn't care less. I have no dog in this fight. I am only following the evidence. Romans made armor out of leather, or else the artwork is totally untrustworthy.
That is a very useful clarification. If I may rephrase it, it seems that you are saying that the soft "musuclata" is armour because it is the size and shape of armour, regardless of construction/material.
This leads to some interesting questions. There are cases where "armour" was made which lacked consituents which would give it serious defensive value, such as in the Qing dynasty in China, where officers' court "armour" was shaped like armour, but made of relatively flimsy fabric and pretty little rivets. There are also the cases of late Renaissance armour which imitates civilian fashions in clothing, but of steel. There, the material endows the structure with protective value, but the construction (i.e. lack of smooth, glancing surfaces) guarantees the defensive value is less than other, less elaborate steel suits. Are these armour because they are steel, or clothes because they look like clothes?
Felix Wang
