01-23-2008, 07:22 PM
Quote:First he would have had to kill a cow. But then, how plentiful were cows? Rome was not a cattle culture, but a sheep and goat culture. .
No. That is not true.
While the mediterranean/eastern parts of the empire _might_ have been using goat as one of it's staple meat products the European part of the empire is ia cattle based culture. Do you need some bone analysis from some British Roman or Gallic sites (I have some british data)?
Beef is actually cheaper to buy, when comparing prices in diocletians later edict, which argues for either a lesser status product or a more pentiful supply.
Quote:Once he had the hide, he had to tan it to soften it. Then he had the pleasing stuff you are referring to.
Then to use it as armor, he had to find a way to stiffen and harden it; but he just removed its hardness when he tanned it. This goes no where. A Roman wouldn't have bothered, especially when he had other material available that was lighter, more comfortable and better defensively than softened leather: like felt or linen
As Nathan so correctly points out, the process of cloth manufacture is far more involved than that of leather (or animal hide in general). Leather is a by product of the animal, the same as it's bone.
The folks up at Vindolanda are using leather for shoes, straps, saddle covers and also for horse armour (chamfrons) **. Why did they choose leather for horse armour ? For the same reason that they Romans _may_ have chosen it for pteruges: availability, flexibility, decorative and protective value.
BTW hardened leather is about as useful as laminated linen in the context of ptergues; both are too stiff to allow unhindered arm movement.
** Vindolanda - early roman forts vol III - carol van driel Murray etc 1993
_____________________________________
[size=150:1nectqej]John Nash[/size]
http://www.vicus.org.uk
Romans and Britons wot fight ........
[size=150:1nectqej]John Nash[/size]
http://www.vicus.org.uk
Romans and Britons wot fight ........