Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[tlclark]

Ok, this has been hashed out again and again, like the perenial debates about tunic color, but it seems like it's time for a new throw down, so ....why not? :twisted:

This started over on this thread:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 7283#57283

Since I am the self appointed leader of the "leather brigade" (an unpopular position I know) I thought I should weigh in.

My basic position:

There is no doubt that the Romans used leather armor.

I doubt that it was ever typical or normative, since we have so few finds in archaeology or art, but there is no doubt it was used and I think that a re-enactor is justified in using it within the bounds of the evidence.

I have lots of reasons to believe this, but I think I'll hold my cards until I see what others have to say.

Let me answer Matt's last observations though.

Well hardened leather was a very serviceable form of armor in the middle ages, so we shouldn't disparage leather armor too much. Also, this might be the first layer of a multi-layer protection with mail or plate underneath.

I don't mean to disparage leather as an armor- the absolute least that can be said of it is that it's definitely better than no armor at all, right? The issue I have is not with functionality- whether there COULD have been leather armor- but existence- if there actually WAS leather armor in use during the Imperial period. That statue certainly shows a garment that appears much like musculata armor, but I don't see it lending any concrete credence to the idea of leather armor in service.

Actually I disagree. While I agree that for the most part, these were "uniforms" or "parade" armor never meant to see combat, I think you could make a serviceable leather musculata, and my best bet is that the republican and early imperial period musculatae were in fact, hardened leather.

Certainly we know leather was widely used for garments, so we can say that it's definitely possible what the Emporer has beside him could be a martial garment- made to look like armor without having the weight, etc., but given the huge dispartiy in protective value, I really can't see anyone who could have proper metal armor using leather.

Well I think that leather armor has several advantages, weight, flexibility, and decoration since it could be elaborately molded, as in this 17th C. Dutch example.

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... athera.jpg

Aesthetics is often sacrificed by a lot of re-enactors as being impractical concerns for working armor, yet most of the shields we have recovered are elaborately decorated. I think leather's capacity to be molded and used as decoration was probably seen as a positive feature, perhaps outweighing other more practical features, (especially is you had a bodyguard of Praetorians watching your rear.:wink: )

Plus, with a very good subarmalis, and maybe a layer of maille, I don't know that leather wouldn't function as well as anything else in the field.

As a substitute worn by non-combatants- 'part of the uniform' as you put it Travis, sounds plausible, but then again I'd classify that as a garment and not actual armor. I suppose one could argue that they would be made to offer at least some protection- but since that wouldn't be their primary function, I'd still go for the garment classification myself.

I think this is a matter of semantics. "Armor" is more than just functional working military protection - IMO. It carries a lot of social and visual importance as well (of course, I'm an art historian and visual anthropologist so you'd expect me to think that.) So I would classify it as armor, but I would prefer the term "ceremonial" or "parade" armor, which indicates that it was not meant for actual fighting. However, it looks like armor, it's worn like armor, in all other attributes it functions as armor, its meant to convey the presence of armor, so it's armor. A uniform doesn't do that.

Other than that I have no real objections to this being a non-functional piece of armor.

Travis