Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Was the leather muscled curiass of the later times sexier?
#1
This must have been argued many times before. So please point me to the threads concerning it if you can.
Years ago playing the WRG stuff I collected, Phil Barkers books on ancient armies. He was quite convinced that metal armor feel out of favor for Roman infantry during the 3rd century. Pointing to monumental evidence of the widespread use of the leather muscled curiass.
I didn't like the idea at the time, I found metal armor appealing. Although, hmm! The idea is looking appealing these days. If I was a Roman general, I'd probably think the men looked very smart in the leather muscled curiass.
Classical Greek armies abandoned metal torso protection for textile. So the argument is not without merit.
Greek strategists urged the adoption of lighter equipment.

So sexy! The smell of leather! :roll:

Certainly towards the end of the Roman Empire, when troops were more often personally acquiring their own equipment. The average soldier would certainly liked to have the protection of chain mail. Blunt trauma was one thing. But loss of blood would have been quick killer on the ancient battlefield. Maybe we have the point at were the Generals wishes and those of the common soldier parted company.
But this is the question of the state supplies?
What do you guys think, I'm all ears?
Steven.
Reply
#2
Use the search function....leather muscled armour has been discussed at length.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#3
Yes, it is a subject very well covered. The search function will definately help you.

Personally I'm of the school of thinking that the leather cuirass is more of a Hollywood/reenactorism using a few scant unclear references to support it. Leather is only effective armour when thick enough to become inflexible. Its ends up about as heavy as metal armour without as much protection and is bulkier because of being thicker. Plus I really don't see the novelty of replicating the cuirass in leather either. They weren't any more primitive in skills and if you wanted to wear something with symbolism to the past you could wear metal armour closer in form and function, not making a half assed poor quality version somewhat similar. Lets face it if you're high enough ranking that you want custom armour remniscent of past designs then you can probably afford to do it to the exact specs you want. Now leather lamellar, that is a different story and much more probable if they used leather armour of any type as more than arming gear and supplementary defenses.
Derek D. Estabrook
Reply
#4
The Greeks did not abandon metal armor, nor did the Romans. True, the linothorax--or what we believe to be depictions of the linothorax!--are more common than the identifiable bronze muscled cuirass in Greek Late Archaic and early Classical eras, but metal is still there. Armor of all sorts becomes less common as the armies start to slide from gentry militias to larger professional armies recruited from the lower classes.

The Late Roman era isn't my strong point, but as I understand it there is still plenty of evidence for the continued use of armor (metal!). Have to agree that Roman battle armor is going to be iron or bronze/brass. Any depictions of later emperors with something muscled and flexible is not showing battle armor, but either some sort of ceremonial thing, or an artistic representation of something ceremonial. Probably! But yeah, we've been beating the whole "leather armor" issue to death any number of times...

What the Romans found attractive in battle was shine, color and shine. Brightly painted shields and lots of metal bling--helmets, bosses, body armor, belts, scabbards, etc. I'm not familiar enough with the monumental evidence that Barker is referring to, but what I've seen could be interpreted in any number of ways besides leather. Mail, scale, metal musculata, etc. Or just neo-Hellenistic artistic tradition? (One of our Late Roman art experts is probably going to slap me, now!)

Vale,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#5
I tried searching and found there was a great deal of posts that came up. I'd be spending alot of time searching for a decisive post.
Quite amusing to come across "Roman army talk, leather curiass phobia"! :twisted:
Years ago when I came across Barker's views on the subject, I was quite shocked. At this point I'll mention I'm a Late Roman Army fanatic, if anything.
And fully agree with Barker's view that the Late army was hardly inferior and if anything heaps more sophisticated than the Early ones.
But It's troublesome to conceive of an Empire that was still quite wealthy and powerful, being unable to furnish it's close fighting infantry with mail.
Although we do have precedent in later Greek strategists urging the adoption of lighter armor and longer spears. And Greek hopolites discarding bronze torso armor in favor of textile.
Some of the arguments against leather go overboard. I rode a motor cycle for years. And sported a stylish "Brando jacket" in warmer weather. Now the thing was freaking tough! And as for rain soaking it, they can be well proofed with wax. I still have the jacket which is still in one piece after spills. (I got rid of the bike due to health reasons, damn! Cry ) I imagine this jacket would make half decent armor.
As a matter of fact I believe the leather curiass did exist. As exibited by the later monuments. And I can hardly believe that the Romans gave up something as light and flexible and cheaper to make as the segmenta. In favor of bronze or iron breastplates.
I'm in favor of MacDowell's opinion on this. The leather curiass formed the undergarment that mail was simply thrown over. And Roman infantry had given up on being Marius Mules. The heavy mail was transported in carts.
The arguments between the virtues of segmenta and mail are quite fascinating as well.
The downfall of the segmenta may have been the growing use of the spatha. Such a weapon was easily wielded against unprotected flesh, with a samurai sword like cutting edge.
I find Roberts arguments rather convincing. Like his argument that the later distinction between Later Legionaries and Auxiliary heavy infantry may have been merely a nominal one. And at best a strategic one.
Steven.
Reply
#6
Ugh...this has been discussed before. Grab a nice cup of something warm, maybe some snacks, and start reading the older threads. lol
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#7
Leather armor is so----so butch!
Pecunia non olet
Reply
#8
Quote:I tried searching and found there was a great deal of posts that came up. I'd be spending alot of time searching for a decisive post.

Spend the time, it will be very informative. You won't find a "decisive post" partly because there are still people who are convinced that their modern "logic" and preconceptions bear more weight in a discussion like this than hard historical fact and rigorous examination of the evidence. Be careful about hanging on to what you "imagine" to be right.

Quote:But It's troublesome to conceive of an Empire that was still quite wealthy and powerful, being unable to furnish it's close fighting infantry with mail.

As I understand it, the third century AD is the first time the state is actually issuing armor. I would be surprised if ALL late legionaries were armored, but even earlier ones were not all armored. The idea of the late army not having armor seems to be outdated.

Quote:Although we do have precedent in later Greek strategists urging the adoption of lighter armor and longer spears. And Greek hopolites discarding bronze torso armor in favor of textile.

Like I said, Hellenistic Greek armies were composed more of professionals from the lower classes, so like MOST armies of ancient and medieval times, you had your few heavily armored men in the front and the greater number of less-protected men behind them. Worked fine. Before that, bronze armor was NOT discarded, it is simply that some hoplites opted for the linothorax, and we can NOT say why with any certainty. There were still plenty of hoplites wearing the bronze muscled cuirass. By the way, my own reconstructed linothorax weighs 10 pounds, and if anything it's too thin (15 layers of linen, lighter than canvas). My reconstructed bronze cuirass weighs about 9 pounds. An ORIGINAL bronze muscled cuirass can weigh as little as 6 pounds. Looks better, still protects better. Your call.

Quote:Some of the arguments against leather go overboard. I rode a motor cycle for years.... I imagine this jacket would make half decent armor.

And I imagine it won't! Show me how it stops a spear, and I'll listen.

Quote:As a matter of fact I believe the leather curiass did exist. As exibited by the later monuments.

That's nice that you believe that. Got evidence? I could look at the same monuments and say they show metal, or mail, or scale, or fabric, or that they are the artist's fantasy.

Quote:And I can hardly believe that the Romans gave up something as light and flexible and cheaper to make as the segmenta. In favor of bronze or iron breastplates.

That's fine, you don't have to believe that because it simply isn't so. If leather is light and flexible, IT WILL NOT BE NEARLY AS PROTECTIVE AS METAL. If you make the leather nice and thick and boil or wax it, it will then be rigid, and much thicker and bulkier than a piece of metal which will still be less susceptible to penetration. And the weight won't be any different, at best.

Quote:The downfall of the segmenta may have been the growing use of the spatha. Such a weapon was easily wielded against unprotected flesh, with a samurai sword like cutting edge.

Sorry, not following your logic, here. A segmentata protects your flesh from whatever weapon. In fact it evolved during the conquest of Celtic areas (Gaul, Britain, Thrace, Dacia, etc.) in which long swords were well known. (Samurai swords don't have much to do with it.)

My apologies if I sound short and snippy, here! I'm not *trying* to be. But we've been through all this endlessly on this board and several others, and until someone can come up with a link to one of the old threads, I figured I'd keep my answers short and brutal. All good truths are brutal.

If you just dig backwards through this forum section (or maybe the Reconstruction one) you'll certainly find a few huge threads on the subject in a relatively short time. Might be quicker than the Search function.

Vale,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#9
Well said Matt.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#10
The Sutton Hoo burial, of an Anglo-Saxon ruler c. 620AD, has two shoulder clasps which incorporate a sliding pin fastening and staples to attach both halves of each clasp to a garment. It has been reasonably inferred that the clasps were the fastenings of a leather ciurass, indeed any other use for the clasps is difficult to envisage (as textile would not require such over-engineered fastenings. As the burial also included a helmet of distinct Roman antecedents (although its decoration was Swedish in character) and Byzantine metalware the idea that the owner was aping, to some extent, Roman pomp is well nigh inescapable.

As to bling, a leather ciurass, dyed red with gilt tooled decoration would be quite as eyecatching as a mail shirt.

Leather, in the form of a "buff coat" was a widespread form of protection in the 17th century in Europe. Indeed a buff-coat cost about twice as much as an iron breast and backplate, so leather armour was not necessarily a cheaper option than metal.

As far as keeping out edged weapons, leather could be quite effective. One British cavalry officer was run though the body by a sword in battle in the Peninsular War and subsequently bought a "buffalo-leather cuirass" for himself to save him from further trauma - which it proved fully capable of doing in subsequent clashes.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#11
Leather and textile armor was in use until recent times. Ancient quotes often mention it's effectiveness rather than the opposite. Godwinson had his men, the Huscarls and the Select Fyrd leave their mail coats behind and depend on their leather jerkins for defense . In one campaign to more effectively pursue the lightly armed Welsh. The Vikings seemed to quote Leather Jerkins being as strong as mail. Although that might be something of an exaggeration.
But the suggestion is, the infamous Late Roman Leather cuirass. Simply was the undergarment for mail. The mail typically carried separately in cartage. The Roman infantry marching without the heavy mail and not donning it until battle was at hand. This may be one of the reasons mail made a comeback against the segmenta. Mail collapses more easily for storage and the exact fitting didn't matter as much. From a strategic veiwpoint, mail was the easier option.
Steven.
Reply
#12
Steven,
could you please state your sources and references? I would like to read the primary sources myself.
Thanks
Mike Daniels
a.k.a

Titus Minicius Parthicus

Legio VI FFC.


If not me...who?

If not now...when?
:wink: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" />:wink:
Reply
#13
Quote:Steven,
could you please state your sources and references? I would like to read the primary sources myself.
Thanks

The opinion on armor for late Roman armor, originates from "Late Roman Infantrymen". Warrior series No. 9, Osprey books.

The story about the Saxon army lightening their armor and arms, is under the select Fyrd description in Ian Heath's, "Armies of the dark ages 600-1066". A wargames research publication.

As I say monumental evidence reveals the comon use leather cuirass. Unless of course all roman infantry had given up the segmenta in favor of bronze or iron cuirasses. And that is what is depicted.

A lot of monumental evidence reveals no armor. But I'd assume that the majority of Late Roman close infantry. Wore some type of leather or textile undergarment beneath their chain mail.
Steven.
Reply
#14
Quote:
arklore70:qe5pgoob Wrote:Steven,
could you please state your sources and references? I would like to read the primary sources myself.
Thanks

The opinion on armor for late Roman armor, originates from "Late Roman Infantrymen". Warrior series No. 9, Osprey books.

The story about the Saxon army lightening their armor and arms, is under the select Fyrd description in Ian Heath's, "Armies of the dark ages 600-1066". A wargames research publication.

As I say monumental evidence reveals the comon use leather cuirass. Unless of course all roman infantry had given up the segmenta in favor of bronze or iron cuirasses. And that is what is depicted.

This isn't evidence, but opinions based on secondary resources, some of which has been torn apart even by members of this forum.

Monumental evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways and may also hold to 'artistic' rules where the human figure is much more important than what's being worn. We know Augustus was a wee lad, but the statues make him look like a bodybuilder.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#15
Quote:A lot of monumental evidence reveals no armor. But I'd assume that the majority of Late Roman close infantry. Wore some type of leather or textile undergarment beneath their chain mail.
These kinds of sources (monumental, pictorial etc. ) are basically useless for such questions, if not subjected to classical archaeological methods in advance. Sad, but true.
What one may see as a picture of a Roman soldier may very well be a painted copy of the statue of Mars Ultor in Rome, e.g. and as such have no value for military equipment questions, since convetntional art. Just to bring an example.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Muscled Cuirasses of Boiled Leather? Lindsay_Powell 16 4,660 07-17-2010, 10:31 AM
Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS

Forum Jump: