Was the leather muscled curiass of the later times sexier?

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

As to the leather undergarment, no contest. As to the monuments showing 'leather' armour, show me one!

[Urselius]

There is always the remains of leather lamellar defences found at Dura from the 3rd century.

Definitely leather and definitely armour.

And the crocodile-skin cuirasses from Egypt.

[Robert Vermaat]

There is always the remains of leather lamellar defences found at Dura from the 3rd century.

Definitely leather and definitely armour.

And the crocodile-skin cuirasses from Egypt.

The crocodile seems to be a one-off or else too exotic to be of use in this discussion (no Late Roman units from Egypt all dressed in croc!).
As to the lamellar, sure, no contest there. But I guess that Steven is talking about other artistic depictions, cuirasses?

[Urselius]

I would merely urge caution. Certainly no Roman hardened leather muscle-cuirass has been dug up, however, there is ample evidence that leather was employed as armour in a variety of societies and periods. We also know that leather was employed as a defence in the Roman period (the scale of its use being moot). Therefore the possibility of hardened leather cuirasses having been employed by the Romans exists - absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Cut at a leather belt with a reasonably sharp cutting tool with a sawing action and it will cut fairly easily. Put the belt on a yielding surface, to mimic a human body with some padding over it, and hack at the leather and it will be surprisingly resilient.

In the Crimea the Russians' thick woollen greatcoats were sufficient to stop many British cavalry sabres cutting with effect, non-metallic armour is not entirely despicable.

[Robert Vermaat]

Cut at a leather belt with a reasonably sharp cutting tool with a sawing action and it will cut fairly easily. Put the belt on a yielding surface, to mimic a human body with some padding over it, and hack at the leather and it will be surprisingly resilient.

I'm not doubting the resilience of leather. I'm doubting that the 'it must be leather' opinion is based on real evidence. Like you said earlier, no finds have turned up. That makes the whole discussion rather hypothetical, and I'm not in favour of arguments like "it must have been because it could have been", at least not when I can help it. :wink:

[Urselius]

There are Carolingian Frankish manuscript illustrations showing guardsmen wearing iron muscle-cuirasses. Whilst it is arguable that these are mere artistic licence, the possibility that the Carolingian emperors might have equipped their guards with iron muscle-cuirasses cannot be dismissed. Pictorial evidence is still evidence, it is merely not as conclusive as archaeological evidence.

[Robert Vermaat]

There are Carolingian Frankish manuscript illustrations showing guardsmen wearing iron muscle-cuirasses. Whilst it is arguable that these are mere artistic licence, the possibility that the Carolingian emperors might have equipped their guards with iron muscle-cuirasses cannot be dismissed. Pictorial evidence is still evidence, it is merely not as conclusive as archaeological evidence.

True. In which case I'll repeat my call - show me just one artistic representation of a 'leather' Roman curass! :wink:

[Urselius]

There are Carolingian Frankish manuscript illustrations showing guardsmen wearing iron muscle-cuirasses. Whilst it is arguable that these are mere artistic licence, the possibility that the Carolingian emperors might have equipped their guards with iron muscle-cuirasses cannot be dismissed. Pictorial evidence is still evidence, it is merely not as conclusive as archaeological evidence.

True. In which case I'll repeat my call - show me just one artistic representation of a 'leather' Roman curass! :wink:

Interestingly, this report refers to some apparently leather cuirasses from an early period, admittedly they are from bronze statuettes and are not interpretation free but...

The Muscle Cuirass in Etruria and Southern Italy: Votive Bronzes
Emeline Hill Richardson
American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 100, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 91-120

Available on JSTOR

[Tarbicus]

In the Crimea the Russians' thick woollen greatcoats were sufficient to stop many British cavalry sabres cutting with effect, non-metallic armour is not entirely despicable.

Which has nothing to do with this discussion - those coats were felt which is more than attested to as very capable armour. Normal everyday leather is a completely different story.

(edited - see rawhide comments below)

Why couldn't those supposedly flexible musculatae be felt?

[Matthew Amt]

I can come up with a lot more examples of hide and leather armor! The Dura Europas piece, by the way, is rawhide, so the individual lames or scales would be rigid. Rawhide scale armor was hugely popular among charioteers in the Bronze Age in the Near East and Egypt--King Tut even had a shirt of rawhide scales in his tomb. There's a reference to hide armor in the Iliad, and Homeric shields were made of several layers of hide. A leather shield dating to the Bronze Age was found in Ireland, plus a wooden mold for making similar shields. Of course rawhide and possibly leather were commonly used for facing wooden shields (Roman, Greek, medieval, etc.). Layered linen was used for armor by Mycenaeans and Classical Greeks, and very widely in the middle ages.

The reference to reindeer hide armor shirts in the Norse saga has been discussed at huge length on several armor fora, and thoroughly rejected--it refers to MAGICAL shirts, and gives no indication that leather defenses were any sort of common thing.

Godwinson had his men, the Huscarls and the Select Fyrd leave their mail coats behind and depend on their leather jerkins for defense .

What?? Never heard of that one! My first experience with the Battle of Hastings was in 1980, and I've run across a lot of odd things since then, but that's new to me. Got a primary source for it? Cuz no one else has ever mentioned any Anglo-Saxon reference to leather jerkins that I've heard of in 30 years! (The Housecarls rode to battle, and the Fyrd were all local, so not much point in ditching their armor, anyway.)

The theory that the Sutton Hoo clasps were attached to something leather is just that, a *theory*. Even if it was leather, we have nothing to say it was defensive. It if WAS defensive, I sure wish it had survived!

Late Roman and Carolingian artwork could simply be aping Hellenistic or heroic artwork, with little or no intention of showing actual contemporary equipment. (But I'm not an art historian!) I do know that descriptions of Carolingian armor describe mail, not solid cuirasses. And many depictions of Carolingian armor clearly show scales or mail.

Bottom line, yes, we KNOW leather was useful stuff. And we know leather and rawhide WERE used at some times and in some places as protection. But you can NOT use that to make further assumptions where there is no evidence currently known. That's just not how legitimate scholarship works. Now, I do tend to take a very rigid stance on that because as a reenactor I look at things from the standpoint of application. I want every bit of clothing and gear used at a public event to be as heavily documented as possible, with as little speculation as possible. If you're just standing around the punchbowl at a party, go ahead, and speculate your heads off. Just be careful here on RAT, because we lean more towards the academic and reenactor viewpoint.

Show us the EVIDENCE. Modern ideas of "logic" and "common sense" will get you nowhere.

Valete,

Matthew

[caiusbeerquitius]

There is always the remains of leather lamellar defences found at Dura from the 3rd century.

Definitely leather and definitely armour.

And the crocodile-skin cuirasses from Egypt.

As Matt says above: This is rawhide, not leather.

[Magnus]

Not to mention that leather, while it may be cut resistant, is quite susceptable to stabing damage with pointy objects. Try poking holes in some 8 oz leather for sewing. If you have a nice sharp awl, it goes right through it with only a bit of pressure. Now imagine that vs a spear tip, or sword tip.

No thanks. I'll stick with plate steel.

[Dan Howard]

As has been said hundreds of times before. Leather and rawhide armour have been used in many time periods by many cultures. Leather/rawhide LAMELLAR has also been found in a Roman context (Dura Europos). There is zero evidence to suggest that the Romans ever made segmentata or musculata typologies in anything other than metal. Anyone who thinks they can look at a statue or even a painting and determine that something is made of leather is deluded.

[Urselius]

There is always the remains of leather lamellar defences found at Dura from the 3rd century.

Definitely leather and definitely armour.

And the crocodile-skin cuirasses from Egypt.

As Matt says above: This is rawhide, not leather.

AKA - untanned leather, it is a lot more leather-like than bronze or iron is.

Buff-coats were tanned leather and a form of armour; armour can and has been made from leather. It cannot be supposed that the Romans were unaware of this and never used it - indeed what were pteruges made from?

[Tarbicus]

indeed what were pteruges made from?

Linen/textile. The texture is highly visible on a number of statues.