Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Was the leather muscled curiass of the later times sexier?
#31
Please note that I am not arguing that the Romans used leather muscle-cuirasses, merely that, with reference to other well-attested uses of leather as a material for defensive clothing, it exists as a possibility.

This is a wholly logical viewpoint.

An open mind is a flexible mind.

BTW Antoine De Brack, a French cavalry officer, examined iron-skulled cuirassier helmets which had been sliced open by Austrian sabres after the Battle of Aspern-Essling. He said he would far rather wear a stout leather shako than an iron pot as it gave better protection - something of a 'horses-mouth statement.'
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#32
Quote:
Urselius:x4q2jysw Wrote:indeed what were pteruges made from?
Linen/textile. The texture is highly visible on a number of statues.

But nothing has been dug up to confirm this?
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#33
Quote: A leather shield dating to the Bronze Age was found in Ireland, plus a wooden mold for making similar shields....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

There was a test done with a reconstructed Irish leather shield and a reconstruction of the same design of shield in bronze, examples of which have survived. They were cut with a reconstructed bronze sword. The leather shield (not dissimilar to the targes used by Jacobite clansmen in 1745) was very resistant to sword blows but the bronze equivalent was sliced open with ease.

I am an academic, and without the application of logic all arguments are crippled. Once again I feel I must point out that I am arguing for the mere possibility, not in any sense either the probability or, heaven forfend, the actuality, of Roman leather cuirasses.

As I write this I'm struck by the etymology of the word 'cuirass' - how ironic!
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#34
Pteryges dont' have a LOT of protective value. In anycase, the only argument for pteryges being made of leather are the smaller, "tongue" pteryges which sit above the longer, textile ones as Jim mentioned. But these could also have been made of metal, or at least metal faced.

See travis clark's webpage on it.

Just because the Romans may or may not have had knowledge of something doesn't mean it was pratical for them to have used it. If they did, there'd be evidence of it. Frescoes depicting armour would be painted brown, etc. This isn't the case.

The question is, can you modify your way of thinking to accept that there is no evidence in any way shape or form for leather armour in the non-lamellar sense?
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#35
Quote:Just because the Romans may or may not have had knowledge of something doesn't mean it was pratical for them to have used it. If they did, there'd be evidence of it. Frescoes depicting armour would be painted brown, etc. This isn't the case.

The question is, can you modify your way of thinking to accept that there is no evidence in any way shape or form for leather armour in the non-lamellar sense?

Most Roman depictions extant have no colour remaining, and leather can be dyed a vast range of colours anyway.

I'm not arguing that the Romans used leather armour cuirasses, merely that they may have. I don't have any problem with the lack of direct evidence in favour of the hypothesis, I'm just rather surprised at the nature of the reaction that has been shown against the mere suggestion that such armour could have existed.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#36
Quote:AKA - untanned leather, it is a lot more leather-like than bronze or iron is.

No. You got that wrong. It´s the other way round: Leather is tanned rawhide.
More or less whatever, you said leather, which it is not. Wink

The way you argue one also could say:
The Romans MAY have bought uranium from the Germanic tribe located in southern Thuringia, and the laid dirty bombs into the parthian rivers. Makes as much sense. Or: The Romans MAY have sent an expedition to the south pole. Or.... you get the point...

It´s safer to stick to evidence and then work from there.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#37
Quote:
wulfgar60:32d37w49 Wrote: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!

Have a look at this famous relief. Note the cuirass on the left exhibits scale mail. However, how come the figure suggests a "muscled form"? Yet look at the figure on the right. Note the chain mail has little form.

This is my bid. There were muscled cuirasses and battle mail was placed over them. Why? Cause the guy looked more impressive and imposing with his mailed corset taking the form of a beefy physique. I don't how the muscled form could be implemented in the mail itself otherwise. Unless the undergarment gave the muscled form?

We have history of undergarments designed to suggest a more ideal physique. So why not the Romans?

What I'm saying is the leather undergarment may have varied between plain models as with the figure of the right. And more sophisticated models designed to enhance the wearers appearance. Models that looked good by themselves with the mail removed.


Have a look at this famous relief of the Praetorian Guard 2nd Century. Look at the figure on the left. Now tell me how a reconstruction would go? Could a cuirass of bronze be constructed from this figure. Or would only leather reproduce this figure in the detail. I'd assume somebody has attempted a life reconstruction. Now what would the results look like?

[
Steven.
Reply
#38
Steven,
I think you are speculating again off secondary sources and pictorial representations that can not be backed up with archeological evidence.

A lot of sculpture of this period was done by artists that may or may not have ever served in the Roman Army or any Army for that matter, with little to no contact with real soldiers. A lot of artwork during this period had strong Hellenistic overtones which displayed idealized forms.

Having worn maille/hamata armor pretty extensively, I can tell you having a rigid leather cuirass underneath does not seem very practical at all: it would add more weight for the soldier to bear, and be very inflexible, and thus defeating two of the benefits of maille being fexibility and comfort. In addition to that, the maille shirt would be bigger than normal, thus adding more weight, in order to fit/slide over the rigid leather cuirass.
Case in point, I have a 42 inch chest and 32 inch waist, yet my hamata has a diameter of 52 inches so that it will fit over my clothing and subarmalis while still offering maximum flexibility.

If we read the ancient primary sources on about the routine of Roman Soldiers, I doubt very few of them would have required a stiff leather cuirass to make themselves appear well portioned. The sheer physical routine of a soldier's life on campaign or even in garrison was quite active and physical. Even modern soldiers on line units in garrison or deployed to a combat theater of operations tend to burn off a lot of fat and beefyness as you put it.

The evidence is just not there at this time to support your argument. It is one of the reasons why I asked what your primary/first hand sources were in case there was something that I had missed or anyone else here on RAT had missed it.

The leather breastplates that I have seen at Ren Faire's, SCA events, etc, that would have been protective tend to weigh as much, if not more that either a segmentata, squamata, or hamata, limit the full range of motion that a soldier would want to have, and do not hold up well at all under wet conditions to include a degradation in protective capability as well as becoming waterlogged, flexible and soggy, even if treated with wax, paints, etc as water seems to work its way into the smallest of cracks and tears.

While armor made of iron or mild steel can rust, proper maintenance can avoid or prevent this. In addition the protective capabilities will not immediately degrade in inclement weather and function as designed.

Now in all fairness, there is a lot of scholastic research especially in Russian and German that has yet to be translated and shared, so if there is some archeological record or proof from a primary source, please let us know as a great many of us would be very interested in it.

regards,
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
#39
Quote:
Matthew Amt:22zt8sbe Wrote:A leather shield dating to the Bronze Age was found in Ireland, plus a wooden mold for making similar shields....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

There was a test done with a reconstructed Irish leather shield and a reconstruction of the same design of shield in bronze, examples of which have survived. They were cut with a reconstructed bronze sword. The leather shield (not dissimilar to the targes used by Jacobite clansmen in 1745) was very resistant to sword blows but the bronze equivalent was sliced open with ease.

I am an academic, and without the application of logic all arguments are crippled. Once again I feel I must point out that I am arguing for the mere possibility, not in any sense either the probability or, heaven forfend, the actuality, of Roman leather cuirasses.

As I write this I'm struck by the etymology of the word 'cuirass' - how ironic!

That's the problem with a rigid defense Martin. Plate armor could be a very good defense and send the blow skidding of. But it's rigidity could also capture the full force of the blow. Flexible types of armor can turn a blow, the force losing itself in the turning process.

If the segmenta was such a superior piece of armor. And there was no great difficulty it's fabrication. Then why was it abandoned in favor of flexible types of armor?

The earlier gladius was a functional sword that didn't require fantastic steel. But the growing use of the spatha coincided with the abandonment of the segmenta. And spatha's were often made of exceptional steel work. One modern investigation places them on par with samurai swords. A soft and flexible core with extremely hardened edges.

Just how well would the segmenta withstand all kinds of blows? How thick was the metal plate? 1mm?

In more recent eras leather armor proved popular even when plate was easily obtainable.
Steven.
Reply
#40
Quote: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?

Helloooo! Did you not read my post?? We KNOW all that! I have to ask, are you or Wulfgar the same as this guy?:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=88624

Cuz the three of you are sounding the like same darn broken record. "Leather is great! They knew about leather! Why COULDN'T it be leather?!" The response remains the same: WHY SPECULATE?? We have several alternatives with GOOD evidence!

Quote:There was a test done with a reconstructed Irish leather shield and a reconstruction of the same design of shield in bronze, examples of which have survived. They were cut with a reconstructed bronze sword. The leather shield (not dissimilar to the targes used by Jacobite clansmen in 1745) was very resistant to sword blows but the bronze equivalent was sliced open with ease.

This "test" was done in 1962 by John Coles. The "bronze" shield he chopped was 0.3mm COPPER, and bore no relation to any known Bronze Age shield. Way too thin, way too soft. But practically every author since then has used this "test" to declare that all bronze armor was "useless" or "ceremonial". This concept is now entirely discredited--ancient bronze armor was HIGHLY effective. For a much better test, try this:

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... adid=21752

This and other good information should also be available in Barry Molloy's book "The Cutting Edge" (which I hope to get for Christmas!). By the way, the leather shield Coles tested was nothing like a Highland targe, which were oak plank covered in leather. The Clonbrin shield which Coles based his repros on is the one I mentioned above, a single layer of leather about 1/4" thick, oak-tanned but not very well so that the middle was more like rawhide. There is a second layer of leather on the boss. Coles made several versions, some hardened with hot water, etc. We don't know if the original Clonbrin shield was hardened or not, but that doesn't seem to be entirely necessary (according to both Coles and Molloy).

Quote:BTW Antoine De Brack, a French cavalry officer, examined iron-skulled cuirassier helmets which had been sliced open by Austrian sabres after the Battle of Aspern-Essling. He said he would far rather wear a stout leather shako than an iron pot as it gave better protection - something of a 'horses-mouth statement.'

Must have been pretty crappy helmets! Several trained experts in arms and armor, including a Japanese sword expert with a specially mounted blade, and curators at the Royal Armouries in England, have been unable to do that much damage to helmets with swords. Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h0e0NSwYNg

I've never seen a surviving Roman helmet with an identifiable significant open cut from a weapon, though many are damaged in various ways. Seems to me if the Romans were SO familiar with the glories of impenetrable butch leather, they would have given up those silly metal hats, eh?

Quote:I am an academic, and without the application of logic all arguments are crippled. Once again I feel I must point out that I am arguing for the mere possibility, not in any sense either the probability or, heaven forfend, the actuality, of Roman leather cuirasses.

Roman logic is not like modern logic. And modern ideas of the "logical" progression or development of armor do NOT always match the facts. And if you are not trying to say that the Romans had leather cuirasses, why the heck argue for the "mere possibility"?? Pliny writes about the discovery of aluminum, so why not argue the possibility of Roman beer cans or Zepplins? Why not argue the possibility of swim fins or tutus? Maybe because it's a completely pointless activity?

Quote:Note the cuirass on the left exhibits scale mail.

No, it shows SCALE. Mail is made of rings.

[/quote]However, how come the figure suggests a "muscled form"?[/quote]

Because, as I have said, this artwork is in the Hellenistic heroic tradition, with little regard to reality. Heck, look at it! It has layers of guys standing on each other! Classical drapery on the barbarians! The muscled cuirass shape was a crucial element in any military scene of that style! The artist did not care what it was actually made of, even if he knew. Realism was not the point.

Quote:Yet look at the figure on the right. Note the chain mail has little form.

Because it's directly copied from Trajan's Column, as was a LOT of sculpture from that time.

Quote:This is my bid. There were muscled cuirasses and battle mail was placed over them... I don't how the muscled form could be implemented in the mail itself otherwise. Unless the undergarment gave the muscled form?

THE ARTIST CARVED IT THAT WAY. It was the STYLE of the time. Now, in reality, if you wear a nice and fine shirt of mail or scales--or the combination we like to call plumata--over a nice set of chest muscles, with no padding at all, you can indeed see some of the body shape under the armor. Mail is especially good at forming to the body. (Put a mailshirt on your girlfriend sometime--well, I'll let that drop!) So maybe all the artist had to do was emphasize that effect. But that would mean NO padding under the armor at all.

Quote:Have a look at this famous relief of the Praetorian Guard 2nd Century. Look at the figure on the left. Now tell me how a reconstruction would go? Could a cuirass of bronze be constructed from this figure. Or would only leather reproduce this figure in the detail. I'd assume somebody has attempted a life reconstruction. Now what would the results look like?

That's the Louvre relief, and it has been HEAVILY restored. The entire middle of the left-hand figure is a modern replacement, and not a very good one. Looks to me like he's wearing a perfectly normal Roman bronze muscled cuirass. Travis Clark believes the shoulder flaps were indeed often leather, and I have no real problem with that, but there's absolutely no reason to suspect that the body of the cuirass is anything but metal. A number of bronze originals exist, and they are lightweight, very strong, and wonderfully attractive. What more do you need?

If you feel like you're getting some hostile reactions, it's because we've all been over this a dozen times, and it gets tiring when someone who is just CONVINCED he's right simply blows through everything we have tried to teach. If you're hear to learn from the huge mass of knowledge on this board, then learn, and we will be happy to share. If you're just going to tell us how stiff-necked we are for not bowing to your perfectly logical and commonsense preconceptions, maybe some other discussion board will seem like a friendlier place.

Valete,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#41
Now during the Carolingian period and later there is definately written and other evidence showing usage of hardened reinforcements under flexible armour, so it cannot be that nonfunctional. However, one must be very careful with using later periods and other cultures to justify ones viewpoint. Anything is POSSIBLE with history, we are talking about very intelligent people and resourceful cultures, but we have to approach such subjects with caution and a clear head. Not only do we have to address the historic evidence, but we also have to address our own reasons for bringing up the issue. As reenactors and hopefully amateur (some not so amateur) historians we should make an effort not to bring our own baggage and overlay our own prejudices and stereotypes more than necessary and not at all if it can be helped. The leather mystique is largely a fascination with ren faires and Hollywood and yes it can be very pretty and play a part in the development of our view of what Romans, etc. looked like when lacking more advanced knowledge. As a beginner it was something I had to get over. Now Gladiator looks rather silly and I'd much rather lose some of my enjoyment for movies than bring a false view to the unknowing public. Definately make sure your motives are not selfish or deluded.
Derek D. Estabrook
Reply
#42
Quote: Helloooo! Did you not read my post?? We KNOW all that! I have to ask, are you or Wulfgar the same as this guy?:

No, I only go under the name of Wulfgar!



Quote:HE ARTIST CARVED IT THAT WAY. It was the STYLE of the time. Now, in reality, if you wear a nice and fine shirt of mail or scales--or the combination we like to call plumata--over a nice set of chest muscles, with no padding at all, you can indeed see some of the body shape under the armor. Mail is especially good at forming to the body. (Put a mailshirt on your girlfriend sometime--well, I'll let that drop!) So maybe all the artist had to do was emphasize that effect. But that would mean NO padding under the armor at all.

Now you're speculating aren't you?

Quote: If you feel like you're getting some hostile reactions, it's because we've all been over this a dozen times, and it gets tiring when someone who is just CONVINCED he's right simply blows through everything we have tried to teach. If you're hear to learn from the huge mass of knowledge on this board, then learn, and we will be happy to share. If you're just going to tell us how stiff-necked we are for not bowing to your perfectly logical and commonsense preconceptions, maybe some other discussion board will seem like a friendlier place.

I'm not convinced that much about anything. Even less about your preconceptions.

As I said I'm placing a bid. You guys seem to regard your set of convictions as the last word on truth. Personally I don't know? I could merely speculate on a number of models.

Put it this way. If I'm to say that a muscled leather cuirass formed the undergarment of mail that was thrown over on top. I don't have to prove it. It is simply an opinion! An idea!

Remember the 3 P's of scientific opinion. Proposition, and that's what I've made. A proposal! One can make just about any kind proposal!

The next test is whether it violates the laws of logic. The question being here is, "is it possible"?

Now please tell me Matthew, that my proposal is impossible?

I believe it is possible. That doesn't establish it as a fact. Merely that it is not impossible!

The 3rd point is how probable the argument is?

Well, we could argue to the cows come home on that. A lot of what is excepted as fact in history, is simply something that is regarded as highly probable. In science only mathematics is regarded as a intuitive fact.

We can't be absolutely sure Julius Caesar in fact existed. The annuals recording him, may have been pure invention. However we conclude it is most probable he existed.

For example modern historians now regard the biblical empire of David and Solomon. As being something of a myth!

I'll enjoy my opinion! I'm imagining regiments of later legionaries on parade, minus the chain mail. In very fashionable leather muscled cuirasses. I like my Romans to dress to dress well!
:roll:

However thanks Matthew. You pointed something very relevant on the bronze shield bit.

However remember Kant. How perceptions are not the object!
Steven.
Reply
#43
Ok, this next post is me being a MODERATOR.

Gents (Wulfgar and Urselius) this has been discussed IN DEPTH in the past already. Re-read all the other posts in those threads, and IF (I'm stressing the IF) you have something new to share, other than your opinion, please do so. Otherwise, all this thread is doing is aggravating current members who back up their opinions with existing evidence. As such, I believe it's run it's course. I'll let a few last posts to wrap things up...
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#44
Every painted or mosaical representation of musculata I've ever seen is either steel or brass coloured and shaded (possibly silver or gold); No brown ones.

All pteryges I've ever seen are white or a primary colour; No brown ones.

Show me brown or even beige musculata or pteryges in frescoes or mosaics and I might be more open to the possibility of Ren Fairre tat in the 1st-C AD.

If body armour was leather, why not helmets? Please, please, please, post any coloured representation of an ancient Roman soldier wearing leather musculata.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#45
Quote:
Urselius:2agpjcly Wrote: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?

Helloooo! Did you not read my post?? We KNOW all that! I have to ask, are you or Wulfgar the same as this guy?:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=88624


Matthew

Now we have conspiracy theories!

There are more important things in the world - 2 million people ,mostly children under five, die each year from the disease I work on - I'd better get back to work!
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
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: