Was the leather muscled curiass of the later times sexier?

[Matthew Amt]

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.

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 The idea of the late army not having armor seems to be outdated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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