Was the leather muscled curiass of the later times sexier?

[arklore70]

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,