11-04-2008, 03:43 PM
The assumption was that leather armour was supposedly the armour of the Late Roman infantryman, and that this was shown on statues or other artistic representations. So far, I have seen none of that put forward.
I like keeping an open mind, but that does not mean accepting pure assumptions as if is were proof. Leather (not: rawhide) armour may be possible, but so far there is no proof that it actually occurred.
The orginal question:
I like keeping an open mind, but that does not mean accepting pure assumptions as if is were proof. Leather (not: rawhide) armour may be possible, but so far there is no proof that it actually occurred.
The orginal question:
Quote:Was the leather muscled curiass of the later times sexier?Answer: no. Leather is less sexy than shiny metal. :wink:
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
