10-02-2009, 08:04 AM
This is a very interesting discussion. I have to say that it don't convinced me about the use of leather armour. But that doesn't make a point. The book presents a new view on the way to study and make some very interesting statements. Instead of saying I don't believe in leather armour, we should now argue against the methods he use to work with his sources. I only read this book once, and so far I couldn't come up with a point were I can't follow why he argues that way. I hope this will thus open a whole new discussion to the topic.
And one of the most interesting arguments (to me at least) was that there is a distinction between a leather helmet and a metal one. (if I'm remember right the source for that is Varro). Okay, I can't read Latin and I didn't check the reference, but if that's true we have an interesting starting point for an scientific discussion about the use of leather as protective gear in the Roman army. Anyway, the discussion is starting already and I would much enjoy reading about it. It will become a very interesting one over the next months, I think.
And one of the most interesting arguments (to me at least) was that there is a distinction between a leather helmet and a metal one. (if I'm remember right the source for that is Varro). Okay, I can't read Latin and I didn't check the reference, but if that's true we have an interesting starting point for an scientific discussion about the use of leather as protective gear in the Roman army. Anyway, the discussion is starting already and I would much enjoy reading about it. It will become a very interesting one over the next months, I think.
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM