Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
leather cuirass
#61
Quote: Sure, but some of us non-serious scholars don't happen to have funding to drop by the other side of the Atlantic to look at a belt, so we have to depend on the serious ones to dole out data. Maybe I only know enough to be dangerous (heck, I'm pretty sure of it!), but I'm not the type to roll over and accept conclusions about leather segmented armor based on a find like this. If you want me to stop arguing, you need to come up with something better.

The finding it is just the material evidences that similar leather band protection were used.
which support the sculpture evidences mostly shown in the Dr D'Amato book

Quote:
No, it isn't. There are no holes by which it might be attached to other bands by means of rivets or laces, for starters. Not only does it not look like any surviving pieces of Roman segmented armor, it doesn't even look like the depictions that are used as proof of Roman leather segemented armor! .

Nobody know all the different type of the attachement which may have been used on these kind of banded cuirasses specially the one made of perishable materials which of course almost never had survived
It not equal to the cuirass depicted but it is enough similar to made a reasonable comparison.


Quote: Claimed, not attested. ANY segmented armor shown in artwork can be made of metal rather than leather, usually more easily and always offering better function and more protection. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that any segmented armor shown in artwork is leather and not metal. This leather band is the first piece we've ever seen that has even been claimed to be a piece of leather segmented armor, and that claim is baseless.

It is not true, in several sculpture shown in the D'Amato book the differece between the leather segmental cuirasses and the metalic one are clearly evidenced
In the book nodoby claims that any segmented armour shown in artwork is leather !!!!...some are cleary in metal , some other don't the diffrences in shape design folden parts etc... is evident!!!
There is absolutelly no logical reason to believed that all the segmented armour used by the roman and represented in the sculpure are in metal !!!
Yes It is the first piece wich can be reasonably identify as a possible piece of leather banded armour, because the leather normaly degrated throug the centuries.
I'm sorry but the stereotypized idea that all the banded armour used by romans were in metal is baseless
Quote: The wide use of iron segmented armor for over 3 centuries has been proven by literally thousands of finds, some of which even include remains of internal leather straps. The existence of Roman leather segmented armor is complete theory, with no clear archeological backing, and it's a theory which is sounding more deperate every day.

Call us a bunch of skeptics, but you're just going to have to show us something more conclusive.

It is not complete theory some artistic representations are clear and have the same validy of an archaeological evidence.
Otherwise for instance we should also claim that the huge Mycenaeans shield in shape of 8 or in shape of tower are pure theory !!! because of course no elements survived of those shields made of ox hide or leather but we have only few artistic representation !!! and the artistic representation of course are pure fantasyl!!!
Do you also neeed somethimg more conclusive or clear archaeological backing to believed in the ox hide Mycenaean shield? or in the Greek linotorax cuirass?
After have reading this book it is exactly the contrary !! the absurd stereotype idea that all the romans banded cuirasses were identical and were all made of metal sounding more deperate every day.
Reply
#62
Salimbeti, first you need to add your real name to your signature. Forum rule.

The leather find in D'amato's book is hardly evidence of anything. It seems he stretching the scant evidence in order to make his theory work.

"Nobody know all the different type of the attachement which may have been used on these kind of banded cuirasses specially the one made of perishable materials which of course almost never had survived
It not equal to the cuirass depicted but it is enough similar to made a reasonable comparison."


We have a pretty good idea. Read Bishop's Segmentata (which is online). To my knowledge, nothing has been found which has indicated fittings made for a leather cuirass.

"It is not true, in several sculpture shown in the D'Amato book the differece between the leather segmental cuirasses and the metalic one are clearly evidenced"

You put too much faith in artistic representations of armour. By your reckoning, the muscled cuirasses must also be made of leather since the armour is often shown bending along with the body wearing it. This is clearly artistic convention and the combination of archaeological and artistic evidence (sculpture and paintings) without a doubt point to metal, not leather. That includes segmentata.

"There is absolutelly no logical reason to believed that all the segmented armour used by the roman and represented in the sculpure are in metal !!! "

On the contrary, there is no reason to believe otherwise. The topic of hardened leather armour in the form of a segmentata has already been discussed, and it is simply not an efficient use of leather, nor would it function as well as steel/iron.

"Yes It is the first piece wich can be reasonably identify as a possible piece of leather banded armour, because the leather normaly degrated throug the centuries.
I'm sorry but the stereotypized idea that all the banded armour used by romans were in metal is baseless "


Reasonably identify as possible armour? D'amato is not even 100% sure he knows what that piece is. The chances of that being armour are slim at best, especially given it's measurements. You need to come to terms with the fact that in a Roman context, all instances of segmentata are overwhelmingly of metal, be it archaeological finds, or sculpture, or art.

"Otherwise for instance we should also claim that the huge Mycenaeans shield in shape of 8 or in shape of tower are pure theory !!! because of course no elements survived of those shields made of ox hide or leather but we have only few artistic representation !!! and the artistic representation of course are pure fantasyl!!!"

Well, right now that's all it is..a theory. That's what you have until evidence is discovered to prove it. Artistic representation has varying degrees of accuracy. It's best to compare it to other sources in order to get a better understanding of what you may be dealing with.

"or in the Greek linotorax cuirass?"

This has been discussed before, as has the figure 8 shield. There is no comparison. We HAVE many examples of segmentata...both in actual finds, written sources refering to the armour gleaming (leather doesn't gleam), and art. So your comparison doesn't really hold any water.

A good idea is not to take any one source and hold it true as gospel. I'm sure D'amato's book is great, but it cannot be used as a stand-alone academic work. All sources need to be considered before making an opinion.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#63
Actually, I have often toyed with the idea of leather subgarment worn under armour, with slits like that to provide ventilation.... :?
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#64
Quote:Nobody know all the different type of the attachement which may have been used on these kind of banded cuirasses specially the one made of perishable materials which of course almost never had survived

Well, what other ways might there be to connect the bands? Are there holes or marks from stitching hidden on the back? Traces of glue? Even cords wrapped around the band would leave prints or traces. IS there any other conceivable connection which would leave no traces on the band and also be invisible in artwork?

Quote:It not equal to the cuirass depicted but it is enough similar to made a reasonable comparison.

Well, I'll have to go back and look at the pictures, but it sure seemed to me that most of those depictions looked a lot more like like the metal pieces that have been found.

Quote:It is not true, in several sculpture shown in the D'Amato book the differece between the leather segmental cuirasses and the metalic one are clearly evidenced

I WILL have to go back and give the book a more thorough read. I remember some earlier arguments that certain shapes had to imply leather, which is obviously not so because we know they could make fantastic shapes from metal, but I may be attributing those claims to Mr. D'Amato unfairly.

Quote:There is absolutelly no logical reason to believed that all the segmented armour used by the roman and represented in the sculpure are in metal !!!


I will be happy to qualify my claim, and say (once again) that every piece of archeological evidence so far has been for metal segmented armor. And almost all the hundreds of leather finds have NOT been armor. No, you're right, it's not proof that lorica segmentata was NEVER made of anything else, but it's all that we have for sure.

Quote:It is not complete theory some artistic representations are clear and have the same validy of an archaeological evidence.

That certainly seems to be the focal point of the whole argument, the interpretation of artistic evidence. Don't know what to tell you, except that I tend to be a lot more cautious about it!

Quote:Otherwise for instance we should also claim that the huge Mycenaeans shield in shape of 8 or in shape of tower are pure theory !!! because of course no elements survived of those shields made of ox hide or leather but we have only few artistic representation !!! and the artistic representation of course are pure fantasyl!!!

Hey, come on now, Andrea, you know me better than that! These are completely different situations, with entirely different bodies of evidence. Sure, I'd love to see more good archeological evidence for EVERYTHING! And just to blow your socks off, I'm one of those who has converted to thinking that the popular Greek cuirass was probably not a "linothorax" but a "spolas", and made of *leather*! And that's without a single scrap of archeological evidence. So hang on and be fair--I'm a lot less of an anti-leather-armor person than I used to be, and I'm really trying hard not to be dogmatic and dismissive. If someone pulls a chunk of segmeented leather armor out of an Egyptian sand dune or a German bog, heck, I'll make one and wear it! And I will cheerfully eat my words. For now, the stereotype of Romans in metal segmented armor still isn't all that bad!

I promise to get hold of the book and give it a good read, when I can. In the meantime, clouding the issue by dragging in other subjects is not good debating tactics--it makes you sound a little desperate, eh?

Khaire,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#65
Lets assume that it is from a piece of segmented armour. We know how the Romans constructed segmented armour from the many metal examples. This metal armour can be constructed to look like the iconographical evidence. If some of this graphical evidence is supposed to be depicting leather armour and not metal then the method of construction must have been similar for both types.

So, if the leather belt is actually a part of Roman segmented armour then, in the order of preference, one of the following must be evident:
More than one segment that can be fitted together to create segmented armour

If only one piece remains then there should be metal fittings and/or rivets to attatch the bands together

If there are no metal fittings then the remaining leather should show the oxidised remains of these fittings (perhaps a green stain). Though first you'd have to explain how metal could deteriorate underground faster than leather.

If there is no evidence of fittings then at the very least there would be holes of the appropriate size and location to accomodate the missing fittings.

If none of the above is evident then no reasonable person can claim that this belongs to a piece of Roman segmented armour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#66
Quote:Every serious scholars who made his research not only from his computer desk or in the bookstore can have evidence about it and the other elements just visiting the British Museum !!


Nice attitude- not going to win many friends here talking like that. :roll:
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
Reply
#67
Quote:Actually, I have often toyed with the idea of leather subgarment worn under armour, with slits like that to provide ventilation.... :?

That makes a lot of sense Byron. Or at least part of it being made of leather.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#68
Thats what I was thinking, for sure! But sense, from me....possibly I was mistaken.... :?
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#69
We have been over much of this ground before. I agree with Byron (sorry Byron Big Grin D ). I wore it for a full day fully kitted out on several occasions and there is no undue buildup of heat. This is no disqualification for those wearing a linothorayx under a curas, with sewn and ornate pteruges, there is a LOT of sculptural evidence for that. I believe what was worn under a curas would be predominantly linen, under a hamata a leather padded subarmalis would be great (but padded linen also equaly acceptable). Now, on leather armour as such, there is one very great disadvantage and that is when someone takes a shot, a good stab or a proper swing at you, it cuts like butter! This is not so for rawhide, that is a pretty tough cookie to penetrate.
A curass, by the way, is a very ornamental piece of "armour" worn by higher officers, as evident from much iconographic evidence. I do not rule out a muscle curass for ornimental purpose to have been made of thick, molded leather. It is even possible to "metal" leather by impregnating it with copper, as is done when you want your kid's first shoes silvered. Given the thickness of some surviving metal curass, these also offer only limited protection and will dent or be rent by a serious blow. A curass made for battle and made of good steel sheet however gives excellent protection to your vitals.
I would ask salimbeti to enter into forum discussions in a more down-toned manner, as the "TRUTH" is very much a matter of perspective lacking solid archeological evidence. Having read a book does not make one an expert, having read a hunderd gives one an insight, but no more then that. I have seen interpretations of finds which boggle the mind to think scientists of reputation could have gotten things so very wrong. The only way we can progress in the search of knowledge is to keep an open mind and to also use our common sense. We may not know the mindset of the Romans, but be sure they wanted to survive any clash as much as you or I would. That is a universal human trait and one of the main reasons our species still walks this planet.
Salvete et Valete



Nil volentibus arduum





Robert P. Wimmers
www.erfgoedenzo.nl/Diensten/Creatie Big Grin
Reply
#70
Quote:It depends on the pigments. Without a chemical analysis both could be the case. Maybe the painter had no blue, but had to have the thing finished? But, as I said, it doesn´t really matter for the argument...
If you look at photos of re-enactors who are situated in a field of grass with trees around, the reflection in steel can have a lot of green from the environment. The artist may have been more accurate than thought, or the original pigment could have been blue-green to represent both sky and grass, blurred in the metal's reflection :wink:

Here's what I mean, using environment maps used to light scenes and reflections in CGI:

[Image: HDR012.jpgca61ea62-f48f-4d9b-949e-a7523df32300Large.jpg]
[Image: HDR018.jpga5156b80-5943-40ca-a52d-3f61eb667b97Large.jpg]
[Image: campus_cross_con.jpg]

http://www.sparse.org/3d.html
[Image: quad2.jpg]

If all of the colours are averaged in any of those given photos, they come out to something like this:
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#71
Quote:
caiustarquitius:3c1olqmk Wrote:It depends on the pigments. Without a chemical analysis both could be the case. Maybe the painter had no blue, but had to have the thing finished? But, as I said, it doesn´t really matter for the argument...
If you look at photos of re-enactors who are situated in a field of grass with trees around, the reflection in steel can have a lot of green from the environment. The artist may have been more accurate than thought, or the original pigment could have been blue-green to represent both sky and grass, blurred in the metal's reflection :wink:

Here's what I mean, using environment maps used to light scenes and reflections in CGI:

[Image: HDR012.jpgca61ea62-f48f-4d9b-949e-a7523df32300Large.jpg]
[Image: HDR018.jpga5156b80-5943-40ca-a52d-3f61eb667b97Large.jpg]
[Image: campus_cross_con.jpg]

http://www.sparse.org/3d.html
[Image: quad2.jpg]
If all of the colours are averaged in any of those given photos, they come out to something like this:

I highly doubt it. We don't see any sort of depiction of reflection on metal in painting at this time beyond very simple stuff in complex paintings (like the shield reflecting the fallen man in the Alexander mosaic), and bronze is consistently depicted in yellow or brown, while iron is shown in blue or grey.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#72
Quote:I highly doubt it. We don't see any sort of depiction of reflection on metal in painting at this time beyond very simple stuff in complex paintings (like the shield reflecting the fallen man in the Alexander mosaic), and bronze is consistently depicted in yellow or brown, while iron is shown in blue or grey.
It's not about depicting actual reflections, as if the metal were highly polished and an image can be seen. It's about artistic observation, especially if the colour of a material, if very dull and not highly polished, appears green due to grass and trees surrounding the subject. As you say, iron is usually depicted blue; is iron actually blue?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#73
Quote:
MeinPanzer:3b4gn0hd Wrote:I highly doubt it. We don't see any sort of depiction of reflection on metal in painting at this time beyond very simple stuff in complex paintings (like the shield reflecting the fallen man in the Alexander mosaic), and bronze is consistently depicted in yellow or brown, while iron is shown in blue or grey.
It's not about depicting actual reflections, as if the metal were highly polished and an image can be seen. It's about artistic observation, especially if the colour of a material, if very dull and not highly polished, appears green due to grass and trees surrounding the subject. As you say, iron is usually depicted blue; is iron actually blue?

I understand what you are saying, but comparison with other Graeco-Roman painting shows that bronze was not depicted in green, and so the most likely explanation is that this is simply the fading of the colours. There seems to have been little innovation in the depiction of metals in painting throughout this time period, and in general it seems that certain common colours were used to signal metals (yellow: bronze; blue: iron) without any consideration for environmental influence.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#74
Quote:It's not about depicting actual reflections, as if the metal were highly polished and an image can be seen. It's about artistic observation, especially if the colour of a material, if very dull and not highly polished, appears green due to grass and trees surrounding the subject. As you say, iron is usually depicted blue; is iron actually blue?
As a kid I coloured-in metallic objects with a blue pencil. I used it because it was the closest pigment I had to the colour of the material. It had nothing to do with reflections.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#75
Quote:I understand what you are saying, but comparison with other Graeco-Roman painting shows that bronze was not depicted in green, and so the most likely explanation is that this is simply the fading of the colours. There seems to have been little innovation in the depiction of metals in painting throughout this time period, and in general it seems that certain common colours were used to signal metals (yellow: bronze; blue: iron) without any consideration for environmental influence.
D'Amato seems to interpret every colour as leather. If it is brown then it is tanned leather. If it is white then it is alum-tawed leather. If it is green, blue, or red then it must be dyed leather.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Did the Romans use Leather Cuirass? Splenyi 7 2,632 09-21-2012, 06:32 PM
Last Post: Splenyi

Forum Jump: