leather cuirass

[Matthew Amt]

The leather element in the British Museum it is roman simply because it has been found in a Roman camp in Egypt together other roman elements/weaponry like for instance spear points, arrows, part of shields, elements of caligae etc…

Okay, that sounds good. But I'd like to hear more about this Roman camp, just to be sure. Partly because there are some pretty huge mountains of conclusions built on this particular grain of evidence.

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 !!

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.

So why is it an armour component and not a belt?

Because its general shape it seems more likely a part of a banded armour rather than a simple belt.
For this reason it is described as "Possible piece of cuirass" .

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!

Anyway this element attested as this kind of leather band features were actually used in the Roman army for protection.

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.

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.

Valete,

Matthew