10-09-2009, 05:40 PM
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.
