leather cuirass

[Magnus]

Actually this book was really easy to get hold of and was quite cheap too. So Matt now has no excuse not to go out and get one!
Graham

It's on my amazon wish list. :wink:

[Tarbicus]

Plus I seem to remember hearing Carol Van Driel Murray say that she thought (or wondered perhaps) if a lot of Roman leatherwork was coloured yellow.

Pig leather?

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Just saw this photo that I had since Jan 09 when I took a trip to Turkey. This is a statue of Handrian that dates, according to the museum (near Pergamon) info, to his time. The cuirass is definitely not metal. Leather?

[M. Demetrius]

Well, whether that cuirass is made from leather or felt or something else, it's clearly not metal.

[markusaurelius]

Interesting statue. I can't see a cuirass being made of felt.....leather to me seems more logical, but it certainly is not smooth and stiff based on the way it is hunched over.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

I added another photo with a side view. Although the cuirass is not as stiff as a bronze one would be, it is not that soft either - it preserves some volume/shape in its top part while being rested on a trunk. It is somewhat similar to how a squamata looks like when it is folded in this manner, so the stiffness of this cuirass might be similar.

[Astiryu1]

The armor whatever it is made of looks nice! I can not help but think that because of the predominant artistic quality of Roman leather armor that it is parade armor. More for show than anything else. The portraits of kings later especially in medieval Europe rarely had metal armor. The possibility is that it was sort of like a modern military dress uniform. The best part about leather armor being used for such a function is flexibility ( dancing, sitting, etc. ). The leather armor would have some use against the knife of an assassin giving the wearer more of an edge.( Pardon the Pun :!: ) It is everywhere in art but probably was not used in battle unless at dire need. It therefore could be thinner and less likely to puncturing to swords and arrows but would turn a glancing blow from an assassins dagger. Handy in a street fight no doubt as well!

[M. Demetrius]

Of course, it's all a long list of "could be" not much on "it is". Hard to know. Felt can be made very thick and firm, as anybody who has worked with modern needledfelt can attest, but at least there's evidence in ancient sources for felt's use. Leather? We just have to keep on with our personal opinions, I guess.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

The very least, "it is" a cuirass, and "it is" not made out of metal.

[Astiryu1]

Definitely Agreed! The felt reference... what is it from exactly? I would like to read up on it. Seems Interesting.

[Dan Howard]

The very least, "it is" a cuirass, and "it is" not made out of metal.

Depends on how you define "cuirass".
The word comes from the French cuir, which means "leather" and originally only referred to leather armour. There is no way to tell what the sculpted item is made from so, no, we can't say that it is this kind of cuirass.
Later the word was expanded to include metal armour. It is unlikely that this is made of metal so, no, we can't say that it is this kind of cuirass.
If you mean "cuirass" in the most general sense to include costumes that may not have even been intended for battle then, yes, you can call it a cuirass.

I wouldn't use the term cuirass unless it was intended to be used in battle (i.e. "armour" not "costume") but it all comes down to semantics. When writing about these subjects you have to firstly define all the terms you are going to use since many are arbitrary or ambiguous. Otherwise the reader has no idea what you are talking about.

[Paullus Scipio]

Fairly obviously, that garment could be simply a "sub-armalis", over which a metal cuirass fitted....naturally, the "sub-armalis" would have to conform to the shape of the cuirass worn over it, so that with both worn the wearer would lok something like the 'Prima Porta' Augustus.....


.....OR.......

Hollywood could have got it right !! :wink: :wink:

[Luca]

Who can think that a leather "cuirass" or armour can bend that way? It is impossible for me to think that something made to protect can be so soft. Leather/linen armours are hard, not soft. Of course leather/linen used not to protect, must be soft, but I don't think it is the case.
So, a subarmalis? Very strange, because of the appearing too similar to loricae, but possible.
An error of the artist? Well let's keep "this door" open. The error could be made by the artist simply "copying" other examples where in the same way is represented a subarmalis, but in this case the sculptor added the form of the lorica. Probably it thought that that shape would be more "realistic" ( ).

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

I'm a little surprised that so many people don't seem to know this statue already! It's been discussed in several other "leather armor" threads on RAT--heck, it's probably even shown in the early pages of this thread, but my internet connection is really spotty at the moment so I can't check that. In short, we don't know what it is! A subarmalis makes the most sense to most folks. But it doesn't seem to be stiff enough to be actual *defensive* armor. Even if we go with the assumption that it is a realistic representation of something, it could be "costume armor", for all we know, something light and fluffy to wear or pose in that represents armor but is not meant to be protective.

I can not help but think that because of the predominant artistic quality of Roman leather armor that it is parade armor. More for show than anything else.

Well, if you can find any representations of armor that MUST be leather and can NOT be metal (or anything else), we'd love to see them. Then you need to demonstrate that the item represented is for show and not defensive. So far, no one has been able to do that, at least as far as I've read.

The portraits of kings later especially in medieval Europe rarely had metal armor.

Huh? I can only think of a few thousand medieval illustrations of mail, scale, and plate armor, generally looking like metal. Kings are sometimes shown without armor, but even then they may be flanked by armored guards.

The possibility is that it was sort of like a modern military dress uniform.

Exactly! Not a defensive item at all.

The best part about leather armor being used for such a function is flexibility ( dancing, sitting, etc. ). The leather armor would have some use against the knife of an assassin giving the wearer more of an edge.( Pardon the Pun :!: ) It is everywhere in art but probably was not used in battle unless at dire need. It therefore could be thinner and less likely to puncturing to swords and arrows but would turn a glancing blow from an assassins dagger. Handy in a street fight no doubt as well!

I really don't want to sound like I'm picking on you, Craig, but these ideas come up all the time, and they never seem to make much sense to me! If the leather is that flexible, it is not protective. If it is protective, it is not that flexible! Why should a full-force zero-range dagger thrust from an assassin be any more "glancing" than the random arrows and blows of battle? Garment leather simply won't be any better against any decent weapon than regular wool and linen clothing. "It is everywhere in art"--Do you mean leather armor?? That's quite a claim, one that we have not seen substantiated so far! I think we're going to have some debates about interpretation. But before we do, probably we should all just go back to the Search function and look up all those old threads. Because we've been through all this before and there really isn't much point in repeating it... Aha, yes, go back to the start of this very thread, and you'll see a lot of the debate right there (though there is a digression on paint colors!). But like I said, please don't take this as a personal attack!

Valete,

Matthew

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

IMO, this outfit looks rather similar to the "armor" that we usually see on statues presenting Roman military leaders and that is usually interpreted as metal cuirass. Thus, they could have worn a softer type of armor/garment/whatever-you-want-to-call-it as well. Its inferior defensive quality does not preclude wearing this outfit in battle, since we have representations of Roman soldiers going in battle without any body armor, wearing only helmet, shield, and tunic.