leather cuirass

[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