Leather Squamata.......Really?

[Doc]

Hello everyone,

I hope it's ok to post this and I hope the link works.

Any thoughts? http://lw.lsa.umich.edu/kelsey/ConAntiq/...armor.html

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The current consensus is that it was *probably* horse armor. It wasn't tanned leather either, it's just cowhide.

Here's the thread on it:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...0&start=30

I won't deny the probability it was infantry armor, and considering units in Egypt almost never saw action, they wouldn't need metal armor.

However, from my experience leather, although light and flexible, traps body heat. It also has little defensive value, being unable to stop stabbing and piercing attacks.

It's possible, just not plausible.

Given the presence of perigrini cataphractarii in Egypt, and that at the time a lot of cataphract mercenaries were Sarmatian, I think it's probably Sarmatian in origin. That would also be consistent with the large scales/lamellae used in Eastern Cultures.

[Dan Howard]

Given the presence of perigrini cataphractarii in Egypt, and that at the time a lot of cataphract mercenaries were Sarmatian, I think it's probably Sarmatian in origin. That would also be consistent with the large scales/lamellae used in Eastern Cultures.

Why is it so hard to believe that the armour is Egyptian? Nobody has presented anything to suggest that it isn't Egyptian. I'll repeat from the other thread:

There are scales of this shape, in this region, made of both metal and hide, going back for a period of fifteen hundred years. I'll bet that the hole pattern is the same too.

The only thing to suggest that it is horse armour is the pronounced curve around the neck but that could just be how it has been flattened out for display. The scales are the same size and shape as those used on other examples of human armour in the Middle East.

[Urselius]

The description says that the leather was "treated with oil" - oil tanning certainly existed, 17th century buff coats were made of leather tanned with cod oil.

Oil tanning also renders leather weather-proof - so no waterlogging, and it would limit the effects of sweat.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The original article says it was just barely tanned. But yes I see what you're getting at Urselius.

As for the possibility it's Egyptian, unless they were recruiting Natives from the south in Aethiopia and Axum and whatnot, I doubt it.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Oiled rawhide or oiled leather, then?
I´d opt for oiled rawhide.

[Dan Howard]

It was found in Egypt.
It is the same style as other examples of armour found in Egypt.
This type of armour has been made in Egypt for over a thousand years before this example - long before the Sarmatians even existed.

The only way to place doubt on the conclusion that it is Egyptian is to prove that it was worn by a foreigner. Even then you have no way to discount the likelihood that it was made in Egypt by an Egyptian armourer.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Point taken.

[Doc]

Hello everyone,

Thank you for the replies. However, the article states its Roman armor not Egyptian. How could the writers come to this conclusion. Clearly, you folks think it belongs to an Egyptian because of its similarities to armor from other people. Knowing that the Romans borrowed or copied several armors or forms there of......is it not possible this could be Roman and not anything else.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well it's Roman armor because the Egyptians weren't around anymore. The theory is that the armor is the same style that had been around for the past few thousand years, and mine is that it's of Sarmatian origin.

[Dan Howard]

Apparently it doesn't matter who made it or who wore it, if it was found anywhere in the Roman Empire then it must be Roman. That is the only argument that anyone can use to claim that it is Roman. The same argument is used to claim that the armour found at Dura Europos is Roman.

[Dan Howard]

Well it's Roman armor because the Egyptians weren't around anymore.

There are eighty million people living in Egypt today who might wonder how you came to that conclusion.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

It's a "so to speak" thing. The country of Egypt was a province, and it's citizens were Romans. Nationalism and Ethnic identity were extraordinarily rare back then.

Not to sound racially insensitive, but aren't most "Egyptians" berber or arabic?

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

Nationalism and Ethnic identity were extraordinarily rare back then.

Uh...no! Were they Greek just because they were ruled by the Ptolemy's? There are many examples of Egyptians in Roman times having a national pride and identity!

The Jews were fierce in their independent culture as were many other "Roman" Provinces.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

True, but generally speaking you look at how the Romans "Romanized" their citizens (and Sassanids did theirs, etc), and the indistinction to which Barbarian groups belonged, it wasn't as prevalent until after the successor states formed.

Was it around? Most certainly, can't deny that.