05-04-2014, 03:28 PM
The only ineluctable objection to the idea of Roman leather muscle cuirasses is the fact that none have been discovered.
All other objections are capable of refutation.
A - Waterlogging - leather can be made water resistant, it isn't particularly difficult.
B - Moulded leather was never used for armour or protective equipment - yes it was, there are examples from the Renaissance that can be seen in museums and it was usd to make firemen's helmets in the 17th-18th centuries.
C - It would provide poor protection - possibly it would, but that didn't stop the Italian peoples, including the Romans, from using bronze pectorales - little plates of brass covering the centre of the chest. Crap protection from virtually any weapon if there ever was! Even a cursory investigation of the history of military apparel will show that impractical or sub-optimal items were worn.
Keep an open mind - do not be seduced into adopting dogmatic positions in the absence of very strong evidence.
All other objections are capable of refutation.
A - Waterlogging - leather can be made water resistant, it isn't particularly difficult.
B - Moulded leather was never used for armour or protective equipment - yes it was, there are examples from the Renaissance that can be seen in museums and it was usd to make firemen's helmets in the 17th-18th centuries.
C - It would provide poor protection - possibly it would, but that didn't stop the Italian peoples, including the Romans, from using bronze pectorales - little plates of brass covering the centre of the chest. Crap protection from virtually any weapon if there ever was! Even a cursory investigation of the history of military apparel will show that impractical or sub-optimal items were worn.
Keep an open mind - do not be seduced into adopting dogmatic positions in the absence of very strong evidence.
Martin
Fac me cocleario vomere!
Fac me cocleario vomere!
