Unknown scutum painting

[Caius Fabius]

I had used saddle skirt weight leather armor soaked in beeswax for several years, in a damp climate, and never had any problems with it. Wax impregnated leather absorbs kinetic energy almost like metal or very think plastic, and can only be cut by the sharpest edge. While it might not do as well against some forms of archery, it is excellent and lightweight armor and could have well been used by naval troops, either as molded breastplates, or as strips of armor riveted together.<br>
<br>
I am amazed when all the experts say leather just isn't any good for Roman armor, when I have found it more protective against shock weapons than 16 gauge steel. Maybe we should try and decide what weapons the opponents were using, before saying that this or that armor would have never been used?<br>
<br>
I have actually gone swimming wearing leather armor soaked in beeswax, and it did not become heavy, in fact it kept pockets of air like a crude life preserver.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer</p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Your quote at the end is very eloquent Caius, however proving that it can be done, might work and could be effective, does not constitute proof that the Romans did it. All sides of the equation should be examined, I think on that we agree.<br>
It is possible that Roman metropolitan sculptors had real weapons and armaments available, it is also possible they were following a code, as was stated above, and it is definitely provable that ancient artists copied eachother.<br>
We tend to look at Roman sculptures as if they are photographs. If they only were... <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Caius Fabius]

I don't know the answer, but so many here are willing to say that leather was never used in the Imperial Roman military as Armor, while we have another group willing to say on their scholarly website that it was prefered, and we still don't know the answer for sure...yet many people are convinced that they have the only answer.<br>
<br>
Yes, I took the quote from the book I recommended, "On the Trail of the Legions" by Selkirk, another controversial theory!<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Tarbicus]

Obviously, military depictions were a major part of the artists' commissions. I can't help but think that they would know a lot about the clothing and equipment. I actually have a lot of faith in the artists, being one myself.<br>
<br>
I'm willing to accept the above as leather, though I'm not saying it is that. I'm also willing to accept it if they are also marines, the biggest clues being in the shield designs, coupled with Caius' aquatic experience. I also think it's okay to conjecturise, especially if a theory is tested as Caius did. The best way to disprove it is surely to jump into a lake wearing metal segmentata to see if you float?<br>
<br>
As for my greek reference, ignore it, dunno what I was going on about there <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Well, you'd have to prove first that a) there were marines as such and b) that they wore any kind of armour<br>
<br>
I'm no expert on ancient image-building (i.e. propaganda) but as far as I know the message (the Emperor is adored by his army and is in command of a great host, or something to that effect) is <em>much</em> more important than the details of arms and equipment.<br>
In any discussion about Rome-city artwork, we shouldn't forget that the only soldiers in Rome were Praetorian and Urban Cohorts (the former wearing toga's according to Rankov), the emperor's bodyguard, naval troops for the Colloseum and message-bearing and finally the troops in the Castra Peregrinorum: speculators, frumentarii and other scary people detached for 'special duties'.<br>
Barring the civil war of 68-70, there was no body of legionaries in or around Rome from 31 BC-194 AD when Septimius Severus stationed a legion near Alba Iulia as counterweight to the Praetorians. Legionaries were born, recruited and died on the frontiers more and more. In fact, when the Rhine legionaries appeared in Rome in 69 AD, we read of their barbaric and scary looks! In short: the city dwellers may well have forgotten what Roman combat troops really looked like. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

That "barbarian" armour on TC's pedestal was posted here a while ago.<br>
I personally think it's simply banded armour made of metal. The shoulder pieces, unlike the segmentata do not seem to be articulated although also made with strips of metal.<br>
Another suggestion, posted here too, was that it is a brigantine, i.e; a suit of armour covered up with cloth or leather. In this case the underlying armour could have been made of lamellar.<br>
As far as leather is concerned it was certainly used as a protection. Cuirbouilli is pretty tough and generally speaking, properly treated leather is still widely used for shoe soles. That speaks enough of the material's reistance.<br>
The argument according to which marines would not wear metallic armour for fear of drowing does not hold water --if I may say so-- if we are to judge by later naval battles like Lepanto, where most soldiers wore the half cuirass --and sometimes more-- and a helmet.<br>
Leather lamellar armour was found at Dura and the ancient writers tell us of sarmatian armour made of leather scales or even horses' hooves, although interpretations differ on that one.<br>
One of my personal ideas to explain the strange scarcity of roman muscled cuirass and their total absence for the imperial era in the archaeological record is that the more common ones may have been made of cuirbouilli, covered with a thin foil of silvered or gilded bronze.<br>
Cuirass comes from the french word "cuir", which means leather..<br>
Naturally emperors, generals and such wore much more expensive pieces, entirely made of metal and heavily gilded or silvered. But those were scarce and they disappeared long ago.<br>
Finally, I think that people in Rome knew basically as much as we do about how soldiers were dressed; maybe a bit less, but no more than that.<br>
Goods at that time traveled far and wide, and so did soldiers. Actually moving centurions back and forth from the frontier to Rome and then back to the frontier was one of the main characteristics of the roman imperial armies. That is why I doubt very much the civilians were that ignorant of the soldiers attire. Like today they did not know all the intricate details of course. Who, besides a soldier, is able for instance to decipher all the symbolic language written on a modern military dress? The stripes and the little colored labels?<br>
So the official sculptures was certainly, in a way, more symbolic than realistic, but as the comparison between TC and the archaeological record shows, they were pretty close to the real thing. Close enough, anyways for the civilians to recognize their soldiers. Much like we can recognize soldiers in the little Playmobil characters. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

My, this topic has taken an interesting twist! Just want to add even more controversy:<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>In any discussion about Rome-city artwork, we shouldn't forget that the only soldiers in Rome were Praetorian and Urban Cohorts (the former wearing toga's according to Rankov),<hr><br>
<br>
Rankov does say this... then goes on to describe how Praetorians were used for the protection of the emperor, his family, and on some occassions, <em>riot control</em> (italics mine). Now let's just think that one a minute. The city rabble, possibly numbering in the thousands, erupts in violence (as they were prone to do periodically). The state responds by sending out men enveloped in 18' of wool togas? Even with swords, this presents an unlikely scenario for success. The Imperial guard, as well as the urban cohorts [police dept], would <em>had</em> to have had something to (a) protect them from the mob, and (b) make it absolutely clear that <em>they</em> were the legitimate power of the state at that moment. I for one am fairly certain that the rule forbidding armed and armored soldiers within the city walls was to prevent what was done by Sulla, then by Julius Caesar: a armed coup by the army. I do NOT think the rule was extended to the PG or the UC, whose job was to maintain order and protect the lives of the Imperial court.<br>
<br>
OK, now back to the original discussion on Marine armor... I mean, leather cuirasses... or was it some guy's shield paintjob from a now defunct Legio XI CPF...?<br>
<br>
Gil <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

According to the ancient authors the praetorians wore togas for service at the Palace. It doesn't say they wore togas for riot control and they probably didn't.<br>
The taboo about wearing arms was valid inside the Pomoerium, and that did not include the whole of the city, far from it.<br>
Come to think of it, I doubt very much the roman authorities would have passed on the very efficient propaganda tool a military parade makes. That would be a first.. And a last.<br>
Sculptures showing arms and armour were everywhere and that goes along pretty well with praetorians parading in parade dress, like shown on the famous Louvre relief. <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Nope, but it doesn't say they did wear armor either <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>