Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Tarbicus]

Some depictions of armour are flexible purely so that the artist can render the subject in a specific pose. This is especially evident in Renaissance art when the artist is attempting to depict an armoured character in a classical pose. Some poses are not possible in rigid armour so artistic license is necessary.

Ubnfortunately, the two examples I'm thinking of aren't being worn by anyone. Unless the artists are depicting sleeping armour... :wink: Therefore, the armour being depicted is flexible.

[Dan Howard]

However, I recently reviewed the "leather Segmentata" thread (recommended to me by Graham Summer) and I was amazed at how many examples of functional leather armor there were in the archaeological record. I think objections to leather armor are therefore largely arbitrary.

I already outlined many examoples of leather armour in this very thread. I can't think of a single example of armour made from FLEXIBLE leather and I can't find any in the segmentata thread.

[Dan Howard]

Fair point and it must be conceded. Some however dismiss the usefulness of leather out of hand.

No. They dismiss the usefulness of FLEXIBLE leather armour which is perfectly reasonable based on physical and documentary evidence and practical experiments. The only leather ever used as armour was rigid (e.g. cuirbouilli) or used in a composite construction (e.g. leather scale).

[tlclark]

Fair point and it must be conceded. Some however dismiss the usefulness of leather out of hand.

No. They dismiss the usefulness of FLEXIBLE leather armour which is perfectly reasonable based on physical and documentary evidence and practical experiments. The only leather ever used as armour was rigid (e.g. cuirbouilli) or used in a composite construction (e.g. leather scale).

Well there is no physical archaeological or documentary evidence, so as the saying goes, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" There is however representational evidence as in the form of sculpture, which you continually do not want to deal with. I've addressed the practical evidence, conceded that these might be ceremonial, or meant to be layered with other forms of protection. That seems reasonable. That being said, what else could these things be but leather armor?

The rigidity of cuirboulli, is a continuum, not a static state, including semi-rigid and fully rigid as possibilities. Your assertion that only the hardest most rigid varieties were used exclusively for armor is only that, an assertion.

What we see, as in the bergama example is clearly within the spectrum of hardened leather, though it may not be as rigid as you think it should be.

I can't think of a single example of armour made from FLEXIBLE leather and I can't find any in the segmentata thread.

Graham lists several semi-rigid, and more rigid examples. That being said, even if we didn't have those samples, we still have these floppy cuirasses thrown over tree stumps and we would still have to account for them. I can't think of any other way than to suggest boiled and molded leather.

So let's stop bickering over this point and let me ask a couple of direct questions.

If these cuirasses are not boiled leather, then what are they?

If these cuirasses which are leather are totally insufficient and useless in battle, as you seem to suggest, why is the emperor so unabashedly unashamed to be associated with them?

Is it possible that their image as status symbols completely overwhelms any problems with their practicality, or perhaps they are not as impractical as you suggest?

If nearly all of the cuirasses we see without figures in them are most likely leather, given their depictions, why should we assume that when we see them on figures they are most likely metal? especially during the same time period and when they have all the same features of the ones we see to the sides of figures.?

Assuming they aren't meant to be leather, then what are they? Why do they look EXACTLY like the metal musculata? Do they have one set for campaigns and another made in leather just for portraits? Why bother? Why not use the 'real' set in the art? If these aren't 'real' what motivation exists for their existence?

Bottom line. We have a very troubling image, and no real way to account for it if we don't consider leather as a material. Also, the objection that this is not 'real' armor but only a uniform is semantical. It looks just like the musculatae everywhere else and no one doubts that those are armor. Ceremonial perhaps, but it's definitely meant to convey the essence of 'armor'.

If you find the above reasoning faulty, please explain how these are either not armor or not leather or both.

Travis

[Dan Howard]

I have no problem with them being leather. So long as it is stipluated that they have no practical function other than to look pretty - ceremonial costumes similar to the "faux brigandine" in Asian courts mentioned earlier by Felix.

[tlclark]

I have no problem with them being leather. So long as it is stipluated that they have no practical function other than to look pretty - ceremonial costumes similar to the "faux brigandine" in Asian courts mentioned earlier by Felix.

This is certainly a possibility, perhaps even a probability and I freely admit it, and I respect that that's your opinion, but I can't concede to an absolute rule on the basis of one person's, or several persons' judgment on what a person dead for some 1800+ years would have thought to be acceptable.

I have said many times that I think that by the Antonine period that these are probably ceremonial. However, since I have evidence that leather musculata were in use prior to this time, I cannot concede the possibility that it was always so, and that they had NO practical function.

Travis

[Dan Howard]

So what other function could they serve? As armour they don't work. Even the heaviest flexible leather offers little protection from blunt trauma and virtually no protection from weapon points. It has decent cut resistance but most garments offer decent cut resistance - even an unaugmented subarmalis/aketon. It has decent abrasion resistance, which is fine if you are riding a motorbike, not so useful on the battlefield.

[Tarbicus]

So long as it is stipluated that they have no practical function other than to look pretty - ceremonial costumes similar to the "faux brigandine" in Asian courts mentioned earlier by Felix.

Only if you went through Roman patrician rearing and education, and think like a Roman aristo, can you make such a demand. Who knows what they were thinking, and who knows what their priorities were? Since when did shiny armour and noisy jingling belts make any sense, especially if you want to surprise the enemy. The Romans don't seem to have cared by and large. Virtus, status, and looking like you're made of the right stuff; fearless.

Why should a well bred Roman aristocrat give a stuff about what armour he wore if he wanted to look good and feel comfortable? "Who are these savage, filthy barbarians that they think they could possibly harm me? Besides, their swords bend after one strike on a fine Roman scutum and they have to take pause to straighten them!" It's the same attitude that had them visibly auctioning their lands about Rome while Hannibal watched at the gates.

The same arrogance and feeling of invincibility is just as prevalent throughout history, especially among the upper classes, i.e. the officer classes. Look at depictions and photographs of American Civil War officers, and the real dandy can be seen.


Conjectural I know, but I feel image over personal practicality is an officer trait seen throughout history, and the idea of impractical leather armour has a basis for plausibility: Vanity. Besides, they weren't actually in battle that often, so the risks were quite low.

[Dan Howard]

Conjectural I know, but I feel image over personal practicality is an officer trait seen throughout history, and the idea of impractical leather armour has a basis for plausibility: Vanity. Besides, they weren't actually in battle that often, so the risks were quite low.

How is that different to stipulating that this armour is ceremonial and has no function other than to look pretty - to serve one's vanity.

[tlclark]

Conjectural I know, but I feel image over personal practicality is an officer trait seen throughout history, and the idea of impractical leather armour has a basis for plausibility: Vanity. Besides, they weren't actually in battle that often, so the risks were quite low.

How is that different to stipulating that this armour is ceremonial and has no function other than to look pretty - to serve one's vanity.

Well military morale is a practical function. If feeding your vanity does that, then it works on a level a little better than "ceremonial", but that could be largely semantics.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

How is that different to stipulating that this armour is ceremonial and has no function other than to look pretty - to serve one's vanity.

Because it's not intended for ceremonial use, it's intended for general and battle use. If a musculata was part of how a high ranking officer was distinguishable on the battlefield, just as skins for velites, etc, then it had a battlefield purpose.

As Travis points out, morale is hugely important, and if part of that projection of one's image is in any way inspirational to the men (or the wearer) then so be it. It may seem a foolhardy thing to do, but there are accounts in war of leaders who apparently have little regard for their own safety and expose themselves to the greatest of danger seemingly unnecessarily. With some it is just plain dumbness, but with others it seemed that they were almost blessed with divine protection (Caesar wasn't averse to it in antiquity, just as Lt. Spears of Easy Company in WW2 wasn't). Perhaps these Romans felt that way, or wanted to project that image, whilst wearing no armour at all was unacceptable or made them look like low rankers?

[tlclark]

So what other function could they serve? As armour they don't work. Even the heaviest flexible leather offers little protection from blunt trauma and virtually no protection from weapon points.

The argument about blunt trauma is irrelevant. Hamata & squamata don't offer significant protection against blunt force trauma either so that's not a consideration. Even a segmentata is brutal without a subarmalis and no one is arguing that these were worn without a subarmalis.

As far as puncture resistance I have to disagree. I have seem many a pair of 'leathers' protect or save people from some nasty impalings by metal tools, many of which would have points or edges as serious as any gladius. I doubt that an arrow could puncture it, but arrows have been known to puncture plate as well. The French Knights at Avignon had the best plate armor protection available and it was still inadequate to the English long bow. And the puncture resistance of mail is also debated, So I'm not sure inadequate puncture protection is a major consideration.

It also underestimates how subjective judgements on armor can be. I think that body armor could more likely than not be thought of as a last defense, a stop gap measure. I'd bet even money that if you asked a legionnaire which he'd rather do without, the lorica or the shield he'd be just as likely to keep the shield and ditch the armor. Medieval pikemen and the macedonian sarissa weilders often had no armor at all. The distance provided by the spear was their armor.

I'm not sure that a well-trained spearman with a shield and no armor wasn't safer than a raw recruit with the very best armor. Put a general behind a bodyguard, and all considerations like those might disappear, but even then officer's got overrun and the leather armor would work fairly well, if not perfect, if he was in a pinch. Until then, aesthetic concerns of rank and status outweighs concerns of protection, but that doesn't mean they were worthless.

Two things make me think so.

1.) We see these not only on emperors, but on officers as well. I can't believe the officers would have totally worthless armor. It may not have been the best, but it must have had some utility, otherwise the armor wouldn't be such a big part of the iconography.

2.) The development of the musculata. When we see the earliest musculata, they look almost exactly like the linothorax. Only later do they take on the muscled form. If you've been reading the padded armor thread, then you know that I think that the subarmalis was essentially a linothorax with attached pteruges. In fact, when we see the musculata in trophies, or thrown over tree stumps, the pteruges are always there, suggesting that the subarmalis (if we assume that the pteruges were attached to it) was considered such a contingent part of the cuirass it couldn't be excluded. Now if the subarmalis was as effective as a linothorax, then any addition to that, would only be a plus.

Travis

[tlclark]

The same arrogance and feeling of invincibility is just as prevalent throughout history, especially among the upper classes, i.e. the officer classes. Look at depictions and photographs of American Civil War officers, and the real dandy can be seen.

I agree. Image is VERY important.

These images are great because it shows ornamentalism comes in a variety of flavors, Custer was the golden boy fop, but Sherman was the grizzled veteran. Custer WAS as big an arrogant fop as ever existed. Sherman however, he WAS invincible, a true 'magnificent bastard' as Patton would have said.

Come to think of it, Patton and MacArthur are also great military primadonnas. Bu that doesn't mean they weren't incredible generals. These guys WERE American Caesars and their 'schtick' or 'act' was very important to their ability to lead.

Great post.

Travis

[Magnus]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here...but more on a physiological note. When I see the bottom lip of what we know to be the shape of a muscled cuirass, I can't help but think of Fight Club, starring Brad Pitt and Ed Norton. Brad Pitt is in amazing shape...and his torso is a perfect example of what a musculata is based on:

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Fight-Clu ... 52908_.htm

And

http://www.uncut.at/filme/fight-club/b07.jpg

Now, this is NOT the best shot of the point i'm trying to illustrate here. In fact, if you have this movie on DVD...look for the scene were brad and ed are in the fancy store, selling soap. It's more of a frontal shot of brad pitt with his low riding pants. There may also be a frontal shot of him showing this cut of his ab muscles and his hip line later in the film, when Ed Norton walks in on him and Helena Bonham Carter's character having sex.

My point then, is that the musculata directly reflects human anatomy. Artists in charge of producing sculptures of emperors and such would not show them being 40 lbs overweight. They would show them with the perfect human anatomy, and that includes incredible muscle definition.

Given how the human body looks when it's in shape (not that most of us aren't in shape...but c'mon, we're no brad pitts!), how can you determine that these statues are in fact wearing armour, as opposed to having been rendered in the form of the perfect human body?

Or am I just missing something?

Given the rest of your argument Travis, it's certainly plausible...maybe some less well-off tribunes couldn't afforde musculata in metal. I dunno...i know myself I'd certainly want it in metal...more of a status statement if you ask me.

[tlclark]

Matt,

Thanks for the post!

Well I now feel I know Brad Pitt as well as Angelina!

Given how the human body looks when it's in shape (not that most of us aren't in shape...but c'mon, we're no brad pitts!), how can you determine that these statues are in fact wearing armour, as opposed to having been rendered in the form of the perfect human body?

Or am I just missing something?

Short answer. We can't. For example check this out.

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... udiusa.jpg

Chances are the emperor claudius didn't look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is obviously a heroic idealized statue. How can we tell that these aren't meant just to be tight-fitting garments over idealized torsos? We can get at no definitive answer to that.

In fact your theory was the prevailing theory regarding these images and I think that was Robinson's position as well. The idea was that these were meant to represent tight-fitting armor made of linen, or even possibly mail! and the details would have been painted on.

When looking at the Antonine Pius above, it's entirely possible that that is what we are seeing. The cuirass seems utterly insubstantial, but in the Bergama statue, the cuirass has a muscled form though it is only semi-rigid. This image, and a few others, suggest that in fact they were NOT meant to be seen as tight-fitting garments but as musculata. Also, when we see the musculata in trophies or by itself, it has the muscled shape, so the evidence is that case is unambiguous. In general, I think if you weigh all the evidence, these are meant to be musculata and not tight-fitting garments over idealized torsos. That doesn't seem to be the case in the Bergama statue, but we can never know for sure that they meant that in all cases.

The musculata is a class, and every one is different. It's entirely possible that there were rigid, semi-rigid, and completely flexible musculatae. What I am presenting is my best reading of the evidence, and I don't think we are seeing tight-fitting garments, but I can't exclude that possibility.

Given the rest of your argument Travis, it's certainly plausible...maybe some less well-off tribunes couldn't afforde musculata in metal. I dunno...i know myself I'd certainly want it in metal...more of a status statement if you ask me.

Yeah, that makes total sense to me and I would agree that that would be more logical, but we have these flexible things next to emperors, and they get to choose how they are shown. That suggests that they liked this armor, and what it said about them.

Travis