Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Tarbicus]

I think that the aesthetic possibilities of leather are part of the trade-off. Looking important is certainly as important to the officer class as being well armored.

I agree with Travis on that one, given "status" and prestige was all important to a Roman. It is supposed that officers of patrician class generally didn't mix it up too much in actual combat either (although Ross Cowan and Kate Gilliver may correct me on that) compared to the common soldier. However, when they did get stuck in, who were they generally up against? From what I can tell of most barbarians, effective armour tended to be for the high status nobility and wealthy members of a tribe or kingdom. Therefore, a Roman wearing a leather cuirass would be at an advantage anyway, unless against one of his own comparable class, so there is a logic to its use.

But, we do have physical finds of metal cuirasses from antiquity, and none of leather, which makes me, at least, lean towards them mostly being made of metal. The Bergama floppy armour is definitely an exception in the evidence, unfortunately sculptural. It's very hard to tell from the photo, but it looks to me to be made of something different than the usual sculptures (creases, etc). Perhaps it was simply a unique set made for that particular general, and that's one of the reasons it's portrayed as such. It could be a part of his unique identity.

And, as Dan points out, the greatest threat was from missiles. But then again, shields were available to protect against those.

Who knows? But if I were to buy a cuirass, it'd be metal.

So far.