02-22-2006, 01:08 AM
Quote:I often invoke the "Hamblin" rule. Hamblin is a military historian from BYU and my undergraduate professor.
Once he was telling the class about West African armor, which is amazing. One student objected that it would be too hot to use, to which Hamblin replied, "Well one way you're hot, and the other way you're dead" A lot of the judgements about armor today are arbitrary. In reality, you can only judge it against the next best alternative of the circumstances.
Under that standard, leather works fine. It doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to work well enough.
I don't quite follow the "rule". Dan has presented evidence that leather is not perfect, but quite inferior to linen, which was also widely available at the time. So it is not a case of "leather or nothing". The sculptural evidence needs explaining, but the practical arguement is separate.
It is possible that generals and emperors in Rome were sculpted wearing something that no one stationed in the frontier limes would have ever thought of as being armour.
In a mirror image situation, kings and generals in early modern Europe were routinely shown wearing magnificent suits of armour into the 18th century, some time after armour ceased to be worn by anyone on a battlefield. The armour was useless in combat, but expected as "heroic millitary" dress.
Felix Wang
