Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Tarbicus]

A 12th century account by Gerald of Wales: "...in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuises, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. (Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191))"

I will concede that there may have been an error in translation, and the 'arrow' may be a 'javelin'. However, it would still seem that plate was penetrable, even backed by mail and subarmalis. Also, I understand that not all bodkin arrowheads were made of iron, and some at least were made of steel.

[url:3mfgq8j1]http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t4481.html[/url]

[url:3mfgq8j1]http://www.bickerstaffebows.co.uk/european_tour.htm[/url]

Bear this in mind as well: "While I'm here I'll take the opportunity to remind you all that bodkin arrows spun in the air so as to 'drill' through knights' armor (just like a screwdriver!!)."

One thing I notice is that the debate is still hot about the longbow's effectiveness, and the tests showing French plate to be impenetrable are certainly debatable.

Just to get back on topic, I still feel that the floppy armour is just that, not a subarmalis, and therefore could well have been used in battle, and because it has sculpted features they are leather, albeit not common. It's only my opinion, and I admit I may be wrong, but I've seen it with my own eyes and have come to my own conclusions, and it will take an amount of proof to convince me otherwise. The only arguments against it are learned and logical, but then I look at the photos and they show exactly what Travis says; floppy musculata.