Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[tlclark]

I think we are missing the point here. It is skin and leather we are discussing.

my bad, I brought it up and I deeply regret it. My apologies. It was a bad analogy and I defer to those that have more knowledge on this matter, though it doesn't detract from my original points.

If I understood correctly most people think that hardened leather is offering protection while unhardened not so much and the folded leather "armor" is probably subarmalis.
Kind regards

I could accept that with the Antoninus Pius statue. The presence of the Corinthian helmet gives us a clue that this is a heroic representation, not a factual one. However, the Bergama cuirass has all the features of a musculata, including the shoulder harnesses and muscled form, but it is obviously semi-rigid. Firm enough to hold a shape (so not quite hardened) but not as flexible as a leather garment.

The sidetrack about plate and the penetrating qualities of arrows was introduced by me (my apologies!) to demonstrate that failure of one type did not necessarily negate the armor from use, which I believe is Dan's position, that anything that flexible was inserviceable as armor and must be ceremonial. However, I believe that any arguments about it's utility (especially when we don't have a sample on hand and we don't know the environment or conditions of use) is arbitrary and only reflects contemporary concerns. Any utility might be enough to justify its use in combats.

Then there are the social implications. If most musculata are plate, and they are infinitely superior, why are leather cuirasses being singled out for representation with the emperor? There are only two conclusions. Either the social status of the object outweighs any issues of its practicality, or it was not nearly as inserviceable as we might think. I think the answer is likely to be a combination of both.

Travis