Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but

[AuxArcher]

(soldiers like to stay comfortable, and that I bet has never changed)

I'd bet otherwise. How would you feel wearing these?:
http://www.scottishweb.net/family_tree/ ... ldierW.jpg
http://www.vikingsword.com/laking/lak031a.jpg

You should define what a Roman would think of as comfortable.

As for the purpose of armour being to make a man feel protected even when not, surely the start of the first fight would see that confidence evaporate in an instant.

No, human nature is human nature. That hasn't shifted radically from 2000 years ago to today. Have you been a solider, and not just a reenactor? If so, you know the deal, paticularly combat MOSs.

If not, trust me, you only put on your flak vest when you need it, you wear your steel pot when you need it, and when you don't, you secure the damn things.

And what did the Romans consider comfy? We know they had very comfortable clothing, yes? We have some idea of what the armor feels like. Can't hardly go back in time and ask a common soldier or butcher or senator, of course. And I bet you good money that no modern reeanctor is in a fraction of the condition a Roman soldier was in and what he could really endure.

I think you misunderstood what I mean. I never said armor was worn that didn't protect, I said that a soldier who overestimated what his armor could really do would possibly not be a happy soldier. That is true of any equipment used in battle, all through history.