Login

11-29-2004, 05:18 PM

Greetings, 
 
I saw the movie "Alexander" this weekend and apart from the soap-opera type feel of the picture, I thought the battle scenes were stunning. But it brought to my mind an age old debate concerning the use of leather armor in antiquity. Bear with me if I seem to ramble. 
 
It is an accepted premise that leather armor was not used to any extent in the Roman Army since it would not have been proof against the weapons of the day. This I believe to be true. However, would linen armor have been proof against the weapons of the day? I will grant you that I have no experience whatever with linen, layered and glued together, but it seems to me that any good spear would easily penetrate such a defense. Still, we know the Greeks used such armor. Is it a better defense than leather? 
 
I also know that regular, supple leather would be easily penetrated by a spear or sword, but that rawhide would be more problematic. I'm not suggesting that current thinking on the subject is incorrect, I just got to thinking that if linen was used (as it was), why wasn't leather? 
Quote:<hr>Vis Superavi Ignarum<hr> 
Vis Superavi Ignarum!

Aluscladiusmaximus · 11-29-2004, 06:16 PM

I have heard of similar Elizabethan Linen armor stopping a pistol ball. An example was found with a pistol ball embedded in it) 
I would imagine that the Greeks wouldn't have used it if it didn't work. 
I think it is accepted that the Romans didn't use leather armor as one Roman writer critised another people for using it. The main problem with leather armor as I see it is that it gets soft in wet weather. So its ok for the middle east ( there is a suit of Crocodile skin armor from Egypt in the British Museum) but not good for the western empire. 
 
Aulus Cladius Maximus

Carlton Bach · 11-29-2004, 09:07 PM

Are we actually sure the linothorax consisted of linen only? I've seen a couple reconstructions that included metal scales worked into them brigandine-fashion. 
 
As to leather being 'proof' - I've done some leatherwork and I can tell you, good cured leather (pigback or cowhide) is as proof as anything this side of metal and will certainly protect against secondary injury. The problem is, the Roman armour style that is usually reconstructed as being made of leather (your Lindenschmidt-Hollywood cuirass) can't be made out of leather that is anywhere stiff enough unless you're prepared to pretty much give up bending at the waist or lifting your arms. There are two possibilities: either there was a leather thorax, but it was shaped like a Greek bell cuirass and the statues get it wrong, or there was none and the statues actually represent mail. 
 
If the Romans used leather armour (I know of no evidence, but perversely, neither rawhide nor 'buff' leather will survive even in anaerobic conditions unless it is exposed to natural tannin), it was likely scale or lamellar in construction. I keep hearing of leather segmentatas, but so far only from people who don't know anything of Roman armour (has anyone here got evidence that way?) 
 
What about Republican armies? Is there any evidence for linothorax armour there? There was considerable Greek influence in the 4th century BC IIRC.

Daniel S Peterson · 11-30-2004, 12:58 AM

The armor in Alexander was basically good, as far as the linen cuirases and fibreglass replicas of bronze helmets, greaves and breastplates. The gold trimmed iron cuirass from the Vergina tomb (believed to be Phillip's) was particular pleasing. All in all, this movie exhibits a more through attempt at authentically recreatings the military equipment of the period, than any other ancient movie I know Despite the best intentions of the historical advisors though, things got a bit artsy fartsy with some of the leather armor worn by principle characters, probably at the whim of the director. A likewise disappoint was the absence of the well known Macodonian red war tunics, no doubt because Oliver wanted his troops looking as bloody as possible. 
 
There certainly are examples of Roman leather armor however, lammellar armor of rawhide found in Tower 19 of Dura Europas. There is also a very probable leather ridge helmet from Britain. The many depictions of brownish muscle type cuirasses in later Roman art are most likely made of rawhide, which, if kept dry, is a very light, very strong armor. I have little doubt that it was used more than what is generally supposed today. 
 
The crocodile armor in the Sumner book is a nonsense, however. This was never intended to be a functional armor unless the soldier crawled on his belly like a real crocodile. The only way this "costume" can be worn is with the bony protective plates on the wearer's back, leaving the man's front open and completely vulnerable. No, this wa a cultic costume, desgned to be worn with a crocodile mask probably as a ceremony in some religious cult, for these lingered on until Christianity was made the state religon. Or, it could have been worn to amuse children at Birthday parties as sort if an ancient version of Barney, the purple dinosaur. : 
Dan

**richsc** · 11-30-2004, 01:49 AM

Matt Amt has made a 20+ layer linen cuirass; take a look: 
 
Matt Amt's linothorax/Hoplite pages 
 
While I could not speak to an arrow or ballista bolt, the stuff is incredibly tough and you can't pierce it with a sword. Legio XX 
Caput dolet, pedes fetent, Iesum non amo 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=richsc@romanarmytalk>RichSC</A> at: 11/30/04 2:50 am

**Robert Vermaat** · 11-30-2004, 09:13 AM

Quote:<hr>There is also a very probable leather ridge helmet from Britain. <hr> 
If you are referring to the remains found at Richborough, I have severe doubts as to that reconstruction. No trace of leather was ever found, but because only some parts of the helmet were found it was assumed the bowl itself could have been made of leather. 
But in the absence of a more complete specimen, I consider this explanation to be pure speculation. A more acceptable solution would be assuming only parts of the said ridge helmet found their way into that rubbish pit/shallow grave. The (iron) rest may have been reused. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

11-30-2004, 03:28 PM

This is an excellent exchange of information! I still have a few questions based on my lack of experience with Linen armor. It was stated that leather would restrict the wearer's ability to bend over. Would not the linen cuirass have the same effect? I do agree that if the armor wasn't effective, the soldiers of antiquity would not have used it, so this is merely for my intellectual satisfaction. I find it interesting that linen armor would be at all effective, but apparently it was "proof" against all manner of weapons. Thanks for all the input. Vis Superavi Ignarum!

Carlton Bach · 11-30-2004, 09:36 PM

"It was stated that leather would restrict the wearer's ability to bend over. Would not the linen cuirass have the same effect? " 
 
The issue with the 'Hollywood 1 lorica" is not really the material, it isa the combination of material and design. A properly designed linothorax ends at the waist, dipping a little lower in the front and back, allowing the wearer to bend. The Hollywood leather armour goes down to mid-buttock or even below the groin, which is fine for mail, but would require leather so thin and pliable as to be ineffective as protection against anything this side of pigeon attacks. 
 
You can make a leather cuirass if you keep it short enough, but I wonder of there would have been a point. Would it have been significantly cheaper and/or easier to make than a scale shirt?

12-01-2004, 04:10 PM

The only example of leather armour I know of is a leather cheek piece from a gallic helmet of undisclosed type. It can be seen in Osprey's "Rome's enemies: Gallic and British Celts". 
But I don't know if we can suggest use of leather for body armour from this single find. But leather was certainly used for some types of arming doublets and I suspect that the metallic muscled cuirasses were first faced on the inside with thick hide, then padded. The thick hide facing protruded from under the cuirass in the form of the circular lappets. That is if we are to believe the sculptural evidence that shows these lappets being made of rigid or semi-rigid material, contrary to the pteryges under them, that seem to be made of soft material such as linen.

Aluscladiusmaximus · 12-03-2004, 02:12 PM

Linen armor is made of lots of layers sewn together it is about 1/2 inch thick so isn't flexible or soft, but can be shaped roughly to the body. It is not sculpted like a metal muscle cuirasses 
Aulus Cladius Maximus

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me