+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) (/showthread.php?tid=4789)
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Theodosius the Great - 02-26-2006
Quote:What does longevity have to do with it? Where did it say an officer had to buy equipment that would last all of his life?
I think someone mentioned earlier about passing the armor down to the next generation. I doubt there would be much left to pass on :roll:
Quote:If a tribune, he was probably only going to be in the army for a few years anyway.
True, if you lived during the long but ocassionally interupted period of peace. If you're one of Caesar's or Trajan's soldiers, that's another story :wink:
Quote:Why spend all that money on something he may be glad to see the back of in a few years?
Glory, prestige, etc... I still see WWII vets with their uniforms.
Quote:On the other hand, he may just have worn a replacement.
I just doubt it would survive one or two battles, much less one campaign. And there were many under Domitian and Trajan which is a combined period of some 40 years or so.
Quote:That's subjective. Perhaps the boys in the ranks thought it gave the officer a veteran's look?
Perhaps. But, to me, I think it would look unrecognizable :?
Quote:we still cannot make a reconstruction of it. So where's the point?
Make all the restorations of every possible type for the time, and I bet you it won't take as much damage as metal armor can. Any kind of leather body armor is inviable in the long run and in the short, IMO.
But I'll accept that it was worn for parade purposes.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Tarbicus - 02-26-2006
Quote:Make all the restorations of every possible type for the time, and I bet you it won't take as much damage as metal armor can. Leather is inviable in the long run and in the short, IMO.Fair enough. I think this whole thing is going in circles to be honest :roll: It's obvious where I stand but admit I may be very wrong. I just find Travis' arguments very compelling. :wink:
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Theodosius the Great - 02-26-2006
Quote:Fair enough. I think this whole thing is going in circles to be honest
I know, I'm just trying a different approach by thinking this out to its logical conclusion. Even segs died out probably because they were difficult to maintain. I just thought the same was true for leather (but more so) and that's why it disappears from the statuary (which later just seems to be purely artistic as Travis says)
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - tlclark - 02-26-2006
Quote:Hmm. Lets's suppose there WAS leather armour. But if we have no surviving original, we do not know how it was constructed, what kind of leather it was, how the leather was processed, and we still cannot make a reconstruction of it. So where's the point?
lol: :lol: :lol: Well...yeah, but what else are we going to do? This is fun, it's rife speculation, but it has a certain entertainment value.
Travis
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Dan Howard - 03-09-2006
I'm not sure I should be reviving this but I found Williams' cuir-bouilli data.
One sample of 5mm cuirbouilli required 90 J to penetrate with a blade and 30 J with a spear/lance. Another required 50 J to penetrate with a blade and only 20 J to pierce with a spear/lance.
Compare with the amount of energy for a blade to penetrate layered linen
100 J - 5th layer
120 J - 9th
140 J - 16th
160 J - 23rd
180 J - 26th
According to this, a pissy 5 layers of linen is superior to 5mm of hardened leather.
Compare the above with 1.9mm "Swedish" wrought iron (low quality munitions plate). The same blade required more than 190J to penetrate and the spear/lance required more than 100 J.
Source: Alan Williams The Knight and the Blast Furnace pp.943-44
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - tlclark - 03-09-2006
Quote:I'm not sure I should be reviving this but I found Williams' cuir-bouilli data.
Well, I'm going to try and be as diplomatic as possible, since my usual flippancy tends to get me in trouble. So let me just say that none of this is personal and that we probably will never agree, but I think your last point pretty much gives the game away and supports my point exactly.
Let me explain.
Quote:One sample of 5mm cuirbouilli required 90 J to penetrate with a blade and 30 J with a spear/lance. Another required 50 J to penetrate with a blade and only 20 J to pierce with a spear/lance.
Ok, assuming J is joules, that's still a considerable amount of energy. So we can agree that definitively that leather DOES provide additional protection, correct?
Well that's all I've ever said. I've never said it was superior to plate, I've never said it was the BEST armor, only that it did provide some protection and must have been reasonable serviceable given its association with the emperor. I've also suggested that by the Antonine period it may have been largely ceremonial, but I hold that it might have had some functionality.
Now let's get to your comparison with linen.
Quote:Compare with the amount of energy for a blade to penetrate layered linen
100 J - 5th layer
120 J - 9th
140 J - 16th
160 J - 23rd
180 J - 26th
According to this, a pissy 5 layers of linen is superior to 5mm of hardened leather.
So leather is not as good as linen, right? Fine. Let's admit that. Now my next question.
So what? As long the leather provides some protection, my point is made. Any other judgements comparing two materials in this case linen and leather is irrelevant. It imposes a modern contemporary and ARBITRARY standard on leather that is meaningless.
It doesn't take into account the motivations of the Romans or the evidence.
Let me state my case explicitly.
I have this statue, and a whole of other evidence to suggest that leather was used.
If we didn't have this evidence, the only thing we would have to go on is experimental archaeology like the tests you cite above. In such a case, we might be on even-footing, as it is, we are not. Why? Because I have representational evidence. Your response to that evidence?
You basically dismiss it and ignore it. Why? leather isn't as good as linen. Case closed. Why? Because you say so, that's why.
This is the very definition of arbitrary. We have no idea is this same consideration was in effect in Roman times, and there are many reasons to suspect it was not.
I am tired of knocking down strawmen too. I never suggested that leather was the "best" only that it was obviously "good enough" by the standards of the day.
You disagree based on ONE criteria and one criteria ONLY. That is arbitrary. There is far more to consider, I have offered many, you have ignored all of them.
There are many reasons that leather, despite its lower performance than linen might be preferable to linen and used in the Roman world.
1.) It can be molded into snazzy muscled shapes, unlike linen
2.) It was strong enough given the context that officers were not likely to be on the frontlines.
3.) It could have been layered, in fact we know it WAS layered with a subarmalis.
4.) From the artwork we know it was always seen with a subarmalis. What added protection the subarmalis offered is debatable but assume it is low, only about 50 j. That would mean that a leather cuirass/subarmalis combination would have a protective value HIGHER than that of a mere "pissy" 5 layers of linen. If the subarmalis was better that 50 j, then the cuirass is, as my father used to say, all gravy.
4.) The musculata has a high pedigree that may outweigh more practical concerns.
Now it's obvious that that one standard is so important to you, that you are willing to reject any other argument.
That's certainly your right, but it does make any further discussions rather tedious.
On a different note, thanks for the info about the iron linothorax from the Vergina finds.
Travis
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Dan Howard - 03-09-2006
I've never dismissed it. I have repeatedly agreed that leather/hide was used as armour in many time periods and in many cultures. I have also said that every extant example of leather armour uses leather that is not flexible. Modern experimental data supports the case that flexible leather provides little protection against the most common weapons on a battlefield. I conclude from this that if flexible leather is evident either in an illustration or an extant piece of costume then it cannot have been intended as "armour" - i.e. expected to resist the most likely threat on the battlefield. I have no problem with Romans wearing flexible leather for a purpose other than what I would define as "armour".
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Tarbicus - 03-09-2006
D ![[Image: frustration2_1.jpg]](http://purgatopia.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/frustration2_1.jpg)
![[Image: frustrated.jpg]](http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/nvgrfx/frustrated.jpg)
:lol: :lol:
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Dan Howard - 03-09-2006
You're a funny guy. I like you. I'll kill you last.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Tarbicus - 03-09-2006
![[Image: scared%20monkey.jpg]](http://www.20minutestolessstress.com/scared%20monkey.jpg)
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Graham Sumner - 03-09-2006
Quote:Modern experimental data supports the case that flexible leather provides little protection against the most common weapons on a battlefield.
This might be a daft question or one which has has been answered elsewhere, in which case apologies but have any of these modern experiments incorporated the additional defensive qualities of the Roman soldiers sword and shield
there were some archery tests against reconstructed plate and mail armour described in an article in Military Illustrated magazine 74, July 1994, carried out by Duncan Massey at Manchester University. Almost as an afterthought the arrows were tested against a shield with a leather cover which proved surprisingly effective, none of the arrows passing through to a depth that would have proved fatal.
In which case isn't the argument for or against the protective qualities of leather armour of any type somewhat redundant.
Graham.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Dan Howard - 03-09-2006
I wouldn't disagree that a large shield is a soldier's best defense against attack. However, if the shield was so good, there would be no need for armour at all. The fact that armour was worn in conjunction with a large shield suggests that the shield by itself isn't enough. If a shield was capable of preventing attacks from reaching the soldier then there isn't a "layering" effect going on. The armour was intended to stop attacks that found their way around the shield, not through. If this is the case then the armour must be expected to stop a full force attack, not one that was reduced by passing through a shield first.
Leather armour - Graham Sumner - 03-09-2006
Quote:The armour was intended to stop attacks that found their way around the shield, not through.
Exactly my point Dan, have any of the tests you refer to taken that into consideration?
Graham.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Dan Howard - 03-10-2006
Not to my knowledge. Would be an interesting experiment. It certainly would affect melee strikes if a soldier was forced to attack around a shield - probably reducing the amount of energy he could deliver. However I don't see how it would affect missile attacks. Either the arrow/javelin would be stopped by the shield or it would strike the bearer with full force. In the latter case, existing experimental data would be relevant. In the former, there is no need for armour at all.
Re: Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!) - Tarbicus - 03-10-2006
Aside from in siege warfare and fighting other Romans, how much did missiles factor in their use against a legion in battle, for which the scutum is the main defence, as a proportion, versus close combat against handheld weapons?
And this is only something that occurred to me: One advantage of leather over metal armour would be agility. An officer in leather would be better able to command directly by running up and down the line giving orders over a long period of time, unlike the metal clad rankers whose main purpose was to hold their ground and push forward, with spurts of speed under certain circumstances. Just as velites wore only skins because they needed to be agile and (apparently) be easily identifiable, but a tribune would need more protection as he would get in the fray at times with a more formally organised unit.