Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[tlclark]

Provided the officer who wore it expected to actually get into a tussle with the barbarians, who often carried lesser protection than him anyway. Was his intention to be a practical walking armoured car, or to look spiffy and cool?

Exactly. Never underestimate the power of "spiffyness"!

I believe metal was the norm, but there are clearly bendy examples of musculata in sculpture, albeit scarce.

Only if you look on a period by period basis. By the Antonine period, they are in fact quite common. Again, the musculata is a class, not a type. No two are alike, so there are undoubtedly parallel traditions that are always cross-pollinating. Saying which is more common is VERY difficult.

Why would they be portrayed as such? It surely can't be a fiction of the sculptor, and to sculpt a leading figure with his subarmalis and not the full-on armour just makes no sense. It would be like portraying him in his underpants IMHO.

:lol: I agree.

The flexible form was obviously respectable enough to be used with THE EMPEROR HIMSELF. I can't imagine the emperor would have himself depicted with something that screams "poser who never gets near a real fight" but I could be wrong. I think therefore we have to consider the flexible cuirasses as respectable, if possibly largely ceremonial, examples of armor.

Also, I would be very surprised to see someone able to construct a linen musculata, with all of the anatomical features.

I agree, but we should certainly try though, just to make sure. A molded linen cuirass would be a fascinating experiment.

I suspect now that leather musculata existed, but were not the norm.

Hmmm. It depends. Julio-Claudian period, I think I would agree. but I think I could only agree with that with some qualifiers. I think that both traditions exist from the beginning. By the Antonine period, the flexible form is probably the norm, and then quickly thereafter it is reinforced with scales.

Thanks Tarbicus, great posts as always.

Travis