Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Tarbicus]

So long as it is stipluated that they have no practical function other than to look pretty - ceremonial costumes similar to the "faux brigandine" in Asian courts mentioned earlier by Felix.

Only if you went through Roman patrician rearing and education, and think like a Roman aristo, can you make such a demand. Who knows what they were thinking, and who knows what their priorities were? Since when did shiny armour and noisy jingling belts make any sense, especially if you want to surprise the enemy. The Romans don't seem to have cared by and large. Virtus, status, and looking like you're made of the right stuff; fearless.

Why should a well bred Roman aristocrat give a stuff about what armour he wore if he wanted to look good and feel comfortable? "Who are these savage, filthy barbarians that they think they could possibly harm me? Besides, their swords bend after one strike on a fine Roman scutum and they have to take pause to straighten them!" It's the same attitude that had them visibly auctioning their lands about Rome while Hannibal watched at the gates.

The same arrogance and feeling of invincibility is just as prevalent throughout history, especially among the upper classes, i.e. the officer classes. Look at depictions and photographs of American Civil War officers, and the real dandy can be seen.


Conjectural I know, but I feel image over personal practicality is an officer trait seen throughout history, and the idea of impractical leather armour has a basis for plausibility: Vanity. Besides, they weren't actually in battle that often, so the risks were quite low.