Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[caiusbeerquitius]

a subarmalis OR a purely ceremonial leather musculata

OR a linen cuirass.

[Crispvs]

I would have thought that a linen cuirass would need to be very stiff and so would not drape like that.

Crispvs

[Theodosius the Great]

Is this better Theo?

Hi. Thanks, hoplite14gr.

I don't get it though, the photo shows lamellar armor :? I remember asking for a photo of the Basil fresco but that was in the Greek section. Did you post on the wrong thread ?

OR a linen cuirass.

Oh yeah. Thank you, Saturinus. That's a real possibility. Too bad most photos don't have the resolution to see more detail. Some statues do seem to indicate that pteruges are constructed from fabric, at least partially.

I would have thought that a linen cuirass would need to be very stiff and so would not drape like that.

Good point. OTOH, this particular subarmalis was probably meant to be worn under a bronze musculata. Maybe it would be excessive to wear a stiffly padded subarmalis underneath, not to mention very uncomfortable.
Just a guess, of course.

~Theo

[Crispvs]

I have always thought that a cuirass was the outer armour and that a subarmalis was the padding worn underneath. As far as I known the two words are not interchangable. I agree that the item shown in the photograph appears to be a subarmalis (although why they would depict the padding and not the armour itself is beyond me).

Crispvs

[tlclark]

I have always thought that a cuirass was the outer armour and that a subarmalis was the padding worn underneath. As far as I known the two words are not interchangable. I agree that the item shown in the photograph appears to be a subarmalis (although why they would depict the padding and not the armour itself is beyond me).

Crispvs

The only logical answer is that it IS the armor.

Been following this for a while now...ok...been goofing off reading this thread when I should have been writing the dissertation.

Here are my thoughts.

The evidence for leather armor (of many varieties) is indisputable from physical evidence to literary sources. Graham is right. People reading the inviability of leather armor when wet are committing the same fallacy that was committed when they read Vitruvius, who said that all temples to Fortuna were round, and began slapping labels to fortuna on EVERY round temple. Such an interpretation is not warranted. Just because it was not serviceable when wet doesn't preclude it. Only that it functioned only in certain contexts or required waterproofing. (What doesnt?!)

The presence of leather musculata is also nearly indisputable given that no other material could conform to the sculptural imagery. It has to be flexible enough to bend, but rigid enough to hold the muscled shape. In terms of rigidity we have everything from the flaccid example above to absolutely rigid images, (which some dispute are leather but are bronze but that would also apply to all pteruges which in some cases are molded and clearly leather as well) and everything in between.

The only questions are then:

Were these servicable pieces of armor or purely ceremonial, and the answer is probably yes, given the context of each piece. In other words, as I've said, the musculata is a class, not a type and we just can't pigeonhole it. It might be entirely appropriate to go down the row of loricatae and say "Bronze, leather, bronze, bronze, leather, leather, leather" or "functional, ceremonial, functional, fantasy, ceremonial" purely on the internal evidence of each artistic piece, rather than inanely trying to assert some strict universal rule for a piece of gear that obeyed no universal rules in any other detail.

This does not argue in favor of all musculata being exclusively leather at all, but it certainly puts flight to the idea that it was simply "unexceptable" based on a dogmatic reading of a few sparse literary sources.

Any armor (no matter how limp) shown in the presence of an emperor God or whatever, must have had enough cache to warrant its inclusion as an emblem, though it might have been just that.

(A wrinkle we need to explore here is theatrical costume and it's impact on art. Theatrical costume has a huge impact on Greek vases and paintings, even ones with historical themes. Clearly something might be similar here.)

In other words, it's all a big muddled mess as regards the idea of how leather armor worked, how it was made and what leather armor may have MEANT in art (and I am an art historian so that's my biggest beef here) but I think it's just ridiculous to be arguing over whether it existed.

Of course it existed. The question is when and where and in what specialized contexts.

[Felix]

I am afraid that I am confused.

"It has to be flexible enough to bend, but rigid enough to hold the muscled shape. In terms of rigidity we have everything from the flaccid example above to absolutely rigid images, (which some dispute are leather but are bronze but that would also apply to all pteruges which in some cases are molded and clearly leather as well) and everything in between. "

It seems to me that there is a contradiction here. Any material which holds a shape is unlikely to be absolutely flaccid - and some of the sculptural examples cited here are pretty darn close to absolutely flaccid, bending 90 degrees over a distance of less than an inch (or so, since I don't have a scale for the figures).

Is something that is as foldable as a sheet of canvas going to maintain a "muscular" shape? Or are we dealing with else, strong enough for pteruges to hang from, but otherwise insubstantial?

Any leather thin enough to drape like some of the sculptural examples shown has no defensive value. It is as much "armour" as a pith helmet was to the British army, or a pickelhaube to the Kaiser's troops.

The only form of effective armour that is totally flaccid (that I can think of) is mail.

[Dan Howard]

Thanks Felix. That has been my point the whole time. There is no way that this stuff can be defined as "armour" in any sense of the word.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Thanks Felix. That has been my point the whole time. There is no way that this stuff can be defined as "armour" in any sense of the word.

In your definition of armour, you might want to add that Dan.

[Dan Diffendale]

It is as much "armour" as a pith helmet was to the British army, or a pickelhaube to the Kaiser's troops.

There is no way that this stuff can be defined as "armour" in any sense of the word.

Maybe low on the defensive-properties totem pole, but still -- worn by a soldier in combat, for protection of one sort or another; we can't exclude the psychological, because if the soldier believes it's doing something, then that's enough reason for him to be wearing it.

[Felix]

The pickelhaube was not valued for its defensive value, as far as I can tell. The US army went through a phase of using this kind of headgear in the 1870's as a parade uniform; before this the kepi was standard wear (i.e. in the Civil War). Later, broadbrim felt hats were worn. This was all a matter of fashion - France was considered the leading European army in the mid-century, then it was beaten by the Prussians; and suddenly Prussian style headgear became the rage.

When it was decided real protection was needed in WWI, armies adopted real (steel) helmets.

[Kai]

Though clearly OT, I have to add that the Pickelhaube was a protective item designed as combat helmet. The Pickel was to deflect blows and the earlier versions of this helmet (1842/1860) had a high dome therefore as well, which was later abandoned (1867/1871) for reasons of fashion and experience with shrapnel alike, since it was also designed to protect the head against such shrapel. For most branches of service, it was entirely made of leather while only the Pickel itself and it’s mount was metal.

(cf. Rascher: Die preußischen Infanteriehelme, in: Archiv für Waffen und Uniformkunde 1 (1918) [later: Deutsches Armee-Archiv])

sorry for off topic content...

[Felix]

Kai,

Thank you for the comment. As far as I know, the Americans did not consider the protective value of the pickelhaube when they adopted it, nor when they stopped wearing it; and it was a formal parade uniform item. Men did not wear it when marching out into combat with the Plains Indians.

Pith helmets were, of course, made of pith, or later cork; neither of which has significant defensive value against the weapons of the day.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pith-helmet?cat=technology

[Graham Sumner]

Maybe low on the defensive-properties totem pole, but still -- worn by a soldier in combat, for protection of one sort or another; we can't exclude the psychological, because if the soldier believes it's doing something, then that's enough reason for him to be wearing it.

I would agree with this. We always seem to assume that all Roman soldiers must have had the best quality protection available. Practicality and common sense have rarely featured in the design of past military uniforms and we just do not seem to like the idea that the Roman army could have been the victims of fashion, penny pinching and stupidity as any other army in history. Why when Britain is one of the richest nations on earth are it's soldiers today crying out for body armour and having to resort to buying it privately. For all we know when a Roman soldier enlisted he was issued with a leather cuirass which the sensible soldier would replace as soon as possible with a metal one out of his own pocket. Many others might have thought that a leather one was far superior to what the average Barbarian wore i.e nothing and therefore would rather spend his cash in the local tavern.
Graham.

[tlclark]

I am afraid that I am confused.

"It has to be flexible enough to bend, but rigid enough to hold the muscled shape. In terms of rigidity we have everything from the flaccid example above to absolutely rigid images, (which some dispute are leather but are bronze but that would also apply to all pteruges which in some cases are molded and clearly leather as well) and everything in between. "

It seems to me that there is a contradiction here. Any material which holds a shape is unlikely to be absolutely flaccid - and some of the sculptural examples cited here are pretty darn close to absolutely flaccid, bending 90 degrees over a distance of less than an inch (or so, since I don't have a scale for the figures).

There is no contradiction at all. Not in all but in many of the sculptural examples you can clearly see the evidence of a muscled shape. Even some that are completely supple and draped in halves have lines delineating muscles. The artist is clearly attempting to represent the musculata. Some many be subarmalis but then we are back to the "Why is the emperor showing himself in his underwear?" problems again.

Is something that is as foldable as a sheet of canvas going to maintain a "muscular" shape? Or are we dealing with else, strong enough for pteruges to hang from, but otherwise insubstantial?

Again, both, depending on the individual example. I am arguing against generalities which are being abundantly thrown about.

Any leather thin enough to drape like some of the sculptural examples shown has no defensive value.

Put on a leather glove, then put it against a belt sander. Now try the same experiment with your bare hand. I think you will find a difference. Punctures are different of course, and of more primary concern, but they are not the only concern. The most immediate concern is reliable durable gear. Leather fits that category, otherwise braccae would not have been used. We can argue about comparative worth, but we can't argue about possible use, especially when leather has been a vital component of human dress since we started wearing clothes.

It is as much "armour" as a pith helmet was to the British army, or a pickelhaube to the Kaiser's troops.

or a gorget, or bowman's glove, or any number of things which have always traditionally been thought of as armor, whether formal, ceremonial, parade or otherwise, no mater how well they resist an arrow from 50 paces. Modern semantics however have no bearing on evidence.

Under this standard we could invent any stress test and disallow any armor we choosed. I honestly don't care what modern standard you want to apply. What I care about is what the evidence shows. It shows rigid, semi-rigid, flexible and utterly supple materials with embossed features. Leather is the most likely candidate for at least the latter three out of four of those categories and perhaps the first as well.

It might well have been the crappiest armor in the history of mankind. So what? What we should do is look at the evidence and argue what is most likely based on the evidence, acknowledging full well the limitations of sculpture, but in the end, evidence should come BEFORE conclusions.

Your method is exactly the reverse. Leather armor is crappy, therefore, the Romans did not use leather armor.

Ok, how do explain the evidence? You can't, so then we get to semantical dodges. "Oh well that isn't REAL armor"

Please tell me why I should accept your opinion of what "REAL" armor is over the evidence of roman sculpture.

[Crispvs]

All good points Travis, which is why, for the record, I have been converted in my opinion of the existence of leather cuirasses by your illustrations and arguments over the past couple of years.

However:

"Leather fits that category, otherwise braccae would not have been used."

Exactly what is the evidence to show that femenalia were made from leather, as is commonly claimed? Why would wool not be more likely?

Sorry if this question is somewhat OT.

Crispvs