Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Dan Howard]

As far as puncture resistance I have to disagree. I have seem many a pair of 'leathers' protect or save people from some nasty impalings by metal tools, many of which would have points or edges as serious as any gladius.

So have I. But this leather was too thick to be the flexible material in your sculptures.

I doubt that an arrow could puncture it

Arrows can puncture it quite easily - even light hunting arrows. It is useless as armour unless it is layered or too thick to provide any flexibility.

but arrows have been known to puncture plate as well. The French Knights at Avignon had the best plate armor protection available and it was still inadequate to the English long bow.

This is a myth best left to another discussion. You are thinking of Agincourt, not Avignon, and the English longbow could not puncture plate armour.

[Comerus Gallus]

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.

I agree. Image is VERY important.

Custer WAS as big an arrogant fop as ever existed. Sherman however, he WAS invincible, a true 'magnificent bastard' as Patton would have said.

Come to think of it, Patton and MacArthur are also great military primadonnas. Bu that doesn't mean they weren't incredible generals. These guys WERE American Caesars and their 'schtick' or 'act' was very important to their ability to lead.

Great post.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

As far as puncture resistance I have to disagree. I have seem many a pair of 'leathers' protect or save people from some nasty impalings by metal tools, many of which would have points or edges as serious as any gladius.

So have I. But this leather was too thick to be the flexible material in your sculptures.

I nipped out to the British Museum and took some snaps of some bits and pieces. Anyway, here's one of a muscled cuirass from either Greece or Italy from the 4th C BC, the Ruvo cuirass.



This being so small I'm sure only a tunic could be worn underneath, even taking into account the difference in stature between moderns and ancients, and provided anyone agrees with that statement, how would this stop an arrow at high velocity? When I say small, it's tiny. No way both tunic and subarmalis would fit, except for a 12 year old.

I doubt that an arrow could puncture it

Arrows can puncture it quite easily - even light hunting arrows. It is useless as armour unless it is layered or too thick to provide any flexibility.

See above.

but arrows have been known to puncture plate as well. The French Knights at Avignon had the best plate armor protection available and it was still inadequate to the English long bow.

This is a myth best left to another discussion. You are thinking of Agincourt, not Avignon, and the English longbow could not puncture plate armour.

From what I know the English longbow could puncture French plate, it couldn't puncture Milanese plate. Hence the French hired Italian mercenary knights to lead the attack. Thankfully for the English they were so undisciplined they swept through and carried on to the English baggage train leaving the French exposed, and the heavily outnumbered English drove the French into a bloodbath. I'm thinking of either Crecy or another battle of that time (the latter I think but I can't remember the name offhand). Was the Milanese plate armour technique known to the ancients?

[Theodosius the Great]

Arrows could puncture plate but only at EXTREME close range, according to a TV doc. about the Long Bow. I doubt there were many archers who had the kind of discipline to stand his ground to get a sure kill shot. hock: :!: Unless there's a line of infantry in front for protection.

Not that I know for sure, but just wanted to mention it.

That's great armor, Tarbicus. If you could catch someone standing next to it in a photo we could get a better sense of the scale. I'm sure it was taylor-made to fit the wearer. Maybe the owner was exceptionally smaller than the average man for his day ?

[Tarbicus]

Arrows could puncture plate but only at EXTREME close range, according to a TV doc. about the Long Bow. I doubt there were many archers who had the kind of discipline to stand his ground to get a sure kill shot. hock: :!:

The English archers had trained from childhood from a very young age, had had to train in archery by law on a regular basis, and were stuck in hostile territory with nowhere to run whatsoever. I doubt they had any choice but to stand their ground as even the locals hated them as much as the enemy army. Where were they gonna go? Also bear in mind that they were adept with other nasty weapons, not just the longbow.

[Dan Howard]

None of the documentaries on TV tested armour that was representative of what was actually worn, nor did they try to emulate battlefield conditions.

Jim, what has the metal cuirass have to do with the protective capabilities of leather? The above pictured cuirass could easily withstand all but the heaviest arrows under battlefield conditions based on sources such as Williams. Read "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" - especially Chapter 9. It is by far the most comprehensive work done on this subject.

[Dan Howard]

English archers routed if they were overrun by cavalry. The Battle of Mauron is one example. It also is one of dozens of examples of French troops surviving the longbow intact (Poitiers is another). Their discipline came in at Mauron because the other flank held ground and provided cover for the routed flank to regroup. Agreed that they had other weapons. When their arrows ran out (usually in the first five minutes) they went into melee with swords, hatchets, mallets etc. It is these weapons that caused the majority of casualties at Agincourt. The arrows upset the cavalry charge and caused confusion in the middle. They didn't punch through plate armour and rarely punched through mail. Keegan's "Face of Battle" is a good account of Agincourt though a little dated today.

[Tarbicus]

None of the documentaries on TV tested armour that was representative of what was actually worn, nor did they try to emulate battlefield conditions.

The TV doc I saw tested Milanese plate hand forged under authentic conditions, using full force, and the bodkin didn't penetrate.

Jim, what has the metal cuirass have to do with the protective capabilities of leather? The above pictured cuirass could easily withstand all but the heaviest arrows under battlefield conditions based on sources such as Williams. Read "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" - especially Chapter 9. It is by far the most comprehensive work done on this subject.

Okay, I'll have to get that, it keeps getting mentioned all over the place. I'll withdraw that for now. But, I suspect in battlefield conditions, having seen it up close, there would be many ways for trauma to get through to the wearer given how tightly it would have fitted. If that cuirass is indicative of an average musculata I personally don't feel it would make much difference if you wore leather or metal :? I think the scutum was the primary defence, and that's were the real importance lies. Everything inbetween just delayed the inevitable, which makes sense of the importance given by the Romans to denying the enemy that layer of protection through the pilum volley.

[Dan Howard]

Milanese plate WAS French plate. The vast majority of French armour was imported from southern Germany and Italy. I agree that blunt trauma would cause problems. I also agree that there are plenty of ways to injure a man armoured in full plate. My contention is that none of these involve actually punching through the plate.

[tlclark]

I just want to remind everyone, I named this board "No Hold Barred for a Reason" so when I get smacked around by Dan it's my own fault! hock:

No honestly, I love these exchanges and I am having a deliriously fun time whacking this back into your court.

As far as puncture resistance I have to disagree. I have seem many a pair of 'leathers' protect or save people from some nasty impalings by metal tools, many of which would have points or edges as serious as any gladius.

So have I. But this leather was too thick to be the flexible material in your sculptures.

I've seen my father's welder's apron fend off some serious disasters and it's certainly more flexible than the semi-rigid musculata in the Bergama example. My personal experience with this convinces me that you are just wrong on this issue, either that or you have seriously thin-skinned cows in Austrailia. :wink:

but arrows have been known to puncture plate as well. The French Knights at Avignon had the best plate armor protection available and it was still inadequate to the English long bow.

This is a myth best left to another discussion. You are thinking of Agincourt, not Avignon, and the English longbow could not puncture plate armour.[/quote]

Good grief! I confused the 'Babylonian captivity' of the papacy with St. Crispin's day! :oops: Much learning hath made me mad!

Thanks for the correction.

As far as it being a 'myth' c'mon, that's a little strong.

This reminds me of the battles over Archimedes devices at the battle of Syracuse. Some say they are utter fantasy, others exaggeration and others gospel truth. The only thing I can say for sure is that the French Knights weren't slain by foot soldiers, and that like Theodosius points out, I have seen examples on television demonstrating that plate could be breached by the force of a long bow. If I have to dismiss all that, I would like to be able to do it on better authority.

I notice you didn't tackle my other points.

Do you think the leather cuirass could just be an addition to an already functioning linothorax?

Travis

[tlclark]

Dan, I will have to concede the point on French Plate for now, I just don't know enough about it and it's pulling us off track anyhow. (But I secretly suspect that several Brits are raising the two fingers right now. :wink: )

Two questions though,

Was Roman plate as good as Milanese plate?

And even if it was, was it universal used or did it override considerations of cost, weight mobility?

If it's so dang good and incredible, why isnt IT in the images of the emperor?

It comes back then to the subjectiveness of our criteria when judging Roman armor, something I think you've never really addressed.

In the meantime my position is trying to explain armor obviously made from leather, armor that is associated with no less than the highest and most important people in the Roman military.

I think a layered musculata with subarmalis and linothorax answers most of the objections, and a metal musculata does not, because these are simply not metal.

Travis

[Dan Howard]

Do you think the leather cuirass could just be an addition to an already functioning linothorax?

I have no idea. If anything I think it is more likely to be layered over mail but can't find any sculptural evidence to suggest that this was done.

[tlclark]

I think the scutum was the primary defence, and that's were the real importance lies. Everything inbetween just delayed the inevitable, which makes sense of the importance given by the Romans to denying the enemy that layer of protection through the pilum volley.

Dead on. IMO.

If you add a layer of spears and scuta between the enemy and the emperor, then the leather armor is more than adequate for whatever last-ditch skirmish he might happen to be in.

Take a karma Jim!

Travis

[Comerus Gallus]

I've seen my father's welder's apron fend off some serious disasters and it's certainly more flexible than the semi-rigid musculata in the Bergama example. My personal experience with this convinces me that you are just wrong on this issue, either that or you have seriously thin-skinned cows in Austrailia. :wink:



Travis

Hmmm! I had seen experiment of archery test with some kind of Spaniard padded armor, like a subarmalis, but very thick, the enemy weapon was the californian bow, if I'm not wrong?, I think more stonger than some european, dunno the distant that was shot, but it couldn't penetrated through the human body...

BTW: I would love to demostrate step by step my experiment with very thick leather cow!... in this one I try with a big sharp knife of my wife! :oops: ....It didn't go through, but I will try with a heavy sharp gladius!...But not with this leather hanging in my entretaiment room!, since I will use to another armour... But I see more thicker leather than mine, so in the future let see!...boohahahahaa! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[FAVENTIANVS]

Is that a Niedermoemter-Guttmann helmet I see behind you?