Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[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.