Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Matthew Amt]

I knew I was speculating, but--having been to war a couple of times--I remember soldiers doing all sorts of creative (and occasionally illegal) things to improve the protectiveness of their gear.

Oh! Modern warfare is hardly my specialty, but I don't recall running across things like that. So it's interesting to know! I *have* heard of modern soldiers discarding protective gear at times, or of officers having to make sure that they wore their body armor, etc.

I assumed ancient people were no different.

That just doesn't seem to be a safe assumption, in my experience.

(Of course, the hastily called levy would have to fight with what they had, even if only the sharp stick they farmed with.)

Most cultures had laws requiring a minimal set of equipment for militia duty, typically shield and spear. Those who could not meet that requirement were generally not required to fight.

Extra layers of anything would cushion a blunt blow and a hard surface might deflect a projectile striking less than perpendicular.

Careful--if they are attempting to farm with only a pointed stick, they aren't going to have much around to wear for protection, eh? Sorry, I'm just pickin' on ya! Extra layers of clothing are a possibility, but how much clothing did the average dirt farmer have? And we don't see anything like that in artwork, nor read of it in literature. There *is* a growing theory that several thick tunics may have been worn under mail before the appearance of specialized padding, but again, that would be a wealthy man. And it's only speculation!

Googled it and, while many agreed there was no ancient leather armor, did find these citations:

[url:x0quuobr]http://www.applewarrior.com/celticwell/ejournal/beltane/warfare.htm[/url] "Additionally, the typical noble warrior probably wore armor and helmet, all made from leather."

Sounds like old Victorian BS, especially since on the same page they actually cite finds of METAL armor and helmets!

[url:x0quuobr]http://www.archeoart.org/reconstit.html#cuirasses[/url] (French language) displays leather cuirasses

Yes, those are Celtic, probably early La Tene c. 500 BC, based on several good depictions in artwork, and clearly derived from the Greek cuirass (which at that time was more likely leather than linen!). You'll note that they are quite ornate--these are *not* examples of poor men desperate for more protection! And they are a thousand years off from Post-Roman Britain, of course.

[url:x0quuobr]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirass[/url] includes the provocative statement, "the original breastplate being of leather." (For those eschewing Wikipedia as a reliable source, that particular article includes the following statement: "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.")

Huh, they must mean the derivation of the word "cuirass" from the French word for "leather" (though I wonder if it actually might have come from the French word for "heart", like the Latin "pectoral"?). And even Encyclopaedia Britannica is not generally acclaimed as an authoritative work on Post-Roman armor! What would count is a legitimate primary reference to the use of leather armor, or an archeological find, as close in time and location to Post-Roman Britain as possible.

Leather armor DID exist in some places at some times! But it usually seems to be something for the middle to upper classes, specially made and not at all makeshift. There just doesn't seem to be anything that suggests the existence of the poor man's "leather jerkin" for armor use. That's all I'm saying. And since we know that it was quite common in many ancient cultures for wealthier warriors to wear less armor than they could have, it doesn't seem logical that the lower classes would be so frantic to add whatever protection they could find.

Vale,

Matthew