10-23-2006, 09:47 AM
Quote:Graham,
there are many points that I agree, but your thoughts were remembering me some calls I had with Dr. Raffaele D'Amato some months ago.
Raffaele is a big supporter of leather armours and I believe he's right, as you. As example we discussed about the Marcus Caelius tombstone and it is more than clear that who believes to see an hamata makes a mistake. This can be leather or metal, but none can say only "leather".
On RAT there are also good discussions about pteruges always based on organic "evidences" from reliefs and statues...
And I also think none in RAT can deny the existence of leather or organic armours, and of course I also agree with Dario about the existance of all those organic evidences of course.
The only question is: are there enough proofs to say that leather seg were used? The current clues make me think not.
But please use the correct topic for this discussion:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... segmentata
Yep, that is the one that Dr D'Amato personally participated in. I'm not sure that resurrecting it is a good idea though.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=5500
It does have the reference to Nicolle's book with the medieval leather segmented armour. FWIW this "segmented" leather armour is constructed a lot like the Dendra panoply, with leather ties holding the segmented hoops together and allowing for a little flexibliity. It only superficially resembles the Roman segmented lorica. Its construction is completely different. As has been said previously, if leather armour was constructed in the same manner as metal segmentata, then the leather segments are unlikely to articulate correctly unless the leather is so thin as to provide negligible protection.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
