Cuirbolli

[Furt]

I agree that leather probably was'nt used widely by the legions or even gladiators (my second post of this topic), but we do have some agreement it could be used by "officers". What I would like to know is why? Would'nt a metal cuirass be more prestigious than a leather one? If leather did'nt offer decent protection, as suggested, then why would an officer wear it? He would want the best protection available and could afford it (if that was an issue). Yes, hardened leather could be more supple and lighter than a bronze cuirass, but from what I have read "officers" and generals like Caesar did lead from the front. Would'nt this warrant wanting better protection than the comman soldier? Or are we saying they owned leather cuirass's but fought in better armour?

Edited March 14, 2007 by Furt

[longshotgene]

Yes, but think in today's terms. If a general wears bright flashy armour, it is like a gigantic ancient neon sign above his head saying, 1.) I am an officer, kill me! 2.) I bought this nice pretty armour, kill me and sell it for some wine money and prostitutes.

 

I would have to say the Romans learned this lesson long ago. There is a book written about the General Hannibal. It tells how the Romans wanted to have a meeting with Hannibal, so the two leaders planned to meet on a hill top. Hannibal wanted to take them prisoner and ransom them to pay for the campaign in Italy, since Carthaginian supply routes had been cut off by Carthage itself. The Consul and his aide both attired in beautiful METAL armour approached the hill. A few jumpy Carthaginians jumped out and killed the Romans hoping to sell their armour. Now the moral of the story is, don't wear flashy armour! I think the Romans were practical people. Now coming from a British mindset I could see someone thinking the Romans walked, bathed, and drank in flashy armour. When did the British finally give up the red coats? Any way, I would have to say most Romans learned from this lesson. They were a practical people, and had no use for some extremes, unless they were rookies or extremely pompous.

[CiceroD]

First off let me say that the Romans did use leather for armour. Legionaires needed to buy their own gear. Metal armour was normally used as parade armour. First of all, steel was crap back then. They didn't have the nice stainless steel we have today. Second of all, swords were not that sharp. The metal was soft which meant it didn't hold an edge for long.

 

 

Its true that Legionaires had to buy their own armor before Marius and afterwards while they had "deductions" from pay for armor even a street kid Tiro would be fitted out well for the sake of the whole legion.

[caldrail]

I agree that leather probably was'nt used widely by the legions or even gladiators (my second post of this topic), but we do have some agreement it could be used by "officers". What I would like to know is why? Would'nt a metal cuirass be more prestigious than a leather one? If leather did'nt offer decent protection, as suggested, then why would an officer wear it? He would want the best protection available and could afford it (if that was an issue). Yes, hardened leather could be more supple and lighter than a bronze cuirass, but from what I have read "officers" and generals like Caesar did lead from the front. Would'nt this warrant wanting better protection than the comman soldier? Or are we saying they owned leather cuirass's but fought in better armour?

The leather cuirass was a status indicator. The amount of protection is irrelevant in this case and few generals ever fought alongside their men. Caesar was exceptional in this regard and his willingness to take part in the melee was one of the reasons for the devotion of his men. Most generals were of course in the area, and at some risk too, but usually they relied on groups of bodyguards, or the nearby formations for protection. The concept of a hevily armoured general emerges in the middle ages when any self respecting commander rode headlong into battle without a second thought. Leather cuirasses were expensive, and showed you were wealthy, and therefore marked you out as a commander to show respect of. Throughout history however there are plenty of examples of generals with less protection and arms than the men they lead. Most are not expected to fight after all, but to lead, and an upper class person does not want to be emcumbered with the mass of equipment of the rank and file. Modern day armies take a more realistic view that began in WW1 (with some exceptions, such as the british in colonial america) and so its difficult to see any difference in rank from a distance. But then, today we have better communications and fighting is based on small groups. In former times, an officer would need to be visible to a mass of troops. A rallying point. An important man to follow and defend.

 

First off let me say that the Romans did use leather for armour. Legionaires needed to buy their own gear. Metal armour was normally used as parade armour. First of all, steel was crap back then. They didn't have the nice stainless steel we have today. Second of all, swords were not that sharp. The metal was soft which meant it didn't hold an edge for long.

Pardon? Since when did roman legionaries pay for ceremonial armour? Thats absolute nonsense. Roman armour was made to a general pattern for conformity and that was of the metallic variety, chainmail, with banded or scale arour during some periods. Leather never saw any widespread use at all for the simple reason it cost too much to make and had to be made to fit. Metal armour was made from a combining several or more different parts and therefore had some measure of adjustment, which made mass production a possibility. Are you seriously suggesting that every legionary was sent down to the local leatherworker and fitted for his armour? The time and cost involved to equip a legion would be massive, never mind wiping out the local cattle herd. Please name your source for roman use of leather armour.

 

The quality of steel was variable, and it all boiled down to cost. High quality steel was available - there's a mention of the spanish sword that was made from a spring steel that retained its shape even after significant bending. For the rank and file, lower quality swords were usual although its notable that soldiers could buy their own during the empire rather than the issue sword they might have been given and paid for at the start. If they had enough cash, I would expect a soldier to pay for a quality weapon. It was a matter of pride and a sensible investment.

[longshotgene]

Dude, you cannot be serious! Look at Trajan's Column. The leather lappings that cover the thighs are connected to the Muscled Cuirass. There are no weldings or joints there to hold that on. It is all one piece of sewn on. Roman officers would have worn decorated metal armour in ceremonies. There is an old story about a Centurion who proved his loyalty over and over again. As a gift he was given a suit of the finest metal armour, which was to be worn only on parades and triumphs. This story is straight from Gibbon. Leather armour would have been worn. It might not have always been muscled, but it would have been worn. Alexander the Great wore armour that was composed of metal and leather. Metal is not all that flexible. The Segmentata Lorica is some metal attached to what? Leather. The leather gives flex.

[Lost_Warrior]

What about Lorica Segmentata made from leather? I know a lot of reenactors wear it, but is there any historical basis?

[Cornelius]

What about Lorica Segmentata made from leather? I know a lot of reenactors wear it, but is there any historical basis?

 

The Lorica Segmentata for a while was believed to be made of leather, because the statues/carvings (ie Trajan's Column) typically depicted a muscled cuirass leather in appearance. Recently however this idea has been disregarded, unfortunately I do not know the details as to why, but it is more widely accepted now that the muscled cuirass was in fact metal. The Greeks and Corinthians had their muscled cuirass's made of metal, and chances were the romans did not use much leather in armor.

 

There is a possibility that some Roman troops wore leather armor at a time, but I believe the farthest the use of leather by the legionaires went was it's use as subarmalis. The enemies definately wore leather armor, because Roman literature mentions it. I suppose in an RPG environment you could introduce something like that, although I've never been in an RPG where playing strictly to reality (even on questionable facts) really mattered.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Cornelius

[caldrail]

Be careful with statues/carvings because they also tend to depict the attic (or 'greek') style helmet that we usually see on tv and film. In reality the romans wore the bowl style with the neck guard and cheek flaps, of which there was some variety in appearance.

 

Now having discredited statues and carvings, my point is that simply because they depict muscled cuirasses doesn't mean the banded armour is leather also - I would argue that isn't the case at all. Officers were paying for individually made leather cuirass as a sign of rank, much the same way officers wore finer quality uniforms in later periods. As for the rank and file, they paid for mass produced metal banded armour through stoppages in pay. The roman state had no choice but to make this provision because since Marius opened the army to any free person, there were many who would not be able to provide their own armour as in times past.

 

Peter Connolly, a recognised expert in roman warfare, has made this point. (Greece and Rome at War)

[brotus maximus]

could itve been possible that the fttings and straps for the metal armour been leather, i somehow i see it widely possible that leather straps and leather in general was incorperated into metal armour as the small stuff and basicly(please dont quote me on this please i may be wrong) used as i mentioned bindings and the like. certainly leather was used as a sign of rank(or wealth) as another person said th gain respect and or to show rank among those who wore mass produced armour like the afor mentioned chain, scale armour.

QUOTE(longshotgene @ Mar 9 2007, 03:51 PM)

 

First off let me say that the Romans did use leather for armour. Legionaires needed to buy their own gear. Metal armour was normally used as parade armour. First of all, steel was crap back then. They didn't have the nice stainless steel we have today. Second of all, swords were not that sharp. The metal was soft which meant it didn't hold an edge for long.

i hate to say this even me as a person who doesnt know (compared to alot of people on this site lol )

that seems like crap. to let u know i aint bashing ya, but if u dont mind me pointing out a couple of things(with a little help from other board members replys as well:) )as quite a few people have stated including myself alot of us agree that leather was labour intensive even if there was lots of labourers to do the job it would take months to do an intire legion (yes this has been discussed but bear with me for a sec) which is some(if i remember correctly was some 1200 men roughly and if you are fitting and measuring every one as someone else said that would be a huge intever even by todays standards when almost everything is mass produced or at least made really fast. And besides parade armour another small feat to handle for the blacksmiths if i remember (i dont know if romans used parade armour or not) i heard that parade armour is very intricate and detailed as if to give a look of perfection and to some intimidation especially if you have a well diciplined army that looks the whole nine yards and for that matter when it comes to stainless steel that stuff if it were to be used today at least i think woruld be largly ineffective as a means of armor or weapons ya the weapons and stuff would not rust that easy(if at all lol) but as with every other metal weapon the edges would dull fairly quicky in the heat of a battle as to y they bring people who sharpen the blades before it to make sure that they are so they can be used effecently. and as for the metal working they were state of the art in their time ya there was varieng degrees of craftmanship and quality as with everything.

any way

brotus maximus

[Northern Neil]

What about Lorica Segmentata made from leather? I know a lot of reenactors wear it, but is there any historical basis?

 

The Lorica Segmentata for a while was believed to be made of leather, because the statues/carvings (ie Trajan's Column) typically depicted a muscled cuirass leather in appearance. Recently however this idea has been disregarded...

Lorica Segmentata made from metal was discovered some years ago at Corbridge, England. http://www.legionxxiv.org/corbridgbenlrg/

 

The use of leather to keep the integrity of the Lorica is not in itself a use of leather for armour. I believe the current view is that Lorica Segmentata was universally made from metal.