- This topic has 45 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
While building a number of Roman Legionaries for my model Legion I have been watching a number of Roman related movies, DVDs, TV series and several show legionaries or, perhaps, auxiliaries in a leather version of lorica segmentata. Now I find that I have a few extra figures and might paint them in leather (or not – undecided).
I am aware of the image on Trajan’s column depicting what could be interpreted as a soldier wearing a leather version. Also of finds of leather fastenings. But so far my research has failed to find any literary reference nor any archaeological evidence of the “leather lorica segmentata”.
I am also aware from my criminology lecturer (many years ago) that absence of evidence should not be taken as evidence of absence.
So thoughts on painting up my surplus legionaries in leather armour just for a change?
I can always convert them and fit them into a fantasy force for one of my other projects of course!
I am inclined to the view that Hollywood is a perfectly acceptable source of research; my Biblical models owe as much to Hollywood as to either the Bible or archaeology.
For example;
…maybe Sheba was somewhere in the Americas…
One who puts on his armour should not boast like one who takes it off.
Ahab, King of Israel; 1 Kings 20:11Some random musings A thousand years after the end of the Roman Empire, the conquistadores were facing enemies without iron weapons, and whose most powerful missile weapons were slings. Faced with an angry Dacian with a falx or a pissed off Sarmatian horse archer with a composite bow, I’d take metal armor. As for cuirass of metal or leather. Corium is the Latin word for leather, coriaceus is the Latin word for cuirass. Something to think about when reading secondary sources. Cuir bouilli is tough, and was used well into modern times – pickelhauben were still made of cuir boulli at the start of the Great War. …and what Mike Headen said.
There were plenty of powerful bows in the Americas, especially South America where they were made out of tropical hardwoods. There are reports of Portuguese bandeirantes walking around with so many arrows in them, they looked like hedgehogs.
The main weapon in the Americas — aside from spears — seems to have been the club, often studded with sharp chips. Leather or cotton armor would stop its cutting effect, but — like metal armor — wouldn’t stop its concussion effects.
I agree that no one sensible would try to face the Dacians or Sarmatians in leather armor. But Picts, Germans, desert raiders, zealots, border-hopping cattle rustlers…? Those seem to be the main guys Imperial Romans would be facing, most of the time. For those guys, it seems to me that leather would work fine.
The Roman Empire, like the Republic before it, doesn’t seem to have had problems equipping their troops. The Empire was studded with manufactories pouring out arms and armour to relatively standard patterns.
Hmmm. I have been listening to the History of Rome podcast (highly recommended, btw), and Mike Duncan seems to think that there were problems in the factories from time to time.
On the idea of skimming a bit off the top by using leather armour … why bother when you can just draw rations for Legionary Nemo and his four brothers and sell them.
Why not do both? Corruption was a Roman art form, a tradition we have proudly maintained in the lusospeaking world. 😀
Can I just add, if my Tribunus Millitum suggested i might like to ‘take a walk around Judea in cool looking Leather armour to save me the trouble of wearing metal plate’, I would give him a funny look and then go get my Metal armour on. and Greaves. and a metal codpiece.
Even if it was just to patrol the market in Jerusalem in one of the long periods of peace in that city? Every day? Color me skeptical. Troops seem to get very lax in periods of inactivity and if your Tribunus was diddling the accounts, you might not even have a choice, anyways, as the metal armor would be in the armory, stored for “real emergencies”.
Thinking of the police here in Rio, a violent city by anyone’s measure. There are tens of thousands of them and they lose hundreds to killings every year. They’ve been recently pumped up with millions in equipment and supplies due to the Cup and Olympics (2014 and 2016). They still often don’t have gas for their cars or properly fitting ballistic vests, and they ride around in stock sedan-style cars with assault rifles poking out the windows.
When a gun battle erupts, as they frequently do, you can still see them using these:
That’s a hundred year old Madsen light machinegun, rechambered for NATO standard. The modern version of taking on your rebels in the hills with less than adequate equipment.We get slapped around, but we have a good time!
So to offer a slightly different take on the executive conclusion:
1 Up to a point minister – except a boiled leather jerkin (not in plates) is more likely than LLS for practical and cost reasons.
2 Almost certainly true. (I know there is a thirst for metrics – say >90%)
3 Undoubtedly. Weapon vs Armour tests can be helpful. Like all algorithms (always helpful to use a buzzword) it depends on the design and inputs.
4 We know exactly what we think we know. Interpretations vary. (Do NOT read Foucault et al until you have mastered this brief).
5 Part A is an exemplary summation of the position. Part B – see caveat re Foucault et al in#4 above. History is not fantasy and gaming it should aspire towards recreating the laws of physics pertaining if not the entire gamut of violent human interaction involved.
6. Axiomatic minister.
Have fun in the House.
So to offer a slightly different take on the executive conclusion:
1 Up to a point minister – except a boiled leather jerkin (not in plates) is more likely than LLS for practical and cost reasons.
2 Almost certainly true. (I know there is a thirst for metrics – say >90%)
3 Undoubtedly. Weapon vs Armour tests can be helpful. Like all algorithms (always helpful to use a buzzword) it depends on the design and inputs.
4 We know exactly what we think we know. Interpretations vary. (Do NOT read Foucault et al until you have mastered this brief).
5 Part A is an exemplary summation of the position. Part B – see caveat re Foucault et al in#4 above. History is not fantasy and gaming it should aspire towards recreating the laws of physics pertaining if not the entire gamut of violent human interaction involved. 6. Axiomatic minister. Have fun in the House.
1 However, cuir boulli (which is what we should be talking about) lamellar armour offers more protection that a plain leather jerkin while retaining its flexibility. As I mentioned above boiled leather is rather hard and was used until recently for such things as firemen’s helmets (stop it!).
3 I always view re-enactors with a jaundiced eye. Just as we play at war so do they, and like us they have no skin in the game. Things in real life are done for practical reasons, not because they look good or provide an afternoon’s entertainment.
4 And some interpretations are wild guesses or flights of fancy.
I offer no argument to your other points 🙂
Codicil to 3: As a really obvious example – hand to hand combat. I have no idea (well a little, based on practising kendo. I can expand on this if anyone’s bothered) what real hand to hand combat was like, but I’m willing to bet that the opponents didn’t obligingly bash each others shields, in splendid isolation from the rest of the fray, for a couple of minutes until one of them obligingly dropped his guard and allowed his adversary to deliver a killing blow. Followed by comedy falling down with legs in the air and a few seconds of rolling around. Although I do appreciate that the screams of the dying might be a little off-putting to modern crowds that have gathered to watch the spectacle.
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
