Cuirbolli

[Furt]

Hi - new to the forum and finding it a GREAT source of info.

 

For research for a RPG, did Romans use hardened leather (cuirbolli) for breastplates, helemts or greaves etc, like in the Gladiator movie (Maximus' arena breastplate) or is it purely fictional? Would it be totally wrong to imagine that they could of - if they didn't of course?

 

Frank

[Furius Venator]

Troops weren't so equipped in the republic and early empire at least. I'm not certain about under the later empire. That certainly doesn't mean that such armour wasn't available for non imperial troops, to suggest that hardened leather was totally unknown to the Romans seems a bit extreme.

 

Most evidence suggests a reliance on chain and scale armour with lorica segmentata being more popular under the early-mid empire.

[Furt]

I'm pretty sure the legions did not use it, but I was wondering if perhaps tribunes or prefects perhaps used a muscled cuirass of hardened leather, rather than that of bronze. From my own research very few gladiators wore chest armor either.

[Furius Venator]

Praetorians are sometimes shown as wearing muscled cuirasses, they may have been leather.

 

Some stonework shows centurians in what appears to be muscled cuirass but it might be simple a lack of desire to carve mail or segmentata (statuary and carvings were painted so one could simply use a silver paint to indicate mail).

[caldrail]

Time to explode a myth. Leather is hopeless as armour. Such items were decorative or to show status. If you wanted real protection, then you'd adopt metal like everyone else.

 

Unfortunately, leather has very little resistance to sharp implements and won't do much against the blunt ones.

[Northern Neil]

Time to explode a myth. Leather is hopeless as armour. Such items were decorative or to show status. If you wanted real protection, then you'd adopt metal like everyone else.

 

Unfortunately, leather has very little resistance to sharp implements and won't do much against the blunt ones.

Hmm... I was once active in battle re - enactment (Anglo-Norman, not Roman) and at times we conducted research into this. I can state categorically, and with first hand knowledge, that it was very difficult indeed to cut through thick, hardened leather (about 6mm thickness) with a sword or dagger. This can be tested: Try getting a piece of conveyor belt leather and stabbing it wih a large, sturdy kitchen knife, with a mediumly soft object behind the leather. What will happen is that the knife will slide off, causing an unsightly yet superficial graze. It was actually more effective than mail at stopping a spear thrust, although the spear did protrude enough to wound. Against blunt weapons, it absorbed just as effectively as mail, depending to a degree on the garment underneath.

 

Our conclusions were that it was just as effective as mail, the only problem being it had to be thrown away after a battle or practice.

[Furius Venator]

The exploder of myth exploded...

 

 

Do you think 6mm of stiff leather might be quite cumbersome to wear, hence the preference for more expensive mail?

[Furt]

I have found numerous resources on the net about cuirbolli and it's worth, giving it a decent level of protection. But back to my original question - is there any evidence of Romans using it and if not, do you personally think they could have? Hollywood seems to think they did!

[Furius Venator]

well, as I said above:

 

Praetorians are sometimes shown as wearing muscled cuirasses, they may have been leather.

 

Some stonework shows centurians in what appears to be muscled cuirass but it might be simple a lack of desire to carve mail or segmentata (statuary and carvings were painted so one could simply use a silver paint to indicate mail).

 

So it's certainly possible, yes. Though why officers would wear it, if the other ranks did not is puzzling if it is in fact very stiff and uncomfortable. An equestrian officer would be able to afford a metal breastplate. Perhaps the leather was more efficient than metal but if so the legions would have adopted it. A puzzle.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Furius Venator

[caldrail]

Having dusted off the soot from the explosion, I'd like to say that there isn't any puzzle whatsoever. Metal can be manufactured into armour within a very short space of time, leather much less so. I really don't believe leather is more efficient and that's not what I pick up from reading on the subject. Chain has disadvantages though in that a direct thrust will penetrate quite easily - thats because its made of thin rings. Also - is leather more resiliant in the field? I doubt it. And if it degrades its not as easy to replace or repair is it? If it was, the legions would have used it. They didn't.

[Furius Venator]

Is mail really easier and cheaper to make than leather?

 

I think you might be right about the longevity thing, Although mail rusts and will wear out it is surely easier to repair properly.

 

Og course the only real way is to conduct a test. Let us find two hundred volunteers. Clad half in leather and half in chain. The first leather clad man takes an almighty swing (or thrust) at the torso of a mail clad subject. Then the first mail clad man (not necessarily the one struck previously of course) returns the compliment. We repeat until the subjects can take no more and observe which side is in the better condition. After any necessary hospitilisation, the roles are reversed (leather clad donning chain and vice versa) and the experiment repeated. This should give a pretty conclusive result. Do you think I might get funding?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Og course the only real way is to conduct a test. Let us find two hundred volunteers. Clad half in leather and half in chain. The first leather clad man takes an almighty swing (or thrust) at the torso of a mail clad subject. Then the first mail clad man (not necessarily the one struck previously of course) returns the compliment. We repeat until the subjects can take no more and observe which side is in the better condition. After any necessary hospitilisation, the roles are reversed (leather clad donning chain and vice versa) and the experiment repeated. This should give a pretty conclusive result. Do you think I might get funding?

 

Not as the experiment is currently planned. First, why 200 volunteers? If this is simply a pilot study, you can do a power analysis to determine the number of subjects needed--200 is probably far too many. Second, the design of your experiment is not fully balanced. You have Leather hits Chains and Chains hits Leather, but what about Chains hits Chains and Leather hits Leather? Any calculation of the average effect of the type of armor worn has to take into account the full range of the scale. Also, human volunteers are unlikely to provide good test subjects. If you want to give the armor a "life test", it's better to use equipment that inflicts systematic damage and varying levels of force and violence (say, at 1, 10, 100, and 1000 torque). I'd suggest you revise your grant proposal along these lines and try agan for the next round of funding.

[Furt]

Just watched Season 1 of HBO's Rome. In it Marc Antony and Ceasar appear to wear leather muscled cuirass. There is a close up of Marc removing his, and it is leather for sure, because it flops over on itself. Do we still think it is only a "Hollywood" ploy?

[caldrail]

As I said, such breastplates were worn as decorative 'status' objects. It is interesting about gladiatorial depictions on tv and film that consistently show this sort of armour protection. As far as I'm aware, the only gladiators that had any torso protection were secutors and that only covered the top half. It was a metal guard too.

[longshotgene]

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. If you read the Annals of Roman History Livy talks about the use of boiled leather armour. First of all, it is easier to use than metal. Second of all, you don't need to carry a blacksmith around with you to make it. Third of all, the legions wanted to travel light. That isn't to say metal armour wasn't in use, it was. It just cost the average soldier a lot more. And it wasn't always used for war. Julius Caesar normally wore leather armour when in camp. It was lighter, and still offered protection.