Cuirbolli

[caldrail]

Metal is much easier to work into armour than leather. Whilst you might not have needed a blacksmith with leather armour, you would have needed other tradesmen. Metal is far easier to repair. A damaged leather cuirass remains damaged.

[Furt]

Metal is much easier to work into armour than leather. Whilst you might not have needed a blacksmith with leather armour, you would have needed other tradesmen. Metal is far easier to repair. A damaged leather cuirass remains damaged.

But with leather being possibly cheaper and quicker to make - would'nt they just create new armour instead of repairing it? The process of making hardened leather requires boiling, correct me if I'm wrong? Theoretically something that could be done easily at camp?

[longshotgene]

Exactly. The Romans always carried their supply with them. They had cattle which were herded by Rottweilers in most cases. Hence the thick skulls on the dogs. Leather armour doesn't rust, and all you need to do is grease it every once in a while. Cows solve all of these problems. Pigs do to! The cow gets slaughtered, you now have fitting for the inside of helmets, coverings for shields, and new armour. Not to mention makeshift bags from cow stomachs to make water bags. Plus intestines can be used to make all manner of string for bows, ballistas, etc. The list goes on and on for the uses of a cow. I may be wrong, but I do believe the cows have it. Oh and did I mention cows could help dig ditches?

[caldrail]

Leather armour isn't as easy to make as you think. It takes longer than metal by a long shot and believe me it involves a very unpleasant tanning process. It might take weeks to produce a decent cuirass. Metal on the other hand can be worked in hours which was why it was preferable.

 

It is true that the romans used leather tents. Why not, is was reasonably durable and much more weatherproof than canvas. However, the leather sections adjacent to the ground tend to rot according to modern research and needed replacement on a regular basis. It was much quicker to tan a hide and sew it into a tent than to go to all the effort of curing the stuff in hot wax.

 

Don't be conned by all the nonsense from role-playing games. Leather armour isn't as cost effective as believed.

 

Besides, why else was iron so important to the romans? True, they needed swords, but armour required more metal ore by far. If leather armour was so much better, cheaper, and easier to make, then why on earth didn't they use it as standard? Answer - Because it wasn't.

[Primus Pilus]

And just to add, mail (Hamata) is overwhelmingly considered the most common armor form throughout Roman history. While the imperial era included Segmentata, mail continued to be used regionally by legionaries and as standard issue for auxilia throughout the imperial period. It also became standard wear again in the later period. There is little evidence of widespread use of leather beyond the officer's cuirass.

[caldrail]

And just to add, mail (Hamata) is overwhelmingly considered the most common armor form throughout Roman history. While the imperial era included Segmentata, mail continued to be used regionally by legionaries and as standard issue for auxilia throughout the imperial period. It also became standard wear again in the later period. There is little evidence of widespread use of leather beyond the officer's cuirass.

That underlines my view that a leather cuirass is a status indicator rather than functional armour.

 

Interesting point about chainmail though. It must have been labour intensive to link together although the component rings weren't exactly difficult to make. Then again, I suppose there were always slaves you put on the job, and I would hazard a guess that since demand was there armourers both military and civil made copious quantities of it for instant sale?

[longshotgene]

I still disagree. Tanning is not as hard as you think. The animal contains everything you need to tan. Brain tanning is one of the most common forms of tanning on earth. Granted, it stinks, but it works. I don't know about any role-playing games, but leather armour would have been used. Second of all, if you stretch the hide and turn it to raw hide, you have a very hard piece of leather. Then you re-wet it and shape it how you want it. Cow leather is very, very thick. Have you ever tried to skin a cow? The skin around the head is seriously thick. Plus, you guys keep looking at it from a modern viewpoint. They did not have the grades of steel we have today. Their stuff was not that great. It would have been more iron than anything, which means it would have been extremely heavy. I don't believe through research and common sense that metal armour would have been used as much as you guys think. I know the image of thousands of soldiers in shiny metal marching through green meadows sound lovely, but think about it.

[Primus Pilus]

And just to add, mail (Hamata) is overwhelmingly considered the most common armor form throughout Roman history. While the imperial era included Segmentata, mail continued to be used regionally by legionaries and as standard issue for auxilia throughout the imperial period. It also became standard wear again in the later period. There is little evidence of widespread use of leather beyond the officer's cuirass.

That underlines my view that a leather cuirass is a status indicator rather than functional armour.

 

Interesting point about chainmail though. It must have been labour intensive to link together although the component rings weren't exactly difficult to make. Then again, I suppose there were always slaves you put on the job, and I would hazard a guess that since demand was there armourers both military and civil made copious quantities of it for instant sale?

 

I readily admit to being far from expert on Roman armor, but Hamata was certainly a labor intensive and expensive armor to make. However, the thing that seems to off set this cost was it's longevity and versatility. It was easy enough to maintain, and well cared for, a single piece of armor could last for generations.

[Gaius Octavius]

If my faulty memory serves, I recall seeing a Brit program where they showed that an arrow would easily go through chain mail or armour.? Crassus in Parthia?

[Lost_Warrior]

An arrow could pretty easily penetrate chain mail, as could a sword point, dagger, or spear. Actually, a good sword can pretty easily slash through it, however as Gene said above, the quality of their steel wouldn't have been as good and that may not have been an issue at the time.

[brotus maximus]

so i am gonna do a few quotes here so please bear with me for a few secs

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).

*furias 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

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.

*northern neil

so through those conclusions and a few others in which i am not going to quote but state, that infact even though it was an effective mode of armour such as nothern neil suggested but when it comes to practicality and expenses wise metal armour was chosen over the leather armour for use in the battle field(but in my opinion which one was the more expensive of the two) in accordance of a few posts that suggest that metal armour was in essence crap and was easy to penetrate with different weapons.and that leather was actually a rather strong set of armour but when u think about it thats alot af leather to produce for the vast legions even if there were a large number that was using metal armour. my question i guess is with a few veiwpoints pointing towards leather armour being used for a show or as a visible show of title like ceasar. but as wel a few veiwpoints suggested that the leather amrour when produced would be labour intensive and require time in order to do that and with each cow there is only so much leather u can use for armour and what not and that means that even though alot got used there would be still a large amounts of scrap leather that would be wasted unlike metal when there were scraps they could be worked over again.

As well care wise for the armour wich one would be easyer to take care of and cheaper as well? metal as a few people stated with metal u can just repair that portion of the armour that was wrecked and with leather u wiold need to replace it(and yet again it relates to more work and scraps wasted). i guess with me my viewpoint on this would have to be even though leather armour was use it would(i think) as befitting a title( even though i am sure that metal armour was used as well on occasion) but metal armour was far more common less labour intensive and cheaper(i guess in some regards) to make and maintain. but as for gladitorial leather armour i dont remember hearing mention that they wore alot of armour(right?) and if they did it was very minimal and just enough to protect them or give them the look of their class of fighter(mermadon ectra ectera)though i would have to admit i would like to do a study on it just to see what would be the better of the two and the usefulness of both compared to each other

brotus maximus

[caldrail]

Chainmail might be labour intensive to make but remember we're taliking about roman times. Labour is cheap. In fact, chainmail is relatively easy to make if you don't mind spending the time linking it all together. Modern recreations are made by their owners without difficulty.

 

I stand by what i said about leather. It simply wasn't cost effective. Give the legions some credit for commonsense. They used metal because it was considered a better alternative than the great and good as a status indicator.

 

Its no good bleating on about how easy it is to make cuirbolli. If you make a mistake with leather, you've blown it. With metal, heat it up and rework it. If leather is battle damaged, what can you do? With metal, you heat it up and rework it. If leather armour cracks (and it can) throw it away. If metal cracks, well.. I suppose you could heat it up and rework it. Metal rusts I agree but any soldier who allowed his armour to get to that state is seriously going to regret it because the centurion would be down on him like a ton of bricks, and in any case he'd only have to pay for a replacement. No self-respecting soldier would allow his protection to go without a modicum of care.

 

How many troops of any nation or period wore leather armour as standard? Think about it, because hardly anyone did, and if they chose to do so it was only the lack of a credible alternative.

 

Metal every time. Just ask the romans.

[longshotgene]

I am not saying metal wasn't used. It was. We have specimens from Mainz. But I am saying that leather was used as well. It only makes sense. If a soldier was out on campaign, you probably didn't have a ton of blacksmiths around. On top of this, you would have had to have carried your iron with you to make armour and repairs. We are both right. Just to varying degrees. Leather would have been widely used. Metal would have been too.

[Primus Pilus]

Roman Legions either traveled with large numbers of camp followers, slaves, artisans, prostitutes, etc. or such followers would settle near permanent fortifications. Smiths of all types would be regularly available.

[caldrail]

I am not saying metal wasn't used. It was. We have specimens from Mainz. But I am saying that leather was used as well. It only makes sense. If a soldier was out on campaign, you probably didn't have a ton of blacksmiths around. On top of this, you would have had to have carried your iron with you to make armour and repairs. We are both right. Just to varying degrees. Leather would have been widely used. Metal would have been too.

Leather armour wasn't widely used by the legions at all. Sorry. It was used for stuff like tents, straps, boots, scabbards, or even ropes and catapult windings. There wasn't any demand for armour, and lets face it, there wasn't any knights in shining leather was there?

Edited March 14, 2007 by caldrail