Does this look like leather armor?

[Ishcumbeebeeda]

Hi all, I found this (http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heromachine2/heroMachine2.asp) awesome online portrait creation tool thingy on another thread here, and I was playing around with it and I was trying to make something that looked like my idea of what leather armor would look like in D&D (3.5). So, to get to the point, does this (http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/126/l_ab192378edb74a80a8404dbfc28c16d7.jpg) look close enough to leather armor to anyone but me?

[herrhauptmann]

Looks more like it came out of a comic book than like leather armor. Look at what Nightwing and Greenlanterns wear currently

[Hat-Trick]

That generator has leather armor pieces. But to answer you question, it depends on if you wanted an anime-ish armor or realistic western armor.

[Ishcumbeebeeda]

That generator has leather armor pieces. But to answer you question, it depends on if you wanted an anime-ish armor or realistic western armor.

Really? Huh, guess I didn't notice it. I don't really know what actual leather armor looks like. I tried googleing it, but, of course, all I got was fantasy armor. I guess I was going for something that was a reasonable facsimile of realistic. If that makes any sense, lol. I'll take another look and see if I can find the leather armor in the generator. (And whether or not I like it.)

[Kiero]

Actual leather armour might look like a leather cuirass, for example:

http://1800hart.com/picks/wp-content/Cuirass_Royal_Muscled_Cuirass__Be_AH6071R_2489.jpg

Or

http://www.lawrensnest.com/images/constantine%20004.jpg

Or

http://www.wulflund.com/images_items/leather-cuirass_2.jpg

If it looks "short", that's because you can't move at the hips if it's too long, thus the ptergytes (leather strips covering the hips and groin).

[herrhauptmann]

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/index.php?sid=b9fcefce107fcbabd8576ef6d2a81e49 for all of your historical armour needs.

[Yorrin]

I approve of the UGO Hero machine (and mybrute, for that matter :smallamused:), but it's a far cry from realism. Especially when it comes to armor. I'd also be interested if anyone has found a similar tool with more realistic/fantasy-type options.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

According to most people who know what they're talking about, leather wasn't actually used for armor historically.

For what it's worth.

[DabblerWizard]

If Captain Planet was more forest-centric, and into magic and weapons, that's how I'd imagine him.

Somehow I doubt that's the image you're trying to achieve.

[Dust]

If you don't mind the 'chibi' appearance and want a character icon, try TekTek (http://www.tektek.org/dream/dream.php).

http://public5.tektek.org/img/av/1003/d15/2059/1ff0730.png

[Devils_Advocate]

Wait a minute. You're trying to get the armor in an illustration to look how it looks in D&D, and you're trying to get it to look "realistic" instead of "fantasy"?

Do those strike anyone else as opposed goals?

[Ishcumbeebeeda]

If Captain Planet was more forest-centric, and into magic and weapons, that's how I'd imagine him.

Somehow I doubt that's the image you're trying to achieve.

LOL No. No it wasn't. But now I'm definitely not changing it, I LOVE Captain Planet!

[Yorrin]

If you don't mind the 'chibi' appearance and want a character icon, try TekTek (http://www.tektek.org/dream/dream.php).

http://public5.tektek.org/img/av/1003/d15/2059/1ff0730.png

I haven't seen tektek used in a long time. Good call. It's gotten a lot more complicated, though...

[Ishcumbeebeeda]

Wait a minute. You're trying to get the armor in an illustration to look how it looks in D&D, and you're trying to get it to look "realistic" instead of "fantasy"?

Do those strike anyone else as opposed goals?

Probably a good point, and the main reason why I'm not too worried about it. I was just wondering if it was even vaguely close. *shrugs* Meh.

[Ishcumbeebeeda]

If you don't mind the 'chibi' appearance and want a character icon, try TekTek (http://www.tektek.org/dream/dream.php).

http://public5.tektek.org/img/av/1003/d15/2059/1ff0730.png

I used to fiddle with TekTek all the time when I was on Gaiaonline. Then I got bored and forgot about it. But yea, it has some cool armor, though I probably wont use it for character portraits, cuz I don't like the chibi-ness. Thanks though.

[herrhauptmann]

According to most people who know what they're talking about, leather wasn't actually used for armor historically.

For what it's worth.

Mind providing some documentation for that? Leather was the base for brigandines, and Wisby coats of plates for a long time.
Leather entirely on its own? Only if you were dirt poor.

[Spiryt]

Mind providing some documentation for that? Leather was the base for brigandines, and Wisby coats of plates for a long time.
Leather entirely on its own? Only if you were dirt poor.

I think that's what he meant. :smallwink:

Anyway, seeing as leather was always a quite expensive material for clothing, "dirt poor" people probably didn't really had it.

That's generalization of course, but still.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

I think that's what he meant. :smallwink:

Anyway, seeing as leather was always a quite expensive material for clothing, "dirt poor" people probably didn't really had it.

That's generalization of course, but still.

You are correct, I did mean leather alone.

My understanding is that for someone who couldn't afford metal armor, a quilted or padded alternative was far more common, such as a linen jack or a gambeson. This being as flax was a significantly more readily available commodity than dead animals. This is obviously Eurocentric, and other cultures likely had a different time of things, but I don't think armor of plain leather was commonly, or even occasionally, used.

Again,I'm not -positive-,your mileage may vary, but leather armor as presented in D&D is likely -not- historically accurate.

[Kiero]

According to most people who know what they're talking about, leather wasn't actually used for armor historically.

For what it's worth.

So what about a lot of armour that was around in antiquity?

[hamishspence]

So are those movies which show senior Roman army members wearing leather breastplates, inaccurate in this respect?

Maybe its a case of leather not being cheap armour, but it being expensive armour reserved for high-rankers who wore armour just in case, but didn't expect to get up close and personal.

[Kiero]

So are those movies which show senior Roman army members wearing leather breastplates, inaccurate in this respect?

Maybe its a case of leather not being cheap armour, but it being expensive armour reserved for high-rankers who wore armour just in case, but didn't expect to get up close and personal.

A leather corselet isn't really intended to be serious, battle-line-worthy armour. It's a status symbol more than anything else that will provide some protection in a pinch.

Your average phalangite in the Diadochoi era (post-Alexander the Great) wore a cuirass of leather or linen, that was a lot of people armoured that way.

But I can't say I'm surprised that people are looking at this with a Medieval-centric focus.

[hamishspence]

Are the three armour pics in your earlier posts, examples of the "status symbol" type?

[Maeglin_Dubh]

So what about a lot of armour that was around in antiquity?

Linen and not leather, for the most part.

I'm not aware of leather being used for anything in antiquity besides footwear and shield edging.

[Kiero]

Linen and not leather, for the most part.

I'm not aware of leather being used for anything in antiquity besides footwear and shield edging.

Leather corselets worn by Roman officers?

[Spiryt]

Leather armor was probably almost never used in Europe, but it was sometimes met in Asia. Speaking generally, leather lammellars made from hardened leather plates were used by some nomad people in early medieval period (although archeo finds are very humble AFIAK).

Can't find some sources I've once seen, but here is something, which is supposed to be from XVIIth century.

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=2059

Maybe somebody can decipher where from. :smallwink:

[Eldan]

Leather corselets worn by Roman officers?


From what I've heard, that's from old black-and-white movies, where they used leather cuirasses because they looked close enough to metal in black and white and where a lot cheaper.

[Matthew]

So are those movies which show senior Roman army members wearing leather breastplates, inaccurate in this respect?

Yes, very.



Leather corselets worn by Roman officers?

Highly contested; there is no evidence of it, but also not enough evidence to completely exclude it. Basically, whether leather armour was ever used by the Romans is one of the big controversies of re-enactment communities. The Greeks seem to have mainly used linen in the classical period, but in the "Homeric" period may have used leather in some capacity, Homer describes a sort of leather helmet for instance.

There is more evidence for stiffened leather armour in the east, I understand, as Spiryt says.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

Leather corselets worn by Roman officers?

As stated above, possibly a Hollywoodism, but more importantly, I doubt an officer would willingly wear something that afforded him significantly -less- protection than the armor of his subordinates.

[hamishspence]

Maybe "senior" might in this case mean the people right at the top- legates.

Were they fully trained legionaries, or political appointees who might have preferred not to wear full, heavy armour- since they wouldn't be in the front line?

Come to think of it, tribunes might also qualify.

[Matthew]

Maybe "senior" might in this case mean the people right at the top- legates.

Were they fully trained legionaries, or political appointees who might have preferred not to wear full, heavy armour- since they wouldn't be in the front line?

That is one of the arguments deployed as to the "why", but there is no evidence of it actually happening. Really, it would make more sense for them to be unarmoured if that was the case, but most of them would have rode horses about the battlefield anyway.

[hamishspence]

No art or sculpture from the period?

(not that they would be 100% reliable, but they might suggest the possibility that ceremonial armour was worn)

[Kiero]

As stated above, possibly a Hollywoodism, but more importantly, I doubt an officer would willingly wear something that afforded him significantly -less- protection than the armor of his subordinates.

A tribune, legate or indeed consular general isn't going to be doing much by way of actual fighting, so why would they need mail like that centurions and legionaries wear?

[Spiryt]

A tribune, legate or indeed consular general isn't going to be doing much by way of actual fighting, so why would they need mail like that centurions and legionaries wear?

So why wear armor at all then?

In case this leather muscular thingies could be worn for "decorative" purposes, there would probably be no point in calling them "armors" anymore.

[hamishspence]

What about in areas with a hostile native population? Even if not in battle, there is the risk of some civilian with a grudge running out and trying to stab the senior figure- so they might wear light armour as a precaution.

Sort of a combination of decorative and practical.

[Faleldir]

You think that's bad? Try finding a character generator that has hide armor.
Seriously, I need one.

[Drend]

According to most people who know what they're talking about, leather wasn't actually used for armor historically.

For what it's worth.

Tell that to the ancient Romans. Leather Cuirasse, like those posted earlier, were the norm for the foot soldiers, while officers used Bronze armor, like the Greeks before them. Examples of leather armor from that period still survive in museums in Britain, as well as Spain and Italy, alongside the documents historians use as the "authentic" records of the time. Northern Europeans also used a type of leather armor similar in design to scale mail, and Mongols used hardened leather as armor as well. Personally, I'd rather have that +2 AC with that chunk of cow hide than just a cotton T-Shirt.

I honestly thought the artwork looked like a giant leaf. Although, you could call it darkleaf armor, which has the same stats as leather.

[Spiryt]

What about in areas with a hostile native population? Even if not in battle, there is the risk of some civilian with a grudge running out and trying to stab the senior figure- so they might wear light armour as a precaution.

Sort of a combination of decorative and practical.

Really, it's pure speculation, but in such case, I would really say that he would just wear mail.

I'm not sure how much such leather stuff weights, but if it's really significantly lighter than mail, it's not going to stop any stab anyway.

People who try to recreate some actual leather armor generally agree that it have to be quite to very heavy to be effective.

[Kiero]

So why wear armor at all then?

In case this leather muscular thingies could be worn for "decorative" purposes, there would probably be no point in calling them "armors" anymore.

Because their style of leadership was to be just behind the battle line. That still exposes them to dangers (like having coming under missile fire) that their bodyguard might not be able to handle effectively.


Really, it's pure speculation, but in such case, I would really say that he would just wear mail.

Most of classical history is educated conjecture.


I'm not sure how much such leather stuff weights, but if it's really significantly lighter than mail, it's not going to stop any stab anyway.

People who try to recreate some actual leather armor generally agree that it have to be quite to very heavy to be effective.

It doesn't have to be equal to mail to provide protection. Even an ordinary leather jacket (nowhere near as tough as a corselet) will give you considerably more protection against a knife attack than ordinary cotton or wool clothing does. Particularly against slashes.

[Spiryt]

Ok, what do we KNOW about such leather Roman cuirasses?

Written sources, finds, paints, sculptures?

Because, wondering like that won't give us much - theoretically Romans could as well use windmills, but from whatever reason nothing was left from them.

I tried the sites in your post, but there's seems to be nothing about history those things.

[Matthew]

No art or sculpture from the period?

(not that they would be 100% reliable, but they might suggest the possibility that ceremonial armour was worn)

Plenty, but none that can be said to leather (or bronze or iron, for that matter). We have no complete literary evidence either, though it is mentioned by Plutarch(?) that the Romans did not wear leather armour, but that is hardly going to cover the period 300 BC to 500 AD, or whatever is chosen.



Tell that to the ancient Romans. Leather Cuirasse, like those posted earlier, were the norm for the foot soldiers, while officers used Bronze armour, like the Greeks before them. Examples of leather armour from that period still survive in museums in Britain, as well as Spain and Italy, alongside the documents historians use as the "authentic" records of the time. Northern Europeans also used a type of leather armour similar in design to scale mail, and Mongols used hardened leather as armour as well. Personally, I'd rather have that +2 AC with that chunk of cow hide than just a cotton T-Shirt.

Whilst there is some evidence (possibly) of Viking use of leather armour, and certainly some for Mongols, there is none for the Romans, nor the Classical period Greeks; you have been misinformed on that count.



Because their style of leadership was to be just behind the battle line. That still exposes them to dangers (like having coming under missile fire) that their bodyguard might not be able to handle effectively.

Well, their style of leadership depended on the individual. Caesar occasionally threw himself into the fray. At any rate, there is no hard evidence to support this conjecture.



Most of classical history is educated conjecture.

Sort of, but it is certainly also based on evidence.



It doesn't have to be equal to mail to provide protection. Even an ordinary leather jacket (nowhere near as tough as a corselet) will give you considerably more protection against a knife attack than ordinary cotton or wool clothing does. Particularly against slashes.

Whatever protection leather may or may not afford the wearer, there is very little reason to wear it in preference to mail when you are also mounted. Better, in fact, to wear the subarmalis (of which there is little evidence) over which can be added the mail if significant danger threatens. That said, when it came to light armour, Roman troops apparently did not use leather, so it seems unlikely that the officers would.

Of course, anything reasonable is possible in the absence of evidence.

[hamishspence]

If we're looking at medieval to Renaissance, Western, leather armour, that was actually cheaper than metal armour, how about the gambeson, and its successor, the buff coat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson

They weren't all linen- leather replaced linen.

I think it went Gambeson, Leather Jerkin, Buff Coat.

[Matthew]

If we're looking at medieval to Renaissance, Western, leather armour, that was actually cheaper than metal armour, how about the gambeson, and its successor, the buff coat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson

They weren't all linen- leather replaced linen.

I think it went Gambeson, Leather Jerkin, Buff Coat.

Sure, soft leather is well attested in that capacity in the medieval period. Not really the same thing as "stiffened" leather armour, though, more like "padded armour".

[WhiteHarness]

There was plenty of leather armour used in history. It just wasn't used by poor people, as someone suggested. The poor didn't have easy access to the products of livestock once they had been slaughtered; thus the didn't eat much meat, and didn't get to use much leather, except for shoes and buckets and such. In fact, one medieval author wrote that armour of cuir-bouilli, which enjoyed a period of popularity in the 13th and 14th centuries, was suitable only for the man who was "point gentilhomme," that is, every inch a gentleman. The armour of choice for the lower orders was almost always some form of padded/quilted cloth.

Here is a surviving example of an ancient Central Asian leather lamellar armour, now kept in the Metropolitan Museum:

http://www.schmitthenner.com/images/Eurasian%20Scale.jpg

[Maeglin_Dubh]

EDIT: Ninja'd. See below the Mongol paragraph for clarification.

The leather armor cited as being used by the Mongols (a nomadic society for whom leather would have been a more available commodity than raised crops) was 1/4" thick and made from water buffalo hide. A far cry from the general description and understanding of leather armor provided by D&D, and far more practical in terms of not dying than a leather jacket. Additionally, their tactics didn't require as much close-in fighting as the tactics of their European contemporaries. All the same, they preferred metal armor when they could get it.

EDIT: I would readily admit that the 14th century did see some popularity of hardened leather, but not as armor itself, rather as an add-on to mail. There were no 'suits' of cuirboulli.

[hamishspence]

Isn't the whole point of D&D leather, is that its a lot more expensive than quilted armour, and only slightly better protection?

So- quilted armour for 1st level Commoners, leather armour for 1st level Warriors, and so on, scaling up.

[Kiero]

Well, their style of leadership depended on the individual. Caesar occasionally threw himself into the fray. At any rate, there is no hard evidence to support this conjecture.

I'm not just talking about generals, but officers more widely. Centurions were front-line leaders (thus are armoured much like their men), tribunes and legates weren't.


Sort of, but it is certainly also based on evidence.

Of which there is very little surviving physical evidence (mail might survive, but it's unlikely that anything organic would). It's all conjecture based on written sources* and the odd bit of decorative relief on columns and such.

*Which are themselves merely those that have survived the passage of time, and often weren't written with accuracy in mind. Like Livy's fantasies.


Whatever protection leather may or may not afford the wearer, there is very little reason to wear it in preference to mail when you are also mounted. Better, in fact, to wear the subarmalis (of which there is little evidence) over which can be added the mail if significant danger threatens. That said, when it came to light armour, Roman troops apparently did not use leather, so it seems unlikely that the officers would.

Of course, anything reasonable is possible in the absence of evidence.

There's plenty of reason in terms of comfort and minimising the load your steed is carrying, particularly if you're expecting to be riding about carrying messages and directing people across a wide area all day. Metal armour is hot to wear.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

Twice as expensive, twice as much protection.

The issue is, as myself and others have said, leather is nowhere near as prevalent as armor in the historical record as we are to believe it is in D&D. Also, I seem to recall that 'studded leather armor', unlike it's less pointy younger cousin, who has -some- historical precedent, simply did not exist.

But then, D&D is not history.

EDIT: Leather armor is also very hot to wear, and if I were an armored messenger, I'd rather wear the armor that could actually stop an arrow. You know, like mail.

[Matthew]

I'm not just talking about generals, but officers more widely. Centurions were front-line leaders (thus are armoured much like their men), tribunes and legates weren't.

I know, but what I am saying is that some did and some did not. Caesar is just the most glaring example. If you are not near the action, you do not need armour, if you are near the action then you might as well be armoured.



Of which there is very little surviving physical evidence (mail might survive, but it's unlikely that anything organic would). It's all conjecture based on written sources* and the odd bit of decorative relief on columns and such.

*Which are themselves merely those that have survived the passage of time, and often weren't written with accuracy in mind. Like Livy's fantasies.

Loads of iconographic evidence, though, and plenty of written sources as well. We see lorica segmentata, and lorica hamata on the troops, or else no armour, and given what has survived, it is a good guess that these are made of iron. We see lorica musculata on the officers that looks a lot like ancient Greek armour, which it is clearly modelled on. We know that armour was usually bronze, and have surviving examples, as well as an iron example. There is no reason to suppose that this is not what is being depicted on Roman officers. We also know that Caesar took the breast plate of Alexander from his tomb to wear. The evidence, such as it is, does not point towards leather armour at all, so we would just be fabricating from whole cloth on that score.



There's plenty of reason in terms of comfort and minimising the load your steed is carrying, particularly if you're expecting to be riding about carrying messages and directing people across a wide area all day. Metal armour is hot to wear.

Leather armour is hot to wear. If it was that big an issue, I doubt they would bother with helmets either. Point is, if load and comfort were really a concern, then you would just as likely not bother with any armour at all. I am not saying it is completely implausible, given certain criteria, but I am saying it is complete invention in the absence of any evidence.

[Spiryt]

In fact, one medieval author wrote that armour of cuir-bouilli, which enjoyed a period of popularity in the 13th and 14th centuries, was suitable only for the man who was "point gentilhomme," that is, every inch a gentleman. The armour of choice for the lower orders was almost always some form of padded/quilted cloth.


Yes, there is one or two authors writing about cuir boulli, but almost nothing about that beside it, AFAIK. Any additional info?


If we're looking at medieval to Renaissance, Western, leather armour, that was actually cheaper than metal armour, how about the gambeson, and its successor, the buff coat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson

They weren't all linen- leather replaced linen.


Yes, as a part of quilted armor, leather was used quite often, AFAIK. But that's not really leather armor.


Isn't the whole point of D&D leather, is that its a lot more expensive than quilted armour, and only slightly better protection?


And why, in general, the idea that leather should be better protection than quilted armor?

Good quilted armor, or multi layered cloth armor (20 layers of linen, for example), or combinations, could be rather good armor, while usually being a bit lighter than the mail covering similar area (depending on details, of course).

Any proof that similar weight of leather should be worth bothering at all?

Leather as it is doesn't really serve as good padding, for example.

[hamishspence]

The point I was making is that a leather jerkin is slightly different from basic quilted armour.

And its successor, the buff coat- provided quite good protection. People with the money would have worn it in conjunction with metal armour, but the basic trooper might have just had the buff coat- which was still better than ordinary clothing.

If the linothorax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linothorax

incorporated a reasonable proportion of leather into its construction, it may also qualify.

We don't know for sure what it was made of though.

[Matthew]

The point I was making is that a leather jerkin is slightly different from basic quilted armour.

It is, but let us not confuse it with leather armour in the D&D sense.



And its successor, the buff coat- provided quite good protection. People with the money would have worn it in conjunction with metal armour, but the basic trooper might have just had the buff coat- which was still better than ordinary clothing.

Sure, but padded armour would provide better protection again.



If the linothorax incorporated a reasonable proportion of leather into its construction, it may also qualify. We don't know for sure what it was made of though.

Maybe not for absolutely sure, but it is pretty certain that it was linen.

[hamishspence]

Which version of D&D? How does, for example, 2nd ed, depict leather armour?

And what about other fantasy games? In Diablo, for example, leather armour appears like a medieval jerkin, whereas Hardened Leather Armour, appears like a movie-style leather cuirass.



Maybe not for absolutely sure, but it is pretty certain that it was linen.

Pretty certain that it had linen in it- however, it may have been layered, with both linen and leather layers.

[Spiryt]

Linothorax was linen armor. :smallconfused:

Dan Howards (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7338&highlight=linothorax) post abour preserved examples.

Leather may have served as buckles and stuff, but i doubt.

Linothorax project (http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html)

Apparently, rather flawed project (actual Linoth. probably weren't glued), but you can see some vases and stuff.

[Matthew]

Which version of D&D? How does, for example, 2nd ed, depict leather armour?

And what about other fantasy games? In Diablo, for example, leather armour appears like a medieval jerkin, whereas Hardened Leather Armour, appears like a movie-style leather cuirass.

D&D has a fairly constant depiction of leather armour, based largely on A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armour: in All Countries and in All Times (http://books.google.com/books?id=A4Rp_Qx9in4C&dq), which I think they must have had a copy of at their offices, since it is cited several times in TSR products:

First Edition (1979)


Leather Armour is shaped cuir bouli (leather hardened by immersion in boiling oil) cuirass and shoulder pieces and softer shirt and leggings (DMG, p. 27).

LEATHER ARMOUR is cuir bouli, consisting of coat, leggings, boots, and gauntlets (DMG, p. 165).

Second Edition (1989)



Leather: This armour is made of leather hardened in boiling oil and then shaped into breastplate and shoulder protectors. The remainder of the suit is fashioned from more flexible, somewhat softer materials (PHB, p. ?).

Description: Leather armour, despite the popular misconception, is not soft and supple like the leather used to make a ranger's boots or a druid's robe. That kind of leather offers no better protection than common clothing.

Leather armour is actually strong and stiff, having been hardened in boiling oil and then stretched over a wooden or stone model of a man's or woman's chest. The resulting breastplate and shoulder guards are combined with a tunic or kirtle and, in colder climes, leggings of wool or soft leather (A&EG, p. ?).

Rules Cyclopedia (1991)



Leather Armour: This armour is made of tough leather, often boiled for extra toughness, or even boiled in wax (which produces armour known as Cuir-Boulli) (p. 67).

D20/3e (2000; 2003)



Leather: The breastplate and shoulder protectors of this armour are made of leather that has been stiffened by boiling in oil. The rest of the armour is made of softer and more flexible leather (PHB, pp. 106; 125).

Other games are usually derivative of D&D if they use the leather/chain/plate ideal, but not all. It is unlikely that leather padded armour will be distinct from padded armour, though, unless very detailed armour systematisation is attempted.



Pretty certain that it had linen in it- however, it may have been layered, with both linen and leather layers.

It is possible, as I say. Likely there were numerous methods and types.

[Kiero]

It is possible, as I say. Likely there were numerous methods and types.

Indeed, I think it's pretty safe to say that it would have been made from any and everything that was on hand.

[Spiryt]

I'll post info about surviving linothorax again, because I screwed something in earlier post. :smallannoyed:

Dan Howards (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7338&highlight=linothorax) posts.


Indeed, I think it's pretty safe to say that it would have been made from any and everything that was on hand.

Even if it could not work properly? :smalltongue:

Anything could be possible, I guess, but if I'm not wrong Greeks generally weren't using a lot of leather.

And I'm not sure if sewing leather with linen would be easy and result in solid stuff. Sewing layers of one material would be easier, definitely.

And there's a lack of evidence as mentioned.

[Petrocorus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamellar_armour



Indeed, I think it's pretty safe to say that it would have been made from any and everything that was on hand.

Like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_armour) made out of pangolin scale.




Can't find some sources I've once seen, but here is something, which is supposed to be from XVIIth century.


Maybe somebody can decipher where from. :smallwink:

It's Chinese apparently.

[hamishspence]

Given that D&D depicts equipment from a lot of periods- were there any cultures that did manufacture boiled leather armour in roughly the fashion described?

[Spiryt]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that boiling oil would do something very bad with leather... :smallconfused:

It fries things after all.


As for wax or water - well, certainly stuff like that were used, but obviously it was rare and kinda lost in vast history of different Asian nations, so nothing is certain, at least to majority of people.

Certainly, leather used as armor were treated to behave differently than most modern and past leather clothes, beacuse the later aren't really good for armor.

Some discussion (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8011&highlight=leather+armor+armour), with a lot of different views, and not really any definite data, but still.

[Mauther]

My understanding of leather armor was it served a purpose similar to modern second chance vests. It would minimize injury from the 9mm of the day (slings, clubs, slashing knives) but for real protection anyone with real money would go to metal. You certainly saw pieces of leather "armor" with bracers and battle belts, and I'm fairly certain I've seen reference to leather breastplates in Scotland and Mongolia.

But leather was never a prevalent armor, you'd need a relatively large cow population which would exclude most of the Mediterranean cultures. Plus it is a very hot armor so you gain no real benefit over metal armor except weight reduction. So the places your likely to find it would have to be iron poor, or at least not have the kind of skilled excess iron workers necessary for armor creation and upkeep. At least that was the explanation I got for why leather armor was used by poorer nobles in preNorman Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But anyone who could aquire metal armor in place of leather did so at the first opportunity. The only ones I can think of who prefered leather armor were the Mongols.

[Mauther]

One minor advantage to leather over cloth was durability. Most people didn't wear armor all the time, you tended to throw it someplace out of the way when you didn't need it. Cloth tends to rot or get eaten. The scots would toss the leather and sword in the their thatch for storage. You don't get that kind of utility out of weave.

On the downside, zulu's used leather shields. We all saw how well that worked out for them. http://www.spike.com/full-episode/william-wallace-vs/32222

[hamishspence]

One thing I've noticed is that in come case, higher-protection armour incorporates lower-protection armour into its makeup.

Mail comes with a quilted jacket worn underneath.

Field plate is a breastplate, greaves, vambraces, etc, worn over a suit of mail, which is worn over a quilted jacket.

Maybe "realistic medieval leather" should be the same- leather jerkin worn over quilted jacket?

Result- you have an armour better than quilted armour, but heavier, and slightly more encumbering (hence, lower maximum DEX bonus).

[Kiero]

But leather was never a prevalent armor, you'd need a relatively large cow population which would exclude most of the Mediterranean cultures.

No you don't. You can make leather from any animal that has a hide thicker than human skin.

[Spiryt]

At least that was the explanation I got for why leather armor was used by poorer nobles in preNorman Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But anyone who could aquire metal armor in place of leather did so at the first opportunity. The only ones I can think of who prefered leather armor were the Mongols.

Well, the point is that no one even know if leather armor was used in pre Norman Europe, historians have problems with finding evidence of gambeson being used pre ~1050, and you claim that you know leather armor was used in Scotland etc. :smallconfused:

Do you have any sources about it that I, and so many other people, including professional historians failed to find? I have seen few books and way too many discussions about possibilities of leather armour in Europe, and general consensus is that somehow widespread use of such armour started east of Ural.

And I was pretty sure that Mongols preferred metal armour as well. Could be wrong though, maybe they had their own reasons.

And I hope you are joking with "Deadliest Warrior" because it's probably stupidest pseudo science word had ever seen. I think I've managed only parts about Viking vs Samurai and Apache Gladiator.

After seeing W. Wallace with claymore, tartan and face painted blue, I gave up.

Their "crush tests" are fun to see though, but that's it.


nce;8090017]One thing I've noticed is that in come case, higher-protection armour incorporates lower-protection armour into its makeup.

Mail comes with a quilted jacket wor[/B]n underneath.

Field plate is a breastplate, greaves, vambraces, etc, worn over a suit of mail, which is worn over a quilted jacket.

Maybe "realistic medieval leather" should be the same- leather jerkin worn over quilted jacket?

Result- you have an armour better than quilted armour, but heavier, and slightly more encumbering (hence, lower maximum DEX bonus).

Firstly, full plate armour wasn't usually worn over mail, that would be serious overkill. Sometimes light shirt, and often pieces to cover gaps.

Secondly, such thinking is way too D&D like in my opinion.

It wasn't "lower protection " worn under. In case of mail, it was simply proper connection, mail doesn't work well without somehow "puff" padding clothes, padding makes it behave wonderfully, without it mail is quite limited. Padding without mail is even more limited, and certainly standalone quilted armors would have to be even heavier, to be similar in protection.

Gambesons worn under plate weren't nearly as bulky as under mail, because their role was more to support armor, and disconnect it from skin and undergarments.

So one certainly could wear some kind of solid "mail like" padding under leather*, the questions is if it was working together as well as in mail case, if it was comfortable and so on. It's hard to say if it was necessary, and stuff.

* maybe that was what Mongols, Avars and guys were doing. I don't know, at least.

The thing is that we don't have sources, experiments stuff. Not enough leather armours, at least in moderately researched Europe, so we don't know.

[Greenish]

And I hope you are joking with "Deadliest Warrior" because it's probably stupidest pseudo science world had ever seen.I dunno about that, I recall once seeing a similar fighting show, only it was with dinosaurs. It might've been a spoof, but you never know.

[Spiryt]

I dunno about that, I recall once seeing a similar fighting show, only it was with dinosaurs. It might've been a spoof, but you never know.

Ok, I don't watch many shows like that so I can't really know, but I think that thing with dinosaurs wasn't using haughty and lame texts about " lethal power of real warriors and their weapons" and actually making belief that they're serious.

If it was, then I take it back anytime.

Dinosaurs must rule.

EDIT: And obviously, stuff like flat earth hypothesis, must be more stupid, so I wasn't purely literal. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Firstly, full plate armour wasn't usually worn over mail, that would be serious overkill. Sometimes light shirt, and often pieces to cover gaps.

I didn't say full plate. I said field plate- which was quite a lot earlier.

Not so much plate with mail joining the gaps, as mail, with a few plate parts added.

[Spiryt]

I didn't say full plate. I said field plate- which was quite a lot earlier.

Not so much plate with mail joining the gaps, as mail, with a few plate parts added.

I've never heard "field plate" used as description of coat of plates, covered breastplates, and other 1350 ~14something stuff, but I've read much about it in polish, so I may obviously not know something. :smallwink:

Armours like that were worn in different combinations, with mail, without mail, with mail here and without there, but in indeed often it was mail behind steel plates.

[Greenish]

haughty and lame texts about " lethal power of real warriors and their weapons"I wonder if that's the tone in one of the fights I noticed on the site: IRA vs. Taleban. Eh. :smallconfused:

[hamishspence]

I've never heard "field plate" used as description of coat of plates, covered breastplates, and other 1350 ~14something stuff, but I've read much about it in polish, so I may obviously not know something. :smallwink:


Maybe its more a gaming term than a scholarly one- I've seen it commonly used for the versions of plate armour that are less protective than full plate.

[Mauther]

No you don't. You can make leather from any animal that has a hide thicker than human skin.

True, but you get different characteristics from different skins. I've never heard any claims that lamb skin was used in armor construction. I could easily be wrong, but most references or claims of leather armor existence I've heard have always been cow or a bovine cousin.

[Mauther]

Well, the point is that no one even know if leather armor was used in pre Norman Europe, historians have problems with finding evidence of gambeson being used pre ~1050, and you claim that you know leather armor was used in Scotland etc. :smallconfused:

Do you have any sources about it that I, and so many other people, including professional historians failed to find? I have seen few books and way too many discussions about possibilities of leather armour in Europe, and general consensus is that somehow widespread use of such armour started east of Ural.

And I was pretty sure that Mongols preferred metal armour as well. Could be wrong though, maybe they had their own reasons.

And I hope you are joking with "Deadliest Warrior" because it's probably stupidest pseudo science word had ever seen. I think I've managed only parts about Viking vs Samurai and Apache Gladiator.

After seeing W. Wallace with claymore, tartan and face painted blue, I gave up.

Their "crush tests" are fun to see though, but that's it.


Oh, the science and history aspect of "Deadliest Warrior" is complete crap, no doubt about that. But its still fun to watch the demonstrations portion. The part I was refering to on that was when the tested the zulu cowhide shield versus a claymore. Some of the demonstrations are even interesting (katana vs chain mail, blunderbuss vs full plate, double spear throws, etc). I'd recommend watching it for the eye candy of the "crush tests" but take every single thing they say with about 90 grains of salt.

On the actual history of armor, your right there are very little reliable specifics. The little tidbits about "historical" leather like the Scots was from a lecture I attended about 5 years ago by some brit who specialies in historical re-enactments of uniforms and equipment. Can't remember his name off the top of my head, he did the costuming for the Last of the Mohicans and Geronimo. It was about the historical accuracy of movies and it was in the middle of a fairly damning description of Braveheart. The one thing he liked was the depiction of the Scots using the thatch roofs as attics, apparently there was substantial written evidence to support that. He was generally dismissive of leather armor, as other posters already pointed out most leather armor we "know of" today is actually just Hollywood hokum. He felt there probably was leather in use, but it would have been a poor man's substitute. There is evidence of its existence in some writing and art work, but that's far from proof positive. If I remember correctly, he argued that it would have been a placeholder armor in poorer regions from the 6th - 11th century. I've never heard any claims that leather armor migrated or spread at all. It seems like it would be a naturally progression in protective design. Naked to cloth to hide to leather. If there was a spread, at some point it would come into conflict with metal work and at that point metal would almost always be dominant.

As far as the mongols, thats pretty much common knowledge. I'm not going to do you the disservice of pointing you to wikipedia, but pretty much every source I've ever read says leather was common. I agree it doesn't make sense, and I'm sure their heavy cavalry made use of metal armor as soon as they got access. But even the Golden Horde, well after the Mongols were established, used leather.

[cfalcon]

Wait a minute. You're trying to get the armor in an illustration to look how it looks in D&D, and you're trying to get it to look "realistic" instead of "fantasy"?

Do those strike anyone else as opposed goals?

Not at all. I would assume that nonmagical armor (and most magical armor, actually), would look like the historical counterparts, and not at all like the preposterous portrayal we got a lot more of in wotc books. The things that aren't historic would at least be portrayed as if they were. You're supposed to be simulating something similar to reality in general, with some oddities such as magic. Subtract the magic and you get something that could actually be real.

[Danin]

I don't know a lot about historical arms and armor, but I do know that leather offers a fair degree of protection. A hefty leather jacket worn over a thicker sweater or a flannel long sleeve will stop most slashes from a knife and has a good chance of turning most thrusts enough to just inflict a bad gash, provided you keep moving. It also does more than you'd think about a piece of 1 and 3/4" pipe and a kick to the sternum. That's just a leather jacket too, nothing too fancy like hardened leather.

I could see the police making good use of it. Without being so encumbered by metal they could still give chase to a suspect while having a fair degree of protection from the most usual weapons on hand. This could also be good for garrisons in well pacified towns where violence isn't common. The sight of a soldier in full battle dress is a little disconcerting to townsfolk, while the sight of a cop or soldier in more utilitarian light protective gear isn't.

Certainly though, I don't see anyone heading into battle having willingly chosen leather armor over metal apart from very specific circumstances.