Evening peoples, I've recently picked up an old interest in the gladiator games and am actually making an effort to learn about it properly but I'm curious about some fo the armour. I've seen a few different styles of gladiator that use leather to protect their arm or strips of cloth to protect the leg but how well would those have really worked?
I'm far from an expert, but I think it was mainly used as protection against incidental nicks and cuts.
Thats my theory too but growing up in the hollywood version of history where heavy plate armour means nothing I struggle to beleive a thin strip of leather would do anything. So it was more a defense against minor cuts rather than any serious defence?
The leather is hardened by boiling it in something (maybe wax?). That's all I know, there are books on it I'm sure. The point is that it is very hard like plates made of leather. Another consideration is the weapons that were used at the time. Bronze weapons I think. They would not stay sharp like steel does. A sharp steel dagger would probably penetrate right through leather armor at a 90 degree angle, I assume bronze would too. However at say a 75 degree angle, steel might cut through, but bronze is not as hard and sharp, so it might deflect off without penetration. Just totally numbers I made up to pass on the idea.
I am no expert but wasn't leather actually a pretty common element of battle uniforms right up until the middle ages, I can see why it would have been used leather could save you from a sword, plus not everyone would have the access or funds to buy metal armour better than nothing isn't it.
IMO that's spot on. Apart from cuirbouilli (boiled leather), leather is only used as shoes. The greek and romans might have used boiled leather to make six-pack-torsos, but I'm not that into those periods, it might be the hollywood version. I know the greek used linothorax (several layers of linen), and that is much more effective at stopping many things than leather. Fact is, it's easy to cut leather, it doesn't offer protection. If the romans did boil leather, the technique seems to have been lost in northweast europe, and it seems that the germanic tribes like the Angles, Saxons, Hordes, Aægdir, Goths, etc. that is mentioned mostly used textiles and the odd piece of chainmail left after the weastern roman empire went down the drain. Cuirbouilli returns to the european theatre in the late medieval times, mostly used to make horse-face-protection (chaffron, I think it's called). There exists some theory amongst Viking-reenactors that leather flakes were sown together as some sort of "scale armor", but no finds of vests like that is found. Many now consider the victorian interpretations of scale-armour to actually have been mis-interpeted drawings of mail armor. The baeux-tapestry is a good example of this.
^Apparently archeological finds in Sweden support viking use of Lamellar armour. I thought Cuir Boille was common for footsoldiers during the mid-medieval period?
Maybe it was just to make gladiators look badass then wouldn't be that suprising. But...its linen... I really struggle to get my head aorund anything except some really beast metal plate armour stopping weapons Sort of related but am I right in thinking the Greeks were the first people to use bronze armour? ? Didn't vikings have a reputation of sorts for not using proper armour for the most part? I always assumed most used a shield and the scale armour was reserved for the people higher up in the tribe
Also...galdiator armour and equipment was not always entirely practical (who'd really choose to fight with a trident and net eh?). You can't look at it in the same light as to what a pragmatic soldier would wear. It was very formalised and often centered around putting on a good show rather than actual protection. The outifts also had significence to gods and other dieties too. Leather was probably used because it was cheap, easily made, easy to decorate, didn't inhibit movement too much and offered enough protection to make the fight last a while without being so protective it was hard for the gladioators to hurt each other. Remember the health if the gladiator wasn't of prime importance (although far less were killed than most people think). It was "entertainment".
A heavy donkey jacket can help stop a knife if the hit isn't straight in, catches multiple folds, gets partly blocked etc. The linen stuff I've seen on gladiators seems heavily padded, "bunched" around the limbs and held on with thick leather straps. Seems ideal for stopping minor blows while still allowing activity and movement.
Cloth armour is actually very effective, or at least good enough. The richer people in Viking warbands would have had actual metal armour - they'd be the dedicated fighters and you needed to be rich to be a fighter (you might even have a sword, or a Dane axe aloong with your armour) since it was a profession that required a lot of dedication. Most of the members would have been part-time soldiers with spears or axes. As to hardened leather, it's a lot tougher than hollywood would lead you to believe. Probably made, layered, and padded (don't forget, the outer layer of armour is not the only layer, linen padding would sit underneath) it can comfortably turn a blade or spear blow. Of course, I can't comment on the actual history. All I know about is the effectiveness of properly made leather armour and personally I'd prefer a suit of good chain any day, but it's substantially better than nothing. Remember, a modern leather coat can actually stop small caliber bullets and will help to take the force out of a stab. What leather doesn't work against is slashing cuts, which would've been less common when short stabbing swords and spears were in use.
Yep although I do think the net and trident wasn't exactly terribly matched with a murmillo (assuming I've remembered the names) I would of preferred a shield over a net but I don't think it was a lamb-to-slaughter arrangement. Yeah I was suprised how few were killed I think I read a 1/8 quote. As for helath though weren't they pretty well looked after? I mean they weren't cheap so I would fo thought a trainer would look after his investment sure I've heard somewhere their medical care wasn't bad. Fair enough looks like I need to read more about armour Cool, thanks for that info bunny. Must of been a downer to get a hit in on someone only to see it didn't do much Very intesting. Wouldn't a slash be easier to block than stab? I always thought a stab is more likely to have the most power behind it if you're driving a point in rather than relying on a cut
Here's where it gets fun, and you start to realise just how much of a difference a sword really makes to a fight. A slash isn't really easier to block, as you can put more force into it against a block (try to power through the block basically) and it covers a much greater target. While you can sway aside from a stab, or turn to avoid it, a good slash only gives you the options of stepping back or blocking. The way that the edge of a good sword then cuts across armour makes it much more effective than stabbing. You've also got to consider that a sword is the most balanced weapon we currently have in terms of attack/defense. A spear is easy to dodge or deflect, and is focussed mainly on attacking. The same goes for axes, tridents, pretty much any weapon you care to name other than a sword. Put a sword in a fighter's hand and it goes from a battle of sheer strength and speed, to involving a lot more in the way of tactics and technique. Finally as for a stab, to stab through a good set of layered leather armour, stiffened, you're going to need to put a lot of weight behind the point. If it's sharp enough it'll make that effort easier, but if you take a knife and try and stab through a few layers of leather you'll find it is much, much harder than slashing across it. Hmm, too much coffee this morning, I appear to be rambling a little.
Sure. Well fed, trained, given medical after-care etc. However when it comes to fight time what was wanted was action, blood, drama etc. That's what all the treatment was building up to. They were a product. As I understand it it was a fine line between the conflicting requirements of looking after your investement (the gladiators) whilst also making good matches that please the crowd.
I'd like to see the source for that statement, it would really be interresting if this is true. I've never heard of it, most viking-re-enactors believe that leather scale is OK, but somehow they never manage to cough up the sources. What "vikings" in Norway and Sweden sais when they want to support their dress-code is that it's based on some find in Russia This is allso the case with the leather scale torso-armor-thingie, they say it's eastern-influenced scale armor. The only swedish "scale" armor are the coat of plates from the 14th century. As for textile beeing effective armor, you just have to get used to it, southpaw, many layers of linen don't only stop cuts dead in their tracks, they allso stop piercing attacks quite efficiantly. In the medieval times in europe, textile armor is seen as stand-alone-protection, as extra protection worn under or over chainmail, or as extra protection worn under plate, often used as the base that the metal plate parts are attached by straps and laces. If you want to search for such garnments, you can search the web with words like Jupon, Pourpoint and Gamberson
I don't know from roman times and gladiators. But I do have a strong conviction that it's a rumor that leather was cheap and ready available, in european medieval times. It was a constant demand for leather to make shoes and belts + harness for animals. In early iron age, leather, hides and wool was main export-articles from scandinavia to the roman empire, and was probably expensive. Allso try to wear natural skin-shoes for one year, use them on gravel, and you'll see that they are worn out pretty quick. A friend of mine who makes shoes and have done some research estimates that a person working with heavy labour could wear out 13 pairs of shoes pr. year. He allso has a theory that people sat during winter and made shoes for the summer-season, several pairs pr. family (this is probably allso why you see the wooden shoes used a lot in europe in old days, not because it's particularily comfortable, but because leather was so incredibly expensive). So put in short, leather was not used much for armor because *It was expensive. *It didn't offer very good protection.
I see what you are saying. I meant that leather was probably cheap when compared to an equivalent metal item. Not that is was cheap per se. And from what I've seen the main armour of gladiators was some stylistic metal bits (helmet, one arm, greaves maybe) with the rest cloth/linen and straps and padding. And also...gladiator armour wouldn't be used in the same way as working shoes (even if it was leather). It'd get used a few times a year, passed from Gladiator to gladiator, repaired if damaged etc. Not used everyday. Would that not be more because they would be relatively water proof (unlike leather)? I'd imagine that would be the main problem in European countries in the winter. Trench foot and things like that.
referance is Olausson, M. 2001. Krigarens resa och hemkomst. Olausson, M. (red.). Birkas krigare. Stockholm. I don't read swedish though Apparently they've found a load of the scales at a dig in Birka, Sweden
