In fantasy video games, television, and movies, leather armor is almost always present in some manner. In fact, it's usually the predominant material shit is made out of. My question is, was leather armor ever actually a common type of armor worn by soldiers? It seems to me that throughout history, most types of armor were some type of chainmaille, plate, or composite thing. Gambesons, which one could say was probably the most common "armor" for the vast majority of footsoldiers in the High Middle Ages/Renaissance period, was basically just really thick cloth. Yes, I'm aware of things like linothorax, but again that is a composite composed of many different materials, leather being only a small part.
It just seems to me that an arrow or even moderately sharpened sword would cut right through leather and it would do precisely dick to protect you. Furthermore, anyone who works a blue collar job out in the dead cold of winter will know that leather fucking sucks for cold weather. If it gets wet, it freezes harder than a rock, and isn't a very good insulator. It also isn't all that waterproof unless treated.
>tl;dr Did soldiers throughout history wear leather armor as much as media would have us believe?
You can cure leather to be pretty tough, and its better than absolutely nothing. People wear leather helmets in rugby and old school handegg, and motorcyclist wear leather not just because it looks badass, but it offers minimal protection against road rash.
Chase Moore
I remember reading about Japanese Leather armor
>During the Heian period (794-1185), the Japanese cuirass evolved into the more familiar style of armour worn by the samurai known as the dou or dō. Japanese armour makers started to use leather (nerigawa) and lacquer was used to weather proof the armor parts. By the end of the Heian period the Japanese cuirass had arrived at the shape recognized as being distinctly samurai. Leather and or iron scales were used to construct samurai armours, with leather and eventually silk lace used to connect the individual scales (kozane) which these cuirasses were now being made from.[2]
Parker Perry
1) Not all Greek Armor is linothorax, 2) Gambesons are quilted leather. 3) The main armor of soldiers in Ancient China was leather lamellar. The fuckhuge armies states fielded required most of the metal going to weapons, though metal armor did exist for elite troopers or leaders.
Levi Sanchez
Learger armor in Ancient China got pretty fancy,
Such as this Charioteer armor from the State of Chu.
Adam Morris
Kind of, but not really. Especially not in Europe. There are no recorded instances at all of anybody wearing armor that's basically a gigantic slab of leather like your pic shows.
Lamellar armor often laced together plates of iron, they also sometimes used boiled leather or rawhide. This type of armor was more common in the east, in places like China or Mongolia.
For what it's worth, if you're doing this for research for a book or whatever, you could cure leather to be pretty damn hard and it'd be better than nothing, but it still wouldn't be nearly as effective as good metal.
Mason Reed
1) I never said all Greek armor is linothorax. 2) Most gambesons are quilted fabric, not leather. They were often worn on their own or over chainmaille. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson >Usually constructed of linen or wool, the stuffing varied, and could be for example scrap cloth or horse hair 3) Thanks, didn't know that.
Nathaniel Miller
Worn under maille nigger
Austin Russell
Nothing real no.
Would you like to know why leather armour is so popular today? Because larping. I kid you not larpers can easily buy and boil leather armour with nearly no skills needed.
So a market started for leather armour and movie sets buy them on the cheap. People look at me like I am insane for suggesting leather armour is nearly totally made up outside of straps and laces etc.
It's simply not real and anybody who has had anything to do with leather will tell you how terrible it is as armour.
It stops scratches, minor bumps etc so is ok as say a driving cap but not much else.
Carson Cox
HAHAHAHAHAHA
that's bullshit and you know it.
Josiah Sullivan
>Lets waste endless resources giving our soldiers something so utterly worthless for it's job and is worse to have in many situations for no good reason, lets spend even longer trying to make it look nice.
They would have just made lesser soldiers/lighter soldiers go to war in scraps of real armour and cloth like in any other time period.
Elijah Thompson
It's not bullshit. The Ancient Chinese did actually use leather for armor. They literally wrote it down and there's archaeological evidence for it.
Furthermore they experimented with a lot of ways to make leather armor more protective. From doubling the strips of hide required for a single scale, or (pic related), making scales by gluing leather on a wooden scale. Essentially making lamellar armor made out of little shield-like scales.
Again, bronze lamellar was for the upper class and the elite troopers like chariot riders or cavalry of the Shang/Zhou/Warring States period. Some of the upper class may also be decked in finer leather like Rhino hide. But the common soldiery were all in leather.
Aaron Hughes
Heck, Warring States period light infantry just wore what essentially is a leather lamellar apron.
Samuel Brooks
The amount of animals that this would take is immense. Whole armies? pffft. Maybe some retard who had lots of money but cheaped out and got slightly less expensive rawhide armour tried some bits and bobs but leather armour does not exist in any practical sense. It's just larping material, nothing more.
The common soldiery wore clothes. Get a grip mate. Your yellow soldiers went to war in clothing.
Zachary Martinez
I dont think you realize how costly leather is to make both today and back then. Cheaper than metal's? Yea but not cheap enough for common soldiers at all.
Dominic Foster
That would have been a huge waste of time and money, those soldiers would have been protected against the occasional scratch or bump...
Maybe if they did it as some kind of uniform? Even then it seems unlikely given how useless it is as armour and the fact that coloured clothing exists.
Robert Rodriguez
Considering that the Terra Cotta Soldiery were all armored: with the heavier elements having a full cuirass and the lighter ones with the apron, I'd say they managed.
Only the auxiliary cunts and the rear echelon had no armor.
Levi Price
Statues are meaningless as proof of anything. Are our movies and art a good indication of the great war? No it's far from it. Same with art of the time.
Lincoln Gonzalez
You can't argue on romanticism because the Terra Cotta army was made to look the real army the Qin King had when he was alive. Hell, people weren't even meant to see the army considering it was to be locked up in a tomb.
Were he looking to impress future generations, then he would've had all those statues decked in the bronze armor of his elite troops like this one. Except he didn't and depicted his army as they were.
Evan Williams
>made to protect the emperor in the afterlife >must make them as good as possible >give them all some form of armour like it's a bad DnD game >end up convincing larpers that their leather fetish is a valid form of protection in our modern era
Suuuuure, they are perfect copies of his army, not in any way exhaggerated and standardized.
Ian Robinson
>You can cure leather to be pretty tough, and its better than absolutely nothing. Price/protection ratio would be very unfavorable. >and motorcyclist wear leather not just because it looks badass, but it offers minimal protection against road rash. Leather protects against weather, and every thick clothing will protect nicely when sliding on asphalt. For protection are motorcycle helmet, guess why they don't use leather helmets, and why they don't use motorcycle helmet-type armour on whole body.
Gabriel Lopez
>Chumps of the Terra Cotta army were wearing the normiest form of protection at the time. >Many are just even in leather scale aprons. >There's actually better forms of armor that existed that you could- if you wanted to- equip your afterlife army with. >But nah man, as below so above as per Chink funerary rules.
>Some user 2000 years later: YEAP THEY'RE EXAGERRATED. Your grasping at straws by this point m8.
Cooper Lewis
30 years war, buff coats. That is the most common use of leather in war I am aware of. (besides belts and pouches)
Jack Brown
Those aren't armours though, those are just windbreakers and are burn resistant for the firearms.
But yes that is an example of leather in war beyond strappings.
Aiden Smith
An army still needs peasants mate, he just gave the peasants a bit more respect than would otherwise be given.
Angel Ramirez
But it's not the leather armour. In your very own quote > leather (nerigawa) and lacquer was used to weather proof the armor parts. >with leather and eventually silk lace used to connect the individual scales Just becaue there will be leather straps in European plate armour, it doesn't mean it was leather armour. No one denies that it was used in armours.
Lincoln Bell
And shoes.
Evan Smith
as far as I know leather was never used for anything but football/aviation helmets in the 1910s.
Alexander Allen
Am sure that is linen/wool, not leather.
Isaac Roberts
Warring States Armies did not have peasants considering the soldiery belonged to a separate particular social class who were eligible for military service.
Peasants probably did serve militarily in some manner as emergency militia or to do rear echelon duties like camp/fort construction.
But the Qin Dynasty is known for its purely standing army, which was unique in the Warring States as most states used a combination of professionals and part-time soldiers.
Universal Conscription did start under unified Qin rule though, and carried over to the Han Dynasty.
William Myers
Medieval Chinese lacquered(vermillion/black) leather lamellar barding.
Adam Thomas
He clearly meant the lighter troops, he said so in some other post.
I too find it utterly ridiculous that anybody takes the notion a people would equip their army with leather armors seriously. Leather is aweful as armor and even moreso when you factor in the high cost and time to manufacture. Have you even tried looking at attempts made of leather armour and how they perform?
It's the Chinese are brainlets or you are factually incorrect, it is one or the other when it comes to their armour.
Jeremiah Phillips
Again, its what we have to work with.
Some eastern armies (i.e. Persians) did not give body armor to their main troops at all. Maybe the Chinks thought some protection against cuts > none at all.
In addition most of the protective work was done by shields.
Oliver Allen
Leather does not protect against cuts... it protects vs maybe a punch, or light scrape?
The lowest I would accept is some form of uniform but then why costly leather instead of cloth as pointed out earlier?
Makes no sense and I suspect the people perpetuating this myth are too stuck in books rather than looking at how it functions in reality.
Lincoln Adams
>he doesn't know that gambesons are also shown over mail as well as under it
Jeremiah Gray
Except you're most likely thinking of leather sheet armor D&D instead of how it would be in lamellar.
>Makes no sense and I suspect the people perpetuating this myth are too stuck in books rather than looking at how it functions in reality. Because period writings and artefacts have more to say than modern guessing games.
Evan Jones
>leather >a material that is turned into clothing by cutting it with a knife and lowing holes in it with a spike >useful protection against blades and spikes
Nicholas Brooks
>lamellar Please explain how this all of a sudden makes leather worth wearing for armour?
Go on...
Colton Wright
To those arguing about Chink leather armor: there's a theory that goes that leather lamellar of pleb troops and infantry really wasn't meant to protect from swords and spears. Rather: it was to save soldiers from the very heavy exchange of missile fire that opened Spring & Autumn Period Chinese battles. Archery, done by archers, crossbowmen, and charioteers or cavalrymen, played a crucial role in Warring States battles not just for skirmishing but as a proper offense in itself. A good indication for this is that the troops of the Terra Cotta army, the heaviest leather armor went to people who had no shields (i.e. crossbowmen, halberdiers), while lighter troops who may have had shields had either the front-facing cuirass or none at all.
tl;dr leather lamellar was mostly an arrowcatcher, preventing serious injury, as opposed to something that would stop a full powered thrust from a sword or a spear.
I'd link you the book but sadly its in Mando.
Leo Bell
I severely doubt it would protect vs missiles, especially not well enough to justify the cost...
Honestly metal lamellar barely works vs arrows so it's a stretch to say leather would do anything at all. Unsurprisingly nobody has bothered to test this on YouTube.
Aiden Clark
I'm still with the other user: Chinese sources say its leather. Equipping metal armor in such a scale was unthinkable during the Spring & Autumn Era, unlike the Han Dynasty which managed to do so by a mixture of state & private efforts to equip people, also advancements in metal manufacturing at the time (i.e. blast furnaces, notably) that really wasnt anywhere else in the Warring States.
Camden Hughes
I highly doubt that leather was more effective at stopping missiles than spears. Arrows were able to puncture even plate armor of the High Middles Ages, I really doubt some chunks of chink leather from pigs was enough to stop an arrow.
Dominic Watson
Chinese armor was from cattle. Rich guys had rhino hide, which is pretty much why the Asiatic Rhino in China became extinct.
Also you can't compare way more powerful medieval longbows to the stuff the Spring & Autumn Chinese used.
Andrew Miller
aketons would be worn under, with a gambeson over mail occasionally
Kevin Jenkins
I guess. All I'm saying is that you can pierce through a piece of plywood with a shitty recurve bow made for kids and blunt target tips. I fail to see how leather would have a chance unless it was like half an inch thick. And even then, you'll probably get a broken rib.
Kevin Johnson
A good buff coat can stop a sword stroke, especially because the wearer would be moving.
Hell, a thick felt hat can stop sabers. Sure it won't stop an axe or mace, but its better to have the extra protection
Angel Gonzalez
Exactly, these pro leather retards are grasping at straws to justify their sick leather fetish. Thats all this is, leather fetish over practicality.
I cannot afford to give everyone on my street a car, but giving them a stick and tyres because of a lack of cars is a waste of resources for what little is does.
Jose Ortiz
Define a good buff coat please, I see no evidence to support your ludicrous claims.
Isaiah Wood
hahaha stop talking shit, the same sites claiming buff coats can stop sword strokes also claim it can stop musket bullets...
You are legitimately a retard if you believe a buff coat is somehow better at stopping blows of any kind over thicker and stronger leather which stops nothing of the sort.
Jackson Flores
Do zulu cowhide shields count as armor? I wonder how strong they were.
Samuel Baker
>every thick clothing will protect nicely when sliding on asphalt Actually, leather is much better than any common clothing material against road rash. Thick jean is a distant second, but you really really don't want to scrape yourself on the asphalt if you aren't wearing either. You don't see leather used much anymore because nowadays we have textiles specifically made to be scrape-resistant, but it's absolutely not the same shit used for common heavy clothing. There's a reason you have to pay out of your ass for motorcycle jackets and gloves you know.
Evan Adams
Geralt doesn't need an armor. His muscle is his armor and his dick is his blade.
How is that bullshit? You just can't stop acting like shit-spouting brat for a second?
Tyler Morris
Is that for monsters or for human though ?
Isaac Garcia
>protects against penetration from arrows but not penetration from spear and sword stabbing ok i'm no expert on chinese bows, but most western type bows produce much greater force than what you can by thrusting with spears and swords. were chink bows just bad?
Thomas Long
>I fail to see how leather would have a chance unless it was like half an inch ....what makes you think Chinese leather is just a single sheet of hide?
Do you not see the nuts holding multiple sheets together?
Luis Young
>Most western bows. We're talking 700s BC-200s BC here. A time when bows in the west were so shit, they used spears and javelins instead or hire easterners with composite recurve bows.
Which incidentally, is what the Chinese were using due to their links with nomadshits.
There's also the crossbow to consider.
Easton Stewart
>*slings and javelins.
Jonathan Ramirez
ok sure, but it wasn't really the point It was more like: >what is it about chinese bows/crossbows that make them ineffective against leather armour, while spears have no problem coming through?
Zachary Scott
Read my original post breh. They're arrow stoppers preventing serious injury. I think they'd still go through except probably itll scratch you.
The crossbow became the vaunted weapon amongst the Warring States for supposedly being able to render that armor useless.
Hunter Martinez
>A time when bows in the west were so shit, they used spears and javelins instead or hire easterners with composite recurve bows. No bow in antiquity would outperform a slinger throwing lead projectiles tho. You literally need medieval crossbows for that.
Robert Perez
Cloth armor is excellent protection and a must have for anyone on a battlefield before the 16th century, it can be leather or any textile really as long as it is thickly padded.
A manlet peasant with tuberculosis and a dicky leg in padded cloth armor with a spear and wicker shield would kill Michael Myers in a second, he might also skewer Bronn from game of thrones or Aragorn, possibly Leonidas from "the 300". Most of your favorite hollywood stars would die at his hands.
You would have to close in and slice it open or strike the few unprotected areas to harm an opponent in cloth armor, however closing in is risky against a competent opponent who knows how to take advantage of such a move.
Ryder Hughes
Jesus, you are an absolute idiot.
Jason Gutierrez
There is either some really deadpan trolling or stupidity going on here.
