Lorica Musculata made of Metal or leather?

[ValentinianVictrix]

I've argued that the depictions of Late Roman wearing muscle cuirasses are in fact depictions of such armour worn by Palatine units, as it would seem logical for the artist to depict the best armour worn by the best infantry.

As I have had the great pleasure recently to inspect some of the fragments of the Column of Arcadius in Istanbul I can assure you that those fragments I saw, and got to touch by the way, definately show infantry in muscle cuirasses, and not mail hauberks as some, who have not seen the fragments in person nor touched them, would like to claim those infantry are wearing.

[Urselius]

The Byzantine lamellar klivanion, which was shaped like a muscle cuirass, was sometimes worn over a mailcoat.

The muscle cuirass was not ideally shaped to act as a protection from weapon attack. A smooth surface would be more effective in deflecting weapon points and edges. The Bronze Age Dendra armour and the later "segmentata" are much more functional designs, so the Ancients were capable of producing such. The wearer of a muscle cuirass would be both aping "heroic nudity" and polished bronze statues of martial gods, such as Hercules and Mars. Perhaps the appearance of the muscle cuirass always outweighed its functional aspect as armour.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I've argued that the depictions of Late Roman wearing muscle cuirasses are in fact depictions of such armour worn by Palatine units, as it would seem logical for the artist to depict the best armour worn by the best infantry.

As I have had the great pleasure recently to inspect some of the fragments of the Column of Arcadius in Istanbul I can assure you that those fragments I saw, and got to touch by the way, definately show infantry in muscle cuirasses, and not mail hauberks as some, who have not seen the fragments in person nor touched them, would like to claim those infantry are wearing.

I was not specifically referring to those columns.

However, there is no evidence from that era to support their use. And the role of Auxilia Palatina is debatable, they could have also been specialist Light Infantry. There are other factors that play into that, like what unit is being represented, etc.

If any unit would have worn muscle cuirasses, it would have been the Protectores Domestici.

[Vitruvius]

Fraters, Fraters,
Let us all reason together and just agree to disagree. How I interpret historical evidence is going to be different from another, just because we are different people coming from different backgrounds. I am sad to say that I have seen similar arguments on other Roman boards and people are a lot more polite.....99% of the time.......Right Mi Magister? I am sadly starting to understand why a number of members seem to be no longer active ON THIS BOARD!!!!!!!!! What I am saying in Blunt terms is this: LOOSEN UP!!!!!!!!! NONE OF THIS IS GOING TO MATTER A ATINKER'S DARN IN 10 YEARS OR SO!!!!!!! Life is too short to waste time on the Roman Army Equivalent of the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin"!!!!!!!!
Salvete Mi Fraters,
Vitruvius....aka Larry Mager

[Dan Howard]

There is no way to respond to it. By your logic, If someone once used them sometime, somewhere, then the Romans could have used them too.

Precisely, though the logic is not mine - Aristotle would have recognised it.

But, in order to follow through with this line of reasoning you actually have to produce an extant example of a leather musculata. A medieval one will do. We know that metal ones were made during the classic revival of the Renaissance but I can't think of any leather ones.

[Urselius]

There is no way to respond to it. By your logic, If someone once used them sometime, somewhere, then the Romans could have used them too.

Precisely, though the logic is not mine - Aristotle would have recognised it.

But, in order to follow through with this line of reasoning you actually have to produce an extant example of a leather musculata. A medieval one will do. We know that metal ones were made during the classic revival of the Renaissance but I can't think of any leather ones.

But I am not trying to prove that Romans used leather muscle cuirasses, just that the idea that they could have done is neither impossible nor ridiculous.

Personally I think bronze and iron are more likely to have been used - but to dismiss the possibility of leather at our present level of knowledge is unhelpful. Always keep an open mind until the available information makes probabilities much clearer.

Much less probable materials have been used to create functional objects - meat was used to make trinket boxes! In Nelson's navy, age old salt beef was carved by sailors into boxes - when polished they looked like they were made of mahogany.

[Luca]

I have read most of the messages.
From time to time this stuff arises
This one of the cases I use not to think too much to usability, if leather is effective or not, etc.
In this case I look around in the museums: leather muscolata? None. Metal muscolata: a number. I just visited the Mougins Museum... go there to take a look at the old Guttman Collection: it's amazing.

Of course leather muscolata could be possibile, but there is no evidence today. In both cases (leather or metal) when an object became no more usable in case of leather was thrown away in case of metal, it was probably melted to create something new. By considering this we could have found many more leather loricas than metal, but it is true the opposite.

[M. Demetrius]

Precisely, though the logic is not mine - Aristotle would have recognised it.

He might also have said, perhaps:
"Tables have four legs.
Lizards have four legs.
Therefore, tables are lizards."

If leather would have turned a spear thrust it would be useful. If not, it's just an uncomfortable garment that served no more function than to make movement less agile, while providing no real protection...more or less like Hollywood armor. Those selected to die get a sword pushed right through the armor, as we have all seen over and over. As has been shown a while back in this thread, leather will not turn a forceful direct sword or spear. For body armor, it's probably better not to use any at all than to use a breastplate which will not protect the wearer.

[Urselius]

Precisely, though the logic is not mine - Aristotle would have recognised it.

He might also have said, perhaps:
"Tables have four legs.
Lizards have four legs.
Therefore, tables are lizards."

If leather would have turned a spear thrust it would be useful. If not, it's just an uncomfortable garment that served no more function than to make movement less agile, while providing no real protection...more or less like Hollywood armor. Those selected to die get a sword pushed right through the armor, as we have all seen over and over. As has been shown a while back in this thread, leather will not turn a forceful direct sword or spear. For body armor, it's probably better not to use any at all than to use a breastplate which will not protect the wearer.

There are valid and invalid syllogisms.

Even late Medieval plate could be pierced by hand-held weapons given sufficient force and the blow landing at 90 degrees to the surface, Napoleonic cuirassier armour could certainly be pierced by swords - we have eyewitness accounts of this. Armour does not have to withstand a worst possible scenario situation to be useful. How resistant is bronze armour within thicknesses that are wearable due to weight considerations?

Strictly practical considerations of protection may not have been of the greatest of importance behind the wearing of muscle cuirasses, as I have suggested earlier in this thread, other factors may have been in action.

[Dan Howard]

Even late Medieval plate could be pierced by hand-held weapons given sufficient force and the blow landing at 90 degrees to the surface, Napoleonic cuirassier armour could certainly be pierced by swords - we have eyewitness accounts of this. .

Napoleonic armour was not "late medieval plate" and which Napoleonic account says that a sword punched through a cuirass? There are no medieval accounts where swords punched through a cuirass.

[Vitruvius]

Quiretes
I Give Up!!!!!!!!! I will continue to read this thread, but, I will not try to get folks to calm down. All I will say is this.......NONE of this will matter in a few years!!!!!
Salvete,
Larry (Vitruvius) Mager

[Urselius]

Even late Medieval plate could be pierced by hand-held weapons given sufficient force and the blow landing at 90 degrees to the surface, Napoleonic cuirassier armour could certainly be pierced by swords - we have eyewitness accounts of this. .

Napoleonic armour was not "late medieval plate" and which Napoleonic account says that a sword punched through a cuirass? There are no medieval accounts where swords punched through a cuirass.

Did I claim late Medieval plate was the same as Napoleonic cuirassier armour?

My mistake, it was Cossack lances and cuirasses, but Austrian 1769/75 pallasch swords did cut through (not pierce) iron-skulled cuirassier helmets. There were plenty of Medieval weapons designed to pierce plate armour - poleaxes with ravens' bill points and horsemens picks for example.

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

I keep seeing the argument of the idea of leather armour needing to be effective as armor... Why is that? In most cases (late empire being the exception) we would expect a cuirass to be worn by a senior officer, not somebody woh is going to be standing the battle line. So I have to ask, at the point is it more about the look they are trying to achieve, or the effectiveness of the protective garments? If nothing else wearing a leather cuirass would make it easier to fall on your sword... :o

[Robert]

I think you raise a valid point, Brandon. However, armor that is not armor should not be refered to or presented as armor, I think. But indeed, if it were worn by someone portraying a very senior officer (and that IMHO would a tribune or legate), I do suppose a beautifully decorated leather musculata could be argueably justified. We know leather can be gilded using goldleaf and embossed with silver ornaments, so it may well make a very spectaular display. Anything other then such an impression should be discouraged, at least till there is proof of the existance of leather ARMOR in the lower ranks.

[Vitruvius]

Ave, Robert, Having sent Brandon a PM, I have to say that I agree with You. Totally!!!!! My ? for You is this: What do YOU think we shoud call the Leather Musculata as You discribe it. If You have an idea as to what to call it, I, for one, will be more than happy, my Friend , to use that term.
May be then we can stop this endless arguing.
Thanks again Robert,
Salvete, Mi Frater,
Larry (Vitruvius) Mager