Leather Cuirass

[Magnus]

Once again you misunderstood what I said. If the emperors were shown nude with overly muscled bodies, then it would be a sure sign of idealism. However, having an emperor wear a common piece of armour which was shaped like a muscled body is not a sign of idealism.

Are you kidding me? Those physiques are ripped...for elder men they're either religious in their work outs, or it's as I said before...glorified. It has nothing to do with common armour types, showing the musculature to that degree is over the top...as many artists do. Would you want to be the artist that depicts the emperor with flabby arms? I doubt it...you wouldn't have a job for very long.

Yes, but what you were saying before was that until you saw actual archaeological evidence of leather muscled cuirasses, you wouldn't accept their use.

No, I said multiple sources...written, archaeological, artistic, or whatever else we have.

You know that in Hellenistic art there are two, maybe three, actual depictions of soldiers actually fighting in a phalanx? If we didn't have the textual sources, one might doubt the widespread use of the sarissa by phalangites or even doubt its existence altogether.

You just proved my whole argument. We dont' have textual sources for leather being used as armour until what...late roman...and even then as lamellar! Two completely different types of armour.

You cannot prove without a doubt that linen was used for pteruges, and in fact you can't even come close to doing so. What you are presenting is still pure speculation. We know that the Greeks and Romans used linen in armour, and we know that these items were made out of some sort of flexible material. The connection between the two is still a huge leap, and a presumptuous one.

I never said without a doubt. What can we say about the Roman Military without a doubt...not much! But you can deal with higher probability vs less, and in the case of the pteryges, it's much higher! In this particular thread, it's less to non-existant. Linen when it's not wet and in multiple layers is NOT flexible. That's why what you are seeing in your statuary is ART! A distorted reflection of life...and can't be used soley as a source!

I wasn't arguing that this is the be-all-end-all when it comes to leather muscled cuirasses. In fact, I think that both colour schemes shown in this thread could represent metal.

At this point I'm just arguing against your bizarre standards for "proving" something's existence or not based on the evidence available. "

You have opened the discussion up to the possibility, when there isn't one. I'd LOVE it if they found more evidence of leather musculata...I'd make one myself! I've wanted a metal one for the longest time but can't afford an accurate custom one, and leather would be perfect.

How are my standards bizarre? Because I like to have more than one shaky source before I go flapping my gums saying X must be Y because of Z? I believe it's called critical thinking. Not my fault that's a foreign concept to you.

I wasn't arguing that this is the be-all-end-all when it comes to leather muscled cuirasses. In fact, I think that both colour schemes shown in this thread could represent metal. I am mainly arguing against the fact that you seem to think that this piece has absolutely zero value when it comes to this debate, and that you seem to think that ancient art at large is "completely subject to the artist's interpretation, and since we don't know to what degree that is, it's extremely difficult to make conclusions based on it,"

Are you kidding me? If it's part and parcel to the thread, the impression I got was that it's evidence for musculata depicted in art as being flexible, and therefore had to be leather. My issue with your posts originally was this:

Are you actually suggesting that information on how the ancients acted, dressed, and lived cannot be gleaned from art? Comparing it to art today is not apt, as ancient art was created with much different goals and standards in mind than most modern artists. As with everything, it must be examined with an awareness of the context in which it was found and contemporary art."

Which was in response to my post about leather musculata, not even directed at you...the first paragraph was, but that's it. I even spoke in general terms...you took it personally, and that's why we're at where we are now. You got "whipped" up about the art as much as I have about the leather musculata pandemic. Dems da breaks I guess.