Leather Cuirass

[MeinPanzer]

Okay, I took a breather from this because it is clear that it is only getting more heated. I am going to try to limit this to the debate and not escalate it into a heated argument.

I read what you said...can you quote me some text or "law" that says unless an emperor is nude that they are NOT being idealized? Or is this just your own guidelines?

I've seen them! And they're not as detailed as those sculptures are! Hell, you could give an anatomy class on some of them...whereas the breast plates found aren't nearly as detailed, or as clearly defined as those sculptures.

Yes, actually it does. It brings up a valid point that the artists contracted to make those statues are going to make them as muscular as possible, regardless of what their armour was made out of. That's why you see their musculature flowing beyond where their regular armour would be.

Thus, they are being idealized, because their is no way they looked like that in real life. Same reason celebrities go through hours of make up and spend thousands on their clothing. They want to look their best to the public. And most emperors were post-humously made into deities anyway. I don't see why you can't understand this concept, that statuary of emperors goes beyond most normal human physiology. Thus, because that much artistic license was applied in the simple human form, how can anyone use them as accurate referances, without some tongue in cheek????

Can you post some examples of what you would consider to be signs of idealization in muscled cuirasses? What do you mean by "musculature flowing beyond where their regular armour would be"?

It's not so much me as what the general Historical community agrees upon. Or everyone on this forum...call it a majority vote. You can have as many theories as you want..some stronger than others. Doesn't mean you have to throw it out, but be darn careful what you put forward. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...a term people like to use today...but the Romans or Greeks didn't have photon torpedoes either. Point is that there is a lot more evidence for them using materials other than leather for musculata, in all records. Until something earth shattering comes along and says otherwise, you can make up any theory you want.

I fully agree that the scattered evidence for materials other than metal being used for muscled cuirasses is very minor indeed. However, since there are signs of different kinds that other materials may have been used. Even if that is only a "may," it is worth discussing.

What would make me happy is people not throwing something so stupid into the limelight without something more than "bent" cuirasses to back it up with, as shown in art.

Well, if this example were indeed painted the buff colour shown in one of the two reconstructions, I would take that as a sign that it could be leather armour. But, again, this is a single example from Classical Greece that doesn't tell us anything about Roman or even Hellenistic sources. So, that could be more evidence than just the bent cuirasses, and hopefully in the future more colour analyses can be done on sculptures wearing muscled cuirasses.

Exactly! We'd have no idea about the phalanx without a cross reference in the literary record!!! Thank you! So you know what? It probably wouldn't get brought up much, and no-one could say hardly anything about it! Your issues is that you seem to think that the bendy musculata IS without a doubt leather, instead of artistic license! But you have no proof of that. Whereas we have known finds of musculata in metal!

I am unsure of what the bendy cuirasses are supposed to represent, but I think that they are significant because they suggest that some musculatae were made of material other than metal. Perhaps it's not metal, but I think that it is definitely an indicator of some kind of flexible medium.

I said I can prove that linen was used in Greek and Roman military armour, not ptergyes. Get your facts straight.

That was my mistake. I apologize.

My point is that you can't bend a layered linen cuirass! But in those sculptures, we see the cuirass bending, right? My point is that hardened armour, or painted armour if it's leather, or formed, can't bend! If it does, you're going to ruin it...the paint will crack, and the leather will crease. Then you're left with a piece of crap for armour. Thus, any bending we see in the statues are artistic license, and NOT meant as a direct imitiation of life!

Couldn't it be unhardened leather?

All you have is speculation! You have nothing else, because you simply cannot prove that the artists making those statues didn't bend their torsoes to show anything but a flexible material for the musculata! You simply cannot do this. Without another source to corroborate any theory, you have nothing! Just guesswork. It's not like saying the lorica segmentata was never worn by centurions either, because we have no grave steles of the centurionate wearing them. But there is a lot more reason to think that they did, than what exists for leather musculata.

Well, what reason would the sculptors have for showing bent cuirasses if they weren't supposed to represent a flexible material?

What evidence!?!?!? There is nothing there! I've already told you that there is no way for you to prove the artist's intent! There are too many holes in yours or anyone's theory that those musculata are supposed to be leather! Don't hide behind ambiguity and difficult interpretations...you simply have no firm ground with which to make such theories plausible.

And, again, I wasn't presenting any theory about the leather musculata. I was merely commenting on the Greek example and then commenting on your comments about art history.

First, get off your art history high-horse. Second, I wasn't generalizing, I was specifically speaking about the statue linked in this thread. But thanks for completely and totally misinterpreting what I'm saying. In fact, I went on to say this about art history:

"First, I am not dismissing art history. It definately has it's worth. But that value can only get you so far, before you're going to need a seperate source of information to back up your claims."

So you're entirely offended by what you've mispercieved in what I said, and now you're crusading against me for it.

You said that after making these comments:

Heck, I hope no-one 2000 years from now bases our respective cultures on what they find in ART. They'll never know what we were about or how we acted, dressed and lived.

That you can subject your own conclusions based on whatever you want, and in turn have them be whatever you want them to be? Not exactly how i'd apply knowledge to any facet of history.

First of all, art history is art history. We're talking about FACTUAL HISTORY and RECONSTRUCTION here. It's an entirely different beast altogether,

I don't think I mispercieved any of these three separate statements. The first comment is an irrational generalization, the second is an ignorant mischaracterization of art history, and the third is an outright condescending disparagement of the entire field. These show that you are ignorant of what art history actually entails and what that field provides for classical history in general.

I went on to say that there are extreme limitations when using only one source, especially when it's artistic. Do you think otherwise?

I don't.

Because that's the impression that I get from you. That art is the end-all source because it's so accurate on how it imitates real life, especially grecko-roman.

What I said was that art is not an end-all source, but an extremely valuable one which must be approached from a historical perspective with several considerations in mind. I said a few posts back that I didn't think that Graeco-Roman art was strictly realist, either, because it obviously isn't.

Well, apparently you can't read either, because my comments about the leather musculata originally were to the general thread readership. As I just previously mentioned, they were not in anyway directed at you. But again, you took the quest and here we are.

I know they weren't directed at me, but I disagreed with this comment:

Heck, I hope no-one 2000 years from now bases our respective cultures on what they find in ART. They'll never know what we were about or how we acted, dressed and lived.

Which I think is an egregiously ignorant statement.