Leather Cuirass

[MeinPanzer]

Ruben, discussing a piece is one thing, but using it as a piece of evidence for leather musculata when you've done nothing to prove it's validity is useless. That's all my point is about.

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," which is a ridiculously wide-sweeping statement. As I said before, the piece itself is not the problem - it is our limited knowledge of it that is the problem.

Why? Who said anything about it being accidental? Neither one of us can say for certain how the artist was operating stylistically. What I am seeing here is inconsistancy.

Well, what does "inconsistancy" on the part of the artist imply then? That he suddenly changed his mind halfway through making the piece and decided not to carve in the edges of the upper openings? That he didn't know what a cuirass actually looked like?

I'd LOVE to see a picture of an original cuirass that has no edging, rolled edge or flared spots on the arm or neck holes.

First of all, all I'm saying is that the edges of the upper openings would have to be relatively flat when compared to the lower edge to not warrant being carved in. Even so, I don't know of many actual musculata that were contemporary to this piece (so Roman examples don't count), but there is a muscled cuirass shown in the Sarmatians Osprey title that dated to the 4th c. BC and that was pulled from the Don (?) which had flat upper edging, IIRC.

So you've got one other example of the hundreds and hundres of roman pieces concerning armour. Bravo. Got anymore? Because until you have something more concrete to show me, 2 examples aren't going to get you much. If it's a definitive trend in Roman art, it still doesn't explain anything in terms of what the cuirass is made out of.

I'm a little unsure of what you mean by this, but I assume you're referring to the example of the Paris archer that I referred to? First of all, this is a Classical Greek piece, so Roman examples can't really be used as good comparisons. Very few sculptures have undergone the kind of colour analysis that the few pieces in this exhibit have, and so it's no surprise that there are few other examples. However, I can tell you that on the Alexander sarcophagus, certain flat edges, like those of the shabracks, were not sculpted on, but painted, as well as the aforementioned Paris archer (which is nearly contemporary).

And remember, this is just an offshoot discussion of the Roman leather musculata. This example is Greek, not Roman.

I'm sorry, but didn't you just contradict yourself here?

No. You seem to be focussing on the fact that this is the only evidence that people are apparently putting forward as evidence for Roman musculata. This is not the case- this is an offshoot discussion about leather muscled cuirasses in general in which we are discussing this piece.

I meant in terms of actual armour found, so you have more than one source to say..."yes, the did it like this out of this material because." I thought that was obvious.

I don't think the absence of leather cuirasses in the archaeological record is any evidence of the use or not of such armour, for obvious reasons.

And what consideration is that? 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.

The considerations of who commissioned the piece, who the artist was and his relation to the commissioner, what the common artistic themes of the time were, what sort of artistic conventions were common, etc.

Really eh? So does that mean we should all start putting round rings on our trajan's column style helmets? If what you say is true, then every piece of junk hollywood helmet, cuirass and other roman costuming bit is "A-OK". Great theory, here's where and why it doesn't work.

You totally misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say that artists in ancient times were strict realists. All those things are a part of artistic conventions, conventions which were consistent and restrictive and which can be evenly analyzed over oftentimes dozens or hundreds of pieces within a time period. Some examples include the heroic nudity of hoplites, the nudity of defeated opponents, and as you mentioned the classicization of some armour in later Roman times.

Remember, the title of this thread is "Leather Cuirass". My overall point is that it's rather shaky at best to base any theories on such armour made of hide on artistic renditions.

Of course you can never be certain with iconographic evidence, but in this case that kind of evidence is as good as we are probably ever going to get.

If they found a preserved leather musculata somewhere, then you would have a 2nd source in which to cross reference the artistic one with. Understand? We reconstruct our gear based on as many different sources as we can. We try one thing, see how it works. Some new evidence is unearthed and published, and we adjust accordingly.

Thanks for being incredibly condescending. I don't think we need to find an actual piece of weaponry or armour to reasonably prove its existence.

First of all, art history is art history.

Meaning? Are you seriously dismissing an entire field of study?

We're talking about FACTUAL HISTORY and RECONSTRUCTION here. It's an entirely different beast altogether, but thanks for bringing that up.

I think you have a flawed understanding of what art history means. Art history includes a wide range of study, a very large amount of it, beliece it or not, involving facts. Most analyses of ancient art (funerary stelai, sculpture in the round, wall paintings, etc.) are art history. Much of it involves comparative study which is incredibly useful and which provides us with much of the dating we rely on when working with such pieces, among other things.

Secondly, you've got what...ONE other example??? Proves nothing.

I don't understand what you're referring to here, but even if it were just 2 examples, that would still prove more than nothing.

Since this isn't just about art history, you're going to need more than just art to back anything else up. Remember the title of this thread? "Leather Cuirass". It wasn't..."Artistic Leather Cuirass", or "Leather Cuirass Depicted in Antiquity".

Much, if not the majority, of our understanding of the material culture of the ancient world is based on iconographic evidence. How much ancient clothing do we possess, for instance? Yet we can extrapolate quite a bit about ancient clothing from artistic sources alone.

If you make a thread asking for evidence for the use of a piece of leather armour more than two thousand years ago and require an actual example in order to accept its existence then I'd say you are just wasting your time.

Perhaps you have misunderstood something along the way? Remeber the thread originator's post (bold text added by me):

Hello,

I've been scouring the Internet for some information on Greek armor, and this looked like the place to go, so I thought I'd ask a quick question:

I have seen a few reproductions of a "Greek Leather Cuirass" being sold by online retailers. For example, this one and this one.

Was such an item of armor ever actually used, and if so, are these even vaguely accurate recreations? Or would leather armor be more similar in form to the linothorax?

I know that Victor Davis Hanson's The Western Way of War does give a brief mention of "lighter versions" of armor appearing in the 5th century BC, made of "bronze or even leather and fabric" (Chapter 6, under the section about the breastplate). What I'm not clear on is whether this is just a reference to the linothorax, or to two separate types of armor: one of leather, and one of fabric.

I generally don't trust the retailers' descriptions of the history and accuracy of their product, and all of the reenactment sites I've seen don't seem to mention much about leather armor, so I thought I'd present the question here.

Thanks,
_____________________

Not every point of discussion in a thread has to relate directly to the OP. This piece was brought up and so we began to discuss it and how it could possibly be interpreted. And in this case, this discussion even relates directly to what you wrote anyway. You asked if they were ever used, and so we were discussing what evidence there could be for its use.