Leather Cuirass

[MeinPanzer]

How is them being naked have anything to do with them being idolized and thus shown to be perfect in art? Do you really think they were that godlike in appearance in real life? Come on.

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.

We have MULTIPLE sources, god knows how many of renditions of pteryges. Have they been found in the archaeological record? No, but unlike your example of the parisian archer and this thread, I can back mine up with dozens and dozens of pictures of them, from Adamklissi, to grave stele's from all over the empire.

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. You can apply that exact same logic to pteruges. And in many cases when it comes to the implements of ancient warfare, we simply don't have the benefit of having many sources. However, that in no way lessens the fact that some evidence does exist. 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.

THEN I can also prove without a doubt that linen was used extensively in antiquity by both greek and roman militaries as a form of armour. We know they used linen. We know they wore pteryges. Gee...1 + 1 = 2.

We know the Greeks and Romans used leather. We know they wore muscled cuirasses. 1 + 1 = 2?

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 think the problem here is that you're so convinced about this piece, that you can't be shown otherwise.

Did you even read what I wrote a few posts back when I said this?

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.

I see now why I was sarcastic in my other posts, it's because you dont' listen!

This isn't a matter of my not listening (I've been following along just fine, thanks). This is a matter of disagreement.

I've told you time and time again that if you can procure a 2nd source for the use of leather as musculata, then do so!I'd be the first one to say you were right, if you had some kind of evidence. But you don't!!! You have a theory based on speculation and guesses, without ANY logic to it AT ALL!

As I've said several times now, I'm not arguing that that statue is proof of leather musculata. I was discussing it and what the paint uncovered in the analysis of the Bunte Götter exhibit could imply. This was a terribly mundane discussion until you jumped in and started whipping yourself up over something that I wasn't even arguing over.

Not to mention you seem to skip over most of my information, and just pick and chose what you want to attack based on what you percieve to be holes in my logic.

Which points have you brought up that I haven't responded to?

But remember, I'm not the one saying the romans used leather as musculata!

And neither am I. Since you seem to be missing a lot of what I've written, let me just post these statements again:

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

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,"