Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Leather Cuirass
#46
There's one reason I could think of for the cuirass to be blended with the body. It might mean the armour and the man are one and the same, inseparable and functioning as one. Without the bottom rim it would look like the man's torso is painted. A mythological warrior thing. We might be looking at it too much like a documentary photo or functional blueprint.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#47
Another reason maybe that the sculpture was put on a base,so anyone standing in front of it would be able to see clearly only the bottom edge and thus this was nessecary to be sculpted.The others would be distinguished by the colour.But still it doesn't explain truelly why this strange lack of hem-lines.And also,both in this and other sculptures,even showing all edges clearly,and even with pteruges both in the waist and shoulders,the thorax follows the curving of the body.Even a leather armour could not do this.As far as I know,leather if steamed and shapted in the form of the torso is not that flexible...
Khairete
Giannis

PS.Can linen be shapted to form a muscled cuirass?Most experiments from re-enactors show linen protects better than leather.
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#48
Ruben, here's the problem. And I apologize for being condescending, my post was at times sarcastic and for that I'm sorry, but I have issues with this whole leather cuirass thing.

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. Since there is absolutely no second source of information to back up leather musculata, to me it's almost pointless to keep bringing it up. Almost to the point of misinformation.

And lately it's been a trend on RAT. The problem arises, in my opinion, when someone new comes here, asking questions about the leather cuirass, and people start saying that it was viable as an armour type. Well, we dont' know that it was! It's better to say so, rather than prove a theory based on such a small amount of evidence, which really isn't evidence at all since it's so grounded in art. Especially when you have no other source to back up the artistic renditions we see, which even then we aren't sure what those artists were trying to convey!

In my mind, as Jim mentioned, it's all about propaganda. Officers, especially emperors, were to be portrayed as gods. Gods have the perfect body. So in art, it makes absolute sense then, that this perfection is going to be artistically rendered in their sculptures, taking precedence over anything based on actual reality. Chances are these emperor's didn't have six packs...

For example....a while ago I made a thread about pteryges, since I'm doing a centurion impression. Well, many reenactors use leather for them, and I was going to do the same. I made a diagram showing their layout, and posted it for people to comment on. After 5 pages of postings and many modifications, I changed my tune to incorporate leather tongue pteryges, over top of linen/felt rectangular ones. The reason being is that while we can't really tell what they are made out of based on sculptural artistic evidence, we do know that layered fabrics make excellent protection, and was in fact used by the greeks and later copied by the romans. So now I had 3 pieces of evidence, both in the artistic record, and archaeological, and even to a lesser degree modern reconstructions/testing.

That then, was enough to change my opinion, because I had quite a bit more to go on rather than one source. So basically my point is that I am not dismissing art history or it's importance. It opens a valuable window into Roman cultural aspects for us that can't be gleaned anywhere else. But, when it comes to making definitive or even conjectural theories about things based soley on that art, then you're going to run into problems. When we take something about a culture where we have some pretty big gaps in knowledge about, and add too much credence to something like this particular instance, it's running the risk of being unfounded. That to me is the greater danger, as opposed to just tossing theories around.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
LEGIO II AVG COH VIII
It amazes me how quickly stupid people are out-breeding the smart ones.

"The greatest impediment of all is the square-jawed, flat-talking Tatum, who is so wooden he presents a fire hazard." - The Toronto Star on Channing Tatum in "The Eagle".

"I am on a drug. It\'s called Charlie Sheen. If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body" - Charlie Sheen
Reply
#49
Quote:In my mind, as Jim mentioned, it's all about propaganda. Officers, especially emperors, were to be portrayed as gods. Gods have the perfect body. So in art, it makes absolute sense then, that this perfection is going to be artistically rendered in their sculptures, taking precedence over anything based on actual reality. Chances are these emperor's didn't have six packs...

If the emperors were naked, then I would agree that idealization was at work. However, we know that muscled cuirasses were actually worn, so I don't think that wearing them is really idealization.

Quote:For example....a while ago I made a thread about pteryges, since I'm doing a centurion impression. Well, many reenactors use leather for them, and I was going to do the same. I made a diagram showing their layout, and posted it for people to comment on. After 5 pages of postings and many modifications, I changed my tune to incorporate leather tongue pteryges, over top of linen/felt rectangular ones. The reason being is that while we can't really tell what they are made out of based on sculptural artistic evidence, we do know that layered fabrics make excellent protection, and was in fact used by the greeks and later copied by the romans. So now I had 3 pieces of evidence, both in the artistic record, and archaeological, and even to a lesser degree modern reconstructions/testing.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay, stop right there. What you have here is purely artistic evidence which is supplemented by speculation. There is no archaeological evidence involved unless you have found some full pteruges. You are applying practical knowledge (protective capabilities of linen vs. leather) to the matter, but you are still not drawing from anything other than artistis sources.

Quote:That then, was enough to change my opinion, because I had quite a bit more to go on rather than one source.

You are saying that what you had to go on were sculptural representations of pteruges, knowledge of the protective qualities of leather and linen, and speculation. Shouldn't you have to cross-check that, by your standards, with actual examples of pteruges or literary mentions of what pteruges were made of for it to qualify as being actual evidence?
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#50
Quote:If the emperors were naked, then I would agree that idealization was at work. However, we know that muscled cuirasses were actually worn, so I don't think that wearing them is really idealization.

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.



Quote:Whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay, stop right there. What you have here is purely artistic evidence which is supplemented by speculation. There is no archaeological evidence involved unless you have found some full pteruges. You are applying practical knowledge (protective capabilities of linen vs. leather) to the matter, but you are still not drawing from anything other than artistis sources.

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.

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.

I think the problem here is that you're so convinced about this piece, that you can't be shown otherwise. I see now why I was sarcastic in my other posts, it's because you dont' listen! 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!

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. But remember, I'm not the one saying the romans used leather as musculata! You are...and you've done absolutely nothing to prove it! So keep being ignorant of that fact...I can't help you with that. Sorry!
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
LEGIO II AVG COH VIII
It amazes me how quickly stupid people are out-breeding the smart ones.

"The greatest impediment of all is the square-jawed, flat-talking Tatum, who is so wooden he presents a fire hazard." - The Toronto Star on Channing Tatum in "The Eagle".

"I am on a drug. It\'s called Charlie Sheen. If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body" - Charlie Sheen
Reply
#51
Quote:Good for you Dan. You win a free trip to leather cuirass land.
Oh gods no. Cry

I was agreeing with Ruben's interpretation that the sculptor left the arms unsculptured because the edging was meant to be painted on and that the bottom rim was sculpted because it flared out significantly more than the "sleeves". In no way would I interpret that sculpture as a leather musculata and I have yet to see anything to suggest that leather musculatas were ever intended to be worn in battle - if they existed at all.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#52
Oh, sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant. Big Grin
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
LEGIO II AVG COH VIII
It amazes me how quickly stupid people are out-breeding the smart ones.

"The greatest impediment of all is the square-jawed, flat-talking Tatum, who is so wooden he presents a fire hazard." - The Toronto Star on Channing Tatum in "The Eagle".

"I am on a drug. It\'s called Charlie Sheen. If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body" - Charlie Sheen
Reply
#53
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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?
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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?

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

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#54
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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!

Quote: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.

Quote: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:

Quote: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.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
LEGIO II AVG COH VIII
It amazes me how quickly stupid people are out-breeding the smart ones.

"The greatest impediment of all is the square-jawed, flat-talking Tatum, who is so wooden he presents a fire hazard." - The Toronto Star on Channing Tatum in "The Eagle".

"I am on a drug. It\'s called Charlie Sheen. If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body" - Charlie Sheen
Reply
#55
Quote: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.
Actually, there are paintings in a Roman context where pteryges are white. Posted recently, one by me, but I'm not trawling through RAT to find it :wink:
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#56
Quote: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.

Can you not read? As I said in that very post you quoted, if an emperor was depicted nude, then he was most surely idealized.

Quote:It has nothing to do with common armour types, showing the musculature to that degree is over the top...

We have actual examples of metal muscled armour, and the depictions of the muscled cuirasses being worn by emperors in sculptural art is not at all over the top when compared to those.

Quote: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.

Why are you even going on about this? This has nothing to do with representations of emperors wearing muscled cuirasses.

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

So how much and of which of those would you need to accept leather cuirasses? Two artistic and an archaeological source? One artistic source and a written source? Drawing thresholds for acceptibility is silly since if we operated under such criteria, as I said before, we would have to throw out a whole bunch of ambiguous or limited evidence.

Quote: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.

What I'm saying is that if we didn't have literary sources on the phalanx, one could doubt its existence at all. The same goes for leather muscled armour- if there are few or no explicit mentions of leather muscled armour, yet a few artistic sources, that is not reason to dismiss it. Besides, armour is so often referred to in such ambiguous fashion (in Greek, thorax can refer to many different styles of armour, for instance) in ancient sources that it is no surprise that we don't have sources specifically referring to leather muscled armour (how many sources actually refer to lorica hamata, again?).

Quote:I never said without a doubt.

Quote: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.

Quote: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

And no one is saying it is anything other than less probable, so what are you getting worked up about?

Quote: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!

What do these two things have in common at all? I'm not following your logic.

Quote: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.

Because you seem to think that if we don't have many different sources from literature, art, and the archaeological record about an item, that there is no evidence for it at all. We have evidence, but as I think everyone can agree, it is simply limited in number, ambiguous, and hard to interpret. It is still evidence, though.

Quote: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.

I wasn't even arguing about whether the paint represented leather at all. I was just countering your assertion that the sculptor was being contradictory by not carving in the upper edges. I hadn't contributed anything to the thread at all before that.

Quote:My issue with your posts originally was this:

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.

I didn't get whipped up about the art, I responded to a ridiculous generalization in which you dismissed an entire field of study. It was a legitimate response to what was a condescending offhand comment. Then you started arguing against me saying that I was presenting this piece as evidence for Roman leather musculata, when I never posted anything about that at all.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#57
Quote:
Quote: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.
Actually, there are paintings in a Roman context where pteryges are white. Posted recently, one by me, but I'm not trawling through RAT to find it :wink:

Yes, but how do you know they are linen? Couldn't they be bleached leather? :lol:
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#58
Quote:Can you not read? As I said in that very post you quoted, if an emperor was depicted nude, then he was most surely idealized.

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?

Quote:We have actual examples of metal muscled armour, and the depictions of the muscled cuirasses being worn by emperors in sculptural art is not at all over the top when compared to those.

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.


Quote:Why are you even going on about this? This has nothing to do with representations of emperors wearing muscled cuirasses.

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????

Quote:So how much and of which of those would you need to accept leather cuirasses? Two artistic and an archaeological source? One artistic source and a written source? Drawing thresholds for acceptibility is silly since if we operated under such criteria, as I said before, we would have to throw out a whole bunch of ambiguous or limited evidence.


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.

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.


Quote:What I'm saying is that if we didn't have literary sources on the phalanx, one could doubt its existence at all. The same goes for leather muscled armour- if there are few or no explicit mentions of leather muscled armour, yet a few artistic sources, that is not reason to dismiss it. Besides, armour is so often referred to in such ambiguous fashion (in Greek, thorax can refer to many different styles of armour, for instance) in ancient sources that it is no surprise that we don't have sources specifically referring to leather muscled armour (how many sources actually refer to lorica hamata, again?).

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!

Quote:
Quote:I never said without a doubt.

Quote: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.

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

Quote: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

Quote:And no one is saying it is anything other than less probable, so what are you getting worked up about?

I already told you...in my last post I showed you where I disagreed with you from the get go...after that it's anyone's game. You disagreed with what I said, I did the same. So I can ask you in the same breath...what exactly are you getting worked up about? Oh yes...my "bizarre" standards...well, I hope I've explained them in terms you can now understand.

Quote:
Quote: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!

What do these two things have in common at all? I'm not following your logic.

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!

Quote:Because you seem to think that if we don't have many different sources from literature, art, and the archaeological record about an item, that there is no evidence for it at all.

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.

Quote:We have evidence, but as I think everyone can agree, it is simply limited in number, ambiguous, and hard to interpret. It is still evidence, though.

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.


Quote:I didn't get whipped up about the art, I responded to a ridiculous generalization in which you dismissed an entire field of study. It was a legitimate response to what was a condescending offhand comment.

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 took something I didn't even imply, or say and blew it right out of proportion. I went on to say that there are extreme limitations when using only one source, especially when it's artistic. Do you think otherwise? 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.

Quote:Then you started arguing against me saying that I was presenting this piece as evidence for Roman leather musculata, when I never posted anything about that at all.

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.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
LEGIO II AVG COH VIII
It amazes me how quickly stupid people are out-breeding the smart ones.

"The greatest impediment of all is the square-jawed, flat-talking Tatum, who is so wooden he presents a fire hazard." - The Toronto Star on Channing Tatum in "The Eagle".

"I am on a drug. It\'s called Charlie Sheen. If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body" - Charlie Sheen
Reply
#59
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.

Quote: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"?

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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?

Quote: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?

Quote: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.

Quote: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:
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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:
Quote: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.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#60
Well, lucky you I'm off to police college. Unfortunately from here on in I'll be scarce for the next 3 months, so you'll have to forgive me for bowing out of this debate...I'm not going to have much time for long posts..mostly quick reads and the odd hello. 8)
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
LEGIO II AVG COH VIII
It amazes me how quickly stupid people are out-breeding the smart ones.

"The greatest impediment of all is the square-jawed, flat-talking Tatum, who is so wooden he presents a fire hazard." - The Toronto Star on Channing Tatum in "The Eagle".

"I am on a drug. It\'s called Charlie Sheen. If you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body" - Charlie Sheen
Reply


Forum Jump: