RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Possible subarmalis depictions/images
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Anytime I find one of these floppy, subarmalis depictions in Roman art, I tend to try and share it here on RAT. So, in the spirit of keeping things centralized, I nominate this thread to be the official RAT depository of images that could be depicting the infamous and elusive subarmalis, similar to the thread that was started a few years back collecting images of the Roman muscled cuirass.

So, without further ado, here is another depiction of what I believe to be a subarmalis. If the information in the flickr comment is accurate, the garment has not been restored/adjusted as the head of the statue has. Link/file below:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]
Just wanted to add link to this great thread where Graham Sumner shared his paintings of some other important depictions the subarmalis.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...tml#305379

Thanks again for sharing, Graham!
How do we know that these things in the sculptures were intended to be worn under armour and are not some kind of clothing? Roman art presents the same problem as medieval art. The only time we can really know whether a particular item is a subarmalis is when it is actually depicted being worn under armour, however, in these situations, you can't actually see it because the armour is over the top. We need to look at the few illustrations that actually show someone in the process of putting on armour so that the subarmalis and armour are both revealed at the same time.
Hey Dan.

To be perfectly honest, you are correct - we cannot know that these are subarmalii for certain (hence Possible subarmalis depictions :wink: ).

However, I would say that as far as there being a certain probability that what is being depicted is some form of arming garment, or even just padded armor, all of these depictions are taken from monuments with a militaristic context. And the folded garment seen next to Mars in the first link definitely exhibits a set of Pyteruges, as commonly seen under/with Roman armor.

BTW, are there any depictions in Greco-Roman art of someone donning their armor that you know of? I know I'd certainly be interested. I can only think of perhaps a Greek vase that I've seen where a man is depicted putting on a Spolas (IRRC).
Quote:BTW, are there any depictions in Greco-Roman art of someone donning their armor that you know of? I know I'd certainly be interested. I can only think of perhaps a Greek vase that I've seen where a man is depicted putting on a Spolas (IRRC).
I know of a few Greek ones but no Roman ones. Most of the Greek examples show no arming garment at all; the armour is worn over a regular tunic, which suggests that the armour has its own integrated padding. There are plenty of extant cuirasses with lining holes to support that conclusion.

Quote:However, I would say that as far as there being a certain probability that what is being depicted is some form of arming garment, or even just padded armor
It definitely is not padded armour or leather armour. These armours are a lot thicker and more rigid. They stand up by themselves and maintain their shape. They cannot be draped the way it is in that statue.
Quote:It definitely is not padded armour or leather armour. These armours are a lot thicker and more rigid. They stand up by themselves and maintain their shape. They cannot be draped the way it is in that statue.

I was more referring to the items depicted in Graham's paintings than the item depicted with Mars. I definitely don't disagree with your thoughts on integrated lining/padding probably being the norm.
possible subarmalis or "lorica lintea"?..... Statue of Antoninus Pius from the Palazzo Altemps.
possible subarmalis or "lorica lintea"?..... Statue of Antoninus Pius from the Palazzo Altemps.(Rome)
It is definltely not a lorica lintae because it isn't rigid enough. Linen armour is at least a cm thick. Some examples are an inch or more. It can't be draped like the garment in the sculpture. There are plenty of textile armours in various museums. Take a look at them to get an idea of how they are constructed.
Dan, i agree; i thinks me too this is a subarmalis, for yourself explanation....thanks
The Greeks wore their armour over normal clothing. Why couldn't the Romans?
Dan,

Not trying to undermine you but I have the idea you're jumping to conlusions.

Quote:Most of the Greek examples show no arming garment at all; the armour is worn over a regular tunic, which suggests that the armour has its own integrated padding. There are plenty of extant cuirasses with lining holes to support that conclusion.
That would indeed seem logical but what proof do you have? Lining holes indeed support lining but is that proof of integral pading as well? Playing devel's advocate here of course, but your conclosion of holes = integral padding = the same for Roman armour is a bit too fast for me.

Quote: It definitely is not padded armour or leather armour. These armours are a lot thicker and more rigid. They stand up by themselves and maintain their shape. They cannot be draped the way it is in that statue.
Why 'definately'? I have a linen subarmalis of the same thickness and it can duplicate the image shown below. No problem. It won't ever 'stand up by itself'.

Quote:The Greeks wore their armour over normal clothing. Why couldn't the Romans?
Of course the Romans could and did, but they also had a subarmalis and a thoracomachus (possibly even the same thing) plus we have all that artwork. I think declaring these garments to be 'ordinary clothing' (and I have yet to see this on a civilian in any work of art) is not supported by the evidence.
Quote:Not trying to undermine you but I have the idea you're jumping to conlusions.
Conclusions drawn from decades of making this stuff, comparing it to extant examples from other cultures, and trying to reconcile it with the primary sources.

Quote:That would indeed seem logical but what proof do you have? Lining holes indeed support lining but is that proof of integral pading as well? Playing devel's advocate here of course, but your conclosion of holes = integral padding = the same for Roman armour is a bit too fast for me.
A padded liner need be no more than a few layers of linen or a soft layer of leather. It doesn't need to be particularly thick. Tut's scale armour, for example, was lined with six layers of linen and a seventh of fine leather. This is all you need for mail as well. A cuirass needs even less. Re-enactors seem infatuated with underpadding that is a lot thicker than necessary.

Quote:Why 'definately'? I have a linen subarmalis of the same thickness and it can duplicate the image shown below. No problem. It won't ever 'stand up by itself'.
I was referring to armour, not underpadding.

Quote:Of course the Romans could and did, but they also had a subarmalis and a thoracomachus
Did they? What is the earliest reference to either of these terms in the texts and how often are they mentioned?
Quote:A padded liner need be no more than a few layers of linen or a soft layer of leather. It doesn't need to be particularly thick. Tut's scale armour, for example, was lined with six layers of linen and a seventh of fine leather. This is all you need for mail as well. A cuirass needs even less. Re-enactors seem infatuated with underpadding that is a lot thicker than necessary.

So Tut had liner in his armour, but does that mean he had no padding?
Why would the underpadding of reenactors be too thick? I'm sure you don't know the thickness of all the subarmales of all Roman reenactors. Wink

Personally I see the lining as a precaution against chafing, then there's padding against getting sore from wearing armour, and lastly the thick (under)armour that should prevent broken bones from the blows on the armour. You think that this last function does not need about a centimeter of padded underarmour? Because many seem to think so.

Anyway, I have no reason whatsoever to see the portrayed 'linen armours' seen in Roman art as normal clothing. Civilians don't wear it.


Quote:I was referring to armour, not underpadding.
So was I, a subarmalis is armour worn under the metal armour. And it looks exactly like what's shown on these statues.
Quote:So Tut had liner in his armour, but does that mean he had no padding?
That WAS the padding. How thick do you think this stuff was? We have plenty of arming garments dating to later periods from Asia, the Middle East, and Europe and they are no thicker.


Quote:So was I, a subarmalis is armour worn under the metal armour. And it looks exactly like what's shown on these statues.
It is clothing, not armour. It just happens to be specifically designed to be worn under armour.
Pages: 1 2