RomanArmyTalk

Timothy, I doubt very much if they are sleeves. Notice the "scales" with semi-circular endings above the lowest row of stripes of the armour, they are often shown at the edge of a suit of armour between the cuirass construction and the pteruges construction. I suspect the sleeves are pteruges too.

Whatever the 'body', my opinion would be that we see pteryges, not sleeves?
The 'body' could be a subarmalis, but also a form of armour misunderstood by the artist. Although I can see some 'harness' also shown in later Byzantine artwork? Difficult to say, really.

Or possibly a lammelar corselet with built in subarmoralis similar to breastplates with attached pyteruges. anything is possible.

Richard

Yep. We don't know how much of the detail we are missing because the paint has gone.

Quote:Timothy, I doubt very much if they are sleeves. Notice the "scales" with semi-circular endings above the lowest row of stripes of the armour, they are often shown at the edge of a suit of armour between the cuirass construction and the pteruges construction. I suspect the sleeves are pteruges too.

It looks nothing like a cuirass though Robert.

I am more inclined to think this is a subarmalis, padded. The sleeves, if pturgues, would not stick straight out, I feel. While not the highest standard of work, the artist is capable of conveying the flow of different materials to a certain degree, as shown by the belt and tunic and cloak.
Why give up on the pturgues?

Sorry Byron, I did not make myself clear. I am not speculating on the construction of the rump, only of the "sleeves" and "skirt", which I believe to be pteruges, because of the line of decorative scales at the top of the skirt/underside of the rump. Of course this is all speculation. Sleeves or pteruges would both have drooped when the armour was propped up or stuck out at right angles when laid out, not much reason to believe/disbelieve either interpretation.
There is a strong tendency to see pteruges on late Roman and Byzantine period armour as soft armour of padded cloth or leather, see for instance Tim Dawson in the Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour. Perhaps there is some good reason for doing so, but until now I have not come across an explicit justification for this practise. Anyone?

But as I mentioned earlier, there is a set oc ivory plaques which show very similar padding under
a muscle cuirass.....

First proposal for actually doing the armour, compatible with carnuntum plates.



So, in the left, my personal idea for the shoulders :

- brass plates, some are tinned, others not.
- around the shoulders, leather
- each scale is attached with a brass wire, like the scales from Carnuntum

My main idea here is to insert a layer of leather or linen between the rows.

I tried to schematize the idea.

What do you think of it? Could it be a real armour from I century AD?

I don't know a better way to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together to make this as an armor of a regular legionary.

Hello Jori,

Cool drawing.
However, you perhaps already know how I think about it being scale armour, semi-rigid scale armour as you see it or otherwise. I believe it to be the ancient type of Levantine lamellar armour. Have you read the essay on lamellar armour by Bengt Thordemann? ( michael-engel.io.ua/album329328_0 ) , especially the chapter on ancient lamellar armour from the Near East? On page 273 you can see the principle of the lacing of this kind of armour from actual examples found in Cyprus. It is shown on the Neo-Assyrian Palace reliefs, on some Greek art and on much Etruscan art such as the Mars of Todi. The peculiar "bands" shown in all this art can also be seen on the three deities and is the result of the peculiar type of lacing of the ancient Levantine lamellar, suggesting this type of armour survived into the principate.

Jori:

I am with Edouard in this. The plates you employ are semi-rigid scale form. The question to ask is why the maker would go to the trouble to round one end if it serves no practical purpose and is not even visible.

Otherwise, you are basically on the right constructional track.

Timothy

By the way, did you follow the musculata shoulder flap discussion? I strongly suspect the shoulder flaps of these later suits were simply an extension of the back plate too, that covered the opening on the shoulder, so seen from the back, no flap would be visible.

By the way, I believe these prestigious oriental suits of armour would in the Roman army rather have been used by a centurion, instead of a simple soldier. Compare these deities and others from Palmyra, Hatra and Dura Europos with the centurion grave stones, for instance the Colchester stone of Marcus Flavonius Facilis.

Eduard, that is something most people have accepted for a long time, about the musculata,
where have you seen opinions expressed to contradict that? I am curious to see what the argument is.

Look at the musculata shoulder flap discussion. According to some, such flaps may also have continued over the back-plate and stopped on the shoulder blade. I have not seen any proof of this, intend to look at some musuem specimens here in the Netherlands.

I posted in there arguing the point myself.
I recall someone saying that the cloak extending over the shoulder was actually
part of the flap. Not really a serious argument though IMO. :-)

It was Alexander's extensive addition to the thread, he was sure he had seen the shoulder-flaps continue on the back-plate of the Augustus Prima Porta statue.
It seemed the Colossus had one too, but that turned out to be a red herring.