Quote:His comments about how it wears is that it can be comfortably worn for many hours ndespite its weight (can't remember how much),and that in his opinion it wasn't meant to be a cavalry cuirass. It makes sence since it was found with greaves and a hoplite shield.
Khairete
Giannis

Quote:I'm curious to know if the original is truly double-breasted of if the underlayer does not go all the way across the chest. From the limited images I have seen it does not look like the whole underlayer survived and I wonder it is just being assumed that it went all the way across.

Quote:The body of the cuirass is made up of four sheets, one covering the chest, one on either side and one over the back; a fifth section which however consisted of only a metal border and which must have been covered with cloth and leather was found on the underside of the part which covered the chest.

Quote:Why doesn't he think it wasn't meant to be worn by a cavalryman?

Quote:Also, the shield and greaves don't tell us anything about how the cuirass was intended or could have been worn, because it's well known that Macedonian kings took full complements of arms with them on campaign which included arms and armour suitable for fighting both on horseback and on foot.

Quote:

Quote:Why doesn't he think it wasn't meant to be worn by a cavalryman?

Because he said he once tried a horse with this cuirass and it was impeding him. He could sit,but he wasn't feeling secured enough on the horse's back and he said he couldn't grip himself safely enough. He isn't a very experienced rider,but his has ridden horses.

Quote:Yes,what i mean is that one can't use the arguement that Macedonian kings were cavalry leaders,thus this quirass should be a cavalry one. There have been found traces of an organic cuirass in the tomb, basicly the gold rings and rosettes for its suspention. This cuirass could certainly be worn on horseback,as is shown on the Alexander mosaic,and numerous other depictions of t&y cuirasses worn on horseback. So it seems plausible to me that both cavalry and infantry gear was barried with the king,and in this case,the iron cuirass might have been infantry one. Porporis has justified that it isn't so heavy as to not be worn for hours by a foot soldier.
Khaire
Giannis

Quote:OK, back on topic

Does anyone have the measurements of the iron cuirass?

Quote:**ALSO: What about the height of the skeleton of the person thought to be Philip II? I don't have my Andronicos book or other publications handy (I'm in the process of moving). Thanks all!

Quote:Well, that's simply his opinion, and certainly not a pronouncement on whether ancient riders did or did not use such a cuirass on horseback. We know, for instance, that early Sarmatians rode with muscle cuirasses that weren't specifically designed for cavalrymen, though many people today state that they would hinder a rider too much to be worn.

Quote:I doubt that one of the two cuirasses was specifically for fighting on foot while the other was specifically for fighting on horseback.

Quote:In fact, though its weight may not have been too much of a hindrance for a man on foot, it was almost certainly better managed on horseback, so this one probably was worn by the king as a cavalryman. The organic cuirass was probably used in hotter weather, or in a situation where flexibility would be needed, like when mounting a siege ladder.

Quote:I didn't state it was anything more than this. However i wonder, how many have really worn an accurate muscled cuirass? How many of them rode a horse? In the reenacting world a have seen very -i mean very- few muscled cuirasses that aproach the ancient ones.

Quote:At least is is certain that there were indeed cuirasses that were designed for cavalry only (Xenophon calles his a cavalry cuirass that hindranced him too much when he dismounted and ran with a shield together with the other hoplites)
I don't see why some cuirasses couldn't be designed only for infantry. Especially for this particular cuirass we can speculate much,since we don't have any other finds nor mentions of such a cuirass.

Quote:This is assumtion no better than the one Porporis made, who actually wore at least a good recontruction. Any weight can be better mannaged on horseback,this doesn't mean that the heavier cuirasses were always for cavalrymen. Indeed in an army you would see a foot man with muscled cuirasses and cavalrymen with lighter ones.
Where and when the organic cuirass was to be worn we certainly can't say. Many people have assumed things about it that clearly don't hold true. Like that it was worn by the poorer that couldn't afford a metal one,or that it offered much worse protection, or that it let the air come in etc etc. The fact is that Alexander in one of his most famous depictions sice ancient times was chosen to be wearing it in eternity on horseback. And i'd like to note that it doesn't even have much of it covered in scales. The small portion on the belly could even have leather scales (the colour is a bit peculiar and not so sure to be representing iron)

Quote:Something that may be a bit stretched but i think not unworthy of mentionning is that although the gold borders all around the cuirass are in perfect shape and after the restoration (which doesn't include any filling of missed parts of the gold), the only spot that shows destruction of the bordering is on the outer edge of top of the left shoulder. Exactly where a shield touches either when carrying it on the shoulder or when fighting (often shields are shown protruding almost horizontally rested on the shoulder). This might be a clue that the cuirass actually saw usage by an shielded man.
Khaire
Giannis

Quote:However, what about the form of this cuirass makes you think that it was designed for fighting on foot specifically?

Quote:I would be very wary of using this as evidence without examining the state of the gold borders before restoration. Images of the cuirass as found in situ show that the left shoulder was by far the least well-preserved part of the cuirass, so the state of the gold borders there could have been affected by the oxidization and breaking apart of the yoke. Even if this were evidence of this cuirass being used with a shield, it could have been used equally on foot and on horseback, or 75% of the time on horseback and the rest on foot with a shield, so such wear again doesn't tell us all that much about its usage.

Quote:Well, that's simply his opinion, and certainly not a pronouncement on whether ancient riders did or did not use such a cuirass on horseback. We know, for instance, that early Sarmatians rode with muscle cuirasses that weren't specifically designed for cavalrymen, though many people today state that they would hinder a rider too much to be worn.

Quote:Giannis wrote: At least is is certain that there were indeed cuirasses that were designed for cavalry only (Xenophon calles his a cavalry cuirass that hindranced him too much when he dismounted and ran with a shield together with the other hoplites)
I don't see why some cuirasses couldn't be designed only for infantry. Especially for this particular cuirass we can speculate much,since we don't have any other finds nor mentions of such a cuirass.


Well, I think it was probably more that the default cuirass was designed for infantry, and then there were special cavalry cuirasses, but yes, there clearly were distinct types. However, what about the form of this cuirass makes you think that it was designed for fighting on foot specifically?