+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Protective but flexible musculata. (/showthread.php?tid=18271)
Protective but flexible musculata. - Sulla - 01-29-2011
I have an idea about why musculata is shown as both rigid and flixible. And about how it could be both and still be real armor and be protective. My idea is that you have a two piece item. First you have the proctive metal part. This is a short breatplate that comes down to about the bottom of the rib cage and possibly farther in front. Then on top of that you have the outside of the musculata that is made of a flexible material and then decorated. The inner metal armor would also force the outer layer to hold sharper details.
This setup gives you protection of vital areas but with good flexibility. Plus it would fit with the way the statues tend to show how it behaves. Because I do not believe the statues are all just taking artistic license. The tend to show each part with the correct stiffness like the pteruges etc.
Any way its an idea with of course no proof at all
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Dan Howard - 01-30-2011
Quote:Because I do not believe the statues are all just taking artistic license.Why? There is a whole school of renaissance art that does this exact thing.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - arminius - 01-30-2011
I go for artistic license, too!
Why?
Because the very idea of Roman officers still wearing the outdated muscled cuirass was that it was looking good. A combination of brightly polished yellow (brass, bronze) and white (silver, tin) metal was considered attractive by the Romans. Making the cuirass out of flexible material (leather or fabric) would have therefore defeated the very purpose of this type of armour.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Nathan Ross - 01-30-2011
Quote:the very idea of Roman officers still wearing the outdated muscled cuirass was that it was looking good.
There was nothing outdated about the muscled cuirass - it was probably the most effective form of body armour available to the Roman army throughout its history. The cuirass seems to have been particularly popular in the 3rd century AD, for some reason - the Arch of Constantine depicts regular legionary troops wearing it. It was expensive, though - which tended to restrict its use to officers. But it was far from mere decorative tinsel!
Quote:Making the cuirass out of flexible material (leather or fabric) would have therefore defeated the very purpose of this type of armour.
You'd think so - but there exist nevertheless statues that show the cuirass as slightly flexible. The sculptor has gone to some trouble to depict the armour sagging when placed on the ground, or even being folded. I believe Travis Clark put together a collection of pictures and articles on a website some years back on this very subject - perhaps somebody could supply a link?
I don't think it's necessary to imagine a two-part musculata though. A metal 'skin' would take decoration and paint (I would think) much more readily than a fabric or leather one, and wouldn't add much in terms of defence.
Better, perhaps, to assume that the 'flexible' items seen on these statues are actually a form of subarmalis, made in the shape of the traditional (metal) musculata.
(edit - Travis's site appears no longer to exist, but assorted debates on the existence and appearance of flexible and/or leather musculata can be followed HERE and HERE)
- Nathan
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Matthew Amt - 01-30-2011
I think we've been around this topic (at least this approximate topic) way too many times. It seems pretty clear that several different items are being discussed, everything from a rigid metal cuirass to a floppy cuirass-shaped garment. But I have to say that the idea of a flexible item worn over a rigid one sounds very unlikely. The outer one could not hold the decoration we see in artwork, and there is no way it could fit tightly enough over a rigid form for that to give it shape. Plenty of bronze cuirasses survive from other times and places to prove that it existed, and that it was both highly functional and highly decorative. Why cover it with something that is less of both? Far more likely that it was worn over a soft garment that we could be seeing alone in some artwork.
Matthew
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Sulla - 01-30-2011
Clearly the breastplate was not out dated. The height of the art of armor was the 16th century knight in full plate wearing a breast plate. And breast plates were still used by calvary until really very recently.
Next the idea that some how these would only be used if brightly polished metal on the outside is wrong. Look at the colors of the paint on the armor on the statues both in roman times and before. Also there are paintings from Roman times where warriors are brightly colored. And later images of Byzantine warriors have them brightly colored. And we know that later without question armor was painted, covered in velvet, colored in painted leather etc.
Now I am not saying none were made out of all metal. I think a lot of them were solid metal. But having something flexible over a smaller breastplate makes a lot of sense. We know this was done later. For example coats of plates from later centuries. And breat plates covered in velvet and other materials.
As for decorations they would work fine. You would have the metal underside giving a general shape. Then a leather cover that could have carving and or embossing. Then metal decoractions on top of that. If you look at the thick fringe around the bottom of of some of the armors it clearly is something flexible like leather that worked with metal decerations on top of it.
So we know that they like bright painted things.
We know the armor was not out dated.
We know flexible material with backing plates works from its use in other time periods.
But we do not know if they ever used something like I describe.
So like I stated in the first post there is no evidence besides that it would explain some of the statues. But there are no reasons why it would not work and explain everything in the statues.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - A_Volpe - 01-30-2011
being an artist myself, I'm always a little miffed at hearing this criticism about things in art being made but then being told "but that didn't exist"
why would an artist, a sculptor, put all of their effort and time into carving a depiction of body armor and it appearing to be flexible, if no such thing existed?
we're missing pieces of information, unfortunately those answers may never be discovered, but I hope someday they will be, and all of this speculation won't be necessary.
Unfortunately Travis Clark's website on the 'lorica musculata' apparently is no longer available. But I seem to recall seeing an image of one Emperor who's armor appeared to be slumped over a chair back or some such.
Thinking of my response to this topic, one thought that came across is, what about the possibility of the armor being made of such thin metal that it deformed slightly? There are some style of Greaves/Ocrae that "clipped" onto the legs without straps - That requires some real specific metalworking to make it both 'flexible' to put on, but 'rigid' enough to keep it's shape, stay on the leg, and protect the wearer all at the same time.
From when it was on display, a Bronze cuirass at Higgins Armory Museum appeared to be of very thin metal.
Now, I'm not saying this metal was like wearing tin foil, but perhaps it was thin enough that when not on a body, maybe it flexed and bent out of shape ever so slightly.
I've always seen it as Officers are not necessarily down in the mud fighting in the front lines, so they have [earned] their special status to be on horseback, or far behind the combat lines, so more protection is probably not practical. We do see this re-emerge in the late 1500's into the 1600's, where "Parade" armors are being made and being heavily decorated as a means to show off wealth and status. In some instances you have armor being worn -just- for a specially commissioned portrait, again to show wealth/status. And that armor is practically paper-thin.
But I've always seen Roman, Greek and Egyptian art to take a large amount of Symbolism into their artwork. That famous statue of Augustus (Prima porta?), has a very heavily embossed and decorated cuirass. It's not to say that work was impossible for a Roman craftsman to make, but I can only imagine that if such a thing existed and at the level of detailed shown, the metal would probably be incredibly thin, too thin for any use in warfare, but then, that's not the point - Him wearing the armor and what is depicted in the armor is what tells the story of WHY the sculpture as a whole exists at all. It is symbolic, and dare I say illustrative to what Augustus achieved, for those looking at it.
That being said, yes there is a large degree of 'fantasy' art being made, and the ancients are no exception. But I think we've all been made to see art and work of fiction differently in the modern age. The DaDa and Surrealistic movements, in some ways due to World War 1, I think has totally changed the way 'symbolism' and fantastical artwork is used and seen. I think we've lost a context to what the ancients were doing.
In the end, I think there are different types of armor we haven't found or figured out yet. I just kindly request that artists not be slapped around with the assumption that we put effort and time into a piece for no real specific purpose.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Sulla - 01-30-2011
Good points also the people looking at the statues new about the armor of the time and how it worked. And I would think they would have picked it apart if it was not right. Kinda like how horse people see errors with badly painted horses. Or military vets with illustrations of combat outfits etc.
Also agreed there is a LOT we just do not know.
The image on Travis Clarks old website many people think is the garment worn under the musculata not the muculata itself. But there again we cant be sure.
I do not think the distortion shown fits with a thin metal. There are some ways metal can flex and some ways it just cant. And many many of the things show cant be done by metal.
And your right it is very possible some of the armor is more for decorations. And that the armor used in combat was different.
On the decorations they could be attached to the surface. That was the way it was done at many other times in history. And this wold not show up on statues probably. Example http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k184292_CC%20armor%20cuirass%20and%20helmet%20of%20the%20French%20Horse%20Ca.jpg
Also back to the point about artists. These artists were doing commission work for people that had power over their lives. So its not like the artist were free to do everything they wanted.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Dan Howard - 01-30-2011
Quote:We know flexible material with backing plates works from its use in other time periods.We also know that as soon as you reinforce it with metal plates it is no longer flexible. There is no escaping the fact that you can't have an item flex like it is supposed to do in the sculptures and provide any kind of protection against weapons.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Sulla - 01-30-2011
That is exactly the reason why I clearly mentioned it the backing breast plate being smaller than the outer covering. The areas where there is not backing plate is still flexible.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - arminius - 01-30-2011
[/quote]We also know that as soon as you reinforce it with metal plates it is no longer flexible. There is no escaping the fact that you can't have an item flex like it is supposed to do in the sculptures and provide any kind of protection against weapons.[/quote]
This is exactly the point: in order to make leather into „armour“ you have to harden it somehow. And then it is not flexible anymore.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Sulla - 01-30-2011
Let me try again....
1. >> I have never said the leather was the armor.
2. >> I have said the leather was a decoration layer.
3. >> I have said that the decoration layer covers more than the armor layer underneath.
Here is a very very rough idea of what I mean. http://www.mediumaevum.com/josh/fmc663157o.jpg This of course is much later and different than my idea in many ways. But see how the breast plate only covers the ribs and chest. It does that because that part is solid and does not flex much. The flexing comes below the ribcabe. So what they did with this one is but the breast plate over a brigandine. Not what I was describing. But you get the idea about why shorter breastplate helps.
Also setups like this with part of the armor being flexible with a small breastplate of even a multipiece preast plate are not uncommon in history. And we know Romans were expermenting with plates on chainmail.
Again I am not claiming proof but history has shown us in different times and places the idea works.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Dan Howard - 01-30-2011
The riveted section that covers the midriff in that painting is brigandine. It will not flex anywhere near enough to give the same effect that the Roman sculptures suggest. It can't be done without totally compromising its ability to stop a weapon. There is no escaping the fact that you can't have a material flex like it is supposed in the sculptures and still stop a weapon. You won't find an example from any culture or time period. It can't be done even today with modern materials. Mail is the only construction that comes close.
Quote:And we know Romans were expermenting with plates on chainmail.Really? Evidence?
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Sulla - 01-30-2011
Yes that is why I explained it was not the same as I suggested excactly and that in fact it was over a brigandine but that the basic principle was the same.
Also I never said all of them were done this way. So clearly I am not saying this explains every statue. But a lot of the statues mainly are flexed around the love handles but not around the rib cabe. And older surviving armor some times is very short like this one http://www.territorioscuola.com/wikipedia/en.wikipedia.php?title=File:Museo_archeologico_regionale_paolo_orsi,_corazza_in_bronzo,_da_tomba_5_necropoli_della_fossa,_370-340_ac._01.JPG
And yes plates here are some and a discussion here about them. Sorry link is to cache at google since the change over of the site seems to have changed the page link here.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2vyGM3tnlsMJ:www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D17%26t%3D9126%26start%3D0+roman+armor+Aemilio+Q.+L.&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
See bottom of page for images http://www.legionsix.org/Equipment/Real%20Gear/real_gear_3.htm
Any way the problem is the you are thinking that I am suggesting it will do more than the materials will allow. That is not the case. You are just misunderstanding exactly what I am describing and what statues it relates to.
Re: Protective but flexible musculata. - Sulla - 01-30-2011
Here is another thread where they are talking about chainmail plate hybrids http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_g3ODU3InfsJ:www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D17%26t%3D1955%26start%3D0+roman+armor+Aemilio+Q.+L.&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com