+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but (/showthread.php?tid=8898)
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Tarbicus - 11-17-2007
I never meant a caligatus would wear his armour when not necessary, and I'm sure he would take it off whenever he could.
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - AuxArcher - 11-17-2007
Dan, the flak vests were next to useless. The stuff that was proven to work, or we purchased, we used in the field. The ballistic vest was a known lifesaver, and it was light and comfortable to wear for hour after hour.
The Fritz, though, we secured near us, even though we knew it was highly effective, unlike the M1 pot. Just too damn uncomfortable to wear unless we needed it.
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - AuxArcher - 11-17-2007
Quote:I never meant a caligatus would wear his armour when not necessary, and I'm sure he would take it off whenever he could.
Yup, we agree. Have a great night.
Dane
Armour and Comfort - Paullus Scipio - 11-17-2007
Oddly enough, I have worn a suit of armour like Tarbicus' Gothic plate illustration for most of a day and found it relatively comfortable ( especially with the sallett tucked under arm! )...it belonged to a friend, so was not made for me and was not a good fit therefore, but nevertheless was eminently wearable. I have also been a soldier and can endorse Dane's comments.
'Uncomfortable' gear, like that Highlander's parade outfit, is usually inflicted on soldiers by those in Authority and quickly succumbs in the field to practicality...for example, British redcoats of the Napoleonic era were supposed to wear leather stocks to keep their heads facing front at all times (BTW so were U.S. Marines and British Marines of the same era - hence 'Leathernecks' and 'Bootnecks' as nicknames)...but the numerous peninsular diaries tell us how this and much else 'official' gear was junked in the field, to the point where units were unrecognisable......and take a look at photos of modern U.S. or British or Australian soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan...they are supposedly'uniformly equipped' but no two individuals are alike......
As to protective efficiency, no doubt every mediaeval soldier wanted that Gothic suit in battle, but it was not practical to march day in and day out in one, so even if he captured one, he sold it and settled for a Jack etc....or Alexander's veterans marching to India and back over 11 years - but only fighting four or so major field battles in that time plus a few sieges, and various minor battles and skirmishes.....even with slaves and pack animals, you'd want to trade off protection ( on the few occasions you are going to need it) against practicality that encourages 'light'......
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Dan Howard - 11-18-2007
Quote:Dan, the flak vests were next to useless. The stuff that was proven to work, or we purchased, we used in the field. The ballistic vest was a known lifesaver, and it was light and comfortable to wear for hour after hour.You've just made my point about flexible leather armor. If a Roman was issued something that didn't actually offer any protection there is little chance that he would wear it so we would not see it in sculptural evidence. Therefore the sculptures cannot be depicting flexible leather armor.
It could be flexible leather triumphal regalia
It could be flexible leather parade gear.
It could be fleible leather halloween costume
It could be flexible leather bondage please whip me ooh more please...
It could not be flexible leather ARMOUR - it didn't exist.
Leather can be made serviceable for the battlefield. It was done so countless times by many cultures in many time periods. Not a single example was ever as flexible as the stuff allegedly depicted in the sculptures. It is physically impossible to get leather armour to look like the literal interpretations of these sculptures.
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - AuxArcher - 11-21-2007
This is true, in that faulty or worthless equipment doesn't last long as issue after real world testing and use. Look at the new US Army ACU - the crotches rip out easily, apparently, and the new USAF combat uniform is supposed to be very hot, so airmen are ripping out the inner map pocket in the blouse and other modifications to make it servicable.
Lt. Custer didn't bring any gatling guns on his ill-fated Little Big Horn expedition, and I think these kinds of situations are universal as long as there have been armies.
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Gaius Julius Caesar - 11-21-2007
Actually, with a subarmalis on, my seg is very comfortable...and I can wear it all day. Not too sure about the hamata tho, maybe once I have it sorted...and a decent sub made for it too.
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Celtic505 - 11-26-2007
the quote about armor making the wearer think he is protected is from Warry's "Alexanders Campaigns"
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Tribune Valerius - 11-29-2007
My, this is a lengthy thread. Some random, related thoughts on this topic, from one who currently has several musculatae.
Quote:Lastly, I wrote up a short essay on the possibility that Roman Officers wore chain maile under their leather cuirass when in battle. The logic being... infantry wore chain maile, the Centurions would wear maile but placed decorated leather straps over it, so then... logically, an officer would wear maile and place his leather muscle armor over it as well. -Anthony, 03/31This is highly doubtful IMO. Both hamata and bronze musculata afford different advantages and disadvantages. In this case, the wonderful flexibility of the maille would be completely negated by the inflexibility of the solid cuirass strapped down over it.
Quote:First, roman emperor's didn't lead their troops into battle. They commanded from behind the front lines, and let their centurions do the dirty work. -Matt/Magnus, 03/31[color=darkblue]Just to keep our history straight, some did. Valerian was captured by the Persians [where he was so ignominiously skinned afterward], and Valens was killed in action trying to throw the Visigoths back across the Danube. Constantine’s father (of the later-Roman “Augustusâ€
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Tarbicus - 11-29-2007
I think this post by Gioi is more than pertinent to this thread. It's apparently from Corfu, but it's Hellenistic. No matter how you look at it, it has all of the traits of the classic Roman musculata and is metal (iron most likely), including the shoulder doubling.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 561#141561
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/C ... uirass.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Comerus/cuir.jpg
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Robert Vermaat - 11-29-2007
Quote:Just to keep our history straight, some did. Valerian was captured by the Persians [where he was so ignominiously skinned afterward], and Valens was killed in action trying to throw the Visigoths back across the Danube. Constantine’s father (of the later-Roman “Augustusâ€Quote:First, roman emperor's didn't lead their troops into battle. They commanded from behind the front lines, and let their centurions do the dirty work. -Matt/Magnus, 03/31
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Magnus - 11-29-2007
I don't think this thread is even worth my time to respond to anymore...Gil, I suppose I owe you some kind of reply, but I don't see the point of matching opinion vs opinion. Your logic is as biased as anyone who has argued against the leather cuirass. And the only evidence you did present was dispelled by Vortigern, who presented one emperor out of how many who led from the front?
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Dan Howard - 11-29-2007
Quote:This is highly doubtful IMO. Both hamata and bronze musculata afford different advantages and disadvantages. In this case, the wonderful flexibility of the maille would be completely negated by the inflexibility of the solid cuirass strapped down over it.A steel cuirass over a mail haubergeon was a common combination in 14th-15th C Europe.
[quote]IMO, the term “a piece of filthy animal hideâ€
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - geala - 11-30-2007
At least one form of flexible leather armour is relatively well documented, the buff leather coats of the 17th c. AD, used in a time of very spiky swords and nasty lead balls often without metal breast plates, although the debatable protection was well known.
Means nothing for the Romans but we should be careful with dogmatic opinions.
Also, I wonder why Paullus Scipio did not mention it :wink: , at least two ancient lexica tell about leather armour of the Greeks (which was probably of some flexibility).
Re: Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but - Tribune Valerius - 12-01-2007
Quote: A steel cuirass over a mail haubergeon was a common combination in 14th-15th C Europe.Irrelevant for the time period being discussed. Every image of musculata (Greek, Roman, iron, bronze, leather) shows them worn tightly-fitted. Whey would there be a mail shirt under a musculata, confined to the exact shape of the cuirass, with no sleeve or neck protection (as with a haubereon)?
Quote:So where is the evidence of officers wearing it?With all due respect, Dan, have you even read Travis' site? The evidence is all right there. Whether you choose to agree as to what it shows is certainly your choice. But to just keep repeating "where is the evidence", even after it's been presented to you, becomes tiresome. We get it: you don't agree they existed. I'm good with that.
Quote:Your logic is as biased as anyone who has argued against the leather cuirass. And the only evidence you did present was dispelled by Vortigern,My "logic" comes from the evidence Travis presented, and from the personal experience of having worn several musculata, both on horse and afoot. "Experience" is not in same category as "bias". "Bias" is when someone who repeatedly interjects their comments on a thread specifically about a piece of equipment they've never made or even tried on themselves.
Quote:Decius and his son Herennius in 251 by the Goths, Regalianus in 260 against the Roxolani, Valentinian is almost killed in 368 against the Alamanni, but we know of none of these incidents that the emperor was anywhere near the front line.Vortigern's answer was ambiguously worded, to put it politely. One could just as easily have stated, "We don't know for certain if they died in combat, but of course, they were on campaign at the time, so it's quite possible."
Regards,
Gil / Valerius