Musculata Images

[john roberts]

It's true that we have no musculatas from the late Republic or Principate, but how many hamatas do we have? We have a few fragments of hamatas, bits and pieces of a few segmentatas, some scales from squamatas and a few lames here and there. Yet there must have been thousands of these for each musculata. We have musculatas from earlier periods when musculatas were a fairly common form of armor, not just for officers and when grave-goods were buried with the dead.

[Proximus]

"I would have to say yes to show it off. During the Roman period the rich and shamless if they had it would flaunt it."

Ok so here is an other question :

We know precious stones and gold (and silver) where atributes of richness. Why did they had not golden helmet with a lot of precious stone like they had some century later or like parthian or estern had ? Why not any musculata with incrustaded precious stones either ? A thing I think I know about roman is culture and mode has a big influence in the decisions. Good is great, too mutch is ostentation. And having a god-like musculata seems to be ostentation. (subjective thought)

More : Having a statue of yourself representing you with god atributes is not the same as taking the atributes of the gods yourself. You do not suggest you are a son of gods or half god as with a statue, you impose it, you take yourself the right to proclame yourself a god. (subjective thought too !)


In fact, I think we all have a bit of subjectivity and it is that who confront in those debates. Because if we listen only to facts, as you said there is no musculata in Ancient Rome witch seems absurde. (subjective thought too !)

And concerning the representation, we have to remember the idealistic principes of statues. We would not see Augustus walking around naked but he is represented naked, as are all important persons and gods, because of the canon of esthetics coming from greece.

In conclusion, I would like to see decorated and painted musculata, I know it is possible to do so (in leather or in metal, but I tend to metal), and I have (thanks to you) a good way to justify it but in my concience it is difficult to admit it as plausible. Missing texts and archeological finds to be sure.

I am sorry if my text seems not structured, I try my best with the English language witch isn't mine. Sorry if sometimes the forms seems to be insistant or anything, it is not my way of doing things !

Good health !

[marcos]

On regards the first image of this topic, the Aptheosis of Claudium (in the Prado museum), I want to put the attention on a very odd detail. If you enlarge the image and take a look on the left side, near the edge, is possible to see among others things an head of a dead duck :?: I saw it few months ago, so I know it was indeed a dead duck.

But, what does it means? actually it has a reason to be there, but what could be? It's very strange.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hi!
this is to show that in death he overcame his anatidaephobia.





.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Actually, I think this is a part of a warship, from the prow or stern. Would make sense among the spoils.

[Alexand96]

I didn't want to start an entirely new topic dedicated to this picture, but I did come across another depiction of what I've seen many on here refer to as "a floppy musculata" on Wikipedia today. It's a statue of Mars with Venus.

To be honest, I really do think now, that what we are seeing with these "floppy" depictions is the artist's interpretation of the subarmalis. It even makes sense from the artistic point of view here, as Mars and Venus were lovers and the artist depicts them in a more tender moment, with Mars' undergarments clearly depicted (not on him haha). I do not believe that the muscled cuirass would have ever been made from leather, but I have no problem with a leather, or part leather subarmalis - it would even help with support/chaffing, would it not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_V...Ma1009.jpg

What do you think?

[Diocle]

My first thought has been that for us it would have been be better if Venus was naked, and Mars dressed!

More seriously to me the image depicts a leather subarmalis with pteruges, and you have been very smart in noticing the fact! Great work! Thanks!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Funny one Diocle

I agree, I like the subarmalis interpretation. That's what I think a lot of depictions of musculata were - classcized Subarmali

[Dan Howard]

More seriously to me the image depicts a leather subarmalis with pteruges, and you have been very smart in noticing the fact! Great work! Thanks!

How can you tell the difference between leather and textile from a sculpture? I thought that only D'Amato had this magical ability.

[Alexand96]

I believe that you can sometimes tell that the artist is trying to represent textile material on various statues, particularly with the pteruges when weaving is clearly represented. If I remember correctly, some of the images in this thread might even depict what I'm talking about (a cuirassed Marcus Aurelius, I believe?). However, yes, I do think verifying textile vs. leather would be particularly difficult unless the "smooth" surface is depicted right next to a weaved material, on the same statue. Even then...textile? Metal? Who's to say. D'Amato, for sure.

Actually, found a different page that depicts some of the textile pteruges here:
http://www.romanhideout.com/legiov/fabri...es1_en.asp

[Pointer]

I have thoroughly enjoyed the thread! THere are pictures here that I have never seen before.

As for the Subarmalis and the Curiass with or without pteruges… I appreciate this last picture posted making it appear that the pteruges were a part of the Subarmalis in that sculpture.

As far as whether or not the Subarmalis was made of Linen or Leather… couldn't we possibly say "Both?" Are we considering climates and season changes?
Linen for warmer months or warmer climates and leather for colder areas? Or even a combination of the two different materials?

I know we are all sticklers for accuracy… but like a Biker… some ride their motorcycles wearing cotton t-shirts and shorts and some wear full leather. So… possibly both? One or the Other depending on climate? Or even a combination of the two?

--Patrick

[Diocle]

More seriously to me the image depicts a leather subarmalis with pteruges, and you have been very smart in noticing the fact! Great work! Thanks!

How can you tell the difference between leather and textile from a sculpture? I thought that only D'Amato had this magical ability.

Watch carefully the treatment of the cloth and observe the difference in the treatment of fabric and leather in the Hellenistic sculpture.

It's easy, no need being D'Amato, some love and study of History of Art and .... job done. :wink:

[Sulla]

Watch carefully the treatment of the cloth and observe the difference in the treatment of fabric and leather in the Hellenistic sculpture.

I agree you can get a pretty good idea by how they scupted the folds bends etc. It can never be perfect but at least you have an idea of the stiffness and thickness of the material by how it folds.

[Dan Howard]

No you can't. You'd first have to demonstrate that the same artist did all of the sculptures in question. Otherwise any discrepancies can be attributed to varying styles and techniques adopted by different artists.

[Sulla]

Not exactly it is not like today with untold number of styles of art and goals in art. The artist was trying to show the material as it was. If if was stiff they were trying to make it look stiff. If it was soft and thin they were trying to show that. The varation will mainly be in the skill of the artist.


What we do have to be careful of is artist license for over all effect. This would show up more in say the stance of the person wearing the Musculata. To get his stance they have many times distorted the musculata. You can measure the distance between certain parts for example. Now even if it was leather it would not stretch like that. But they do not show the when showing the folds of materials they try clearly to represent what type of material it is. The folds are th number of way of communicating that.

[Diocle]

No you can't. You'd first have to demonstrate that the same artist did all of the sculptures in question. Otherwise any discrepancies can be attributed to varying styles and techniques adopted by different artists.

Instead, we can!
The same artist made the group of Venus and Mars, and the clothes of Venus are clearly treated to represent fabric, while the same artist representing the leather of the subarmalis of Mars uses another treatment of the surface.

You'll find innumerable examples of the same and even better quality in the Hellenistic artistic production, you need only to observe carefully the details and maybe also reading something about the 'Naturalism' in the Greek-Roman Artistic production of the Classical Age, it's easy and also interesting. :wink: