Shoulder-doublings on muscled cuirass - metal or hide ?

[Crispvs]

The shoulder doubling on the cuirass from what MAY have been Philip II's tomb (many scholars disagree with Manolis Andronikos, the excavator, over the identification and it has often been pointed out that he uses a circular argument to justify the identification) is of the same form as that of the linen cuirass seen in Greek painting except made of iron not linen. As some Roman sculptures show this form of doubling why assume that it could not have been made of iron or copper alloy rather than being of linen or leather. Why also, should it be only a sculptural affectation? If the Macedonians could do it in the fourth century BC then the Romans could have done it in the first century AD. The fact that none have been identified does not mean they did not exist. After all, how many muscle cuirasses have been found? For that matter, as far as I know, no decorated cuirasses have ever been found. With such a small sample it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions.<br>
<br>
As far as the armour of centuriones is concerned, again how much evidence do we have?<br>
<br>
-M. Caelius - mail with phalerae (early 1st century AD)<br>
-Minucius - unarmoured (1st century BC)<br>
-M. Favonius Facilis - mail (1st century AD)<br>
-Q. Sertorius Festus - scale with phalerae (1st cent. AD)<br>
-T. Calidius Severus - probably scale (1st century AD)<br>
-Possible centurion on a frieze showing 'marines' on a warship - muscle cuirass (1st century BC)<br>
<br>
As far as I know that is it: two mail, two scale, one muscle cuirass and one unarmoured. Not much considering that there must have been well over four thousand centuriones serving at any one time. Surely at a time when it was possible to replace your issue equipment with privately purchased equipment, an experienced man on a centurio's salary would have had the power to choose his own preferred style of armour. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses:<br>
<br>
Scale - weaker than mail, but damage is more cheeply repaired and it can look very bright, making the wearer stand out, in the same way that Republican centuriones tinned their helmets to make then stand out.<br>
<br>
Mail - very tough and flexible but also somewhat heavy and in the unlikely event that it might be damaged expensive to repair (although the rings are easy to make the wire used to make them was very time consuming to produce and thus presumably expensive). The deflective properties of mail are also less than those of plate.<br>
<br>
Plumata (a plumbata is a lead weighted missile from the middle to late empire) - first of all, we cannot be sure what was meant by the term. The best candidates are armour made from embossed scales and fine mail armour covered in very small scales. The first would be stronger than regular scale but would still be inferior to the resilience of mail and the second would probably be superior to regular mail in terms of deflection but would be very heavy, not to mention pricy, although probably not beyond the pocket of many centuriones.<br>
<br>
'Segmentata' perhaps called 'laminata' by the Romans - very good for deflection of blows, especially against the shoulders, and slightly lighter than mail, but easily damaged, although probably simple to repair in the field in many cases.<br>
<br>
Muscle cuirass - good for deflection of blows, but probably able to be penetrated by arrows. Inflexible and does not allow for upper arm protection.<br>
<br>
Lamillar - probably quite good for deflection of blows but probably also very time consuming to repair. Lacing probably easily damaged by sharp blades. Offers lateral flexibility but little vertical flexibility.<br>
<br>
Officers above the centurionate, when armoured are depicted in muscle cuirasses, with emperors depicted in decorated breastplated.<br>
<br>
I agree with Rob about armour being used as a symbol of equestrian status on equestrian tombstones.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>