08-20-2003, 07:21 PM
Armor can remain 'shiny' for long periods of time under the most adverse campaign conditions if given a more substantial coating than oil. Laquers existed as well as coatings with a beeswax base. Some of the wax finishes actually give the armor a shinier appearance than without, and does not easily rub off like oils. After a campaign, these h'hard' protective fiishes can be removed by solvents back in garission.<br>
<br>
The development and evolution of Medieval body armor closely follows that of Imperial Rome. In both cases we see a predominance of mail at the respective beginnings of the two eras. This graduates to the segmented armor in the case of the Romans, and the somewhat similar coats of plates in Medieval times. In later Medieival times, the multi-plated armor evolves into solid metal cuirases . There is evidence to suggest that the same happened with the Romans, as more and more full 'muscle' cuirases appear in art, to include the usually reliable tombstones and other provinical sculpture. Unfortunately, this evidence is largely dismissed by Roman archaeologists because they cannot support the art with actual artifacts. But if you think about it, this is quite silly. If we were to dismiss Medieval artwork depicting full breastplates, as well as unexcavated armor, there would virtually be no more archaological evidence for excavated cuirasses in Medieval times as there is in Imperial Roman times. This is because so large an item as a full cuirass is almost never lost or discarded as trash, and therefore almost never found in archaeological contexts.. As the Nottitia Digntatum shows,( silvery grey painted cuirasses obviously representing iron),were a common armor in the later Roman army. It is perhaps the most common cuirass shown in later Roman sculpture too, and this should not all be dismissed as 'artistic license'. With the fall of Rome, this level of armor-making technology was lost, only to be achieved again after almost 1000 years.<br>
<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>
<br>
The development and evolution of Medieval body armor closely follows that of Imperial Rome. In both cases we see a predominance of mail at the respective beginnings of the two eras. This graduates to the segmented armor in the case of the Romans, and the somewhat similar coats of plates in Medieval times. In later Medieival times, the multi-plated armor evolves into solid metal cuirases . There is evidence to suggest that the same happened with the Romans, as more and more full 'muscle' cuirases appear in art, to include the usually reliable tombstones and other provinical sculpture. Unfortunately, this evidence is largely dismissed by Roman archaeologists because they cannot support the art with actual artifacts. But if you think about it, this is quite silly. If we were to dismiss Medieval artwork depicting full breastplates, as well as unexcavated armor, there would virtually be no more archaological evidence for excavated cuirasses in Medieval times as there is in Imperial Roman times. This is because so large an item as a full cuirass is almost never lost or discarded as trash, and therefore almost never found in archaeological contexts.. As the Nottitia Digntatum shows,( silvery grey painted cuirasses obviously representing iron),were a common armor in the later Roman army. It is perhaps the most common cuirass shown in later Roman sculpture too, and this should not all be dismissed as 'artistic license'. With the fall of Rome, this level of armor-making technology was lost, only to be achieved again after almost 1000 years.<br>
<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>
