10-29-2014, 02:07 PM
Wow! Another leather musculata debate. Hat's off to Dan Howard for keeping in this for thirteen pages of posts.
It has been brought up before but I think I'll bring it up again but the Romans did paint their statues and painting mail would be much easier than carving the details for all but the most well financed pieces of propaganda. But what about the muscle details and nipples...? I know many of you wear padded arming garments under your armour but in my primary era of interest ( ie the northern migrations) gambesons don't seem to exist and so I wear my mail over my tunic. Mail clings to the body and even though I'm not the most muscular person, the mail still clings to my body highlighting my pectorals and my gut (if I had the hard six pack abs of my youth they would have been shown off too). If my tunic was of a finer quality and my large Indian made mail was of a finer(smaller ring diameter) You could prabably see the shapes of my nipples as well.
For a few modern comparisons. American mannequins don't have nipples while others from around the world do. Why? Cultural preference. Jennifer Aniston on the other hand wears fake nipples to highlight the affect. Maybe the Romans found nipples to look a little more normal.
Why would the Romans, who sculpted quite realistically, show the emperor Augustus in a ridged metal cuirass but bending in a heroic pose? If any of you play video games, some of the armour can be quite realistic but you will notice that when the character runs the hard armour bends. We can do photo realistic CGI but most of us understand some of the limitations of the art.
The Romans had some very cool armours spanning a long time. Speculation is good but we don't have to invent new armours for them. Romans had some very realistic art which I get a little envious that you Roman reenactors can study, but they did take a lot of liberties as well.
One last thing. We have to be careful with our own biases. Glue would have been the more 'barberian' technique compared with quilting. Textile production in the classical world was one or the things considered civilized. Boiling smelly bones for days was 'barbarous' while even noble ladies might embroider or weave.
It has been brought up before but I think I'll bring it up again but the Romans did paint their statues and painting mail would be much easier than carving the details for all but the most well financed pieces of propaganda. But what about the muscle details and nipples...? I know many of you wear padded arming garments under your armour but in my primary era of interest ( ie the northern migrations) gambesons don't seem to exist and so I wear my mail over my tunic. Mail clings to the body and even though I'm not the most muscular person, the mail still clings to my body highlighting my pectorals and my gut (if I had the hard six pack abs of my youth they would have been shown off too). If my tunic was of a finer quality and my large Indian made mail was of a finer(smaller ring diameter) You could prabably see the shapes of my nipples as well.
For a few modern comparisons. American mannequins don't have nipples while others from around the world do. Why? Cultural preference. Jennifer Aniston on the other hand wears fake nipples to highlight the affect. Maybe the Romans found nipples to look a little more normal.
Why would the Romans, who sculpted quite realistically, show the emperor Augustus in a ridged metal cuirass but bending in a heroic pose? If any of you play video games, some of the armour can be quite realistic but you will notice that when the character runs the hard armour bends. We can do photo realistic CGI but most of us understand some of the limitations of the art.
The Romans had some very cool armours spanning a long time. Speculation is good but we don't have to invent new armours for them. Romans had some very realistic art which I get a little envious that you Roman reenactors can study, but they did take a lot of liberties as well.
One last thing. We have to be careful with our own biases. Glue would have been the more 'barberian' technique compared with quilting. Textile production in the classical world was one or the things considered civilized. Boiling smelly bones for days was 'barbarous' while even noble ladies might embroider or weave.
