Lorica Musculata made of Metal or leather?

[caiusbeerquitius]

Also: Aristotle also said that heavier objects fall quicker than lighter ones. He was proven wrong by Galileo Galilei.

Discussion:
If we are talking about a object of a distant past, of which we have mostly depictions and a few extant objects, this is what needs to be taken into account for all considerations. Sources. Sources must be interpreted with the right critical source analysis. This is very difficult for imagery. No conclusions can be drawn from imagery about the materiality of an object which is depicted. Equally the musculatae we see on statues and we think to be metal could have been made from wood. We just cannot say.
Speaking about the other sources, apparently only metal musculatae are extant. So these can be discussed. If people want to discuss the materiality of objects (or practice, behaviour etc.) of (for) which we have no sources at all, i.e. evidence of their existence, then the discussion should IMO rather not be on a history-board, but on a fantasy or LARP board. As soon as evidence (sources) show(s) up, the discussion can be moved back into the realms of history and archaeology, together with all the brilliant insights gained so far in the realms of hogwarts/fairyland/wonderland/cloud-cookoo-land/middle-earth etc..

Says a source-positivist.

[Urselius]

I assume the Metal Content was very very very close to 100%.

OK - the ratios of metallic elements constituent of ancient bronze - specifically ratios derived from investigations into Greek bronze armours. From implicit to explicit, and why not?

Aristotle also thought that swallows overwintered in the mud at the battom of ponds - he was logical, but not right all of the time.

[Appius]

There's one thing I would like to mention regarding the wisdom of using a leather musculata. Too many people see the armor as a standalone item, not a part of the whole image.

The primary protective system of a musculata-wearing officer is his men. He should only find himself in direct combat when things go exceptionally wrong. Remember, a high-ranking officer who does the fighting himself is most likely neglecting his duty. But yes, sometimes even sensible officers found themselves in direct combat, so...

His secondary protective system is his shield. A shield is the item that should intercept most of the blows/missiles/whatever coming his way. A legionary might receive dozens of hits on his shield in battle and survive more or less unscathed.

Body armor is the third line of defense. A backup of a backup. Weight, comfort and looks were likely just as important as its protective properties.

[Dan Howard]

If you examine the protective capacity of any armour it is apparent that it was intended to protect the wearer from the most common threats that he might face. If at any time it stopped doing this then it would be augmented till it once again was effective or it was discarded completely.

A shield does nothing to reduce the impact against armour from an arrow or javelin. Either the weapon hits the shield and is stopped, or it bypasses the shield and hits the armour with full force. A leather musculata is useless in either situation.

[caiusbeerquitius]

.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Last post didn´t show up. So I posted to make it visible.

[Nathan Ross]

My personal opinion is that they were only used by officers (like Robert said Tibunes, Legates) and in ceremonial occasions.

And that appears to be the opinion of several others here too!

But all that we know about the use of the 'musculata' comes from artistic representations, and many of those representations (both official and vernacular) clearly show its use as body armour for front-line infantry, particularly from the 3rd to 6th centuries. As such, it would surely have been made of the best available material, providing the best available defensive properties.

[Vitruvius]

I have noticed after closely examining M. Aurelius Column that there are a number of armor types: Classic mail, Classic Squamata, Classic segmentata. Then come the oddities like what appears to be a later version of the segmentata, An almost Brigandine type orf Jacket, and a Very smooth Cuirass of some type... not to mention several types of helments. SUGGESTION;!!!!!!! why doesn't a number of Board members attempt to make various versions of the odd types, like the latter segmentata...one out of leather, one out of metal.....Same things on the helments.
Just an idea.....why not give it a whirl?
Salvete,
Vitruvius

[Dan Howard]

The problem with Roman sculpture is that a lot of it was painted. We have no idea how much detail was carved into the stone and how much was painted on afterwards. It isn't possible to make reconstructions from Roman sculpture without all of the painted details. You need extant examples to confirm construction details.

[Vitruvius]

Good Point Dan, Still.......Some of those Loricas would look pretty interesting made of metal. Also, On a monument that DOES show the 3 major types in addition to the odd ones, one has to wonder what those were made of. Any ideas....I am open to them.
Salvete,
Viturvius (Larry Mager)

[Damianus Albus]

I admit it's a bit of a necro but it was imo pointless to start new thread as this one is quite complete.

So I've had quite few argues with Mr. D'Amato over facebook about leather armors. He went totaly ad personam, plus he said that I didn't read his books where he put all evidences for leather muscule armor.

So I did my research and I'd like to know your opinion. I can talk only for thing he wrote and choose to put photo in or which I could find in the net.

1. Firstly he claims that "Many momuments... show the great muscled armor... in leather version"
- What's the source for this, apart from personal POV?

2. According to him statue from Adana show leather muscle (anyone knows what's about? put a pictre of what it migt be? ""two winged griffins looking at eagle ith lightning bolt"

3. Prima Porta made of leather.
- I find it striking how anyone can say that it was clearly made of leather basing on hinges and seam of the armor. I belive, it could be made of leather but according to D'Amato it was clearly made of leather. But one thing he doesn't notice are huge, massive hinges on arms. Why would anyone put so massive hinges for light leather armor?

4. Marcs Caelius monument clearly shows leather becasue once it was painted by brown paint. Short sleeves were also made in leather by sewing.
- Again, I find it amazing how anyone can say, basing on a paint that something was made in leather. Brown color can point for bronze armor imo.
- We know that such arm protection in also easily achieved by metal, not just leather so I wonder why he doesn't polemics with himself about other option but states that it is clearly leather

5. Gravestone of evocatus one preserved in museum of Graz (can't find it)

6. Some Flavian monument in villa albani (can't find)

7. The Gemma Augustea
- I truly can't find anything what would say anything about used materials.

8. Hadrian statur from Bergama.
- we clearly see something shaped like muscle cuirass which bends 90 degree, but no muscles shape. According to D'Amato it is clearly leather, but again, I ask why? It could be ust artist invetion, it could be made of linen, wool, or leather. There are few possibilities but for D'Amato it si clearly leather. How does one can know such thing?

9. He says that it could have good protection becasue cuir-boilli had but cuir is around XII.

And of course there are plenty things to say, which were already mentioned here by Dan.
So here is thing... Am I missing something which forbids me from seeing those obvious evidences for leather (as I'm very opposed for leather in this form of armor)? Becasue from my POV all evidences for leather muscle armor is nothing else than personal POV backed with nothing.

But maybe I'm wrong?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I don't think we've found examples of boiled leather anything from the Roman era, much less armor. The only available leather armor finds were poorly veg-tanned leather exposed lacing lamellar for horses.

[Damianus Albus]

I don't think we've found examples of boiled leather anything from the Roman era, much less armor. The only available leather armor finds were poorly veg-tanned leather exposed lacing lamellar for horses.

That's the thing, we do not, but he claims that something is CLEARLY leather without any hesitation, polemics, discussion.

So I wonder, what are those secret sources on which anyone can say that something is CLEARLY a leather.

[Crispianus]

I don't think we've found examples of boiled leather anything from the Roman era, much less armor. The only available leather armor finds were poorly veg-tanned leather exposed lacing lamellar for horses.

I assume you mean the armour from Dura? if so there seems to be no definative identification of the material used other then thats its clearly animal skin 3-5mm thick, Simon James says it has neither the texture or appearance of rawhide, Robinson claimed it was rawhind( though apparantly never inspected by him) and the original report says "Cuir Bouilli"... there is no mention of Veg tanning....

The problem is that secondary processes can confuse the identification of the "tanning" method if the skin was coloured.... quite apart from secondary processes during deposition...

A cuirass could easily be moulded rawhide which would afford some protection but there is no evidence for it from "leather" finds at least not that I know off... in anycase rawhide would likely not survive except in exeptional circumstances..... so you could say its not suprising there is so little evidence....

There are a number of methods for "browning" metals, so colour on a sculpture or painting is no indication of "Leather" and in any case much "leather" is not brown in colour....

I use leather and rawhide etc in the broadest sense here to denote some form of preserved animal skin....

[Dan Howard]

D'Amato seems to be able to look at a piece of carved stone and magically divine whether the items being depicted are made from metal, leather, and cloth.