Login

Theodosius the Great · 07-20-2004, 11:08 AM

Avete ! 
 
I'm having an armorer make a brass muscled cuirass. I know that none have been found from imperial times, but does anyone know any leading theories as to what the shoulder doublings are made of ? I've seen representations which show doublings made out of animal hide and others of metal. Which seems more plausible ? Are they separate pieces that are riveted onto the armor ? 
 
I'd appreciate any insight that anyone can offer on this subject. 
 
Valete ! 
-Theo

Matthew Amt · 07-20-2004, 03:10 PM

Well, since I don't believe the muscled cuirass was made of hide, it follows that the shouler flaps would be bronze as well. I *think* they were hinged to the backplate right at the shoulder joint, and simply overlapped the breastplate. In other words, these are separate flaps, not a single piece which hangs over both shoulders like on a hamata or a linothorax. But I haven't studied the details. 
 
Vale, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

aitor iriarte · 07-21-2004, 05:23 AM

The shoulder guards, as depicted, seem to be metallic and hinged. Most of them show an embossed/applied decorative feature portraying a stylised bunch of thunderbolts. 
Here is my own cuirass. The armourer Steve Hamblind made it for me a short time ago. 
<img src="http://img36.photobucket.com/albums/v110/tribunus/cuirass-shoulder.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
Aitor

Theodosius the Great · 07-21-2004, 09:20 AM

Wow, Aitor, your armor looks great from what I can see. Could you please give Steve Hamblind's contact information ? Does he have a website ? 
 
Thanks for your imput! 
-Theo

07-21-2004, 09:49 AM

sights.seindal.dk/ 
 
In there you will find almost all known imperial busts, showing different styles of muscled cuirass. 
The one Aitor posted is what I call the Prima Porta type. The flaps were indeed metallic, the Prima Porta statue clearly shown the hinges. 
But some types definitely featured hide flaps, in the shape of the shoulder "yoke" of republican mailcoats. Some imperial busts even show a "yoke" similar to the greek linothorax, with a vertical flap protecting the lower neck. 
Besides the long and short models, the muscled cuirass came in different types. It seems to me there was a light and heavy type. The heavy style being represented by the Prima Porta example, and the light style by those cuirasses with a square neck opening, instead of circular. 
The cuirasses with the square neck opening are often associated with the "yoke" type of shoulder guard. 
A beautiful hellenistic cuirass posted not so long ago on the Axel Guttmann discussion exhibits fastening rings on the chest as shown on imperial busts, but there is no trace of shoulder flaps. That may imply that these were made of perishable material. That particular cuirass, BTW, has a circular neck opening skillfully curved so as to protect as much of the back of the neck as possible. 
Aitor, you don't expect to be left off with posting only one single close up picture of that cuirass, do you? 
So... Fuill front and back, three quarters, and more close ups.. Please..

Theodosius the Great · 07-21-2004, 10:08 AM

Antoninus, I got lost in that huge website . Is there an entire page devoted to the Imperial Busts ? 
I could spend weeks searching and not find them !

drsrob · 07-21-2004, 10:47 AM

Personally I think the Roman '" officer"-cuirass was not just originally a cavalry-cuirass, it was part of the Greek equipment according to Polybius adopted by the Roman Cavalry. The broad shoulder defenses shown in republican sculpture suggests that it was copied from the iron cuiras as found in the grave of Philip II (father of Alexander). 
Possibly the Romans made it in bronze rather then iron and it became muscled as well. 
 
I don't think it was used in the late republic or empire, except by sculpturers. Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

Theodosius the Great · 07-21-2004, 12:05 PM

Rob, what do you think Roman officers wore ? Chain-mail ? Segmentata ? Scales ? (Please don't say leather-armor )

drsrob · 07-21-2004, 12:46 PM

Chain-mail or scale, or plumbata, depending on preference and fashion. Basically the armour with which centurions are depicted on stelae 
In my opinion the cavalry-armour on late republican and imperial sculpture was a kind of shorthand for equestrian status and therefore not reliable as evidence for reconstruction purposes. Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

Crispvs · 07-21-2004, 07:50 PM

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. 
 
As far as the armour of centuriones is concerned, again how much evidence do we have? 
 
-M. Caelius - mail with phalerae (early 1st century AD) 
-Minucius - unarmoured (1st century BC) 
-M. Favonius Facilis - mail (1st century AD) 
-Q. Sertorius Festus - scale with phalerae (1st cent. AD) 
-T. Calidius Severus - probably scale (1st century AD) 
-Possible centurion on a frieze showing 'marines' on a warship - muscle cuirass (1st century BC) 
 
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: 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
'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. 
 
Muscle cuirass - good for deflection of blows, but probably able to be penetrated by arrows. Inflexible and does not allow for upper arm protection. 
 
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. 
 
Officers above the centurionate, when armoured are depicted in muscle cuirasses, with emperors depicted in decorated breastplated. 
 
I agree with Rob about armour being used as a symbol of equestrian status on equestrian tombstones. 
 
Crispvs

drsrob · 07-21-2004, 10:12 PM

The figure on the trireme is tentatively identified as a centurion precisely because of his armour. Using this to prove that the muscle cuirass was used as an officers cuirass, is an entirely circular argument. 
Rather, the long muscled cuiras is a sculpturers shorthand for Roman infantry, based on 4th century BC equipment. At least that's my opinion. 
There is a another - literary - piece of evidence. In the Punica, a poem by Silius Italicus on the Punic Wars, he describes the armour of the consul Flaminius as consisting of iron and gold scales. 
Loricam induitur tortos huic nexilis hamos 
Ferro squama rudi, permistoque asperat auro Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

Crispvs · 07-22-2004, 11:27 PM

Rob, 
 
Thanks for reminding me about the piece by Silius Italicus. I agree that he may have been describing something like the so-called 'plumata' of small scales backed by mail. Robinson featured one with alternating iron and brass scales. That would certainly fit the bill for "iron and gold scales". Incidentally, Robinson's translation of the piece reads: "He puts on the lorica - it looks terrible: scales of plain iron and gold intermixed, being knitted together with twisted hooks." The armour in question belonged to a consul. 
 
Regarding the figure on the trireme, I was aware of the circularity of the identification, which is why I said 'possible', but the fact remains that it IS a possibility, although as you may have gathered from my assessment above, I don't think it would have been a particularly practical option for a centurio who might expect to need a good range of movement when wearing his armour. Like you, I doubt that the long muscle cuirass was ever a particularly practical item for warfare and I think that if the muscle cuirass was indeed ever used by the Romans in battle it would have been the 'short' version. 
 
Crispvs

Theodosius the Great · 07-23-2004, 01:01 AM

Well Crispvs, a muscled cuirass may not be practical for battle, but it may have been used exclusively by non-combatants such as consuls, tribunes, legates and emperors (you know, all the guys who don't get their hands dirty ). Same can be said of the Attic helmet, it may not offer the greatest protection but the wearer was extremely unlikely to go into battle anyway. So that's why I think both muscled cuirass and Attic helmets did exist. I'm in agreement with Matthew Amt when he says that is the reason you won't find any surviving specimens on a battle field site. Who knows what archeologists will find in the future ? They may yet find these items in a well preserved state. 
 
-Theo

drsrob · 07-23-2004, 05:28 PM

I do think the long muscled cuirass was used by Roman infantrymen, once. 
 
More specifically in the 4th and 3rd century BC, before the introduction of mail. It's also from this period that most surviving pieces kan be dated. 
After all, for a piece of armour to become symbolic for a class of soldiers, it would seem necessary for it to have been used by that class at some point in time. Greetings 
 
Rob Wolters

Crispvs · 07-23-2004, 06:15 PM

Theodosius, 
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to suggest that the muscle cuirass is a figment of some artist's imagination. Quite the contrary. I am however trying to suggest that it was not a piece of equipment well suited to the combat style we could expect from Roman soldiers fighting in flexible formations at cohort or century level. Muscle cuirasses undoubtably existed and had been part of the panoply of the well equipped phanlangite for centuries. There is also little doubt that they were part of the recognised equipment of a general. Two points stand out for me though: 
 
1/ Whilst the muscle cuirass may have been practical for the phalangite, whose arm would virtually always either be thrusting forward with an overarm spear or couching a pike and whose upper body movement in battle would be fairly limited, the Roman legionary of the late Republic or early Empire would expect to need a more dynamic range of movement than that which could be afforded by the muscle cuirass. Hence the preference either for pectoral plates which were small enough not to restrict movement or mail, which is endlessly flexible, joined later by the very flexible 'segmentata'. A centurio is a legionary and therefore would need the same range of movement from his equipment as that of his men. 
 
2/ As I said above, the muscle cuirass was certainly part of the recognised panoply of a general, but how much of that panoply did a general actually wear on campaign. As it is reasonable to assume that it would not take the soldiers too long to get used to the general's face, his need to wear his 'general suit' in order to be recognised would soon be diminished. Also, although we can reasonably assume that many generals stood on a hillock of some sort to observe their armies and direct them as necessary with trumpet calls and signals with standards, we can also be sure that many generals did as Caesar and pushed their way into the thick of the fighting to act as an example to their men (doubtless still accompanied by the afformentioned trumpets and standards which must have been a necessity prior to the invention of the radio). In addition to Caesar's commentaries there is ample evidence to show that many generals involved themselves in the fighting and quite a number were killed doing so. Perhaps those generals who planned on mucking in with their men obtained armour more practical for the dynamic movement required in Roman combat, hence the consul's armour of 'iron and gold scales'. The muscle cuirass, if necessary in any case, could always be strapped on again for the victory parade. After all, if Crassus could afford to equip two entire legions, a spare set of armour would hardly be beyond the pocket of the average general. 
 
Crispvs

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	questions about cavalry shoulder doublings	Marcus Julius	14	3,236	04-21-2007, 12:02 PM Last Post: drsrob
	Muscled Cuirass : Iron or Bronze ?	Theodosius the Great	39	7,875	04-16-2005, 12:33 PM Last Post: Antonius Lucretius