leather cuirass

[Luca]

Absolutely correct.
But most of the evidences are about textile how it is clearly visible from some sculptures:
http://www.romanhideout.com/chimage_img ... s_DetA.jpg

(if the link doesn't work start from here: http://www.romanhideout.com/images/it/n ... relius.asp and get the image on the right)

[Astiryu1]

The right picture looks almost definitely like a soft cloth type or very thin leather. The billowing of the petruges in the sculpture is easily seen. A thicker material certainly doesn't move like that. Thanks Luca!

[Doc]

I would have to say it is cloth since it is textured. Otherwise, how would you texture leather that way.

They look as if they material was woven.

[M. Demetrius]

I've often thought that particular set of pteruges looks more like tablet woven strips than "regular" loom woven material. I've also wondered how the fringes are twisted in different directions on the same strip. Just wondering, not making a claim one way or the other. Wonder what color they were?

[Dan Howard]

I'm afraid that I've lost the point of this thread. The original question is whether leather cuirasses were worn by legionaries. How is the last few pages relevant?

[L_CORNELIUS_CETHEGUS]

I think almost any level of sculpting and decoration can be done in leather, and the colors are nearly limitless too. Sometimes I hear reenactors expressing doubt that Romans would have prized leather enough for a high ranking individual to spend a lot of sesterces on it and wear it, like it's a smelly piece of rawhide or something :lol: . What I imagine to be the case, if leather, is a high degree of workmanship through tooling and painting. I also think an officer might place higher priority on striking an awe-inspiring and heroic figure in front of the troops and civilians than actual defense. In many cases I think we're probably looking at stylized military garments with vestigial references to hellenistic military fashion rather than 'combat' gear.

Here is an example of what is possible [url:3h6lf0g4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqJFEhQJaSM&feature=related[/url]). I compare that to what we see in the statuary, relief, and terracotta figures and I think much of it seems feasible in leather. I think it is easy to imagine that leather armor produced with such a high degree of artistry would have been in demand among officers.

One of these days I'll have to give leather tooling a shot and post some pictures of how it works out.

--Kelsey

[Pontius Agrippa]

Just saw this photo that I had since Jan 09 when I took a trip to Turkey. This is a statue of Handrian that dates, according to the museum (near Pergamon) info, to his time. The cuirass is definitely not metal. Leather?

Hi,
this picture shows not an cuirass. It is the subarmalis. Some of them are made with a head of Medusa.

here are some other examples:

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Great pictures, thank you!

How do we know it was actually a subarmalis and not an outfit that was not specifically purposed to be worn under armor?

[Matthew Amt]

How do we know it was actually a subarmalis and not an outfit that was not specifically purposed to be worn under armor?

Well, that's what a subarmalis IS, I'd say! It's a garment meant to be worn under some kind of armor. The alternative is that we're seeing something worn to *represent* armor, sort of a soft costume variation but not meant for battle. Such a thing could certainly have evolved from the subarmalis, and would explain a lot about what we sometimes see in artwork, but it's kind of hypothetical.

Yes, good photos, thanks! I hadn't realized there were so many of that sort of sculpture.

Matthew

[Pontius Agrippa]

How do we know it was actually a subarmalis and not an outfit that was not specifically purposed to be worn under armor?

Yes, good photos, thanks! I hadn't realized there were so many of that sort of sculpture.

Matthew

I do my best and I hope I can help.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

How do we know it was actually a subarmalis and not an outfit that was not specifically purposed to be worn under armor?

Well, that's what a subarmalis IS, I'd say! It's a garment meant to be worn under some kind of armor.

And hence my above question How do we know the above garments were specifically purposed to be worn under armor?

The alternative is that we're seeing something worn to *represent* armor, sort of a soft costume variation but not meant for battle.

Not necessarily. There are representations of a garment which is not armor but which is, nevertheless, worn in battle. A tunic, for instance. So, the above images could represent a garment which was not armor or subarmalis, but which was warn in battle.

[L_CORNELIUS_CETHEGUS]

I've wondered if the significance of these items is related to the victory poles depicted with armor on them.

Structurally, I think it's obvious that in each case the sculptor wanted to anchor the leg of the figure to the base in the most solid way possible, so would look for any artistic device to accomplish that.

--Kelsey

[Dan Howard]

How do we know it was actually a subarmalis and not an outfit that was not specifically purposed to be worn under armor?

Well, that's what a subarmalis IS, I'd say! It's a garment meant to be worn under some kind of armor.

And hence my above question How do we know the above garments were specifically purposed to be worn under armor?

The alternative is that we're seeing something worn to *represent* armor, sort of a soft costume variation but not meant for battle.

Not necessarily. There are representations of a garment which is not armor but which is, nevertheless, worn in battle. A tunic, for instance. So, the above images could represent a garment which was not armor or subarmalis, but which was warn in battle.

Unless I've missed the point of the OP these items are irrelevant since they do not represent a type of armour. There are plenty of other threads about Roman clothing and what they may have worn under their armour.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Unless I've missed the point of the OP these items are irrelevant since they do not represent a type of armour.

I think I can help you to see the point. The images and the discussion on the last few pages suggest, IMO, that the outfit represented on some statues of military commanders and conventionally perceived as armor could in fact have been something else. Hence the relevance to the discussion of armor.

[Matthew Amt]

Not necessarily. There are representations of a garment which is not armor but which is, nevertheless, worn in battle. A tunic, for instance. So, the above images could represent a garment which was not armor or subarmalis, but which was warn in battle.

OH! I see what you mean! Okay, I'm good with that, though I think we're basically talking about the same thing, a garment which has evolved from the subarmalis but is no longer meant to be worn under armor nor offer *significant* protection from weapons, yet is still aping the appearance of either the armor or the subarmalis. I was thinking only for non-battle wear, but it is true that not everything worn in battle is armor! So yes, that's a possibility. HOWEVER, as much as I dislike making baseless assumptions, I still think that aristocrats would tend to wear actual armor in battle. So to me, "costume armor" would still be for non-battle or ceremonial events. Frankly, though, I still lean heavily towards the thing simply being a subarmalis--we know such a thing existed, so we shouldn't be surprised at seeing it.

I know you want to stay on topic, Dan, but since an awful lot of the argument for the leather cuirass is based on depictions like these floppy things, we're still more on track than some threads get!

Valete,

Matthew