Vergina Cuirass - Measurements

[MeinPanzer]

I'm assuming this comes from examples found in tombs? Do you have illustrated examples?

None scanned, but there was one bronze example, perfectly preserved, which was dredged up from the Volga, and another iron example found in a rich burial from Prokhrovka.

'Spolades' type Tube-and-yoke corselets are also modified for specific mounted use. The waist-line from which the flexible 'pteryges' hang is raised from waist to diaphragm, and the shoulder pieces/yoke/'epotides' are often narrower, again to allow freer arm movement ( see e.g. the example painted in the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles).

What other evidence do you have for the epomides of cavalry cuirasses being narrower? The L&K epomides certainly aren't very narrow; stubby, but not narrow.

Once the observer knows what to look for, the differences between 'foot' and 'horse' corselets and cuirasses are easily seen. It can be readily seen that the iron cuirass in question from the 'Philip' tomb is not a cavalry cuirass, and as reported by Porporis, is probably difficult to wear mounted.....

Not a specially-designed cavalry cuirass, yes, but it certainly could have been worn on horseback, just like other cuirasses which were probably less than ideal. We see regular-waisted T&Y cuirasses being worn by cavalrymen all the time before the Hellenistic period, and if this cuirass was a metal imitation of an organic prototype, then it very well may have been intended for cavalry use as well.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

None scanned, but there was one bronze example, perfectly preserved, which was dredged up from the Volga, and another iron example found in a rich burial from Prokhrovka.

Hhh..mmm - the one dredged up from the Volga cannot, with any certainty, be ascribed as 'Sarmatian', nor belonging to a mounted man ( unless found with a saddle? :wink: ). The tomb example is probably a better one, though again there is no certain evidence that it was worn while mounted.....better evidence that 'infantry' body-armour could be worn mounted is the Xenophon example I referred to, I think......

What other evidence do you have for the epomides of cavalry cuirasses being narrower? The L&K epomides certainly aren't very narrow; stubby, but not narrow.

For 'non-muscled cuirasses', there is only iconography of course. Senior Officer's panoplies, such as the one from Rhodes 3 C BC, or several later Roman ones, usually have quite narrow 'epomides', and Generals were usually mounted....On many extant 'cavalry' muscled cuirasses, the joint over the shoulder is narrower, and the arm-holes larger than on corresponding 'foot' types.

Not a specially-designed cavalry cuirass, yes, but it certainly could have been worn on horseback, just like other cuirasses which were probably less than ideal. We see regular-waisted T&Y cuirasses being worn by cavalrymen all the time before the Hellenistic period, and if this cuirass was a metal imitation of an organic prototype, then it very well may have been intended for cavalry use as well.

While I have already suggested, via the Xenophon example, that less-than-ideal 'infantry/foot' cuirasses could be and were worn on horseback, I doubt very much if such a corselet was designed to be used mounted as well - i.e. dual-purpose. The characteristics of the two types are simply too different. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest regular waisted T&Y types were worn "all the time" - the impression I have is that 'cavalry' types appear in iconography almost as soon as armoured Greek cavalry, though I can't say for certain.

[MeinPanzer]

Hhh..mmm - the one dredged up from the Volga cannot, with any certainty, be ascribed as 'Sarmatian', nor belonging to a mounted man ( unless found with a saddle? :wink: ).

Sure it can. It was found in a region that was Sauromation and Sarmatian during the time when such a cuirass could have been imported or in use; parallel examples of such cuirasses show that they were used between the late 4th and 2nd c. BC. And who, pray tell, would be able to afford an imported, plate metal cuirass on the steppes? It's all but certain that that cuirass was imported or worn by an early Sarmatian chieftain or noble, and such elevated individuals were exclusively mounted in steppe society.

The tomb example is probably a better one, though again there is no certain evidence that it was worn while mounted.....better evidence that 'infantry' body-armour could be worn mounted is the Xenophon example I referred to, I think......

The tomb included an otherwise perfect complement of early Sarmatian cavalry equipment. Are you suggesting that this man rode into battle and then dismounted? And the Xenophon example is different in nature. There cavalrymen wear what are likely muscle cuirasses because they lack the proper armour; in the Sarmatian case these cuirasses were specifically imported for use, despite the fact that scale cuirasses were in use at the same time which such a wealthy nobleman could easily have afforded (the grave included a sword with a gold plated scabbard, for instance).

For 'non-muscled cuirasses', there is only iconography of course. Senior Officer's panoplies, such as the one from Rhodes 3 C BC, or several later Roman ones, usually have quite narrow 'epomides', and Generals were usually mounted....On many extant 'cavalry' muscled cuirasses, the joint over the shoulder is narrower, and the arm-holes larger than on corresponding 'foot' types.

Ah, but how do we know those were cavalry cuirasses? Was a saddle found with those iconographic representations?

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Looking over the selection of images of cuirass bearers from Ingrid Laube's useful study, there is just as much variation in the size of the epomides evident on depictions of definitely infantry cuirasses as there is in cavalry cuirasses. In fact, those Rhodian panoplies which show the flared waist of cavalry cuirasses, if they have any epomides at all, have rather wide ones by any standard. The Prodromi cuirass has similarly wide epomides.

While I have already suggested, via the Xenophon example, that less-than-ideal 'infantry/foot' cuirasses could be and were worn on horseback, I doubt very much if such a corselet was designed to be used mounted as well - i.e. dual-purpose. The characteristics of the two types are simply too different. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest regular waisted T&Y types were worn "all the time" - the impression I have is that 'cavalry' types appear in iconography almost as soon as armoured Greek cavalry, though I can't say for certain.

I can't comment on the earlier evidence, but well after cavalry cuirasses first come into use and right through the Hellenistic period we see non-specialized cuirasses being worn by cavalrymen, so there is no doubt in my mind that general-purpose cuirasses were worn regularly by cavalrymen.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

Sure it can. It was found in a region that was Sauromation and Sarmatian during the time when such a cuirass could have been imported or in use; parallel examples of such cuirasses show that they were used between the late 4th and 2nd c. BC. And who, pray tell, would be able to afford an imported, plate metal cuirass on the steppes? It's all but certain that that cuirass was imported or worn by an early Sarmatian chieftain or noble, and such elevated individuals were exclusively mounted in steppe society.

Well that's certainly plausible, perhaps probable.....but it could just as easily be a 'victory trophy/spoils' taken in battle against any of the Greek Black Sea cities - such as Bosporus, or Kerch or Panticapaeum, or even from the unfortunate Macedonian General Zopyrion,by either 'Royal Scythians' or 'Sarmatians' etc and deposited as a water-deposit thank-offering to the Gods.....so never used as such by Scythians or Sarmatians ! There are lots of possibilities D

Are you suggesting that this man rode into battle and then dismounted?

As Thracian and Macedonian examples show, Kings etc could own both Foot and Cavalry panoplies - and Sarmatians and Scythians too did not always fight solely on horseback. I would be cautious about assuming that any particular panoply was used exclusively for one or the other....

I can't comment on the earlier evidence, but well after cavalry cuirasses first come into use and right through the Hellenistic period we see non-specialized cuirasses being worn by cavalrymen, so there is no doubt in my mind that general-purpose cuirasses were worn regularly by cavalrymen.

I'd agree, but at the risk of sounding pedantic, I don't think these are "general purpose cuirasses", nor that such dual-purpose armour existed, for the reasons I gave earlier. I do believe however that body-armour designed to be worn on foot could be, and was, used on horseback, so we are in broad agreement.

[PMBardunias]

Below is an image of the armor still in the ground. You can see the problem with the left shoulder and the general state of oxidation. The simple fact that the underlayer of the front is less well preserved than the other plates suggests some difference. Perhaps if it was a full sheet of iron, then covering it with "cloth or leather" trapped moisture and sped up oxidation, but it is still odd. One of you shared this with me a while back, I'll pass it on:

This is what Andronicus wrote (p.137): "This unique breastplate was hinged at the sides and on the shoulders; it was lined with cloth and leather. There were leather flaps on the lower edged covered with gold platelets. The gold decoration, on each side, is impressive. The shape of the cuirass worn by Alexander the Great in the famous mosaic from Pompii is absolutely identical." The cuirass is perhaps the most outstanding. It is the only cuirass of this type to have survived from Antiquity and the only iron cuirass that is older than the Hellenistic period; it is certainly the only example to have such brilliant gold decoration. As it is today the iron plates and the gold decoration have survived; at several points on the inside the remains of leather are clear and there are even traces of cloth. It is therefore certain that the inside was lined with these materials. A similar covering may have existed on the outer surfaces, although deep oxidation has eliminated all traces. Treatment in the laboratories of the National Archaeological Museum and gamma ray photography have enabled us to make certain both of its shape and of its technical details which are invisible below the oxidation.

As one might imagine, the cuirass is made up in sections, hinged together by means of small tubular projections on either side of the parts to be joined, through which passed a seperate pin. The body of the cuirass is made up of four sheets, one covering the chest, one on either side and one over the back; a fifth section which however consisted of only a metal border and which may have been covered with cloth and leather was found on the underside of the part which covered the chest. The shoulder pieces were each made up of two sections and thus a double joint, one on top of the shoulder to the sheet covering the back, and the second to the front plate. There was therefore a total of eight joints so that in practice the cuirass could open up flat; it is obvious how practical this was, both when the warrior had to gird himself for battle and then when he was in action since its many joints left the fighter free to move in any way he needed. A leather piece was attached to the lower edge which had left traces on the oxidized edges of the iron. One part of it, found on the floor, we managed to save. Lastly there were the flaps at the bottom, probably of leather sheathed in gold; fifty-eight oblong gold sheets, each decorated with three palmettes, were found.
As the reader may see in the photograph the edges of all the iron plates are decorated with a narrow strip of gold, itself decorated with a narrow strip of gold, itself decorated with a relief lesbian cymation. A wider band of gold sheeting with a double lesbian cymation, placed in opposite directions, passed across all four parts about one third of the way up from the lower edge. Gold lion heads provide the finishing touch to the glittery gold decoration; six on the front side and two on the left side. Gold rings which passed through the mouth of the lion heads were used to fasten the shoulder pieces and the frong to the side plates. Through them passed the leather thongs tightly tied as we may see from the similar type of cuirass worn by Alexander in the Naples mosaic. Lastly, there was a small square gold sheet with a relief depiction of Athena on the right, the unprotected side. I should add that the formation of the curve of the back is amongst the most admirable features of the whole piece, while the care taken to protect the nape of the neck by the elongation of the back piece is specially noteworthy. If this cuirass invites our wonder even in its present state, it is not difficut to imagine its splendor when the glitter of the gold was complimented by the brilliance of the silver sheen of the gleaming iron and the polished surface of the leather. We are now in a better position to understand why the Cypriots considered that the two iron cuirasses which they brought as a gift to Demetrios Poliorcetes would be something which this king, famous for the elegance and ostentation of his attire would appreciate.

[MeinPanzer]

Well that's certainly plausible, perhaps probable.....but it could just as easily be a 'victory trophy/spoils' taken in battle against any of the Greek Black Sea cities - such as Bosporus, or Kerch or Panticapaeum, or even from the unfortunate Macedonian General Zopyrion,by either 'Royal Scythians' or 'Sarmatians' etc and deposited as a water-deposit thank-offering to the Gods.....so never used as such by Scythians or Sarmatians ! There are lots of possibilities D

Steppe nomads didn't make water deposits of offerings, so that seems highly unlikely.

As Thracian and Macedonian examples show, Kings etc could own both Foot and Cavalry panoplies - and Sarmatians and Scythians too did not always fight solely on horseback. I would be cautious about assuming that any particular panoply was used exclusively for one or the other....

Yes, there is evidence of cavalrymen from sedentary populations doing this. Steppe nomads, however, are another group altogether, and we almost never, if ever (I can't think of a single example; maybe you can?) hear of noble nomadic cavalrymen dismounting in combat or going into combat on foot. Were this in any other context, I would be equally wary of assigning any one exclusive role to such a piece of armour. In a steppe nobleman's grave, however, there's pretty much no doubt.

I'd agree, but at the risk of sounding pedantic, I don't think these are "general purpose cuirasses", nor that such dual-purpose armour existed, for the reasons I gave earlier. I do believe however that body-armour designed to be worn on foot could be, and was, used on horseback, so we are in broad agreement.

I think so. So, do we have any idea when the cavalry cuirass first appears in Greek art? I always thought it was a 4th c. BC development, but I've never really investigated.