Protective but flexible musculata.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Whilst there have been finds, I doubt very much if more than 5% of all the armour and equipment worn has been found, probably more like 1 or 2%, anyone willing to bet on that percentage as being representative of all the armour worn?

Have you seen the pen and ink drawings of the now destroyed Column of Arcadius? It seems odd to have muscle cuirasses on there if its 'classicising', as some of the Goth prisoners are in mail, some are unarmoured, whilst the trophies include not only cuirasses but tubular leg/arm armour, hardly classicising at all as they were contemporary clibanarii armour.

In reguards to 'De Rebus Bellicis', read pages 118 & 121 of Thompson's translation, this has been taken by some authors, including I believe Sumner who visits this site, as implying that the Thorocomachus can be worn as armour alone.

[Dan Howard]

Whilst there have been finds, I doubt very much if more than 5% of all the armour and equipment worn has been found, probably more like 1 or 2%, anyone willing to bet on that percentage as being representative of all the armour worn?

Not just "finds". There are literally tons of surviving leather artefacts dating to the Roman period including shoes, shield covers, tents, clothing, cloaks, belts, straps, scabbards, horse tack, even leather fittings for metal armour. By your logic the Romans must have had a magical leather that disappears when it is made into armour yet stays in the ground for centuries if it is made into other things. Amongst all these leather items, and there are lots and lots of them, we have one single surviving piece of armour - some lamellar from Dura Europos. There is more than enough evidence to conclude that Roman leather armour was rare.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Whilst there have been finds, I doubt very much if more than 5% of all the armour and equipment worn has been found, probably more like 1 or 2%, anyone willing to bet on that percentage as being representative of all the armour worn?

Not just "finds". There are literally tons of surviving leather artefacts dating to the Roman period including shoes, shield covers, tents, clothing, cloaks, belts, straps, scabbards, horse tack, even leather fittings for metal armour. By your logic the Romans must have had a magical leather that disappears when it is made into armour yet stays in the ground for centuries if it is made into other things. Amongst all these leather items, and there are lots and lots of them, we have one single surviving piece of armour - some lamellar from Dura Europos. There is more than enough evidence to conclude that Roman leather armour was rare.

I am reminded of archeologists who declare that such and such a dinosaur was the epitome of its kind, only for a new find to turn up and thrash their theories!

Whilst there may be a number of leather items that have survived the passage of the centuries, I still maintain that it probably is a tiny fragment of what existed at the time. Take the Late Roman army circa 376AD. It's been estimated that the army, including river and border troops, was between 400,000 and 700,000 strong. Even if a thousand helmets, and a thousand swords survived from the 4th century that is less than 1% of the total of the lower figure of troops who had such items. Your not telling me that over 40,000 such helmets, swords, shields, spears, body armour, leather items etc have been found for the 4th century AD, let alone for the entire Roman period?

[Sulla]

A lot of the depictions of the cuirasses, especially those of the officers, appear to show them as being flexible in nature. Have a look at the famous ivory dyptych of Honorius, you can clearly see that the ceremonial belt around his waist is pulling in the cuirasse, something that could not happen with metal.

It looks much more like it is just riding in natural curve in that area where the ribcabe ends. That same are as shaped the same on statues that doe not have a best.

But it has someother interesting features. As mentioned the sleeves extend as one piece from chest covering. And along the bottom where you normaly have a hard raised like between the breastplate and the couple of rows of decorations around the bottom edge. This suggests it is out of the same thing as that bottom row of decorations on other statues. And these clearly apear to be leather.

Also I would say it could be ment to be worn under hard armor but then why have a raised decoration on the center of the chest. That would not be comfortable in the least with a hard breastpate over the top of it

To me the differences in statues strongly suggest both hard and soft musculata.

The famous Ludovisi Sarcophagus has several mounted Romans wearing cuirasses that are bending at their waists, indicating the whole cuirasse was flexible. There is evidence in the 'De Rebus Bellicis' that the semi-mythical 'Thoracomachus' could be worn solely as armour, and being made from 'Lybian Hides' its fairly certain it was flexible in nature.

All the cuirasse on the Ludovisi Sarcophagus are covered in scale from waht I can see. And scale over leather would make theme flexible.


Any way never know what might be discovered to shed new light on this.

[Sulla]

By the way I was just thinking of something relating back to having a soft covering of a metal breastplate. You know this is very much like how the Scutum was made. Not that it extends past the edges since there is no need of that. But just the gluing and covering over a ridged form. So that is an act and idea they would have used constantly to in making shields.

[Matthew Amt]

By the way I was just thinking of something relating back to having a soft covering of a metal breastplate. You know this is very much like how the Scutum was made. Not that it extends past the edges since there is no need of that. But just the gluing and covering over a ridged form. So that is an act and idea they would have used constantly to in making shields.

Hoo, kind of a reach.... I don't see any analogy at all. Shields were made with a covering to help keep the wood from splitting, not something that metal requires. Probably the best facing was rawhide, which is rigid when dry.

Whilst there have been finds, I doubt very much if more than 5% of all the armour and equipment worn has been found, probably more like 1 or 2%, anyone willing to bet on that percentage as being representative of all the armour worn?

Sure, why not? Yes, it could very well be skewed a bit due to material (copper alloys preserving better than iron, for example), but what we have found is generally an excellent match for what we see in artwork. Certainly it's not a complete picture, but when something new turns up we all get excited and immediately add it to our knowledge base, and if necessary we change our tune about what we believe. But you have to admit that archeological evidence is a little harder to argue with than pictoral evidence, at least when debating the very existence of something!

I'll say it again: I LOVE it when something is found that makes all sit back and say, "We were ALL WRONG." Since Sulla has repeatedly said that his idea has no basis, it doesn't look like we're headed for that moment of terrifying epiphany.

Valete,

Matthew

[Magnus]

Yeah...I can see this discussion quickly degrading lol. What's next...the Roman's usage of photon torpedos?

[Sulla]

Not saying it proves anything but just that they were constantly doing this activity. So its not like covering something and then painting it would be some wild leap of logic for them.

Any way I like to look at Roman artifacts to get an idea of techniqs they used to make things. Because skills say in metal crafting would be used for many different things.

[Sulla]

By the way I am now sure that a lot of the curved musculata come down to artistic license. Because it struck me that the very tall and undercut serface decorations could not be of a flexible material. And these figures and huge decorations would not stretch and contract etc. So I went back and looked at a lot of images of musculata. And it is clear that on many they have adjusted things to get the natural shape of the person and make the figure and decorations on top look right.

Now I am not saying there cant have been flexible musculata but I have changed my mind on how much artist license was used.

[Kai]

I am reminded of archeologists who declare that such and such a dinosaur was the epitome of its kind, only for a new find to turn up and thrash their theories!

What's next...the Roman's usage of photon torpedos?

If archaeologists dig dinosaurs, the Roman also used photon torpedoes. :roll:

[Dan Howard]

I am reminded of archeologists who declare that such and such a dinosaur was the epitome of its kind, only for a new find to turn up and thrash their theories!

Irrelevant in this instance. Even if a few more pieces of leather armour are found the conclusion would still be that "leather armour was rare". You don't grasp how much leather has actually been found including plenty from a military context. Maybe you can explain why we have leather fittings for metal armour but (apart from Dura Europos) no actual leather armour.

[Graham Sumner]

Dan Howard wrote "There are literally tons of surviving leather artefacts dating to the Roman period including shoes, shield covers, tents, clothing, cloaks, belts, straps, scabbards, horse tack, even leather fittings for metal armour".

"Maybe you can explain why we have leather fittings for metal armour but (apart from Dura Europos) no actual leather armour".

Actually Dan considering every soldier was, we are told, equipped with a belt, they should survive in tons like the boots etc... However apparently they do not. I do not know of any myself (although two are said to have been found in Augst), only the metal belt plates survive of course. I know of only one partial apron strap illustrated in 'Bishop and Coulston' and half of one baldric found in Denmark, also illustrated in B&C. They too remark on this lack of evidence which I recall they attribute to the original method of treating the leather which seems to have been different for belts than boots.

Graham.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The answer to the flexible musculata mystery most probably lies to the perception of the ancient artists and armourers.
We see "flexible" cuirasses since 5th century bc in greece. The armourers that invented them went in great deapths of imitation of the real anatomy of the body. They achieved to dress their customers in real bronze statues! Of course they were only limited by the nature of the matterial,and bronze cannot flex. Sculptors,however could dress their sculptures in the perfect anatomical cuirass,a torso of bronze,no matter the stance of the object! And they didn't hesitate to do so. So for instance we have that greek torso of a man where there is the turned edge of the cuirass carved in the marble,but not the edge of the armholes,that were painted. Below his cuirass his genitals were fully carved,but they were originally painted in a colourful pattern together with his thighs,to indicate a chiton! The talk about artistic lisense!
Heck,i've even seen a sword being bent in order to fit inside the frame of a sarcophagus!
Khairete
Giannis

[Sulla]

Agreed from looking at Roman statues it is clear that things were sculted that were impossible. They were just done to make the statue look good.