03-24-2011, 04:51 PM
"I would have to say yes to show it off. During the Roman period the rich and shamless if they had it would flaunt it."
Ok so here is an other question :
We know precious stones and gold (and silver) where atributes of richness. Why did they had not golden helmet with a lot of precious stone like they had some century later or like parthian or estern had ? Why not any musculata with incrustaded precious stones either ? A thing I think I know about roman is culture and mode has a big influence in the decisions. Good is great, too mutch is ostentation. And having a god-like musculata seems to be ostentation. (subjective thought)
More : Having a statue of yourself representing you with god atributes is not the same as taking the atributes of the gods yourself. You do not suggest you are a son of gods or half god as with a statue, you impose it, you take yourself the right to proclame yourself a god. (subjective thought too !)
In fact, I think we all have a bit of subjectivity and it is that who confront in those debates. Because if we listen only to facts, as you said there is no musculata in Ancient Rome witch seems absurde. (subjective thought too !)
And concerning the representation, we have to remember the idealistic principes of statues. We would not see Augustus walking around naked but he is represented naked, as are all important persons and gods, because of the canon of esthetics coming from greece.
In conclusion, I would like to see decorated and painted musculata, I know it is possible to do so (in leather or in metal, but I tend to metal), and I have (thanks to you) a good way to justify it but in my concience it is difficult to admit it as plausible. Missing texts and archeological finds to be sure.
I am sorry if my text seems not structured, I try my best with the English language witch isn't mine. Sorry if sometimes the forms seems to be insistant or anything, it is not my way of doing things !
Good health !
Ok so here is an other question :
We know precious stones and gold (and silver) where atributes of richness. Why did they had not golden helmet with a lot of precious stone like they had some century later or like parthian or estern had ? Why not any musculata with incrustaded precious stones either ? A thing I think I know about roman is culture and mode has a big influence in the decisions. Good is great, too mutch is ostentation. And having a god-like musculata seems to be ostentation. (subjective thought)
More : Having a statue of yourself representing you with god atributes is not the same as taking the atributes of the gods yourself. You do not suggest you are a son of gods or half god as with a statue, you impose it, you take yourself the right to proclame yourself a god. (subjective thought too !)
In fact, I think we all have a bit of subjectivity and it is that who confront in those debates. Because if we listen only to facts, as you said there is no musculata in Ancient Rome witch seems absurde. (subjective thought too !)
And concerning the representation, we have to remember the idealistic principes of statues. We would not see Augustus walking around naked but he is represented naked, as are all important persons and gods, because of the canon of esthetics coming from greece.
In conclusion, I would like to see decorated and painted musculata, I know it is possible to do so (in leather or in metal, but I tend to metal), and I have (thanks to you) a good way to justify it but in my concience it is difficult to admit it as plausible. Missing texts and archeological finds to be sure.
I am sorry if my text seems not structured, I try my best with the English language witch isn't mine. Sorry if sometimes the forms seems to be insistant or anything, it is not my way of doing things !
Good health !
Proximus (Gregory Fleury)
