Musculata: Late Roman Legionary Armour?

[Nathan Ross]

Edit: On the other hand, smaller medieval pieces like vambraces and helmets do seem to be more commonly found than body armour... Isn't there another Roman lorica hamata from a well at Rainau-Buch?

Thanks for the counter-argument, Sean - that was starting to sound a bit conclusive!

Yes, I forgot the Buch hamata. There may be others, but very few even so. And actually, as I said, there's been little Roman body armour found as battlefield debris, I think - helmets yes, but aside from the segmentata fragments (?) from Kalkreise and the remains from the mine at Dura, not much that I can think of. Perhaps the Romans were just far more efficient at salvaging such things? A two-piece musculata would be a hard item to lose, unless the wearer happened to drown in a bog, perhaps.

[Robert Vermaat]

A two-piece musculata would be a hard item to lose, unless the wearer happened to drown in a bog, perhaps.

Indeed. But one would expect to find small bits of a damaged piece. Like the rubbish pits at Richborough, where pieces of discarded helmets and armour were found. Small bits of a musculata would not easily be mistaken for hamata or segmentata armour, but perhaps for a bucket? :wink:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Flexibility isn't an issue on big scale battles. On skirmishes, they probably wore only caps and mostly no armour, at most a hamata, but in big line-against-line battles, which were basically a variant of the phalangite "pushy-pushy" battles (lines must have stopped before each other, you don't charge into a spearwall).

This assumes that soldiers had multiple types of armour from which to choose. I don't think there is anything to support that. Armour costs were deducted from your pay. You wore what you could afford or what was issued to you.

Actually I was only referring to leather musculatas. Not metal ones.

There is nothing to suggest that leather musculatas were ever worn in the field if they existed at all. Personally I doubt that they even existed. There are countless threads about this subject. Better off posting in one of those rather than derailing this one. Keep in mind that the whole point of using metal is that it was the lightest material available. For any other type of armour to provide similar protection it would need to be a lot heavier.

On that first part you quoted where I had quoted someone else, I didn't say that.

Also, I was referring to wearing leather Musculatas underneath of chainmail - cause the hardened leather would absorb shock and prevent blunt trauma wounds, and keep chainmail out of any wounds that were inflicted (helping prevent infection).

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Edit: On the other hand, smaller medieval pieces like vambraces and helmets do seem to be more commonly found than body armour... Isn't there another Roman lorica hamata from a well at Rainau-Buch?

Thanks for the counter-argument, Sean - that was starting to sound a bit conclusive!

Yes, I forgot the Buch hamata. There may be others, but very few even so. And actually, as I said, there's been little Roman body armour found as battlefield debris, I think - helmets yes, but aside from the segmentata fragments (?) from Kalkreise and the remains from the mine at Dura, not much that I can think of. Perhaps the Romans were just far more efficient at salvaging such things? A two-piece musculata would be a hard item to lose, unless the wearer happened to drown in a bog, perhaps.

I'd imagine so - armor got more and more expensive after the romans began suffering repeated defeats for the first time in the 3rd century because they had to equip and re-equip.

I think that after chalons Jordanes writes that there was a truce that night to find the wounded and salvage armor (not sure on that, I don't have a good copy availible and Jordanes isn't exactly the most reliable source, especially considering his history could possibly be abridged)

[Dan Howard]

Also, I was referring to wearing leather Musculatas underneath of chainmail - cause the hardened leather would absorb shock and prevent blunt trauma wounds, and keep chainmail out of any wounds that were inflicted (helping prevent infection).

There is nothing to suggest that they ever wore musculatas with mail armour. There is nothing to suggest that they wore leather musculatas in battle at all.

I'd imagine so - armor got more and more expensive after the romans began suffering repeated defeats for the first time in the 3rd century because they had to equip and re-equip.

I'd love to see a cite for this. Ideally from a primary source.

[Robert Vermaat]

I was referring to wearing leather Musculatas underneath of chainmail - cause the hardened leather would absorb shock and prevent blunt trauma wounds, and keep chainmail out of any wounds that were inflicted (helping prevent infection).

Leaving aside whether leather was used as armour at all - would this kind of armour even look like something that we would identify as a 'lorica musculata'? Or just a breastplate out of rawhide? Just to keep this discussion on track, of course.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I was referring to wearing leather Musculatas underneath of chainmail - cause the hardened leather would absorb shock and prevent blunt trauma wounds, and keep chainmail out of any wounds that were inflicted (helping prevent infection).

Leaving aside whether leather was used as armour at all - would this kind of armour even look like something that we would identify as a 'lorica musculata'? Or just a breastplate out of rawhide? Just to keep this discussion on track, of course.

Our tribune, Julianus, has a hardened leather Musculata. It looks very much the same as his metal one (albeit we're doing principate impressions) and he has gone on many archaeolgical expeditions. He wrote a paper on LEather Musculatas being used int he marines because it would allow them to float for a little while if they fell int he water. He hand-crafted all his armor in the (theorized) original roman methods

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Also, I was referring to wearing leather Musculatas underneath of chainmail - cause the hardened leather would absorb shock and prevent blunt trauma wounds, and keep chainmail out of any wounds that were inflicted (helping prevent infection).

There is nothing to suggest that they ever wore musculatas with mail armour. There is nothing to suggest that they wore leather musculatas in battle at all.

I'd imagine so - armor got more and more expensive after the romans began suffering repeated defeats for the first time in the 3rd century because they had to equip and re-equip.

I'd love to see a cite for this. Ideally from a primary source.

Unfortunately pretty much all I have on hand is a pretty lousy translation of Hydatius and a Latin Copy of Merobaudes, plus some notes from one of Peter Heather's books. I just remember reading it somewhere.

We're moving. :/

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Also, I was referring to wearing leather Musculatas underneath of chainmail - cause the hardened leather would absorb shock and prevent blunt trauma wounds, and keep chainmail out of any wounds that were inflicted (helping prevent infection).

There is nothing to suggest that they ever wore musculatas with mail armour. There is nothing to suggest that they wore leather musculatas in battle at all.

I'd imagine so - armor got more and more expensive after the romans began suffering repeated defeats for the first time in the 3rd century because they had to equip and re-equip.

I'd love to see a cite for this. Ideally from a primary source.

Unfortunately pretty much all I have on hand is a pretty lousy translation of Hydatius and a Latin Copy of Merobaudes, plus some notes from one of Peter Heather's books. I just remember seeing that somewhere.

We're moving. :/

[Dan Howard]

Our tribune, Julianus, has a hardened leather Musculata. It looks very much the same as his metal one (albeit we're doing principate impressions) and he has gone on many archaeolgical expeditions. He wrote a paper on LEather Musculatas being used int he marines because it would allow them to float for a little while if they fell int he water. He hand-crafted all his armor in the (theorized) original roman methods

It might look like a metal breastplate but it won't function like one. Test it on a a few arrow and spear thrusts. He could also make it out of kevlar becasue there are just as many Roman examples of those too.

[Sean Manning]

Edit: On the other hand, smaller medieval pieces like vambraces and helmets do seem to be more commonly found than body armour... Isn't there another Roman lorica hamata from a well at Rainau-Buch?

Thanks for the counter-argument, Sean - that was starting to sound a bit conclusive!

Yes, I forgot the Buch hamata. There may be others, but very few even so. And actually, as I said, there's been little Roman body armour found as battlefield debris, I think - helmets yes, but aside from the segmentata fragments (?) from Kalkreise and the remains from the mine at Dura, not much that I can think of. Perhaps the Romans were just far more efficient at salvaging such things? A two-piece musculata would be a hard item to lose, unless the wearer happened to drown in a bog, perhaps.

It could be. Its commonly complained by medieval reenactors that we have few pairs of plates from the period 1250-1400, although sections and individual plates are reasonably common and we have some almost intact jacks of plates from the 16th century. Wealthy medievals seem to have collected more kit than they were ever likely to need or loan, and because it was spread throughout a warlike society there were plenty of opportunities for things to be lost. On the other hand, the Romans could have shipments of arms fall off a boat just like medieval people could, and they might be as inclined to bury a rusty old breastplate with no straps as a box of lorica segmentata parts when they abandoned a site.

I wouldn't be shocked to read that a cuirass of bronze or iron plate had been found in a Late Roman context, but I think the lack of finds so far suggests that this is unlikely. When Doug Strong's volume on body armour comes out it will be good comparative evidence, but it keeps being delayed.