Late roman officer and Lorica Musculata!

[magister clarissimus]

I think the reliefs prove one thing; someone of a high rank who could afford your helmet would surely LIKE a musculata.

[Nathan Ross]

I tend to believe that the musculata was not an item seen frequently on the battlefields of the late fourth century, but a parade-item worn by the emperor or the highest officials... or maybe only present in the official state-propaganda.

I think, on the contrary, that it's highly likely that musculata was widely used by the late Roman army in the field - and not just by officers either. There's a brief thread about it here.

While there were 'classical' borrowings in official Roman sculpture, representations of musculata being worn by late Roman troops occur in so many different forms, from official state art (columns and arches) to tombstones and wall paintings that I don't think we can pass it all off as artistic licence.

The arch of Constantine reuses earlier reliefs, but those depicting the contemporary campaigns of AD312 are newly made and quite different in style and substance - they show many individual details of Roman clothing and equipment that do not derive from classical archetypes, and should, I believe, be taken seriously as an attempt at a realistic portrayal of the early 4th century Roman army.

[Virilis]

I'd like to think so too, Edwin :wink: !

[magister clarissimus]

I think, on the contrary, that it's highly likely that musculata was widely used by the late Roman army in the field - and not just by officers either. There's a brief thread about it here.

this would imply that the emperors and senior officers wore the same body-protection as an ordinary soldier and moreover, they wanted this to be shown in official monuments. it is possible, but I find it hard to believe.

I went through the old tread, but I would not call the person burried in the Ludovisi sarcophagus (and many other sarcophagi) an ordinary soldier or lower officer. I think the musculatas and Attic helmets depicted here refelect the same sense of antiquarianism and interest in antiquity and mythology as is seen in the monuments in Rome itself and in contemporary Latin literature, but which is far from everyday-reality in the third and fourth centuries. The scenes on these sarcophagi are usually generic; generalized battles are depicted in which probably only the head of the deceased is a realm portait. They have very little to do with the realty of the battlefield.

[Nathan Ross]

this would imply that the emperors and senior officers wore the same body-protection as an ordinary soldier and moreover, they wanted this to be shown in official monuments. it is possible, but I find it hard to believe.

But that's exactly what we see on the arch of Constantine. The 'siege of Verona' frieze shows an officer or general (quite possible Constantine himself) standing beside a file of front-line infantry soldiers, and wearing exactly the same musculata as the troops:

[img size=800x349]http://www.rome101.com/Topics/ArchConstantine/Story/pix/15StoryS_1_L.jpg[/img]

As I've argued before, the level and particularity of detail on these friezes suggests that they were inspired by life, rather than archetype or the sculptor's imagination. The people of Rome would have had a good look at Constantine's army only a couple of years before, when they marched into the city after Milvian Bridge.

The scenes on these sarcophagi are usually generic; generalized battles are depicted in which probably only the head of the deceased is a realm portait. They have very little to do with the realty of the battlefield.

I agree that the more famous 'Grande' Ludovisi sarcophagus has a lot of what might be called 'rhetorical' flourishes. But there are odd details here too - like the eagle-headed helmets, similar to examples found in archeology - that I think mean we should be wary of just dismissing it all as a flight of fancy.

There is another Ludovisi sarcophagus, less well known - the only online picture of it I can find is the cover of Lee's War in Late Antiquity - which shows soldiers in musculata in what I take to be a far more realistic way. The armour here resembles very closely that seen on the Constantine Arch, the Theodosius Column and certain Danubian grave stelae:

[Virilis]

I can see your point, Nathan! For example in the arch of Constantine you can recognize that the shields, helmets, the scabbards etc. are different than in the previous centuries; they are "4th centurish", so to speak, backed by archaeological data. Why would it be different with the body armour, then?

[Nathan Ross]

Exactly - and notice the ring-buckle belts, and that circular scabbard chape on the cavalryman's spatha in the second image - very 3rd century!

EDIT: Incidentally, this might explain why so little later Roman body armour turns up in the archeological record. Other forms - mail, scale and segmentata - are made of relatively small bits of metal, easily lost, scattered or discarded in repair. Musculata, formed of big chunks of metal, would have had both a higher scrap value and be more easily recyclable... Archeology itself, in this case, might distort our idea of what the late Roman army was actually wearing!

[Virilis]

Interesting idea, Nathan!

[Statius]

Exactly - and notice the ring-buckle belts, and that circular scabbard chape on the cavalryman's spatha in the second image - very 3rd century!

EDIT: Incidentally, this might explain why so little later Roman body armour turns up in the archeological record. Other forms - mail, scale and segmentata - are made of relatively small bits of metal, easily lost, scattered or discarded in repair. Musculata, formed of big chunks of metal, would have had both a higher scrap value and be more easily recyclable... Archeology itself, in this case, might distort our idea of what the late Roman army was actually wearing!

This is very interesting thinking and worth further consideration. Is their any archaelogical finds of Musculata in a late roman context?

[jho]

Salvete!

Just a couple of general comments:

Thanks to Caballo for posting the pic from the Notitia Dignitatum. I must admit that I had seen this picture many times but always assumed that the tubular items were horse chamfrons. However, I find the identification as breast plates quite compelling. Interestingly, the copyists of the first version of Ottheinrich's copy of the Notitia also identified them as breast plates and show them in this way (although in the fashion of their own time). Both this first version and the later more accurate version are available online here: http://www.bsb-muenchen.de/Notitia-digni...699.0.html

Further, the blue color of these breast plates can hardly be identified as anything else but metal.

With respect to use of the Musculata by officers, you could consider the following items of evidence which may indicate different equipment between rank and file:

In the DURA EUROPOS frescoe referred to in the other thread, the soldiers in the background wear short scale/mail skirts with white pteryges. The light blue color may indicate iron or tinned bronze. One has a brown vertical band which may either be a belt or a breast band. Their tunics appear to be pinkish and their coats brown. The officer(?) in the foreground has the same appearance, except that his tunic is blue and his coat red. His armour has the same cut but shows no scales. It is orange-brown. It clearly covers the shoulders which would appear to rule out bronze. He also has a white breast band and wears leg guards. The attempt to show Niederbieber/Heddernheim helmets reinforces the appearance of a very naturalistic depiction.

The "Deliverance of the Citadel of the Faithful" Wood Carving from Egypt shows an army preceded by a labarum banner relieving a besieged city. The fleeing besiegers wear scale and mail very clearly rendered but no helmets. All soldiers in the citadel as well as in the relief force except for two appear to wear t-shirt cuirasses hatched in order to denote mail or scale. The - headless - remaining two figures wear muscle cuirasses with tabs and pteryges. These figures are prominently positioned and one is rendered much larger than all other soldiers so both may represent the leader of the besieged and the relief force respectively.

Actually the fighting scenes of the arch of Constantine show most soldiers apparently wearing no armour at all. The individual figures at the front and end of formations who appear to wear muscle cuirasses with pteryges could be interpreted as officers. The pedestal reliefs show individuals in muscle cuirasses which appear to cover the shoulder. A single medaillon has a headless figure in a muscle cuirass which appears to be metallic because it does not cover the shoulders, appears to have a raised rim and has shoulder straps tied to a ring. It also appears to be clearly separated from the undergarment with the pteryges. In view of their more prominent positions, these individuals could represent officers or guards.

On the majority of mosaic panels in S.Maria Maggiore in Rome, the soldiers wear armour broadly cut like a Hellenistic T&Y cuirass depicted in light blue with a red breast field. Some also clearly wear scale armour and some may wear mail. True muscle cuirasses are also shown but only worn by commanders. They are shown in light blue (iron/silver).

On the Barberini-Diptych, the emperor on horseback wears a short muscle cuirass with pteryges. The shoulder flaps are slim and long and tucked into a strap around the breast similar to a Varangian bra. The general has the same type of armour except that it clearly covers the shoulder (and therefore cannot be plate armour). On the other hand, Honorius on the ivory posted above is also wearing a cuirass which covers the shoulder so this would not appear to indicate a less valuable cuirass.

As there are many depictions of rank and file in muscle cuirass, the foregoing do not appear to be conclusive evidence of use of this type of armor being limited to officers.

[Nathan Ross]

Is their any archaelogical finds of Musculata in a late roman context?

There are none in any Roman context, as far as I know. We have Greek examples, as the Greeks customarily deposited armour in tombs. The Romans didn't, and as I say a musculata cuirass has less bits to get lost or discarded, and could possibly have lasted for many years of service. There are very few finds of complete Roman body armour anyway (only the South Shields mail shirt springs to mind, and that was lost in the debris after a fire), so it's perhaps not surprising that no musculata have survived.

Actually the fighting scenes of the arch of Constantine show most soldiers apparently wearing no armour at all. The individual figures at the front and end of formations who appear to wear muscle cuirasses with pteryges could be interpreted as officers.

Thanks for the comprehensive summary! You're quite right that it's not clear what sort of armour, if any, the soldiers with the large shields in this frieze are wearing. The smaller figure to the right of the 'general' might be a tribune, or a centurion, or he might be one of the troops (he seems otherwise to be dressed and equipped much like the other men). Interesting that the emperor/general figure also has a shield - but he's leaning on it, not carrying it. Perhaps this is a reference to a specific incident (like the collapsing bridge in the next frieze) in which Constantine himself took the field alongside his men?

As for those cuirasses that appear to cover the shoulder - this is still a mystery!

[Conal]

and of course as your helmet will be jewelled perhaps a ruby in the navel :roll:

[Virilis]

and of course as your helmet will be jewelled perhaps a ruby in the navel :roll:

I'll save the ruby for the best h... in Alexandria!

[Gaius Colletti]

On a similar thread Nathan Ross started, he lists several depictions of Musculata being used later in the empire, which might be worth checking out in the second paragraph of the first post: http://romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?func=v...&id=291740

Hope that helps

[Nathan Ross]

That's the same thread I linked above, Matt! Actually I think most of the depictions I mentioned there have been subsequently mentioned here already, except for the Danubian stelae, which are interesting even if they (probably) don't show officers as such.

Aelius Septimus, for example, from Brigetio:

[img size=380x448]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/stories/imagebase/FirstnameAB/lg_Aeliusseptimus.jpg[/img]

The body armour here has been interpreted as mail, but this seems to me very late for such a 'fitted' style with shoulder doubling (the stone is undated afaik, but looks to be at least late 2nd century and probably mid 3rd). However, if this is indeed a musculata we have yet more evidence of something strange going on around the shoulder area - what looks like an additional piece capping the deltoid. That this resembles the integral 'T shirt' effect seen on the Honorius diptych and elsewhere is perhaps no coincidence...