Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Armor of the generals - where did it all go?
#16
True indeed.

And just think of the money you're saving on your impression :wink:
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
#17
Quote:Could it not be made from leather with applique decoration? It would be far more comfortable to wear, surely?
And nice to look at, too. Comes up lovely with a spot of dubbin. Just not very good at the actual 'armour' bit, should the need arise (think Sherman and 88). At least natural selection would kick in to weed out the Ruperts who preferred that to a bit of copper alloy or steel to protect the old vitals from stray missiles.

I'm afraid this whole strand of argument needs to be turned on its head. Why should we have any generals' armour? The chances of it making it into the archaeological record and coming out the other side are infinitesimally small on a good day with a fair wind. It all comes down to the T word: taphonomy; like taxes and death, there's no avoiding it. We may yet find the Roman equivalent of the Verghina tombs, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Alternatively, you could take the Carl Sagan approach ('we are all stardust') and muse that the component molecules are all around us, having been reunited with the great universal stock of stuff. So you could have a molecule of Germanicus' sword blade in your Ford Fiesta or Nero's inlaid breastplate (cf the Barking Hall statuette) in Aunty Cissy's brass monkey on her mantelpiece.

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#18
You mean the stuff in Hollywood isn't factual? I mean they DO research... :roll:
Reply
#19
Doc wrote:
Quote: The fact that the artifacts are not decorated in such a manner would seem to suggest (at least to me) that these armors were probably worn by normal soldiers.
Definitely agree. The D’Amato musculata doesn’t even have any holes for any appliqué or gold/silver inlay.

Doc wrote:
Quote:From what I have seen, the greater part of these depictions show highly embossed curiasses. However of all the musculatas found, not one of them has any such decoration (AFAIK). To me this suggests that the highly decorated armors found mostly on statues of the Imperial families or at least of high status were, as Christian pointed out, probably made of precious metals.
This is a new addition to Manning Imperial. It states that it is based off of a cuirass of Greek origin that resides in the Hermitage. I’ve searched the Hermitage’s site, but could not find more information (no surprise if you’ve had any experience with Russian museums) about this item. AFAIK, it is the only cuirass that I have ever seen that is embossed at all. I have many contacts in Russia, but none in Petersburg. Perhaps they might be able to help me find some more info…but I doubt it.
Check it out -
http://www.manningimperial.com/item.php?...=2&c_id=35

caiusbeerquitius wrote:
Quote:I think there it might also be reasonable to assume that senior officers, standing somewhere behind the army in a battle, organizing, relaying messages etc. just wore "nice and shiny" armour, where displaying prestige or status was far more important than protection.
I agree with the sentiment of your ideas here – the generals such as Caesar, Pompey, Antony - cared more for prestige (auctoritas, dignitas) than personal safety. This made it all the more notable when Caesar himself plunged into the fight on more than one occasion (specifically in the midst of the carnage at Munda). These men had no want for ego -perhaps a cuirass of solid gold or silver would also have the attraction of being more resistant to rust. Still, we know that Phillip’s thorax was made from iron. I doubt the likes of Caesar or Pompey held the father of Alexander in much contempt.

Vindex wrote:
Quote:Devil's advocate - without archaeological artefacts, how do we know the whole musculata was made from any metal at all? Could it not be made from leather with applique decoration? It would be far more comfortable to wear, surely?
Ah, yes, I knew it would come to this…the dreaded leather musculata theorem. :wink: I’ve spent many an hour contemplating whether or not it is a likely possibility. Thankfully though, I myself am very contented with the notion that the Romans never would have constructed or worn a muscled leather cuirass, and here are just a few reasons why: the notion that the lack of musculatae found in metal points to them being commonly constructed of leather does not hold water, in my opinion. Metal would have been much more valuable a commodity, to melt down and re-use, as compared to leather. Yes, if the appliqué was made from gold/silver, tear them out, and discard the leather musculata - but we have no leather samples that I have seen that look anything like a cuir boille cuirass. Believe it or not, leather survives extremely well in many environments. I just saw a documentary about the Vindolanda excavations where they were pulling out leather shoes that were in almost new condition – no rotting and perfectly pliable. I know that this is due to the low oxygen content in the soil there, but still, their current condition is astonishing. And even the modern reconstructions that I have seen, some of them very classy looking pieces, really look nothing like what we see depicted in statuary when you look close. They do not display the famous bend that I have seen so often referenced. Neither do they hold the musculature the way it is displayed on statuary. Perhaps someday I will drum up more support for this argument (in form of statues vs. reconstructions etc.), but for now, I’d like to stick to the main idea of the post – why has there been a failure to find any armor of the generals/officers (particularly of the Republic).
Alexander
Reply
#20
Oh, hey mcbishop, didn't see your post there.

Quote:I'm afraid this whole strand of argument needs to be turned on its head. Why should we have any generals' armour? The chances of it making it into the archaeological record and coming out the other side are infinitesimally small on a good day with a fair wind. It all comes down to the T word: taphonomy; like taxes and death, there's no avoiding it. We may yet find the Roman equivalent of the Verghina tombs, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The more I think on the subject, the more I believe you're right, unfortunately. Any such find is going to be an extremely lucky find of something that was randomly discarded in an environment where it could survive unbothered. Probabilities of both events occurring together (the losing and the finding) would be as you said, infinitesimally small. I would bet that there is some officer's/general's kit still in existence somewhere on this earth - but the real question is whether or not it will ever be found.

Quote:So you could have a molecule of Germanicus' sword blade in your Ford Fiesta

Nice - I can see it now: "Coming in 2013, the new Toyota Musculata..." has a nice ring to it.
Alexander
Reply
#21
Quote:I'm afraid this whole strand of argument needs to be turned on its head. Why should we have any generals' armour? The chances of it making it into the archaeological record and coming out the other side are infinitesimally small on a good day with a fair wind.
Yup. Nothing else to say.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#22
I just want to see a standard with an Aquila :grin: Surely there is one buried somewhere.
Reply
#23
Personally, I want to see one of those bracer/vambrace things show up on an archaeological site. I mean, there's so many of them in the movies, there ought to be some in the ground!
Reply


Forum Jump: