Hinge pins on a Muscle Cuirass

[Pointer]

I am having Al-Hamdd make me another muscle cuirass. I am having them put hinge pins on the sides to fasten the front and back plates together. What would you suggest? I was thinking that to have them fastened to the inside of the cuirass with rivets... not a weld. However that would cause a gap. If we put the hinge pins on the outside, would that be cosmetically acceptable?

Patrick

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

It is acceptable, see the statue below.
[attachment=6799]IMAG0081_2013-03-25-3.jpg[/attachment]

I am also having a cuirass made by Al-Hammd. Maybe we could work together to assist them in getting it as right as possible. A few of the things I'm looking as is flare out at the bottom edge of the cuirass (I want it removed.)and the "nipple rings" (I want them gon if possible or smaller at least.)

[M. Demetrius]

Is it possible that the hinges are actually part of the front/back of the cuirass on the originals? Building it that way could allow for the hinge bits to curl back toward the center, and the pin would be above the join line.

Odds are, though, that description is not good enough to describe the structure. The meaning is that the hinges are not something stuck between the front and back; they are something that actually joins the front and back without having to either leave a gap or rivet/weld the hinge tube to anything.

[PhilusEstilius]

Patrick.

I have checked out the PM you sent and this is the only way I can explain how to fix the front and back plates of a cuirass together, I have made a few cuirass in my time and have used the hinge tubes and pins before and fitted them on the outside.

The much better way of course is to fit tongues and slots on the inside of the cuirass and these can be made from 0.9mm brass sheet and riveted on in the manner I show in the picture. Then on the outside you can have rings or indeed leather straps and buckles but put the buckles onto the back pieces of the cuirass and this way the ends of the straps point to the rear when fastened.

I should point out that whoever is making your cuirass should see this style with the picture and not to put the rings for thongs as far apart as they did on your last cuirass for that is totally wrong to have them as such for they should almost be touching one another.
These tongues I have suggested hold the sides of the cuirass in perfect position and with thongs the sides cannot be pulled over one another.
[attachment=6801]img106Medium.jpg[/attachment]

[PhilusEstilius]

Here is the cuirass that I made for the late Doug' Arnold that has hinges and pins the pins being held on small chains, however with this method he needed help to have the pins put in.

Then when he asked if I could find a method for him to put the cuirass on by himself I made the method of the tongues, and took away the hinges and pins and fitted leather sraps and buckles to the outside that after he had located the tongues on one side he did up the buckles.

Then he simply went to the other side fitted those tongues and did up those buckles and it was fitted without him ever needing any help again. There are two rings that can be seen at the left side of this cuirass one on the front piece and the other on the back but these were there to hold his parazonium.

[attachment=6802]cuirass1Medium2.gif[/attachment]

[Robert]

It would seem the source of the Al Hammd nipple ring has been identified illy: !

[PhilusEstilius]

This is where I might suggest that for anyone who is considering a cuirass they should go for a short one that allows them to sit down, such as the one worn by Antoninus Pias that would also allow him to ride a horse where the other statue shows an extension down over the abdomen that would prevent any sitting at all.
[attachment=6803]IMG_0077Medium.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=6804]IMG_0080Medium.jpg[/attachment]

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

As an individual who regularly portrays a Military Tribune, and regularly requires help to get into my cuirass, I understand the want to be able to get in and out of it with out help.

However, I think at some level, we have to remember that officers wearing this equipment would have traveled with a retinue or servants required for their day to day needs. At least I like to pretend they are required...

Everything from scribes, to cooks, to slaves to polish and maintain equipment would have been needed. I guess my point is that there would have been someone around to help an officer get into and out of his kit, and if there wasn't then there would be someone around for a flogging...

[PhilusEstilius]

Robert.

Here is a one that very clearly shows that there were other methods than the nipple ring type.
[attachment=6805]IMG_0078Medium.jpg[/attachment]

[PhilusEstilius]

Brandon.

I do understand your point about officers with their servants etc. however when I did the alteration for Doug' Arnold it was to help him to put it on himself.

Is your avatar pic the cuirass you wear for I see that you have a short type where you can sit in comfort or even ride a horse if you wanted to.

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

Yes that is my cuirass, it is short, shorter that I'd prefer which I why I am having another made, it will be about two inches longer.

I did go for the shorter look that seems to be more prevelant during the second century, but no cuirass in comfortable to sit in, it's all about losing the ability to bend at the solar plexis, you lose that and you just feel useless...

But I don't think an officer would stay in his armour any longer than he had too. Ym experiance is that i spend more time in my sub that in my cuirass, it's just easier to do.... everything.

[markusaurelius]

Why not make a hinge like on this bronze statue, believed to be of Valentinian (mid 4th Century).
[attachment=6806]Valentinian.jpg[/attachment]

Close up of hinge on the right side.

[attachment=6807]HingeonCuirass.jpg[/attachment]

[Doc]

How about using real artifacts instead of looking at statues? Even the one in D’Amato’s book shows that there are hinges on the sides that some small iron rod was put through to hold two ends together. The photos attached especially the copper colored curiass shows three rivets that hold the hinge on the side of the armor. You can also see that the head of the rivets is domed suggesting it was peened on the interior….no welding, soldering, or other made up connections. The Metropolitan museum has a few musculata armors that I have personally seen and the ones with hinges are made this way. There are some armor with no hinges at all and just some tie loops that would hold both ends of the armor together. Since there have not been any found from the Roman period and because many statues show hinges, then looking at Greek examples or armors from Southern Italy that do have hinges, would be the best way to know how to and where to connect the hinges. Besides, the Romans loved everything Greek and I would be hard pressed to believe that the Romans would just do away with certain features.


Note: the armor in D’Amato’s book is improperly labeled as AD under his photo caption because if you look carefully at the little card under the armor, also captured in the photo, it says BC not AD. Therefore, we have "0" musculata from the 1st C AD. The best you can do is go with real examples from a prior period that mirror the statues for at least it shows consistency.

[Doc]

Oops, forgot the other photo

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

Doc,

I don't disagree with you on using artifacts when available, but as you say there are no examples of surviving musculata from the Roman period or context.

I think you have to look at the older examples and compare them to the statuary evidence to support the design and the construction of certain pieces of equipment.

If you look at older examples of surviving musculata and they have hinges and then you look at the Roman statuary evidence, and it supports the use of hinges, then you can make a reasonable supposition that hinges would be correct.

But I don't think you can use older examples on their own with anything to contextually support it. It would be like using a lorica segmentata in the 4th century. It was correct 1oo years ago, but things has changed.

I think you really have to use both sources of evidence when looking at equipment, especially when it comes to something where we don't have any surviving examples from the period.