Painted lorica segmentata ?

[Sulla]

With evidence that musculata armor was painted it got me thinking. Is there any evidence for segmentata being painted also. I know from practical experience it is much easier to take care of if it is.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

With evidence that musculata armor was painted it got me thinking. Is there any evidence for segmentata being painted also. I know from practical experience it is much easier to take care of if it is.

I'm sorry, but what evidence that musculata was painted? Not criticizing, but we have no evidence of leather musculata and if there's evidence of metal musculata being painted I would love to hear it.

[Sulla]

Sorry I should have given more details. I am refering to the studies that show the ancient statues were painted. And the statues with musculata amoung them.

Also it does not need to be leather to be painted. Metal armor was painted at many times in history. Here are a few examples. http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18604

Related article about painted statues from a quick search. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-cultu...c=y&page=3

Detail of painted armor on statue http://www.benno-kuppler.de/images/Augus...ler_04.JPG

As a side note I believe they used a base coat on these statues then detailed them. But the current examples of how they look do not do this making them look amateurish. Roman art from the time clearly shows a high level of skill where they new about shading and highlighs etc. There is no reason why they would not be able to use that on statues rather than flat color.

[Titus Manlius Verus]

A very interesting idea. I do agree that painted armor might be more resistant to weathering, but I believe that there may be a few problems with painted armor.

The Romans used milk-based paints. This paint tends to run when wet. If one were stationed in Britain (where it seems like it rains every other day.. :-x ), one would have to paint their armor once a week. Scutums hold the paint because they have a linen cover one them, and the wood is porous, and will also hold the paint better. As metal is a smooth surface, the paint really has doesn't have anything to attach itself to. The helmets that you showed were medieval helms, which spent most of their lives indoors. True, many ancient cultures did decorate their armor, but in the principate the Romans wanted to present their armies as a no-nonsense killing machine (which it was). Additionally, segmentatas ought not to be painted because paint could run into the hinges and prevent proper function. In fact, I believe that there is a description where Josephus describes the legion's armor as thousands of blindingly silver lights when they assembled for a pay parade during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. For some unusual reason, I cannot find that description anywhere on the internet.

It is true the Romans liked color. They dyed pera bags, belt pouches, belts, and pretty much anything leather. However, I believe that the Romans let nothing on their armor except oil and barbarian blood. :wink:

[Sulla]

Well the Romans used gesso on their shields it seems from recent work. And traditional gesso was used on metal substraits in later times I know. The basic kind uses an animal glue and to that a walnut oil or other oil can be added for flexible substraits if needed. So they could have used gesso on it.

As for the medieval armor painted armor was used not just for well kept armor but for all classes of it including munitions armor. It was also blacked. But it could of course also be polished or left a satin color. Or even covered in leather or velvet and other materials.

And since the statues are were ment to look as lifelike as possible the musculata would have to be painted metal or painted leather at least in some cases judging by the new evidence.

Any way we know painting armor was effective in many ages and places. And we have good evidence at that some musculta was painted. So just saying it is at least possible other armor could have been painted. Need to do some more research

[mcbishop]

With evidence that musculata armor was painted it got me thinking. Is there any evidence for segmentata being painted also. I know from practical experience it is much easier to take care of if it is.

There is absolutely no evidence that lorica segmentata was ever painted. The key word there being 'evidence'.

Mike Bishop

[Sulla]

Well that you know of at least.

[mcbishop]

Well that you know of at least.

Curious comment. You asked, I told you.

Mike Bishop

[Sulla]

Not really I just ment none of us have absolute knowledge. You state it as an absolute fact. "There is absolutely no evidence that lorica segmentata was ever painted. ". I just ment to modify it with a qualifier. To be more accurate there is absolutely no evidence of it that you know of. But it is possible there is some you do not know of however unlikely. Thats all not saying you do not know a lot of about Rome and Roman armor. Just that at least there is a slight chance there is evidence you have not seen. Didnt mean it as an insult or to disregard your expert knowledge etc.

[Dan Howard]

There is no need to modify it with a qualification. "No evidence" means "no evidence". If you think there is some evidence that someone has missed then produce it.

[Sulla]

Haha wow the all knowing. So you allow for zero percent chance there is something you have missed some where in the entire knowledge of the world. Good to know. And I do not have to produce anything. I am not making an absolute statement that there was painted armor. The ONLY fact we can know for sure is your knowledge is not absolute.

Also I am not even saying I do not agree with you about the painted sermentata. Just that I do believe there is a least a slight chance I could have missed something.

[Sean Manning]

Haha wow the all knowing. So you allow for zero percent chance there is something you have missed some where in the entire knowledge of the world. Good to know. And I do not have to produce anything. I am not making an absolute statement that there was painted armor. The ONLY fact we can know for sure is your knowledge is not absolute.

Well, when you spend a few decades studying loricae segmentatae as Dr. Bishop has, and "write the book" on both Roman military equipment in general and loricae segmentatae in particular, the odds that you missed something which presently exists are not large. One can of course speculate about what could have been done without leaving archaeological evidence ... but you asked for evidence not speculation.

[Sulla]

Never said the odds were large or that I did not agree. -- Although I do believe the absolutist mindset that shuts off even researching the subject to not be good. In some periods and subjects related to art I have decades of research, study and experimentation and and could easily write a well informed book on some of the subjects. But that does not mean I am all knowing. More research on things is good. It could be a dead end or it could lead to some new insight.

[Titus Manlius Verus]

Gentlemen, we're starting to get off-topic. Nobody is doubting anyone's credentials. Let's get back to figuring out if Roman armor was painted. :wink:

[Valerian Pertinax]

@Sulla:
Apologies for just jumping in, but I don't think that anyone is invoking any sort of absolutism in regards to their approach to your question. There is no reason to believe that legionaries painted their segmentatas in the same way that there is no reason to believe that that they wore pink feather boas. Strictly speaking, it's possible. Practically speaking, we can provisionally assume it to not be true.
If one day, we stumble upon some evidence that they painted their armor, the evidence itself will likely be interpreted and discussed, but I doubt that any reasonable person will dig in and deny the evidence based on their offended sense of absolutely held ideas of how segmentatas should look.