Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Muscle Armor effectiveness
#1
Am I correct in thinking that muscled armor was replaced by more effective linothorax or mail or scale armors or was it on par with other ancient and later medieval armor?
Dan
Reply
#2
Depends on how you define "effective". Solid plate armour provides better protection than any other alternative - it doesn't matter whether it is iron or bronze. If you want similiar protection from another type of armour, it has to be a lot heavier. Bronze in particular was very expensive, however, so armour made from iron, leather, and linen would be cheaper to make. The problem with plate is that it isn't flexible so it leaves a lot of gaps. Mail and scale can cover more of the body. Even though they are heavier than plate, they seem to be more comfortable to wear.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#3
And the linothorax was not more effective. The linothorax was a quilted linen garment that was about the equivalent of a subarmalis.

The "glued hardened linen" stuff you see on TV didn't exist. That was called a Spolas and it was made of leather like 2 inches thick.
Reply
#4
I have an iron musculata, embossed muscles, base thickness is 1.5 mm. It is effective in combat, I can do all the movements needed to fight and protects me in a reliable way. On the other hand, I have to name the two biggest cons: proper breathing is quite hard, even with a good fit; and the inner sides of my upper arms always get bruised from the lower edge of the armholes (this is quite bad when you consider an event lasting 3-4 days).
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
Reply
#5
Mark.
It sounds like your cuirass was not made correctly it should have been made to fit your body much better under the arms it should have had a fitment before being completed., and as far as breathing I find that armour should be made slightly oversize to allow for chest expansion for even just walking tends to push the chest muscles out.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#6
Brian

The bruising is a thing I cannot make disappear, since the only way my arm won't touch the rim is when the arm cutout goes as low as my midsection: this is where my elbow ends. Otherwise my arm will always contact the musculata in an action packed situation. Albeit I never tried with a sleeved subarmalis.
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
Reply
#7
Dan, was it you or was it someone else who said that the muscled cuirass is less protective than the bell cuirass and other simple designs because (all other things being equal) the crevices in the musculature mean it doesn't deflect thrusts as well?
Dan D'Silva

Far beyond the rising sun
I ride the winds of fate
Prepared to go where my heart belongs,
Back to the past again.

--  Gamma Ray

Well, I'm tough, rough, ready and I'm able
To pick myself up from under this table...

--  Thin Lizzy

Join the Horde! - http://xerxesmillion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#8
Mark... I would really like to see pictures of your armor. Both on and off...
Reply
#9
Quote:Dan, was it you or was it someone else who said that the muscled cuirass is less protective than the bell cuirass and other simple designs because (all other things being equal) the crevices in the musculature mean it doesn't deflect thrusts as well?

Wouldn't the embossing on musculata armor actually make the armor stronger, like late medieval fluted armor?
Reply
#10
I think one of the drawbacks of a muscle cuirass has been highlighted, the need for it to fit the wearer. To make 10 or 50 for rich officers is no great problem, to make 10,000 individually fitted cuirasses for the rank and file is not really feasible. It is much more reasonable to mass-manufacture mail or scale coats, which are more flexible for fitting a variety of physiques.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#11
Quote:Dan, was it you or was it someone else who said that the muscled cuirass is less protective than the bell cuirass and other simple designs because (all other things being equal) the crevices in the musculature mean it doesn't deflect thrusts as well?
It wasn't me. As Bryan said, the shaping and fluting that was done on musculata should improve its resistance to weapons even more than a smooth surface. There might be a slightly reduced chance of a weapon being deflected off rather than digging in but the difference probably has a negligible effect on its protectiveness.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#12
Quote:And the linothorax was not more effective. The linothorax was a quilted linen garment that was about the equivalent of a subarmalis.

The "glued hardened linen" stuff you see on TV didn't exist. That was called a Spolas and it was made of leather like 2 inches thick.

We don't actually know any of this. There are no surviving examples and no texts telling us how they were made. All we know about the spolas is that it was made of leather and was probably the tube and yoke shape that we see in illustrations. We know even less about their linen armour but if we look at how it was made in other regions and time periods then it could be anywhere from 10 to 30 layers thick. It almost certainly was thicker than a subarmalis though, which doesn't need to be more than half a dozen layers to serve its purpose.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#13
Back on the muscle armor was bronze the only type of metal used or did they sometimes use iron?
Dan
Reply
#14
No, we're fairly certain that the Roman ones in the principate and Late antiquity were Iron. Some people have argued against the Roman's ability to make sheets large enough but there are several furnaces in Britain that could produce 25kg and larger Iron Blooms, which could easily be used to make a muscle cuirass.

If the Romans mass-produced it in Late Antiquity, as some statues and columns and whatnot suggest, then it was certainly Iron.
Reply
#15
Quote:No, we're fairly certain that the Roman ones in the principate and Late antiquity were Iron. Some people have argued against the Roman's ability to make sheets large enough but there are several furnaces in Britain that could produce 25kg and larger Iron Blooms, which could easily be used to make a muscle cuirass.

If the Romans mass-produced it in Late Antiquity, as some statues and columns and whatnot suggest, then it was certainly Iron.

Can you elaborate on the manufacturing techniques? I've heard about heat treatment issues that made large plates inconsistent in hardness. I know there are plenty of examples of iron musculata but wouldn't it be easier and more reliable to make it out of bronze?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armor and Weapon Effectiveness arklore70 16 3,817 04-01-2013, 05:23 AM
Last Post: Alanus
  Roman Muscle Armor jho 12 3,712 05-13-2012, 02:33 AM
Last Post: Duncan Head
  Weapon/Armor Effectiveness Bryan 34 8,394 11-04-2011, 07:34 PM
Last Post: Cerco 21

Forum Jump: