linothorax and other white cuirases

[Xavi]

Hi Brutus
Because the same basic construction was under the chainmail and the scale armours. Thats why they keep the tube and yoke design.
I will explain how I suspect, Linen Tube and Yoke cuirasses where build. Not exactly as Aldrete show, but have some points in common.

Don´t get upset for my comment on your musculata. Is really nice.

[Dan Howard]

Have a look at the picture please

Think of textile and leather armour as a sheet of plywood. It can be "flexed" so it fits around the body, but it can't move the way you think it can.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Xavi, I think you have totally missed the point about those photographs I took. They are the clearest evidence you can have that the cuirasse is made from metal of some description. Look at the pains the sculptor's have taken to show the rigidity of the cuirasse, the way the bottom belly lip protudes forwards when the wearer is slighly bent back, showing the cuirasse itself to be totally inflexible.

I'm not sure why your making such a fuss about the sleeves either, from what I can see the wearer of the armour is wearing a long sleeved tunic or undergarment over which he is wearing a thoracomachus or subarmalis and then the cuirasse. Pretty standard stuff.

[Renatus]

This thread seems to be going round in circles, so let us see if we can cut the Gordian Knot (if I'm not mixing my metaphors). The core of the problem is that there is a genre of Roman reliefs (I'm thinking principally of tombstones, generally of centurions or other junior officers) that shows the subject wearing what appears to be a musculata cuirass but with extensions over the shoulders and upper arms. It is common ground that, if the cuirass were of metal, the subject would not be able to raise his arms and would thus be seriously impeded in battle. Two solutions are offered:

1. That what is depicted is a cuirass not of solid metal but of mail.

2. That the cuirass is made of linen or other non-metallic material that is sufficiently flexible as not to impede movement.

There are objections to both of these:

1. The cuirass shows features (pectoral muscles, nipples, navel) that are not compatible with its being of mail.

2. If the cuirass were of, say, linen and were to be effective as armour, it would be too thick and rigid to have the required degree of flexibility or, indeed, any flexibility at all.

Nevertheless, there is a sufficient number of these reliefs to demand that they be taken seriously and not simply dismissed as artistic licence or incompetence on the part of the sculptor. What I offer below is an attempt to address this problem. I acknowledge immediately that I am building upon a suggestion put forward in another thread by Nathan Ross but which, as far as I can tell, has attracted little or no attention.

It would appear that the musculata cuirass was considered in the Roman world as being the badge of the military officer. Centurions, as officers, would aspire to be seen as wearing such a cuirass. However, I anticipate that a musculata made of metal would be an expensive item and beyond the means of the average centurion. The solution for him might be to disguise his standard armour (mail or, possibly, quilted textile) to give it the appearance of musculata. This could possibly be achieved by covering his armour with a layer of comparatively flexible leather, worked to simulate musculata. Nipples could be metal discs rivetted to the leather and the navel could be worked into it. Pectoral muscles could be simulated by either working the leather over pads of hardened leather or other material glued to the under-surface, or by sewing to the outer surface muscle-shaped bags of soft leather stuffed with, say, rags to give them substance. The whole could be waxed to make it water-proof and to give it a shine. The result would be that the centurion would have the protection of his basic armour but would give the superficial appearance of wearing musculata.

I hasten to add that this is entirely speculative and would have to be tested by experiment to see if it worked in practice. If it has merit, it is that it seeks to explain a phenomenon that seems to have defied reasonable explanation and which, so far as this thread at least is concerned, seems to have generated more heat than light.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Michael, my own take on this cuirass question is that the armour worn by officers was indeed a muscle cuirasses made from bronze or iron and that was so as to distinguish them from the common soldiery. I also believe that during the Late Roman period the Palatine legionary troops also wore such cuirasses. This would explain why at Adrianople Valens could not be distinguished from the Palatine legionary troops he fled to.

[Xavi]

Hi Valentinian.
The bronze and iron cuirasses if were the unique ones, would not explain the "Linteam Lorica" mention by Suetonius, about Galva. So, it exist some other kind of cuirass, that was not metal and was weared by high officers, made in linen but as you point officers just wear musculatas. About the stiffness on the sculpture, you have to see that the sculptor also give a thickness that will not match a metal cuirass that will be to heavy to wear.

Hi Renatus
Your reasoning make sense, but will be necesary a lot of work and cost for a simple "fashion status" . I think the reasonsof the sleeves are preactical ones, looking for a better protection on arms and shoulders.

[Dan Howard]

<snipped>
I hasten to add that this is entirely speculative and would have to be tested by experiment to see if it worked in practice. If it has merit, it is that it seeks to explain a phenomenon that seems to have defied reasonable explanation and which, so far as this thread at least is concerned, seems to have generated more heat than light.

A, 19th century hoplologist named Samuel Rush Meyrick invented a huge pile of typologies for mail to try and reconcile all the different ways that this armour was depicted in various illustrations. He came up with terms like trellised mail, mail a grain d'orge, rustred mail, banded mail, ringed mail, chain mail, tegulated mail, mascled mail, etc. Later a writer named Ashdown attempted to create a lot of fantasy constructions to try and conform to Meyrick's typology dispite the fact that none of them appeared in the archaeological record. Most of them looked a lot like the illustrations but had no practical purpose whatsoever - some were decidedly impractical. We now know that all of the illustrations that Meyrick studied were depicted nothing more elaborate than plain, regular, 4-in-1 mail (what Meyrick called "chain mail"). What you propose is exactly what Ashdown tried to do.

Cites:

S.R. Meyrick, A Critical Inquiry into Ancient Armour, as it Existed in Europe, but Particularly in England, from the Norman Conquest to the Reign of King Charles II: with a Glossary of Military Terms of the Middle Ages, (London, 1824)

Charles Henry Ashdown, British and Foreign Arms and Armour, (London, 1909). (Reprinted as European Arms & Armour).

[Renatus]

Your reasoning make sense, but will be necesary a lot of work and cost for a simple "fashion status" . I think the reasonsof the sleeves are preactical ones, looking for a better protection on arms and shoulders.

It is more than 'fashion'; it is a matter of status - very important in the Roman world. You are right about the sleeves. The point is that the protection is given by the underlying mail, which is concealed by the leather covering.

What you propose is exactly what Ashdown tried to do.

Your point is?

[Renatus]

The bronze and iron cuirasses if were the unique ones, would not explain the "Linteam Lorica" mention by Suetonius, about Galva.

What Suetonius tells us is that Galba put on a linen lorica but conceded that it would afford him little protection against so many swords. The point, surely, is that it was an unusual thing to do, that he did not put on the cuirass that he would normally have worn.

[Dan Howard]

What you propose is exactly what Ashdown tried to do.

Your point is?

That you are creating a fantasy construction with no practical benefit to try and match the appearance of some of the iconographical evidence when the simpler explanation is that the iconographical evidence is not a a picture perfect representation of reality.

[Thomas V.]

Following your nice exposition, your statement is that is not possible to have a muscular armour with sleeves....and there are many.

this one have pectorals and niples:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_v-nFIazrgkA/SD...5891_1.JPG

This one yo can see how sleeves are stiff and the navel is modeled.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...m_Bonn.jpg

There are two explanations for armour wich cannot be a muscle cuirass because of integrated sleeves yet still looks like a muscle cuirass. I already provided the first explanation several times: The "muscle" armour in question in fact is just a different type of armour trying to emulate the look of muscle armour. Gaius Varro provided another explanation: Stone carvers rendered non-musculata in a musculatalike manner. A combination of the two explanation could also be possible, of course. So characteristics associated with muscle cuirasses don't necessarily indicate said cuirasses.

There are many other muscular cuirasses wth sleeves. In the other hand little or none chain armour with pteriges.

I used the pteryges of Sertorius Festus' lorica squamata as a proof for centurions trying to emulate the musculata look. I didn't mention "chainmail pteryges".

All muscle cuirasses have two hinges on each side. Prima porta has 4 joining points:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HPaXWrGG0to/UG...4small.jpg

First: The surviving muscle cuirasses are older respectively of another type than the Prima Porta cuirass. Second: The number of the joints of the Prima Porta cuirass doesn't point to glued linen in the slightest.

Is possible.

Who proved it?

Hi Thomas
I found an interesting picture that show the use of texiles an also make Fischer statement about hinges, very dubtful:
Please click on the right image.

http://www.romanhideout.com/images/it/ne...relius.asp

The reverse is true. Hingelike devices are located between the semicircular pteryges and the lower edge of the cuirass.

Actually hinges have to purposes, to fix something or to make it mobile. Both are not necesary in the armours you show.

Precisely because of the two purposes you listed the hinges are necessary. Hinges allow you to attach the semicircular metal pteryges in way that doesn't hinder mobility.

There are some interenting images in Trajan´s Column that of maybe a Lorica Linteam:

In the first image it can be seen the textile look in the pterugues on left side officer. In the second, it can be seen in the cuirass and in the remaining pterugues.

Nobody of the posters that already participated in this thread denied that the rectangular pteryges peeking out from the muscle cuirasses are made of linen/fabric (afaik it's consensus among reenactors / living historians that said pteryges were made of fabric). The surface complexion visible in the second picture rather looks like the result of weather effect than deliberate rendering.

1º We have historical mention of "Lorica linteam" (Suetonius on Galva)

We don't have a mention that said "lorica linteam" was a musculata. We don't have a single reference for a glued linen musculata eiter. We don't even have a single indication of glued linen armour.

2º We have remains of 5 mm linen pieces in Masada and other places.

The Masada find you are talking about is considered to be pteryx fragments. The rectangular pteryges beeing made of fabric doesn't necessarily mean that the cuirass wasn't made of metal, as the rectangular fabric pteryges and metall cuirasses were used in conjunction. Hero Granger-Tayler also attributes cloth pteryges to bronze cuirasses.

3º The remains have been polish in on side and have remains of some other material stick to them.

How is this relevant?

4º We do not have any sculpture or drawing of a Roman officer showing any thing else than musculatas.

Yes, we have. There are stone carvings depicting centurions clad in scale or chainmail armour. Nevertheless there are depictions of Roman officers wearing "real" muscle cuirasses. According to depictions, material properties and archaeological finds, the muscle cuirasses of Roman officers were made of metal.

5º We do have many musculatas with sleeves in sculptures but as this does not match our usual explanations we must considere slevees "real" and musculata details (nipples, navel, pectorals) as artist inventions.

I already told you how depictions of "muscle" cuirasses with sleeves can be explained.

Also that the absence of chainmail is because is painted (no one example reamins), when very often was sculpted (no one example on musculatas).

Why should a musculata depiction be rendered like a chainmail depiction?

Also the curvature and stiffnes of the cuirass hips as ?? sculptural fantasy or extrange and complicate finishing of chainmail.

Why is is so hard to belive that certain centurion tomb stones show a lorica hamata with a semicircular lower hem at its front? Chainmail with a rounded shape isn't strange; just think of coifs. The jagged edges that can be seen on the chainmail cuirasses on the Trajan's Column indicate that Romans where abled to achieve intricate lorica hamata cuts.

About white cuirass attach you will find a sort of white musculata.

Please read the "The Colour white" section of this post: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...120#360458.

The other problem is how to explain scale musculatas...with sleeves.

I already refered to a possible explanation (given by Gaius Varro, cf. http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...=30#360159) in this post.

Can you show me something that could explain the "Lorica Linteam" of "Imperial" times?

Yes: As he was offering sacrifice on the morning before he was killed, a soothsayer warned him again and again to look out for danger, since assassins were not far off. Not long after this he learned that Otho held possession of the Camp, and when several advised him to proceed thither as soon as possible — for they said that he could win the day by his presence and prestige — he decided to do no more than hold his present position and strengthen it by getting together a guard of the legionaries, who were encamped in many different quarters of the city. He did however put on a linen cuirass, though he openly declared that it would afford little protection against so many swords. But he was lured out by false reports, circulated by the conspirators to induce him to appear in public; for when a few rashly assured him that the trouble was over, that the rebels had been overthrown, and that the rest were coming in a body to offer their congratulations, ready to submit to all his orders, he went out to meet them with so much confidence, that when one of the soldiers boasted that he had slain Otho, he asked him, "On whose authority?" and then he went on as far as the Forum. There the horsemen who had been bidden to slay him, spurring their horses through the streets and dispersing the crowd of civilians, caught sight of him from a distance and halted for a moment. Then they rushed upon him again and butchered him, abandoned by his followers.

In my opinion the mentioned linen cuirass is a one-of-a-kind makeshift anti-assasination device.

[Renatus]

That you are creating a fantasy construction with no practical benefit to try and match the appearance of some of the iconographical evidence when the simpler explanation is that the iconographical evidence is not a a picture perfect representation of reality.

The "practical benefit", as I explained to Xavi B, is a matter of status. I need not expand upon that. I certainly am trying to explain the iconographical evidence. This is not an idiosyncracy of a single sculptor; there are too many examples simply to ignore them. They demand an explanation and to dismiss them with the glib comment that the evidence is not a picture perfect representation of reality is, quite frankly, a cop out.

Incidentally, I appear to have given you a 'Thank you' for your post. I don't know how that came about; it was not intended.

[Bryan]

By the time of Caesar, the lowest grade of centurion was already making about 3,500 denarii a year on salary and donatives alone, not counting any booty. So I don't think they lacked for the funds to acquire any sort of armor, considering most of the Principes and Triari of the infantry, who only earned a bit over 100 denarii and only need about 400 denarii in property value to qualify to serve, were wearing mail shirts in the mid-2nd cent. BC period. So the question is why would a bronze musculata cost that much more than iron mail? I'm sure others can answer this, but to me materials and work would have meant that mail armor would have been far from cheap.

My theory is that musculata was simply an old-fashioned, quintessentially Roman armor. Everyone says Greek origin but the Romans actually had little contact with the Greeks themselves until later. But from the earliest days of the foundation, the Roman elite had worn Greek-style armor as it had been associated with other Latin states due to the influence of the Etruscans, who themselves were linked to the Greeks. As the Romans did little true archaeological research that I've heard of, I don't think many of them would have known that the Greeks were technically the first to use musculata, rather that form of armor was simply what their fathers wore, and they fathers father, and so on. I doubt they even associated that form of armor with the Greeks. Meanwhile, mail was modern but known to be Gallic in design. Therefore, senior officers, wanting to appear more Roman, wore musculata, while others not caring as much because of lower social order, wore whatever else, including mail.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I was one of those who held the belief for many years that the depictions of muscle cuirasses were of ones made from leather. I have not totally discounted that theory but having now examined many statues, monumental works, artworks and mosiacs, and in some cases been lucky enough to actually touch and handle said statues, I can say that the cuirasses I have seen all appear to have been modelled on metallic ones. The fact that most are hinged is a dead give away.

Xavi, have you been anywhere to see statues and artworks/monumental works in person to see for yourself?

[Frank Anthony]

Wow! Another leather musculata debate. Hat's off to Dan Howard for keeping in this for thirteen pages of posts.

It has been brought up before but I think I'll bring it up again but the Romans did paint their statues and painting mail would be much easier than carving the details for all but the most well financed pieces of propaganda. But what about the muscle details and nipples...? I know many of you wear padded arming garments under your armour but in my primary era of interest ( ie the northern migrations) gambesons don't seem to exist and so I wear my mail over my tunic. Mail clings to the body and even though I'm not the most muscular person, the mail still clings to my body highlighting my pectorals and my gut (if I had the hard six pack abs of my youth they would have been shown off too). If my tunic was of a finer quality and my large Indian made mail was of a finer(smaller ring diameter) You could prabably see the shapes of my nipples as well.

For a few modern comparisons. American mannequins don't have nipples while others from around the world do. Why? Cultural preference. Jennifer Aniston on the other hand wears fake nipples to highlight the affect. Maybe the Romans found nipples to look a little more normal.

Why would the Romans, who sculpted quite realistically, show the emperor Augustus in a ridged metal cuirass but bending in a heroic pose? If any of you play video games, some of the armour can be quite realistic but you will notice that when the character runs the hard armour bends. We can do photo realistic CGI but most of us understand some of the limitations of the art.

The Romans had some very cool armours spanning a long time. Speculation is good but we don't have to invent new armours for them. Romans had some very realistic art which I get a little envious that you Roman reenactors can study, but they did take a lot of liberties as well.

One last thing. We have to be careful with our own biases. Glue would have been the more 'barberian' technique compared with quilting. Textile production in the classical world was one or the things considered civilized. Boiling smelly bones for days was 'barbarous' while even noble ladies might embroider or weave.