Login

09-08-2002, 01:34 AM

Despite the common representation in statuary and film, I find it difficult to find any descriptive or pictorial representations of the thorax-torso emulating armor. I wonder if anyone knows any links or have any specific knowledge of this particular piece of arming. Any and all replies are appreciated.

09-08-2002, 04:17 AM

Well, there are no survivng Roman muscled curriasses anyway. 
 
There are quite a few great surviving examples from different eras that came from Greece, however, one complete with Mel Gibson 6-pack and silver(?) nipples. 
 
Peter Connolly has some good illustrations of the artifacts in "Greece and Rome at War." I don't have a wealth of links, though.

09-08-2002, 04:35 AM

I had something of an idea that the Greek style was most prevalent in bronze. It just seems that a fairly large percentage of Roman statuary was done with armor in that style. Due to the fact that most of those protrayals were of higher ranking figures, I would think that these persons wore formed cuir boulli as they wouldn't normally need the real world protection of metal armor, acting more as a center of attention and direction. Not to mention the difference between actual combat armor and that possibly worn for triumphal marches and shows of force The cuir boulli could account for the lack of surviving examples. This is obviously more of a question and conjecture than any concrete knowledge.

09-08-2002, 05:05 AM

Well, I suppose it is conjecture, but I do think we hit on fact. 
 
The musscled curiass, made of bronze, was a common piece of armor. Remember that it was used even by Greek hoplites. We also know that the early Roman armies were, in part, based on a Greek model. Certianly some of the legionares of the First Class of the early Republican armies had bronze curiasses. 
 
As time progressed into the later Republican period, the hoplite gave way to the tri-axis formations. Soldiers were no longer divided into units based on money, but on age and experience. You were expected to provide your own arms and armor. Those that could afford it bought suits of mail, and those that couldn't got simple bronze breastplates. 
 
However, the officers appear to have kept a Greek tradition, right down to the sash on the waste. This does serve useful purposes, it seperates high officers from the men, provides a sense of history and pride, ect. 
 
As for the usefulness of a bronze muscled curiass, I don't think it would have protected as well as, say, a suit of lorica segmentata, but the Tribunes and Legates we think of wearing them probably aren't going to be involved in combat anyway. 
 
Secondly, remember that it still is a piece of bronze covering the entire torso. I'd think that would be pretty resistant to a cut or a blunt attack, or a rock from a sling. It might not take a spear thrust, but really what would?

09-08-2002, 01:08 PM

Apparently I didn't go back far enough searching for threads relating to this topic. Seven pages back I found one started by Casca Tarquinius about 'Boiled Leather Lorica'. 
 
In any case, thanks for the responses.

09-08-2002, 01:57 PM

Ebonflow, you may even find a thread either here or in "Reenactment and Reconstruction" about muscled cuirass. I myself asked some questions about them before. 
 
A point about officers wearing them though, there is also evidence of centurions wearing lorica musculata, and the experts have speculated that they may also have been silvered, or made of high polished steel. (I believe it was either MC Bishop or Sander who brought this point up, it was on an earlier thread I think). 
 
Good hunting! "Only Trajan could go to Dacia." 
 
Magnus/Matt 
Optio 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"

09-13-2002, 03:43 PM

Salve! 
 
Thanks to Speculator Tiberius for the info on terms. I'd never thought to look for lorica 'musculata'. If I'd spent half a second, I probably could've figured on it. I would conjecture that with whatever Roman borrowing of Greek culture, that the musculata might have been polished bronze. I don't doubt that officers might be occaionally called upon to fight, but during battle they would almost be symbols. It seems it would therefore be more advantageous to wear armor that is less functional, given the availability of steel, but more recognizable.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me