Tribune Impression and Muscle Curiass ?

[Gaius Minucius Hadrianus]

Salvete!

I was toying with the idea of doing a junior military Tribune impression circa. 1st Century C.E. - are there any sources for bronze muscle curiasses or the "attic" style "officer" helmets that anyone knows of?

Thanks!

Valete bene,

Hadrianus

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!

Custom work, amice, custom work! None of the "off the shelf" stuff will be accurate enough or fit well enough to do the impression justice (and way too much of it is downright bad!). I'd suggest Manning Imperial in Australia, or Joe Piela of Lonely Mountain Forge in the US. Both are listed on the Legio XX Suppliers Page,

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/supplrs.html

You'll want to do as much research as possible, and be very careful about avoiding Hollywoodisms (such as brass arm pieces, etc.). There's a Legio XX page about officers which may be a little help,

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/orgoff.html

but you'll definitely want to check out Travis Clark's site on the muscled cuirass,

http://astro.temple.edu/%7Etlclark/lorica/

Good luck! Vale,

Matthew/Quintus

[Gaius Minucius Hadrianus]

Salve,

Thanks for the info Matt - Travis Clark's site is amazing.

One more question - is there anyone making decent attic officer's helmets or parazoniums? Or is that likely to be more custom work?

Thanks again,

Hadrianus

[FlaviusCrispus]

Ave, Hadrianus!

Legio VI Victrix PF (CA) has recently incorporated several Praetorian / Tribune impressions into our unit. As a result, our members have acquired three muscle cuirasses and a number of Attic-style helmets. To portray a Tribune, you have a choice between a short muscle cuirasses, as seen worn by our Chris Ramirez here:



Or a full-length muscle cuirass, as seen modled by Greg Douglass and Gil Whitley here:



Two of these cuirasses (the short cuirass and the one worn by Marius) were made by Antoni Feldon of Munich, Germany;Gil's was made by a custom armorer in Los Angeles (Gil, when you see this, please provide the name). The Feldon models, off-the-shelf, cost about $1,500-2,000 apiece. I believe Gil's custom cuirass came to $2,500.

The Attic helmets are by Valentine Armories of Canada; at $275, their helmet is a good value, but needs some custom work to bring it up to snuff. Our J.D. Fiegelson took a Valentine helmet, stripped it down to the bowl, then created this beautiful example out of the raw materials:



The trim and floral decoration are taken from the famous Praetorian relief in the Louvre. J.D. went with mail for his cuirass (we know some legates and even emperors went this route, as evidenced on their coins). His full Legate impression can be seen here:



Any of the guys who created these impressions, primarily Gil Whitley (aka Gaius Darius Severus on this board), will be happy to tell you more about sources, prices, and reviews of the available gear.

[Anonymous]

Indeed! First, I'd like to mention that there was actually an entire Praetorian cohort at Ft Mac this year, complete with their own Tribune:


I mention this in order to both honor and thank them for the enormous expenditure of money, time, and effort they put forth to get the unit to the field in time for this event. Most of them are also members of Legion VI Victrix, and the unit (tentatively flagged Cohors IV Praetoria, the Ist being in Rome, and the IIIrd in Milan) will remain primarily a secondary impression of Legion VI.

That been said, here's a review of the armor

The one on the left
is primarily 16 guage bronze that's been antiqued; it's quite heavy for it's size (perhaps 25 pounds), but not uncomfortable to wear. It was built by a fellow named Ugo Serrano. Although his fortay is Medieval armor, Ugo has a knack for rendering the human figure in metal that's spectacular to behold. Like most guys who make really cool stuff, however, he's exceedingly difficult to get ahold of. There was a total of three fittings, and this armor is extremely close to my measurements, only a lot more "cut" (obviously). The cost will be $2,300 once it's finished (it still has the shoulder artwork and the gorgon head to be added). I requested that the hammer marks be left on the armor. In it's unfinished state it looks like more of a Greek style, and I'm tempted now to keep it that way. The armor is secured by a twistable post at each shoulder, and heavy rings that thong shut at the sides.

The one on the right
is of 18 guage brass that's been antiqued, almost to the point of being silver. It's around 18 pounds. It was built by the famed German armorer Antoni Feldon, for no one in particular (I bought it based on Flavius' recommendation, without having seen it first). Antoni is clearly a guy that has been making these for some time... the rim all around each piece is very thick (I'm fairly certain there's a thin wire within, whereas the Serrano cuirass sports the more common folded rim). The nipples are both symmetric and concentric, unlike the "natural" ones on the Serrano cuirass... frankly, don't know which style I like more (OK, conversation takes a wierd turn...). The armor is secured the a twistable post at each shoulder, and strapped shut on each side.... this is less historically accurate in my opinion; still, the Romans used straps-and-buckles galore on their equipment, so it's quite feasable. Besides, I've actually donned a muscle cuirass that uses the hinge-and-pin device seen on much of the evidence... wow, what a PITA! The Feldon armor, cut cavalry style like it is, is a dream to sit it, whereas the Serrano armor with it's "belly" is less so. The cost was $1,525.

Conclusion
I agree entirely with Matt Amt about going custom. With one caveat: make sure you've seen the guy's work first! Of all the equipment a Greco-Romophile might commission someone to make him (or her), this is at the top of my list of Things You Don't Want To Look F'd Up. Matt's links will give any armorer more than enough ideas to work with. And yet, though every single example shows a bottom rim of some sort, and heavy pectoral muscles (the abdominals on some of the Roman ones are not very well defined), I'm consitantly amazed to see reenactors photographed in cuirasses featuring a “24 packâ€ÂÂ

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!

Thanks for sharing the photos. I have 2 questions which I've been hesitating to ask, but I hope no offense will be taken!

1. Why the antiqued finish on the cuirasses?

2. Why are common Praetorians wearing muscle cuirasses?

I realize there's a degree of interpretation, but this seems to contradict the evidence I've seen so far. So my curiosity has gotten the better of me.

I DO like the helmets! They seem much more faithful to the sculpture than any others so far. That said, I'm still not sure I trust the sculpture completely, but since I'm not sure what I'd do differently, I can hardly argue, eh? I like the shields, too.

I don't even like to critique people privately without being asked, so I won't nitpick any farther, but had to ask those two biggies.

Vale,

Matthew

[Anonymous]

[color=darkblue]To Gallus, I'm not sure I understand your question. The officers pictured are, I believe, the legatus and the centurio for Legio II Augusta, UK.

To Matt... please, by all means, ask away! Great questions, in fact…

I freely admit to artistic license where the finish of the armor is concerned: it simply looks better, in our opinion (we being the guys who've decided to portray this particular unit and buy this reeeeally expensive armor, not our Legio VI brothers). I'm not sure if anyone can say with certainly what the finishes were on the metal. We tend to think shiny (Hollywood, Caesar's Palace, et al.), but I'm not so sure this was true in every case. What looks cool now almost certainly looked cool then, and these men seem to gave been allowed great latitude with the design (and, I would logically add, finish) of their individual armor. The wonderfully detailed research done by Travis Clark you posted above hints heavily throughout that he suspects the armor was in fact made of leather, either partially or entirely. If even possibly true (and he does make some good points), this question massively eclipses the question of what cosmetic finish each cuirass may or may not have had.

As to why we are all wearing muscelata, that was a conscious decision on our part to attempt to do something different from the accepted norm. For over 500 years, Roman representational evidence has shown muscelata-clad troops, usually hovering around the persona of the Emperor, and often in small groups of two or more. Some wear the so-called “command knotâ€ÂÂ

[Matthew Amt]

To Matt... please, by all means, ask away! Great questions, in fact…

Oh, good, I'll go ahead and debate, then!

I freely admit to artistic license where the finish of the armor is concerned: it simply looks better, in our opinion (we being the guys who've decided to portray this particular unit and buy this reeeeally expensive armor, not our Legio VI brothers). I'm not sure if anyone can say with certainly what the finishes were on the metal.

Except that all the color illustrations show armor as yellowish/golden or white/silvery. All the known descriptions say "shiny" and things like that. There is no evidence to the contrary, as far as I know. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Romans loved color and shine! They wanted to gleam like gods, especially the upper classes or those aspiring to greatness. That's what "looked good" to them, so we should not be influenced by modern tastes. (Luckily I don't seem to HAVE much modern taste! It lets me slide into the Roman mindset more easily, and prevents any debates with the wife over the color of the drapes!) Meager evidence is still evidence. Go with it.

We tend to think shiny (Hollywood, Caesar's Palace, et al.), but I'm not so sure this was true in every case.

Hollywood? All the armor I've ever seen in movies is laboriously made brown and gray and black even if it IS supposed to be "metal" and not "leather". It seems to be a dogmatic obsession derived from old Victorian misinterpretations, but now it just plays into the biker/goth/punk leather mindset. I DO think metal armor was always shiny! And that a musculata would be very finely crafted and finished. And I think that if the musculata was ever done in leather then it was any color but black or brown--I don't have much to back that up with, but considering what we know about the Romans, I don't think brown leather is a safe "default" value for a piece of armor that is supposed to imply status and wealth.

What looks cool now almost certainly looked cool then,

I disagree entirely. Nowadays we think skulls and darkness and evil flames are "cool", yes? Back then, soldiers' shields were decorated with daisy chains! The only "modern cool" thing I can think of is the character of Charon in the arena, whose dark clothing and evil mask were DISTINCTIVE from everything else in the show. He dealt with losers, not winners.

and these men seem to gave been allowed great latitude with the design (and, I would logically add, finish) of their individual armor.

Again I disagree. I find that the Romans were slaves to fashion, and that variation stuck to rather rigid motifs in most cases. Even the exceptions generally parallel something else. If you look at a page of belt plates, for instance (thinking of the Vindonissa catalog), you'll see that they're all different--and yet they're all the same. As another example, sword hilts were not constructed like dagger hilts, nor vice versa. Heck, even the scabbards were decorated with different techniques and motifs. No reason, that was just the fashion. Clothing and accoutrements were very important to the Romans to denote rank and status, and I think variation fell within quite narrow limits.

The wonderfully detailed research done by Travis Clark you posted above hints heavily throughout that he suspects the armor was in fact made of leather, either partially or entirely. If even possibly true (and he does make some good points), this question massively eclipses the question of what cosmetic finish each cuirass may or may not have had.

Yes, he hit me with a TON of wonderful information that I'd never seen before (having never really researched the topic). It is pretty clear that SOMEthing was made of leather at some point, though he and I are still both very befuddled by the details. The leather could have been simply the subarmalis, which at some point began to be used in artwork as a "shorthand" for the metal armor itself. This may be kind of a stretch, but it's more open than writing the whole "muscled cuirass" thing off as entirely artistic license. I'm not THAT far gone!

[quote]As to why we are all wearing muscelata, that was a conscious decision on our part to attempt to do something different from the accepted norm. For over 500 years, Roman representational evidence has shown muscelata-clad troops, usually hovering around the persona of the Emperor, and often in small groups of two or more. Some wear the so-called “command knotâ€ÂÂ

[FlaviusCrispus]

Ave, Quintus et Severus:

Just a couple of points...

Except that all the color illustrations show armor as yellowish/golden or white/silvery. All the known descriptions say "shiny" and things like that. There is no evidence to the contrary, as far as I know. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Romans loved color and shine! They wanted to gleam like gods, especially the upper classes or those aspiring to greatness.

I tend to agree with this, but will note that the cuirasses worn by Gil's Praetorian unit look rather more gleamy in real life than they do in the images. Also, having seen highly polished muscle cuirasses as well, it strikes me that the antique effect makes the muscle definition stand out a great deal more. If you're going to pay an armorer to give your cuirass a fully ripped physique, might as well make sure it shows up at a distance!

Hollywood? All the armor I've ever seen in movies is laboriously made brown and gray and black even if it IS supposed to be "metal" and not "leather"

Yeah, I hate this too. In fact, the last big Hollywood movie that had really bright, polished armor was the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra."

And I think that if the musculata was ever done in leather then it was any color but black or brown--I don't have much to back that up with, but considering what we know about the Romans, I don't think brown leather is a safe "default" value for a piece of armor that is supposed to imply status and wealth.

I think it's more likely that muscle cuirasses, when not metal, were actually some kind of molded, layered linen, as per Cassius Dio's comments about Caracalla's faux metal breastplate. They'd probably then be painted to LOOK like metal.

[quote] [From Gil / Severus] There’s a coin that shows Caligula speaking to a formation of Praetorians, and every single one is wearing muscelata (hopefully Flavius can assist us here with an image). The armor is omnipresent throughout the history of the Empire… at what point do we as researchers allow ourselves to entertain the possibility that perhaps this was standard issue for at least some of these men, who were extremely well-paid and who all came from “noble birthâ€ÂÂ

[Anonymous]

Flavius’ points are so eloquently stated, that I dread snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, so to speak! Still, some random thoughts to add…

Except that all the color illustrations show armor as yellowish/golden or white/silvery. All the known descriptions say "shiny" and things like that.

I had thought that the "shiny" armor descriptions usually referred to segmentata-clad Roman legions, i.e., written by someone (Josephus comes to mind) observing the legions from the outside. I am unaware of any specific literary descriptions of Praetorians within Rome, only the myriad of visual ones. Which we seem to mirror quite closely, I think (always room for improvement, of course).

[Matt]Hollywood? All the armor I've ever seen in movies is laboriously made brown and gray and black even if it IS supposed to be "metal" and not "leather"
[Dave]Yeah, I hate this too. In fact, the last big Hollywood movie that had really bright, polished armor was the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra."

Oop, my bad, you guys are right.

[Matt]And I think that if the musculata was ever done in leather then it was any color but black or brown--I don't have much to back that up with, but considering what we know about the Romans, I don't think brown leather is a safe "default" value for a piece of armor that is supposed to imply status and wealth.
[Dave]I think it's more likely that muscle cuirasses, when not metal, were actually some kind of molded, layered linen, as per Cassius Dio's comments about Caracalla's faux metal breastplate. They'd probably then be painted to LOOK like metal.

I agree, both with the leather and the linen supposition. Still, imagine the crescendo of protest that would result from showing up in a gold-leafed leather or linen muscelata! Lovely bronze, so warm, so safe…

Back then, soldiers' shields were decorated with daisy chains!

As are ours. It's not really a daisy, BTW, it's a chrysanthemum. Or so I’m told.

Note that I do NOT believe that "doing something different" is a good excuse for anything without SOME kind of evidence. But you do have evidence,

Doing things without evidence generally bugs me as much as anyone. But it’s there, as you agree. I’ll add that what we did NOT want to do is the phenomenon of "reenactors copying reenactors." The other two [reenactor] Praetorian cohorts seem to be doing a field impression… you’d be hard-pressed to tell them from a normal legion. But if you’re already in a kick-butt legion (and I like to think we are), where's the fun in that? The look of the Guard in Rome itself (for many reasons, the standard legionary armor simply could not have been the look within the capital, IMO) has never been done before by reenactors. Time to widen the spectrum a bit!

One could still go with the interpretation of battle armor versus dress or ceremonial armor, I have no inherent objection to that.

Good point, one I forgot to mention. We are portraying a unit assigned to duties within the city, not one on campaign. Hopefully that was obvious. We are also early-mid 1st Century CE, caligae and Fulham/Mainze swords.

To me, it would be great fun to turn out a few Praetorians in togas and swords!

All in good time, my friend… but be honest, wouldn’t that look a bit unexciting in comparison? (“hey, there’s four guys in togas with no visible weapons… honey, get the camera, [i]quick!â€ÂÂ

[Uwe Bahr]

... visual treat while waiting on a bus at central Rome ...

Gil,

thanks for placing this photo. Do You know if it is a partially restored ancient plate or an absolutely modern work? If so it has catched the style and atmosphere of the ancient plates in a satisfying manner (of course I see the details like the sword and armor of the man standing on the very right that are not correct). Do You have more photos like that?

Greets - Uwe

[drsrob]

…The look of the Guard in Rome itself (for many reasons, the standard legionary armor simply could not have been the look within the capital, IMO) has never been done before by reenactors. Time to widen the spectrum a bit!

One could still go with the interpretation of battle armor versus dress or ceremonial armor, I have no inherent objection to that.

Good point, one I forgot to mention. We are portraying a unit assigned to duties within the city, not one on campaign. Hopefully that was obvious. We are also early-mid 1st Century CE, caligae and Fulham/Mainze swords.

To me, it would be great fun to turn out a few Praetorians in togas and swords!

All in good time, my friend… but be honest, wouldn’t that look a bit unexciting in comparison? (“hey, there’s four guys in togas with no visible weapons… honey, get the camera, [i]quick!â€ÂÂ

[Theodosius the Great]

You know, Masada has the best musculate I've ever seen in film :?: They actually look like metal and the muscle anatomy looks very good. Maybe Travis can comment on this ?

[tlclark]

Wow, what a cool thread.

First off thanks to all the nice words about my website. That's really awesome to be quoted like I'm some authority or something.

Second, thanks to Jaime for bringing this to my attention.

Now some comments.

The masada loricae look good in terms of anatomy, but as usual, are undecorated, so it's hard to tell. Also, the picture quality is really fuzzy.

About finishes and polish etc. I think a good place to start is to discuss whether such finishes were possible first. Showpieces like the Derveni Krater, and a couple of fabulous vases in the Metropolitan Museum, have really bright polished surfaces, but they are the exception. Bronze doesn't come out all shiny, you need to polish it, excessively. The athens museum has a couple of bronze mirrors that were protected from corrosion, so that we can see the mirror like polish on them, but aside from those examples, I've never seen anything so bright. The kraters in the Met for example are bright, but no where near as shiny as most of the polished metal I've seen in reconstructions.

Most of the everyday tableware, and bronze fixtures never had a polish like that. The naturally dark brown patina is easy to obtain and protective, and maintainable with a minimum or effort, so there is value in having bronze that isn't super shiny either, since it requires less effort to maintain and is less vulnerable to corrosion.

Having said all of that, the above only applies to pots, pans, vases and furnishings. I've never seen a bronze piece of armor from the Greek period that survived well enough to tell what kind of finish it had. There is value in both a polished and natural (what we might call antique) brown finish. The one is spectacular and showy, the other very functional and resistant.

Now polishing is separate profession in the Byzantine era, I suspect there must be some reference about polishers as a trade in the Roman literature, but I don't know that literature as well. Somebody's got to look into that. Even then, I don't know if that will tell you if they polished armor, but it would add to the argument that they did.

I totally disagree with the idea that parades are a modern thing. The pageantry of Romans in triumphs, games, processions and religious festivals is well documented.

We have some polished and gilt statues, it's true, but that's another matter. The famous equestrian portrait of M. Aurelius in the Campidoglio was gilded all over, including the horse, and I wouldn't use that to suggest that Romans were painting horses gold! Polished or gilt surfaces in statuary may indicate that the object was a luxury object, and have nothing to do with whether the original was polished or not, so seeing polished surfaces may not solve the problem.

I will add one more monkey wrench to this thing. Whenever we find traces of paint of these loricatae, the paint is red or brown or green or blue. Not colors we would use if we were trying to mimic a metallic surface, polished or otherwise. Marble statuary, unlike bronze statuary that was polished or gilt for it's luxurious effect, was painted to resemble life, so I think it may be a more reliable standard for how things really looked. If that's the case, these loricae shouldn't be polished or antiqued at all, but should be painted bright red or blue or maybe even green! When (and if!) I ever make my reconstruction, I will be painting it with encaustic wax-based paint.

Now, just to clarify my position on leather vs. bronze. I have no doubt that they made lorica from bronze. Some of the details in decorations are too high to make in molded leather. It's also clear that MOST of the loricae have leather parts, the shoulder harnesses and tongue pteruges are, in my opinion, indisputably leather 99% of the time. I also think that they made cuirasses in leather. There are some representations that can't be explained any other way. I also believe that a good number of the cuirasses COULD be entirely leather. It just isn't an "either/or" thing for me anymore. If you backed me into a corner and forced me to decide, which I am reticent to do, I would say that I think that, of the ones we can see, about 40-50% are probably leather, 20-30% are clearly bronze and 20% are unidentifiable. I'm hedging my bets it's true, but take that for what it's worth.

So, now that that's clear as mud, a few minor points.

First, the shoulder harnesses.

The vast majority of reconstructions I've seen recreate the shoulder harness system from the Primaporta Augustus. Yet the PA is completely atypical. It is the only one that uses this system. Nearly all others use the shoulder straps. Something to think about.

Second, the "daisies" chrysanthemum's or whatever you want to call them, are always referred to as "rosettes" in art historical literature. I'm not sure where they get that from, but modern hybrid roses are unknown in the ancient world. Wild roses in and around the mediterranean look a lot more like the kind of flowers you can see here for example:

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... modeta.jpg

Like the acanthus motif on this same statue they are highly stylized but I think they are meant to represent wild roses.

Which brings me to my biggest beef about these loricae. The decoration!!

Nearly all the loricata are lavishly decorated, yet almost none of the reconstructions have them.

So this raises a couple of issues that I would like discussed.

In your opinion...

1.) Is the sculpture representative of actual armor, or is it more stylized than actual armor? Specifically, would we really see armor like this on a campaign or is it just for show? Or in other words are we only looking at showpiece examples of the musculata?

2.) Even if this stuff is somewhat atypical, it's the only real evidence we've got. How does a re-enactor balance the issues of questionable evidence against even more questionable speculation? Or in other words, is it better to base your kit after a genuine fake rather that a realistic fantasy?

Hope this helps generate some interesting discussion!!

Travis

[Tarbicus]

Thought this might be of interest:
[url:1kzyd14r]http://www.art-connection.de/pages/kaiser-augustus-panzer.html[/url]



Click on the large photo for different views of the armour.