Leather Cuirass

[Magnus]

Good for you Dan. You win a free trip to leather cuirass land.

Ruben, discussing a piece is one thing, but using it as a piece of evidence for leather musculata when you've done nothing to prove it's validity is useless. That's all my point is about.

I guess we just think about this differently, but I don't think it is plausible that a sculptor would just accidentally not carve in a neckhole and armholes for the cuirass.

Why? Who said anything about it being accidental? Neither one of us can say for certain how the artist was operating stylistically. What I am seeing here is inconsistancy.

Because some cuirasses had flared bottom edges but flat neck and arm openings, and I'm guessing that's what he intended to show here. You have to realize that this is not isolated to this piece. The sculpture of Paris as an archer that they reconstructed is similar- the sculptor carved in the edges of the clothing at his hands and his feet, but for the rest it just looks plain, like a full-body jumpsuit. However, when the paint was reconstructed, it showed that there was actually some sort of jerkin or sleeveless tunic painted on over top of the jumpsuit. Now, was that sculptor also an idiot for carving in the edges of one piece of clothing but not another?

I'd LOVE to see a picture of an original cuirass that has no edging, rolled edge or flared spots on the arm or neck holes. So you've got one other example of the hundreds and hundres of roman pieces concerning armour. Bravo. Got anymore? Because until you have something more concrete to show me, 2 examples aren't going to get you much. If it's a definitive trend in Roman art, it still doesn't explain anything in terms of what the cuirass is made out of.

Nobody was just relying on one source. In this case we were just discussing this particular piece.

I'm sorry, but didn't you just contradict yourself here?

This is an archaeological find.

I meant in terms of actual armour found, so you have more than one source to say..."yes, the did it like this out of this material because." I thought that was obvious.

Of course, but all that means is that you need to approach such art with different considerations in mind.

And what consideration is that? That you can subject your own conclusions based on whatever you want, and in turn have them be whatever you want them to be? Not exactly how i'd apply knowledge to any facet of history.

In ancient times, almost all art followed the clear and restrictive guidelines of the day which dictated why a piece of art should be made and how it should appear. Variations of course did occur, but they were much less drastic than in modern art.

Really eh? So does that mean we should all start putting round rings on our trajan's column style helmets? If what you say is true, then every piece of junk hollywood helmet, cuirass and other roman costuming bit is "A-OK". Great theory, here's where and why it doesn't work. Remember, the title of this thread is "Leather Cuirass". My overall point is that it's rather shaky at best to base any theories on such armour made of hide on artistic renditions. If they found a preserved leather musculata somewhere, then you would have a 2nd source in which to cross reference the artistic one with. Understand? We reconstruct our gear based on as many different sources as we can. We try one thing, see how it works. Some new evidence is unearthed and published, and we adjust accordingly.

And I don't get why you are repeating that you can't cross-reference ancient art. Of course you can, and that's what art history is all about.

First of all, art history is art history. We're talking about FACTUAL HISTORY and RECONSTRUCTION here. It's an entirely different beast altogether, but thanks for bringing that up. Secondly, you've got what...ONE other example??? Proves nothing. Since this isn't just about art history, you're going to need more than just art to back anything else up. Remember the title of this thread? "Leather Cuirass". It wasn't..."Artistic Leather Cuirass", or "Leather Cuirass Depicted in Antiquity".

Perhaps you have misunderstood something along the way? Remeber the thread originator's post (bold text added by me):

Hello,

I've been scouring the Internet for some information on Greek armor, and this looked like the place to go, so I thought I'd ask a quick question:

I have seen a few reproductions of a "Greek Leather Cuirass" being sold by online retailers. For example, this one and this one.

Was such an item of armor ever actually used, and if so, are these even vaguely accurate recreations? Or would leather armor be more similar in form to the linothorax?

I know that Victor Davis Hanson's The Western Way of War does give a brief mention of "lighter versions" of armor appearing in the 5th century BC, made of "bronze or even leather and fabric" (Chapter 6, under the section about the breastplate). What I'm not clear on is whether this is just a reference to the linothorax, or to two separate types of armor: one of leather, and one of fabric.

I generally don't trust the retailers' descriptions of the history and accuracy of their product, and all of the reenactment sites I've seen don't seem to mention much about leather armor, so I thought I'd present the question here.

Thanks,
_____________________