Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but

[Matt Lukes]

Actually I was meaning that this is all getting a bit much- 9 pages of debate and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere- those who like the idea still like it, and those who don't, don't :lol: And it's not the only long-winded debate of the subject that hasn't resulted in anything- hence the reference to the TVNICA color debate :wink:

Me? I don't think much of the idea of a leather musculata since there's simply no physical evidence for it and sculptural depictions of anything are notoriously dodgy to take alone- without anything to back them up it's impossible to take them particularly seriously when logically the idea is contrary to what we do know and what makes the most sense.

-There were metal musculatae (virtually known examples are Greek, yes, but there's absolutely no reason the Romans couldn't have made them as well- they certainly liked them enough)
- leather isn't good armor- not compared to metal
- even when it's nearing an armor-like state, it's rigid (so the flex and cinching mentioned don't follow)
- those who are supposedly depicted wearing it had enough money to have proper armor and reason to want something that's actually protective (it'd be dumb to be wealthy and die because some Gaul got to you and your leather 'armor' wouldn't save you)
- sculpture often doesn't reflect reality, just look at EVERY depiction of the Lorica segmentata- not one shows it as what we KNOW it looks like. Flex and cinching can be rather more easily be explained to be the result of the artist being too skilled- putting in subtleties that didn't exist in reality but made sense in his mind.
- 'parade armor' isn't a defensible idea since even what we know is true parade armor from much later in history is still fully-functional, it's just way too ornate and expensive to ever use in battle

So sorry proponents, until someone pulls a leather musculata out of a bog, or finds some clear contemporary literary mention of it ever existing, I just don't see enough reason to believe they existed. The absolute best I can see being thought is that it's not strictly impossible- but that's not saying much and it's hardly saying it's likley...

[Tarbicus]

-There were metal musculatae (virtually known examples are Greek, yes, but there's absolutely no reason the Romans couldn't have made them as well- they certainly liked them enough)

Don't forget the Italian examples, which makes its Roman use more likely.

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave,

As someone who has made an ornate cuirass from scratch (it’s nearly done :roll: ), using leather and metal cast appliqués for the decoration, I have encountered multiple inconstancies that now have me theorizing that the flexible garment is actually layered linen.

The flexible garment could very well be a natural progression of the Hellenistic Greek Linothorax and the stiff metal undecorated Greek Cuirass combined into a flexible ornate Roman garment favored by the upper class.

A lightweight, flexible, layered linen garment would provide good protection for Emperors who are not front line troops and did not need to wear heavy super strong metal segmented armor.

Also, as I have previously mentioned, it is very possible that when in battle they wore a Plumata over the cuirass or wore chainmaile underneath.

I think we need to stop saying the word “Armorâ€

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Putting the debate aside for the briefest of moments… I'm quite a bit further on my cuirass, I've attached all the appliques and made the shoulder doublers as well.

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Actually I was meaning that this is all getting a bit much- 9 pages of debate and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere- those who like the idea still like it, and those who don't, don't Laughing And it's not the only long-winded debate of the subject that hasn't resulted in anything- hence the reference to the TVNICA color debate

and how do you think in Archaology and science in general we (humanity) came this far? Indeed, with debate!!

Antonivs, i find your layered linen theory a lot more plausible than leather...

Though i still keep my main point with metal armour, it might be sensible not to exclude it completely (like leather) or at least parts of the armour...

however i do think the chest and backplate were made out of metal, but i am not convinced the shoulder hinges/doublings were........

M.VIB.M.

[Dan Howard]

There is one inescapable fact. If a material is as flexible as that represented in the iliustrations then it cannot be defined as "armor". It will provide not a shred of protection from any battlefield threat.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

BUT!!!!!!!! is it at all represented as flexible by the illustrations?

I think it is NOT!

M.VIB.M.

[Celtic505]

I like the shoulder doublings Anthony! I was expecting white for some reason but I think the red definately tops it off.

Someone once said armors purpose is more of making the wearer think he is protected than actually protecting him. As for the statues with the bending armor, I think those are clearly subarmalis', as for the armor being pulled on by the knots around the waist and other features that seem to indicate it bends, others have pointed out that leather would not do that and I can't say for sure about stiffened linen but I somewhat doubt it. So can't we conclude the statues represent a material that is not metal, leather or stiff linen? or it is artistic liscence. I'm not saying they never used leather or always used bronze, because you can never really know, but I think what is being portrayed in the statues is clearly not leather or an artistic liscence depicting metal in a distorted way. But what else would be used aside from bronze, leather or stiffened linen? ahhhhhh...I should go outside and walk in a couple circles instead of doing it online.

[Dan Howard]

And here I thought this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous. Every piece of archaeological evidence we have for armour from any time period or any culture suggests that it offered very good protection against contemporary battlefield threats. Anyone who thinks that a soldier would burden himself with the expense and encumbrance of armor without any practical benefit is a fool.

[AuxArcher]

Actually, the comment about armor making the wearer think his is protected makes a lot of sense. Armor only offers limited protection in the end, and the soldier who relys on his body armor alone may end up a dead soldier. A smart grunt knows the limitations of his equipment as well, which helps you to survive in combat.

The armor I wore (this dates me)when I was got to Germany was the Vietnam-era flak vest, the kind that laces up the sides and has the high collar, along with an M1 steel pot.

We kept the vests handy, but never wore them if we could avoid them (soldiers like to stay comfortable, and that I bet has never changed). Once I got issued a ballistic vest, I wore that always.

[Tarbicus]

(soldiers like to stay comfortable, and that I bet has never changed)

I'd bet otherwise. How would you feel wearing these?:
http://www.scottishweb.net/family_tree/ ... ldierW.jpg
http://www.vikingsword.com/laking/lak031a.jpg

You should define what a Roman would think of as comfortable.

As for the purpose of armour being to make a man feel protected even when not, surely the start of the first fight would see that confidence evaporate in an instant.

[Dan Howard]

I'd bet otherwise. How would you feel wearing these?:
http://www.scottishweb.net/family_tree/ ... ldierW.jpg
http://www.vikingsword.com/laking/lak031a.jpg

If that photo is from Laking's work then the reconstruction is fanciful.

As for the purpose of armour being to make a man feel protected even when not, surely the start of the first fight would see that confidence evaporate in an instant.

Which is why he never bothered with his flak vest but wore his ballistic vest "always" The difference in the analogies is that Romans paid for their own gear while US soldiers did not. If they did then none of the flak vests would have left storage.

[Tarbicus]

If that photo is from Laking's work then the reconstruction is fanciful.

Okay, how about this instead?

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/ ... armour.jpg

[AuxArcher]

(soldiers like to stay comfortable, and that I bet has never changed)

I'd bet otherwise. How would you feel wearing these?:
http://www.scottishweb.net/family_tree/ ... ldierW.jpg
http://www.vikingsword.com/laking/lak031a.jpg

You should define what a Roman would think of as comfortable.

As for the purpose of armour being to make a man feel protected even when not, surely the start of the first fight would see that confidence evaporate in an instant.

No, human nature is human nature. That hasn't shifted radically from 2000 years ago to today. Have you been a solider, and not just a reenactor? If so, you know the deal, paticularly combat MOSs.

If not, trust me, you only put on your flak vest when you need it, you wear your steel pot when you need it, and when you don't, you secure the damn things.

And what did the Romans consider comfy? We know they had very comfortable clothing, yes? We have some idea of what the armor feels like. Can't hardly go back in time and ask a common soldier or butcher or senator, of course. And I bet you good money that no modern reeanctor is in a fraction of the condition a Roman soldier was in and what he could really endure.

I think you misunderstood what I mean. I never said armor was worn that didn't protect, I said that a soldier who overestimated what his armor could really do would possibly not be a happy soldier. That is true of any equipment used in battle, all through history.