Roman wall painting of musculata in color from first century

[Tarbicus]

Why would they paint metal??? Especially when you have a slave to keep it nice and shiny for you.

That's the $64,000 question, but Caligula's armour; was it leather, or was it metal? Is it at all contemporary or alluding back to more ancient times? And even then, why would the Romans not like painted colour on their armour when we know other ancients did? They certainly had colourful houses, etc, and the only reason modern armies aren't colourful is simply because of the modern need for camouflage.

If today's armies still fought in squares in open battle they'd possibly look more like the Coldstream Guards on parade?

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Why would they paint metal???

The same reason they painted marble, and ivory statues, and in more recent times people painting beautiful wood paneling in Victorian houses.

[Magnus]

Yeah, but it doesn't all get painted, so perhaps only highlights or certain parts of the armour, to provide contrast to the metal.

[Theodosius the Great]

Magnus,

I think the paint says more about Roman statuary than it does about Roman armor. They were civic momuments that were, I suspect, just painted in bright colors so that the populace would more readily notice them.

Just my take on it.

~Theo

[Magnus]

Kind of like how bilboards and signs are brightly coloured for "advertising". Makes sense.

[Sulla]

In the end it probobly came down to personal taste. Just like whith the knights in europe. Some armor then was painted. Some was covered in red velvet with gold trim. Some was black. Some was plain some was not. Style varied from from person to person and region to region. I am sure it was the same in roman times. And judging by their houses etc they had a tast for very bright colors

[Tarbicus]

First two images on this page:
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid5/austria/ ... php?page=1

I don't know German, but is that part of the chest armour from a statue of an Emperor?

Bronze base, silver and copper decoration?

[Robert Vermaat]

I don't know German, but is that part of the chest armour from a statue of an Emperor?
Bronze base, silver and copper decoration?

I think your German is good enough actually. :wink:

[Sulla]

Thanks those are very interesting. Also I wonder what the color on the tombstone is based on?

[Marius_Ursus]

Why would they paint metal??? Especially when you have a slave to keep it nice and shiny for you.

That's the $64,000 question, but Caligula's armour; was it leather, or was it metal? Is it at all contemporary or alluding back to more ancient times? And even then, why would the Romans not like painted colour on their armour when we know other ancients did? They certainly had colourful houses, etc, and the only reason modern armies aren't colourful is simply because of the modern need for camouflage.

If today's armies still fought in squares in open battle they'd possibly look more like the Coldstream Guards on parade?

Agreed. The Romans liked to paint everything. I believe even the original Augustus of Primaporta (forgive the weak memory if I got the name wrong) was originally done with a layer of colored enamel.

[Theodosius the Great]

There are many other depictions of a musculata that suggest the use of iron but they date to much later or earlier periods.

This relief from a tomb in Italy clearly shows a bluish musculata on the left and a yellowish one on the right. This artwork dates several hundred years before the 1st century AD.

And there's the Season's mosaic depicting a dark grayish musculata, suggesting iron. It dates to the mid 6th century AD and does not appear to be an artistic archaism to me. The helmet is clearly contemporary - a spangenhelm with chainmail aventail. Also present on the armor is a leather harness running horizontally across the chest which is seen in other artwork from the period. It's function is unclear yet its appearance isn't known from earlier periods.

There are mosaics from St Maria Maggiore that clearly show both bronze and iron (or silvered) musculata. The thread's about on RAT. They're not 1st C, but portray many ancient (ancient to the Romans, that is) scenes with Hellenised figures.

I agree that these mosaics are the best pictorial evidence we have that suggest the Romans concurrently used iron and bronze musculata. I have some photos of my own showing the scenes from the St. Maria Maggiore.

1.) In this scene we see Joshua (lower left) wearing an iron musculata. And we see an angel (top right) wearing a bronze musculata.

2.) Again, we see Joshua (center left) outside the walls of Jericho wearing an iron musculata.

3.) And Joshua (extreme right)standing next to the Ark of the Covenant.

I suppose one can say these are painted but the colors are metallic unlike the paint residues from imperial statuary.

And I differ with Tarbicus' interpretation that these depictions hark back to older, Hellenistic times. Based on everything else in the mosaics - the tunics, trousers, shields, and weapons - the scene suggests to me that the art is reflecting contemporary fashions (i.e. early 5th century AD).

Besides the pictorial evidence there is physical evidence to suggest that iron musculata existed during Greeco-Roman times.

There's the famous armor from Vergina found in a Macedonian tomb. It's a composite of mainly iron with gold fittings. While it doesn't qualify as a musculata due to lack any musculature it does prove that the technology to create an iron musculata existed. The armor dates to at least 380 BC.

In this thread a discussion about a certain Greek musculata from the island of Corfu was taking place. Based on this photographof Comerus' it appears to be iron to Matt Lukes and last summer MeinPanzer (Ruben) visited the museum where it's kept and is convinced that it is mainly composed of iron "inside and out."

This evidence alone would constitute solid proof of the iron musculata's existence. It may or may not suggest it was less common than its bronze counterpart but this is a separate issue.

~Theo

[Tarbicus]

And I differ with Tarbicus' interpretation that these depictions hark back to older, Hellenistic times. Based on everything else in the mosaics - the tunics, trousers, shields, and weapons - the scene suggests to me that the art is reflecting contemporary fashions (i.e. early 5th century AD).

Besides the pictorial evidence there is physical evidence to suggest that iron musculata existed during Greeco-Roman times.

First off, Theo, thanks for posting your photos. The online ones that I'm convinced I found a segmentata in are now offline. Do you have any more photos of the mosaics, as they're far better quality than any I've seen before.

I also have to say that I don't think it's archaic armour, but contemporary. The Hellenistic style is no great surprise in some details, but I really do think it's mostly contemporary just as much later painters contemporarised Biblical scenes.

Laudes.

Here's the thread that I found very frustrating to convince anyone of the depiction of segmentata :wink: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=12648

[Theodosius the Great]

Ave Tarbicus,

I also have to say that I don't think it's archaic armour, but contemporary. The Hellenistic style is no great surprise in some details, but I really do think it's mostly contemporary just as much later painters contemporarised Biblical scenes.

I see. Maybe you were refering to some of the other scenes that show more Hellenistic armor which I agree there is. My earlier comments were solely about the selected scenes I posted up showing Joshua and the Israelites (all of which appear to wear Late Roman armor, garb, etc..) Whereas the other armies, Egyptian or Semitic, appear to wear Hellenistic lorica. This isn't suprising to me. The Isrealites are the good guys so Roman artists would naturally depict them as legionaries.

Do you have any more photos of the mosaics, as they're far better quality than any I've seen before.

Yes, as I said earlier, the photos are mine which I got from one of my books. The book has many more battle scenes from St. Maria Maggiore but, no, I don't see the one that has the soldier you posted.

Here's the thread that I found very frustrating to convince anyone of the depiction of segmentata

What a shame. But a better picture may not reveal much more since that portion of the mosaic looks rather sloppy to me.

Based solely on the horizontal bands and the length of the armor in question I'd say it could be lamellar. But my guess presupposes that the artist knew exactly what he was doing. So my position is basically the same as Vortigern's : If it's supposed to be a seg, and it could be, then it's a bad depiction. Hell, I think it's a bad depiction anyway

We know that long lamellar cuirasses existed as seen on this sixth-century silver plate from Italy.

On the other hand, the way the armor is behaving, being so form-fitting, it may represent chainmail. See how prominently the soldier's gut hangs out ? I don't know if lamellar or squamata can behave this way but I have my doubts.

The nice thing about the musculata is that it's by far the easiest type of Roman armor to depict artistically which makes it easy to identify.

~Theo

[Paullus Scipio]

Here's my tuppence worth on the mosaic......I would support those who see a link to the armour portrayed on the Trajan Column Base...I know from personal experience, having examined it at firsthand, and carefully measured it, that the armour portrayed is incredibly detailed and Life-sized. In my view the Tropaeum carvers must have had the real thing to hand to copy - for example, the Dacian shield patterns ( on life-sized shields) are incredibly intricate compared to the stylised Dacian ones on the column itself.
The equipment itself is a jumble of Dacian, Sarmatian, and Bastarnae equipment such that in many cases it is impossible to be certain which is which.
The segmented armour shown is clearly meant to be flexible, comes down over the hips, and each individual hoop is fastened with a large buckle. There can be little doubt that it is intended to portray Sarmatian Leather body armour ( c.f. Tacitus 'Histories' ...and the dismounted warriors were weighed down by their body-armour.This protective clothing is worn by the chiefs and notables and consists of iron plating or toughened leather......Tacitus goes on to contrast this cumbersome heavy armour with Roman' breastplates allowing easy movement').There is a long history of leather armour used by Steppe nomads. Both types of armour are present on the tropaeum i.e. corselets of plate scales, and the segmented leather armour.
Anyone who sees this Tropaeum armour up close has little doubt that leather is being depicted, and it is this that likely led 19th century commentators to conclude that the visually similar Roman armour on the Column ( though significantly lacking the large buckle on each hoop) was leather too.... :roll: :roll:
Now the mosaicist must have been aware of this 'exotic' looking armour, and in my view was probably influenced by it...I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the colour ( the purple-dark- browny-grey could be anything), but he doesn't ( perhaps significantly) copy the large buckles...maybe he has depicted an imaginative 'hybrid' between the exotic armour on the base, and known segmentata...which would explain why it comes down over the hips like the Sarmatian armour on the Tropaeum base........ and maybe not ! :? ?

P.S. that's a nice clear photo of the Column base, obviously taken many years ago ( it is much worse condition now)...Do you have similar photos of the other three sides? Please?

[Theodosius the Great]

P.S. that's a nice clear photo of the Column base

What photo ? :? Is there a link ?

The armor's description sounds strange. A hybrid of leather and metal with large buckles...hmm..

Do the segs look something like this perhaps ? :wink:

~Theo