Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
linothorax and other white cuirases
#31
As the picture shows, the sculptors were able to show exactly a metal cuirass joint if necessary...very diferent of the ones I post before

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...icer_2.JPG
#32
Xavi does have a point in that some of the pictures he has posted do indeed appear to show muscle armour with what appears to be stitched jointing down at least one side of it. The picture of the Collosus is not illustrative in the way Xavi would like, this is much better and shows the cuirasse was metallic as there are hinges on it-

http://www.triposo.com/poi/Colossus_of_Barletta
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
#33
Quote:As the picture shows, the sculptors were able to show exactly a metal cuirass joint if necessary...
Some do. Some don't. Your argument only makes sense if every sculpture was done by the same person. Go to a museum and look at real textile and leather armour. It is very thick and multi layered. It is rigid, not flexible.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
#34
I will agree If they miss something, but not If they display something diferent. The sculptures sugest a diferent joining system.
#35
Xavi, while I appreciate you posting pictures, you must also note that each one is in it's own way problematic for your theory.

1. The The Apotheosis of Claudius shows muscle armor with a turtle neck, but not one so over sized as the tomb I posted earlier. But more significantly, it shows armor that is fully formed without support. A flexible armor would collapse without a person wearing it. So that would preclude any flexible linen or leather. A literal interpretation is especially questionable because the artist clearly takes some license; the helmets are almost as big as the cuirasses!

2. The Augustus of Prima porta shows the armor tied closed. Though rings are not shown, tying is consistent with the italo-greek bronze armor that you posted. in fact, that armor appears to have tie rings on both sides. If you examine the rest of the Armor, you will also see that it is hinged, but at the tops of the shoulders rather than the sides.
I would also ask how you think that detailed images could be embossed on linen or leather. Really only bronze can take such a fine repoussé, and we know from surviving helmets and scabbards that figural repoussé was used for functional arms and armor. So would you say that the figures show on Augustus and many other emperors portraits is just artistic license?

3. As already pointed out by ValentinianVictrix, the colossus clearly shows a strap closing the armor, which is more consistent with metallic armor. There also seems to be some issues with dating that work.

4. The scale musculata is also problematic. If it was really leather or linen plus scale it would be too bulky to show such a clear muscular form. Linen/leather would hide the body's silhouette and scale would even further obscure it. Isn't it more plausible that this is just regular scale armor, but rendered in a "heroic" fashion? Or even that it was bronze musculata incised with a scale pattern (though I find tht possibility less likely). Certainly, the cataphracts on Trajan's column all wear form fitting scale armor, but that clearly is a result of artistic license.

My point? You seem to want us to take artistic representations at face value, but they are much more inconsistent than you seem to realize. And you can't just pick and choose which details you like and which you don't if your position is that that we trust every artistic representation as accurate.
Of course we don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Roman art is generally quite realistic, and the artists had a better chance to see the armor as it really was than we do. But Roman artists did take license with their work, and excessive trust in their representations leads only to strained rationalizations.
#36
Quote:My point? You seem to want us to take artistic representations at face value, but they are much more inconsistent than you seem to realize. And you can't just pick and choose which details you like and which you don't if your position is that that we trust every artistic representation as accurate.
Of course we don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Roman art is generally quite realistic, and the artists had a better chance to see the armor as it really was than we do. But Roman artists did take license with their work, and excessive trust in their representations leads only to strained rationalizations.

Agreed. You see, Xavi, in all honesty, all I see with your argument is bias. You clearly believe, or want to believe, in the existence and use of leather/textile muscled cuirass by Roman officers. What we're saying is that there is absolutely no evidence, or really any reason to believe (beyond what Hollywood has conjured that is) in the existence of such armor. If it did exist, and remnants are found in some archaeological context, I'd be happy to admit them to the realm of all that we know. However, as it is, you're arguing for the existence of something that isn't even likely to have existed, given what we do know about the Greco-Roman world. To reiterate the broad points of my argument against is quite simple:

1) Roman art is completely subjective and almost totally unreliable when it comes to discerning reality. You can argue this point to death, but I think my point is obvious. Go take another look at all the obvious blunders on Trajan's column for case in point.

2) Leather/linen would not have either the functionality you describe, nor the necessary functionality to be worn/protective in a military setting. BTW, have you even ever seen any reproduction, of the multitudes in leather I've seen in Hollywood and costume/reenactment setting, that even remotely look like what is depicted in Roman art? No, because a leather cuirass doesn't look like what's depicted either.

3) We already know that both the Greeks and Italians had muscled cuirasses made from metal, and that despite the stereotypes (too heavy, cumbersome, etc.), a proper fitting cuirass made from metal would have been both protective and suitably maneuverable for the wearer.
Alexander
#37
Hi both
I agree that we are making speculations.
But the true is that there are few Roman metal muscle cuirasses (2 or 3), and fewer or no one surviving of the imperial period...
Why they have not survived? Change of materials?
Also we don´t have a clue of why they paint them on white in frescos and sculptures.
Why sleves were longer, made by diferent sculptors in diferent periods
What happened to linen cuirases, a cuirass that has nearly eliminated muscle cuirasses during nearly 300 years.
What was underneath the chainmail and scale cuirasses, that have same shape than linothorax?
...we can choose to look to other places...
About turtlenecks, I did not say they where not metal. Just I point out their existance. The ones in the monument don´t have sleeves....
#38
Quote:There is only one way that makes possible to create a musculata armour wth flexible shoulders, and this will be with glue and linen in a mold
Have there been any musculata cuirasses with flexible shoulders? Again: The "cap sleeve" musculata examples you posted on RAT seem to show chainmail armour emulating the musculata look.


Quote:About turtlenecks, I did not say they where not metal. Just I point out their existance
The "turtleneck cuirass" examples you are talking about, quite probably are just roman torso armour and a focale depicted together.


Quote:Did you try?
Did you?
#39
Hi Thomas
Chain mail musculatas? They seems even more dificult to made than my sugestion,,
Turnecks we were talking have no focales...
I did make some trials...and seems to be flexible with the right glue..
#40
Quote:Chain mail musculatas?
Chainmaill trying to emulate the look of a musculata (e.g. by having a semicircular bottom edge on the front, c.f. the M. Favonius Facilis tombstone).


Quote:The sculptures sugest a diferent joining system.
The joints (hinges) were located on the right or on the left side, i.e. only on one side. The closing devices were located on the other. Just have a look at the Prima Ports statue. The cuirass is closed on the right side - by a tie: [hide]http://cdn.romanarmytalk.com/media/kunena/attachments/10171/linenorleatherprimaportadet11a.jpg[/hide]. The left side however shows a hinge (Abb. 5): [hide] Bemerkungen zu Grab 622 von Kemnitz, Kreis Potsdam in Brandenburg[/hide]. You didn't differ between closing mechanisms and joining/pivoting mechanisms. So the the difference between joining systems is just a difference between the joining system (i.e. hinges) and the closing system. Apart from that: A different musculata joining system doesn't necessarily mean a different musculata material.
#41
My apologies to Thomas if you already posted this, but your post is not displaying correctly on my end.

The Augustus of Prima Porta shows ties on one side of the armor, and a hinge on the other. The hinge in clearly visible in this picture. This clarifies that a metal cuirass is being represented.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
Less than 1 minute ago" />   
#42
You will agree that is very extrange to have hinges just in one side. The weight of a musculata is close to 20 kg.
Hinges are not just a closing mechanism, helps to divide the weight equaly. Imagin this 20 kg subjected just in one side in a trotting horse for 20 minutes....
You can see in this pictures a real musculata hinges:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/twlanuvium09.jpg

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/twlanuvium06.jpg

The Priima Porta arrangement is sugesting a much lighter cuirass.
#43
Hi Thomas
It is a possibility, but you will agree that building a stiff ending on a chaimail, will lose the advantadges of a chainmail flexibility making it unconfortable to wear. In the other hand we do not have any reference of this kind of cuirasses.
#44
As I pointed before, no single reference about chainmail musculata or leather ones can be find. But Suetonius makes an interesting statement on the life of Galba:

Loricam tamen induit linteam, quanquam haud dissimulans parum adversum tot mucrones profuturam.

He did however put on a linen cuirass, though he openly declared that it would afford little protection against so many points.

Clearly don´t say subarmalis o spolas.

Galba arroud 60 AC...you can see him with some of his "Linteam? Loricas" with a very interesting scale musculata

http://ldmark.com/Irome/galba.jpg

http://www.the-romans.co.uk/gallery3/big....galba.jpg
#45
Quote:You will agree that is very extrange to have hinges just in one side. The weight of a musculata is close to 20 kg.
It is not strange to have a hinge only on one side of a cuirass. It is normal. The weight of a metal cuirass is around 5kg. A leather one that provides similar protection is closer to 10kg. You really need to stop looking at paintings and sculptures and start looking at real armour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books


Forum Jump: