01-21-2011, 10:40 PM
I bring this subject up not necessarily as a point of debate at all, but hopefully as a means of clarification.
I have read that most would agree here that roman armor, particularly musculata, would have been painted or dyed. The Romans loved gaudy colors, and we find traces of these colors on statuary (such as the Augustus Prima Porta).
Without necessarily delving into leather vs. bronze debates which I've been reading through with great interest, I wanted to ask if anyone could clarify this for me:
Do we have evidence on actual Roman armor (any armor)for paint or dyes? And if so, how would this have worked, would the painted/dyed piece have to have been repainted or dyed often to keep its aesthetic allure, similar to the constant polishing of a segmentata?
Has anyone tried reconstructing painted/dyed armor to experiment to see which work best?
Alexander
I have read that most would agree here that roman armor, particularly musculata, would have been painted or dyed. The Romans loved gaudy colors, and we find traces of these colors on statuary (such as the Augustus Prima Porta).
Without necessarily delving into leather vs. bronze debates which I've been reading through with great interest, I wanted to ask if anyone could clarify this for me:
Do we have evidence on actual Roman armor (any armor)for paint or dyes? And if so, how would this have worked, would the painted/dyed piece have to have been repainted or dyed often to keep its aesthetic allure, similar to the constant polishing of a segmentata?
Has anyone tried reconstructing painted/dyed armor to experiment to see which work best?
Alexander
Alexander
