Thin iron/steel sheets.

[Damianus Albus]

And what pigments have to do with mosaic which is made of stone?

Blue tiles can change to grey or even green if exposed to sunlight for a prolonged period.

By second one I mean Philip's II.

The Vergina cuirass more likely belonged to Philip III Arrhidaeus and it isn't a musculata.

Im just pointing, that they did not need technology "out of the moon" to make them.

This is the kind of logic that leads to highlander ninjas.

We also have bronze one with side hinges but it was probably etruscan.

I thought this thread was about iron musculata.

There isn't any point going any further with this until someone comes up with a decent argument for Romans actually wearing this kind of armour.

Even if it was blue, it still means that it was iron because it coule be blue druring bluing process.
No matter what, if it was bronze, it would look different. Especilly because figures next to it have bronze helmets.

It isnt musculata but it's a iron sheet.

But there are many decent arguments for it.
First of all, economic. Do we know how Romans made 0,5mm iron strips? We don't.
Sim and Kaminski tried 6 different techniques and all they could do was 4mm sheet (from ingot) which is 4x times thicker than remains and it has forging sings. But does it mean that segmentatas and scales were brought by aliens? Of course not. Romans had to had somekind of XXX kg hammers or rollers becasue otherwise they wouldnt be able to produce so thin sheets. We can only assume that such huge smithing object were uncommon in Republic and Early Empire, while they became very common in Late Empire manufactures. Of course we don't have any finds of such objects becasue no one sane would leave XX-XXX kg "hammer". It would huge waste of material. Yet we know they had to had something like this becasue how they would produce that amount of thin sheet and strips while keeping them in a similar thickness, no matter where remains was found. If it was done fully manually, finds would be very different, various thicnkess, yet we have quite similar. That's the reason to assume, Romans had used somekind of machinery to produce similar sheets on a big scale.
So if we assume that they could make thin sheet/strips in the Republic and Early Empire - which is presented by reliefs where soldiers are wearing segmentata. We could assume that during Late Empire they were able to produce wider strips/sheets for muscualata, and by that period we see soldiers in the same context as before but now, they are wearing musculata. Of course, one could say that it is artistic conception but about it later.
So if we assume they could make big enoigh iron sheets in a cheap why by using rollers or huge "hammers", such armor would require less material, less time and less money than any other. Like mentioned before, Sim and Kaminski claim that musculata was most economic armor.



Also from economic point of view, musculata wouldnt need any repairs until it was shattered and then it was perfect material for recycle opposite to scales, mails and strips. This would also fit a theory of lower iron extraction in late empire but it remains to be investigated by my.

Secondly, battle usage. Such armor would have 2 big advantages. First one is ease of removing rust. Excluding hamata, which could clean itself, musculata would be the easiet to keep in shape when compare to squamata and segmentata.
Second one is more importat. Resistant to blunt trauma of such armor would be superior to any other as it would absord most of the force to itself, leaving soldier mostly untouched.

Third thing is art. In Republic and Early Empire we can see musculata next to segmentata or hamata but it's highly exclusive for officers. Then suddenly in 4 and 5 AD we can see soldiers wearing musculata. Not just officers but also others. They were shown in the same context like soldiers in segmentata before yet we don't deny that segmentata had existed becasue we have found them (2 and few strips - not so much and when you think of 4-5kg iron plate which would be perfect for recycling, no wonder that we havent found them). So why would they start to present soldiers in fantastic armor when befire they were shown in real one? One could say that it was hellenistic influence but if so, why armor are plain and simple? Why not make medusa theme on them? Why not make clearly visible muscles like Greek once? There are 2 answers for that. 1 - they were made of iron which isnt perfect material for deep work. 2 - they were made for battle so highly decorated plates werent that important. I also have to give credits to Travis Lee, who saw probably two different types of musculata on Trajan. Once, Trajan was presented in a prettier, with a waisted muscualata and more often in simpler, straight one. Why would anyone present Emperor in a simpler armor? I doubt that artist was lazy and left musculata half-done. The case can be that one type of armor, waisted, decorated was for a ceremonial usage and mone, simpler and more comfortable was made for a battle usage already back in Trajan's times, long time before it could be produced on a bigger scale.

This is just short brief on my point of view about musculata.
Also like I mentioned before, there are authors who think that musculata was used regulary in 4 an 5 AD.