Lorica Musculata made of Metal or leather?

[Sardaukar]

Bit off-topic of this thread, but I don't want to start new topic for quick armour question.

Anyone know why Roman legionaries seem not to use greaves that much apart from centurions? Polybius and Vegetius apparently mention them, though (according to Wiki..so..). I'd think that protection even for front leg would be valuable.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I've tried a pair on at an event before, they're rather uncomfortable, and like to bang around. That can be solved with a sheepskin padding, but even then the weight weighs down on mobility.

[Dan Howard]

[duplicate post]

[Dan Howard]

Reply to Dan Howard

The cuirassier helmets with iron skulls were not stopping sword cuts - at the Battle of Aspern-Essling - but Charles Parquin of the Imperial Guard thought that a leather shako would. That is my point, metallic armour is not always superior to other forms of protection. Homer speaks of leather helmets and bull's hide shields. He specifically asserts that bull's hide shields, made of layers of hide, could stop a thrown javelin. The Zulus used cow-hide shields which were intended to stop ixthwa (assegai) spear thrusts.

As far as reconstructed muscle cuirasses and their performance, then there are two valid interpretations:
1) hardened leather does not make very good armour
2) the treatment of the leather was sub-optimal and better armour is possible if the leather treatment is optimised.

Given that there are a number of examples of Medieval horse armour barding elements made of leather in existence, and leather armour for humans is found in a number of recent non-European cultures, then interpretation #2 is more conservative than interpretation #1.

All of the above has already been discussed. There is no doubt that leather armour was used by plenty of different cultures and time periods and it was effective. In most cases it was accomplished by using multiple layers of leather or by layering the leather over another material such as mail. The problem with leather musculatas is fundamental: if you make the armour to resemble the sculptures then it can't stop weapons; if you make it thick enough to actually function as armour then it no longer resembles the sculptures (it also becomes heavier than a similar item made of metal). The only reasonable conclusion is that if Romans made use of leather armour then it was not made in the musculata style. This is supported by the archaeological evidence: the only extant leather armour that can reasonably be given a Roman provenance is scale/lamellar and the only extant musculatas we have are all made of metal. The sculptures must therefore either be depicting metal musculatas or they are depicting a stylized classical costume that may never have actually existed and if it did, it was not worn in the field.

[Dan Howard]

Anyone know why Roman legionaries seem not to use greaves that much apart from centurions? Polybius and Vegetius apparently mention them, though (according to Wiki..so..). I'd think that protection even for front leg would be valuable.

Leg armour is the first thing that is discarded by anyone who spends a lot of time walking.

[Sardaukar]

Anyone know why Roman legionaries seem not to use greaves that much apart from centurions? Polybius and Vegetius apparently mention them, though (according to Wiki..so..). I'd think that protection even for front leg would be valuable.

Leg armour is the first thing that is discarded by anyone who spends a lot of time walking.

As one who did a lot, I agree...but in battle...

[Vitruvius]

I have to wonder if,perhaps, they only wore them in combat, tieing them on once they formed up for battle? That's one I don't have the answer for.

Salve,
Larry (Vitruvius) Mager

[markusaurelius]

I thought this was as good a place as any to provide this link. Literally tons! of images of Musculata, hi-res and with a wide variety. Great resource for anyone trying to do a reproduction.

[caiusbeerquitius]

4. No advertising of unprovenanced archaeological/cultural goods for sale. Members may post links to specific images (.jpg/.gif) on sale sites, but not the listing or home site itself. If you can show that the item is provenanced or held by a museum/established collector, you may discuss the items for sale. When in doubt, ask a moderator! This policy exists to discourage the trade in illegal antiquities, which destroys countless archaeological sites in the hunt for artifacts.

:whistle: ;-)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Thank You Christian,

I don't know as much as many of you, but the link seems to be okay. The site looks legit from what I have seen.

[Robert]

The fact that some auction site looks nice does not make it or the objects displayed automaticly legit ...... I do not know the policy of Herman Historia, but as they buy up private collections which in turn may or may not have been compiled by unscrupulous individials buying unprovenaced pieces from "tombraiders" and treasure-hunters, they could and very probably are dealing in suspect goods. Many if not ALL private collections built up prior to and in the first half of the last century (1900 - 1950) consist of such goods. So I can well understand Christian's cautionary quote.

The musculata displayed are all dated 4th century BC, do not have a provenance (other then "Greek" in some cases) stated in the description, so they are only usefull in making a reproduction for an early Greek impression. On topic: they are all made of metal.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'll have to agree with Robert here, I hadn't thought of it that way.

The link has been removed for the time being.

[markusaurelius]

4. No advertising of unprovenanced archaeological/cultural goods for sale. Members may post links to specific images (.jpg/.gif) on sale sites, but not the listing or home site itself. If you can show that the item is provenanced or held by a museum/established collector, you may discuss the items for sale. When in doubt, ask a moderator! This policy exists to discourage the trade in illegal antiquities, which destroys countless archaeological sites in the hunt for artifacts.

:whistle: ;-)

Not to drag this off topic, but those items are not for sale, they were sold some time ago. I use the website as a resource of hi resolution images for reference to various Roman pieces. Something most museum can't be bothered to do (post hi-res images). Rarely do people who don't have access to these museums get to see such details on these pieces. A picture is worth a thousand words they say. Anyhow Evan has been in touch, and if the moderators choose to keep the link off that's fine. I'm just trying to help out people making these pieces (so perhaps its more relevant in the recreation section). I personally don't think the rule above applies in this instance anyhow. The pieces posted consist of pieces in the former collection of Axel Guttmann, a well known collector of Roman items which have been listed and discussed many a time on RAT. And as mentioned, they are not for sale and simply a record or catalogue of past sales.

Sorry back on topic. Yes they are all metal

[Vindex]

SHOULD BE MODERATOR GREEN

I think had you supplied individual photographs, the issue of the Rule would not come about. I support MMF's action.

The site does sell unprovenanced items. This does not necessarily mean that they were obtained in a dubious manner but we must abide by the rule and ensure we do nothing to promote the illicit trade in archaeological artefacts.

[Urselius]

Reply to Dan Howard

The cuirassier helmets with iron skulls were not stopping sword cuts - at the Battle of Aspern-Essling - but Charles Parquin of the Imperial Guard thought that a leather shako would. That is my point, metallic armour is not always superior to other forms of protection. Homer speaks of leather helmets and bull's hide shields. He specifically asserts that bull's hide shields, made of layers of hide, could stop a thrown javelin. The Zulus used cow-hide shields which were intended to stop ixthwa (assegai) spear thrusts.

As far as reconstructed muscle cuirasses and their performance, then there are two valid interpretations:
1) hardened leather does not make very good armour
2) the treatment of the leather was sub-optimal and better armour is possible if the leather treatment is optimised.

Given that there are a number of examples of Medieval horse armour barding elements made of leather in existence, and leather armour for humans is found in a number of recent non-European cultures, then interpretation #2 is more conservative than interpretation #1.

All of the above has already been discussed. There is no doubt that leather armour was used by plenty of different cultures and time periods and it was effective. In most cases it was accomplished by using multiple layers of leather or by layering the leather over another material such as mail. The problem with leather musculatas is fundamental: if you make the armour to resemble the sculptures then it can't stop weapons; if you make it thick enough to actually function as armour then it no longer resembles the sculptures (it also becomes heavier than a similar item made of metal). The only reasonable conclusion is that if Romans made use of leather armour then it was not made in the musculata style. This is supported by the archaeological evidence: the only extant leather armour that can reasonably be given a Roman provenance is scale/lamellar and the only extant musculatas we have are all made of metal. The sculptures must therefore either be depicting metal musculatas or they are depicting a stylized classical costume that may never have actually existed and if it did, it was not worn in the field.

Do you mean muscle cuirasses looking like a human torso, or the ones with raised decoration? Decoration in the form of embossed bronze elements could have been added to a leather cuirass.

There are other conclusions that could be validly made: that the Romans had leather treatments not used today, that the Romans could have made semi-rigid cuirasses from multiple layers of thinner and lighter leather glued together, or that cuirasses of textile (linen) could have been faced with leather or that textile could have been sandwiched between two layers of leather. The linothorax was apparently fairly effective as armour and was also relatively stiff, a composite armour of linen faced with leather and moulded when wetted with an animal glue could be envisioned.