Double breasted or center fastening?

[rocktupac]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4760...d77c_b.jpg
Here it is. And this is half of the scene. It is from an etruscan tomb,showing the slaughter of 12 Troyan Princes as sucrifice by Achilles on the funerary pyre of Patroclos. it is invaliably accurate and detailed!
Achilles,who is the one i posted above, wears a typical etruscan tube and yoke, almost identical to the one the Mars of Todi wears. Interestingly, despite its detail,there are no fittings shown to secure the closure of the two parts. Notice the very carefully and in my belief accurately,it doesn't closed dead center but slightly to the left! This correscponds with other cuirasses shown on vases whick are scaled on one side,and the scales stop a bit farther than the center. To me this is another indication that the cuirass is double breasted.
Paul,i have also noticed the same thing,the artists is careful to show that the red decoration on the belly is jjust that,a decoration. The vertical red hem is of a different colour than the horizontal decoration and goes over it.
The other cuirass is more typical,but for some reason it also gives me the impression that is double breasted. But it's just my feeling,perhaps because the front part is attached to the side a bit more centered than i would expect.
Khairete
Giannis

EDIT: i must have been wrong,Achilles is most probably the one that is actually sloughtering them.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wanted more of the close up shots like the one you originally posted. I have the whole image of the tomb but would desperately like some close ups.

Paul: surprisingly, out of the nearly 1,000 examples of warriors wearing this type of armor (your tube and yoke) on vase paintings, none of them are shown wearing a belt (like the one Alexander has on the Alexander mosaic). These belts only appear on Roman items and are pretty rare.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul: surprisingly, out of the nearly 1,000 examples of warriors wearing this type of armor (your tube and yoke) on vase paintings, none of them are shown wearing a belt (like the one Alexander has on the Alexander mosaic). These belts only appear on Roman items and are pretty rare.

Strictly speaking, this item, worn around the ribs, and tied with "the knot of Hercules" ( reef knot), with the ends tucked in, is a girdle, not a belt ( 'zoma' in Greek).

It was supposedly a symbol of high command and is often seen worn over the 'muscled cuirass' on Imperial Roman statues and such-like. As you say, Alexander wears one over a Tube-and-Yoke corselet on the mosaic. Given the accuracy of detail shown on the mosaic, it is probably not an anachronism, and may have originated with him, and worn in imitation thereafter......

[PMBardunias]

Paul: surprisingly, out of the nearly 1,000 examples of warriors wearing this type of armor (your tube and yoke) on vase paintings, none of them are shown wearing a belt (like the one Alexander has on the Alexander mosaic).

Perhaps 999? :wink: See below:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hell! Why are there so many vases!? You can never say you have seen them all! And alwasy someone will have seen something you haven't! (thank god) I would imagine though this was meant to be something like Alexanser's knot. Having some decorative(?) or other significance. I mean,surely it's easy anough and much more secure to put two or even three fittings to secure the side!
The hoplite seems very happy to wear it :lol:
Khairete
Giannis

[MeinPanzer]

Strictly speaking, this item, worn around the ribs, and tied with "the knot of Hercules" ( reef knot), with the ends tucked in, is a girdle, not a belt ( 'zoma' in Greek).

It was supposedly a symbol of high command and is often seen worn over the 'muscled cuirass' on Imperial Roman statues and such-like. As you say, Alexander wears one over a Tube-and-Yoke corselet on the mosaic. Given the accuracy of detail shown on the mosaic, it is probably not an anachronism, and may have originated with him, and worn in imitation thereafter......

Yeah, this certainly isn't a Roman thing - it's seen quite often throughout the Hellenistic period.

[PMBardunias]

"Belted" warriors are found from the western Mediterranean to eastern Anatolia- with excellent examples from Urartu. For our puroses these might be homologus, or simply analogos, but it does show that belts were a common sign of manhood/warrior status. I cannot abandon without cause the notion that this belt was functional as well. One might imagine that many hoplites from a polis who do not wear their armor all that often, or inherited it from fatter fathers, might need a bit of ad hoc adjustment in the fit to ensure it sits well on the hips.

[PMBardunias]

Since we are discussing corslets, does anyone happen to know the provenance of this vase? I have posted it previously, but I cannot recall where I found it!

[MeinPanzer]

"Belted" warriors are found from the western Mediterranean to eastern Anatolia- with excellent examples from Urartu. For our puroses these might be homologus, or simply analogos, but it does show that belts were a common sign of manhood/warrior status. I cannot abandon without cause the notion that this belt was functional as well. One might imagine that many hoplites from a polis who do not wear their armor all that often, or inherited it from fatter fathers, might need a bit of ad hoc adjustment in the fit to ensure it sits well on the hips.

The major difference with other belt-wearing warriors is that I don't know of belts commonly being worn over cuirasses in cultures other than Greek or those influenced by the Greeks. Our evidence also points to it being a sign of authority, and thus a mark of the officer, and not simply a warrior trait. I have a hard time seeing this as functional: it is primarily depicted being worn by men wearing metal cuirasses, and any organic cuirass stiff enough to properly deflect blows could surely be very difficult to cinch with a belt.

[PMBardunias]

The major difference with other belt-wearing warriors is that I don't know of belts commonly being worn over cuirasses in cultures other than Greek or those influenced by the Greeks. Our evidence also points to it being a sign of authority, and thus a mark of the officer, and not simply a warrior trait.

I mention the ubiquity of belts as signs of manhood to suggest that this is why a belt would be chosen as such a sign of rank- it is tied to a long tradition of belts as martial signs.

I have a hard time seeing this as functional: it is primarily depicted being worn by men wearing metal cuirasses, and any organic cuirass stiff enough to properly deflect blows could surely be very difficult to cinch with a belt.

I don't imagine you could simply cinch it like a pair of pants, but if it were ill-fitting the bottom tie might need some extra support in holding a too-tight corselet together, or if too loose, you could pull the bottom of the side-panel past where it normally fastens and hold it together at a smaller diameter. This is something that could be easily tested by Giannis, if he would be so kind.

[immortal]

As mentioned Uratian bronze belts are very common, and were not worn over armour. These look very different to the ones shown in this thread.
The Etruscan 'belt' just looks like a painted design of a thorn covered branch to me. I think the idea of a double breasted cuirass is interesting, I don't see why it could not be that there were many different types of cuirass with different methods of fastening.
I think we are in danger of reading too much into the significance of the hoplite tying the belt around his waist. Is it not possible he simply owns a nice piece of fabric and though 'this is nice, I'll tie it round my waist next time I put my armour on'.

The Etruscan painting is lovely, Ive not seen it before.
I don't use the Alexander mosaic for reference. There are several archaeologists who do not think that it is the copy of the Greek original mentioned by the Romans, but made much later. For example the cuirass with the shoulder pteryges are clearly a Roman addition, as by the sounds of it is the belt.

[MeinPanzer]

I don't use the Alexander mosaic for reference. There are several archaeologists who do not think that it is the copy of the Greek original mentioned by the Romans, but made much later. For example the cuirass with the shoulder pteryges are clearly a Roman addition, as by the sounds of it is the belt.

There is no doubt that the Alexander mosaic is a copy of a 4th c. BC original - I'd be eager to hear about which details are considered anachronistic, but both the belt and the shoulder pteryges are entirely Hellenistic. For a clear example of a near-contemporary depiction of a Hellenistic cavalryman wearing a belt, see the Alkestas monument, and there are numerous examples of Hellenistic cuirasses with shoulder pteryges. There are myriad other details that are too true to the 4th c. for it to by anything other than a copy.

[PMBardunias]

As mentioned Uratian bronze belts are very common, and were not worn over armour. These look very different to the ones shown in this thread.

They don't look anything like the tied-on belt in the image I showed, but they do look very much like the wide bronze belts found commonly in Italy. As I noted this may be simple convergence- how many ways are there to make a wide, bronze belt- but they may draw from a shared tradition.

Added to this is the probably direct contact of Etruscans with Uratian trade goods, as evinced by the Uratian and Asian goods found in Etruscan tombs. Then again with Etruscans there may have been direct historical contact as well given an Anatolian origin.

As I said though, the point is not that these are the same belts, putting a wide bronze belt over a bronze armor would be silly, but that the motiff may have had an ancient and common origin. In the Aenead, Turnus: “planted his foot on the lifeless Pallas and tore from him his heavy, massive sword-belt. Such was the trophy which Turnus rejoiced and gloried to have won” (Virgil X.492-498)". (from Burns "Visible Proofs of Valour: The Trophy in South Italic Iconography of the Fourth Century BC"). Thus a stylized belt was perhaps applied to armor.

[immortal]

I don't use the Alexander mosaic for reference. There are several archaeologists who do not think that it is the copy of the Greek original mentioned by the Romans, but made much later. For example the cuirass with the shoulder pteryges are clearly a Roman addition, as by the sounds of it is the belt.

There is no doubt that the Alexander mosaic is a copy of a 4th c. BC original - I'd be eager to hear about which details are considered anachronistic, but both the belt and the shoulder pteryges are entirely Hellenistic. For a clear example of a near-contemporary depiction of a Hellenistic cavalryman wearing a belt, see the Alkestas monument, and there are numerous examples of Hellenistic cuirasses with shoulder pteryges. There are myriad other details that are too true to the 4th c. for it to by anything other than a copy.

Actually there is an enormous amount of doubt about this in academic circles. I have spent a lot of time talking to Dr. Stella Miller Collett about this subject. I will find out from her who has published the recent paper that very convincingly argues by dating each of the items portrayed in the mosaic that it was made around 250 years later than previously thought. The style of art is also not particularly Greek.

This is exactly my point; the equipment looks Hellenistic and Roman and matches no Classical or Alexandrian Macedonian depictions or artefacts yet found. The Persian depictions also do not match Achaemenid styles.

[immortal]

As mentioned Uratian bronze belts are very common, and were not worn over armour. These look very different to the ones shown in this thread.

They don't look anything like the tied-on belt in the image I showed, but they do look very much like the wide bronze belts found commonly in Italy. As I noted this may be simple convergence- how many ways are there to make a wide, bronze belt- but they may draw from a shared tradition.

Isn't that what I said?
Italy obviously has a lot of Eastern influence. Lamular armour, Bronze belts, conical helmet and the small chest plate armour all resemble much earlier designs from Assyria and Anatolia.

My problem with the belt theory on the Etruscan painting is the fact that the red line runs right through it and the cuirass, but under the ties on the chest.

[MeinPanzer]

Actually there is an enormous amount of doubt about this in academic circles. I have spent a lot of time talking to Dr. Stella Miller Collett about this subject. I will find out from her who has published the recent paper that very convincingly argues by dating each of the items portrayed in the mosaic that it was made around 250 years later than previously thought. The style of art is also not particularly Greek.

Please do post the citations for such articles, because I'd be very eager to read them.

This is exactly my point; the equipment looks Hellenistic and Roman and matches no Classical or Alexandrian Macedonian depictions or artefacts yet found. The Persian depictions also do not match Achaemenid styles.

Firstly, how many depictions or artefacts of Alexandrian Macedonian date to we possess? We can't expect to be able to corroborate every minute detail with an exactly contemporary example. Secondly, the Alketos monument dates to c. 320, and so is just slightly later than Alexandrian.

Just a short list (and I'm sure Paul MS can pitch in here, because he's more familiar with the mosaic than I am), and I can't comment too thoroughly on the Persian details:

A late 4th - early 3rd c. BC marble statue of a Macedonian officer from Amphipolis shows shoulder pteryges in use with a cuirass like Alexander's.

The decorations on Alexander's bridle is almost identical to actual decorations found in late 4th-early 3rd c. BC rich Thracian burials.

Alexander's cuirass has a small section around his waist reinforced with scale, which I don't think I've ever seen on Roman art, and is almost entirely absent from Hellenistic examples (I know of one depiction of a cuirass from Pergamon reinforced with scales, but there they are vertical strips on either side of the torso), but which is common in Classical examples.

The guilloche pattern shown around the rim of the fallen Argive shield is a characteristic of Classical examples, but is absent from Hellenistic and later representations.

The Chalcidian helmet shown fallen on the ground disappeared after the 4th c. BC.

The Boeotian helmet shown on a rider behind Alexander crowned with a wreath is not found after the 3rd c. BC, but is identical to others found on late 4th c. BC representations.

The Persian shabraques are of a particular "stepped" style which disappears after the 3rd c. BC.

The Persian chariot matches the Oxus model quite closely.

Many of these details were not picked up by Classicizing artists, so I have no idea how an Italian artist of c. 100 BC would have been able to depict them together without some serious research.