Protective but flexible musculata.

[Titus Thurinus]

I have to say a couple of things.
One, the idea of thin metal that was useless as armor but worn as decorative is not likely. The statue of Augustus mostly depicts a solid piece of battle suitable armor with either embossed decorations or the decorations attached to the outside. I say this because it is incredibly difficult to get thin metal like you describe to hold these shapes.

Being a metal worker myself I know how hard it is. Embossing a muscled look into a thin sheet of metal would be a frighteningly difficult task. Every time you moved on to work a new section, the section you just worked would warp out of shape. And trying to work the finer details into it without deforming the rest would be even harder. You can't do these decorations before working the main shape of the armor either because you don't know exactly where your decorations will end up if you work the overall shape last. It is much easier to do this with thicker metal. Also in order to get metal to bend and flex like you are talking about you would have to have metal the thickness of foil and that is just not feasible to have someone wear.

As far as the supposed "flexible armor cant stop a weapon" statement. Um, chain mail? Coat of plates? Remember that many types of armor provide a deflective value rather than pure stopping power. Then again, most would be surprised just how much protection a thick, yet flexible piece of leather gives. A quarter inch of unhardened leather against you skin will stop many slashes that would open you right up without it. Thrust are a different matter but it is far from ineffective or completely compromised.

I am not making a statement about the specific examples of flexible armor you reference cause I haven't studied them. Just thought I would shed some light on armor and its capabilities from an armorers point of veiw.

[Magnus]

I understand your concept Sulla...but if that is the case, and the upper chest part of the armour was solid plate, and the bottom was flexible, don't you think the artists would have somehow differentiated the two? Either by sculpting a texture in the bottom part vs being smooth for example? There is no indication that the bottom part is made from a different material, and until you can provide something that shows that, it's just a theory. Interesting, but doubtful. I would hesitate to comment that if the Greeks/Etruscans had used a similar armour idea then your theory may have a basis for being true. But they didn't...they used solid breast plates.

Also, we should look at just which statues show the musculata as being flexible. If it's emperors or say, Mars, then I'd be very skeptical of it being anything but artistic license. Maybe we should focus more on the legatus rank and see if there is a bend in their cuirass.

[Matthew Amt]

The "soft" cuirasses that I remember seeing in artwork slump evenly over their entire shape or height. They are not rigid a the top and flexible at the bottom.

Sure, some metal armor could very well have been painted, no problem there. I don't think the idea of a permanent, fixed covering of fabric or leather has any basis in Roman times, but if you want that covering to hold the muscling relief to the extent that we see in artwork, it either has to be thoroughly glued to the metal surface, and therefore rigid, or it has to be rigid itself, at least to some extent. I'm not sure you can get thin flexible leather to hold a shape like that, with any sort of durability. You could do it with fabric with clever padding and quilting, but that's not what we're seeing in artwork.

The mention of mail being a flexible defense (by Titus Antonius Thurinus) isn't really relevant, since that's also not what we're seeing in depictions of a flexible cuirass. It's a smooth surface, generally with muscling and sometimes other decoration. I guess I wouldn't object to the possibility of a mail cuirass covered in decorated fabric or thin leather, but that still has no basis in the *evidence* we have.

And that's the whole problem with the current "theory"--no evidence! It simply goes against all that we know, and really doesn't solve any questions that I can see, certainly not as well as other possible answers. Not sure I see much point in arguing over something this baseless, sorry!

Matthew

[Titus Thurinus]

I agree with Mr. Amt. My only purpose in mentioning chain was to give examples of effective yet flexible armor in response to the statements proposing that flexible armor compromised the armor's ability. But I think Mathew is right about this having to little basis to provide valid points of argument.

[Dan Howard]

I agree with Mr. Amt. My only purpose in mentioning chain was to give examples of effective yet flexible armor in response to the statements proposing that flexible armor compromised the armor's ability.

You must have missed the part where I said "mail is the only construction that comes close."

Regarding the suggestion that Romans were experimenting with combining mail and plates. Yes it is possible. The current amount of evidence is nowhere near enough to make this statement

And we know Romans were experimenting with plates on chainmail.

You are using supposition (not known fact) as a basis for more supposition.

[Sulla]

I understand your concept Sulla...but if that is the case, and the upper chest part of the armour was solid plate, and the bottom was flexible, don't you think the artists would have somehow differentiated the two?

No because I am saying the plate would be underneath the leather.

There is no indication that the bottom part is made from a different material,

Except that one part does not behave the same as the other.

and until you can provide something that shows that, it's just a theory.

I agree I said from the start it was just an idea or theory. I a make no claims it is a fact. But I only claim it would have worked.

Interesting, but doubtful. I would hesitate to comment that if the Greeks/Etruscans had used a similar armour idea then your theory may have a basis for being true. But they didn't...they used solid breast plates.

I always conceeded its a long shop Also if the very short ones there are examples of had a extended leather covering it would have long since rotted. So just because you have a short metal breastplate does not mean it was or was not used with a covering.

Also, we should look at just which statues show the musculata as being flexible. If it's emperors or say, Mars, then I'd be very skeptical of it being anything but artistic license. Maybe we should focus more on the legatus rank and see if there is a bend in their cuirass.

Sure really we should make a list of all known statues of musculata. Then categorize them. Then look at what is flexing or not flexing in each category. Including if anything else is exagerated in how it moves or moves in impossible ways.

The "soft" cuirasses that I remember seeing in artwork slump evenly over their entire shape or height. They are not rigid a the top and flexible at the bottom.

Well I have seen I believe two or three images that flex over the entire shape to show it is clearly soft. But the case has been made those are what was worn under the armor. But regardless I never said ALL musculata was made this way. Nor that all musculata was metal. Or for that matter all musculata was soft. I think all the evidence points to there being both soft and hard musculata.

Sure, some metal armor could very well have been painted, no problem there.

Agreed there is rather a good case for this.

I don't think the idea of a permanent, fixed covering of fabric or leather has any basis in Roman times, but if you want that covering to hold the muscling relief to the extent that we see in artwork, it either has to be thoroughly glued to the metal surface, and therefore rigid, or it has to be rigid itself, at least to some extent. I'm not sure you can get thin flexible leather to hold a shape like that, with any sort of durability. You could do it with fabric with clever padding and quilting, but that's not what we're seeing in artwork.

Really the only place it has to hold a shape is over the love handles. The metal of the breast plate can come down farther in the front like on some older and newer metal examples. Also many of the musculata have a couple of layers of what is almost without dought thick but flexible leather around the bottom with metal decorations on them. And they hold the outline basic shape around the hips fine.

The mention of mail being a flexible defense (by Titus Antonius Thurinus) isn't really relevant, since that's also not what we're seeing in depictions of a flexible cuirass. It's a smooth surface, generally with muscling and sometimes other decoration. I guess I wouldn't object to the possibility of a mail cuirass covered in decorated fabric or thin leather, but that still has no basis in the *evidence* we have.

True I had thought about possible these were really mail but sculpted smooth and the mail painted on. And while sure that is possible I have not seen any traces of paint that depicting mail on them

And a covering over mail would work. But you are right there is no evidence of this.

And that's the whole problem with the current "theory"--no evidence! It simply goes against all that we know, and really doesn't solve any questions that I can see, certainly not as well as other possible answers. Not sure I see much point in arguing over something this baseless, sorry!

Sure it is just a theory. But you know you did not have to argue By the way I am doing research for related technologies in the right time periods etc. Just to see really.

Regarding the suggestion that Romans were experimenting with combining mail and plates. Yes it is possible. The current amount of evidence is nowhere near enough to make this statement

What about this one. There is evidence that Romans were expermenting with combining plate and mail.


Any way from the start I was clear this is just a long shot idea. So my argument is that it would work and explain the shapes of the statues I had in mind but not every statue.

[Magnus]

I just think the artisans would show where the breast plate and belly plate overlap...even in their sculpture. They went to great lengths to show detail...can't see how that one would be omitted.

[Sulla]

So you mean the seem you can see on say some coats of plate where the hard plate inside ends?

[Dan Howard]

Coats of plates and brigandines are no more flexible than lorica segmentata. No way can these constructions flex in a manner similar to the sculptures in question. Like I said, only mail comes close to this level of flexibility.

[Sulla]

It depends on where the plate is. And what area does not have plates. It also depends on the sculpture in question

[Sulla]

Oh and I did not say it was a coat of plates nor a brigandine.

[Magnus]

Sorry, are you saying that the belly and breast plate would all be covered by the same piece of organic material? If you are, then yes the overlap of the two plates would be invisible...I was picturing the belly plate sliding under the breast plate, but individually covered in something.

[Sulla]

Yep now you got it. It would have one seamless external covering.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I have a very large collection of pictures and photographs of Late Roman art, from wall paintings, mosaics, tomb paintings, statues, dyptych's, monumental works, pen and ink line drawings of lost monuments etc etc etc.

A large proportion of them show both officers and infantry in muscle cuirasses. These are sometimes depicted as made of a single material, or of scale. The colours range from blue (Iron), brownish (Bronze), to green, red, white and blue (textile/leather?). A lot of the depictions of the cuirasses, especially those of the officers, appear to show them as being flexible in nature. Have a look at the famous ivory dyptych of Honorius, you can clearly see that the ceremonial belt around his waist is pulling in the cuirasse, something that could not happen with metal.

The famous Ludovisi Sarcophagus has several mounted Romans wearing cuirasses that are bending at their waists, indicating the whole cuirasse was flexible. There is evidence in the 'De Rebus Bellicis' that the semi-mythical 'Thoracomachus' could be worn solely as armour, and being made from 'Lybian Hides' its fairly certain it was flexible in nature.

I doubt very much if this debate will be settled as its extremely unlikely that a textile or leather cuirasse will be found, 1500+ years will have ensured they have long rotted away (Although I live in hope that one day excavations at Nisibis or Amida may find under a collapsed wall a Roman defender wearing such an article!) and its likely any metal cuirasses will have not survived for similar reasons. Exactly how many Roman helmets and hauberks of mail or scale have survived down the millenia?

[Matthew Amt]

Have a look at the famous ivory dyptych of Honorius, you can clearly see that the ceremonial belt around his waist is pulling in the cuirasse, something that could not happen with metal.

The cuirass also extends over his shoulders, which you won't see with a rigid cuirass. Pretty sure this has been discussed at some length. Maybe it's not armor. Maybe it's a garment meant to be worn under armor. Maybe it's some kind of "costume armor" derived from an under-armor garment. Although I agree with Andy about dismissing artword out of hand, it's possible that artists were the Hollywood of their day and didn't give a darn about history! They wanted their subject to be in a certain pose, and if he was wearing armor then the cuirass could just darn well bend with him!

The famous Ludovisi Sarcophagus has several mounted Romans wearing cuirasses that are bending at their waists, indicating the whole cuirasse was flexible.

The ones I can see are scale armor.

There is an indication in the 'De Rebus Bellicis' that the semi-mythical 'Thoracomachus' could be work solely as armour, and being made from 'Lybian Hides' its fairly certain it was flexible in nature.

Oh? I'd have to go back and check, but I thought it indicated a garment worn under armor. The Lybian hide seems to be a separate layer worn for weather protection.

I doubt very much if this debate will be settled as its extremely unlikely that a textile or leather cuirasse will be found, 1500+ years will have ensured they have long rotted away

We've been over this many times as well. Leather finds such as shoes, shield covers, and tent pieces are rather common finds at some sites. So far the only leather armor to turn up is piece of leather or rawhide lamellar from Dura Europas, 250 AD, and it may be Persian rather than Roman.

Exactly how many Roman helmets and hauberks of mail or scale have survived down the millenia?

HUNDREDS of helmets, hundreds of fragments and fittings from armor, hundreds of fragments of mail and scale (and at least one excavator notes that lots of mail fragments were probably discarded since they were not recognized as such without X-rays). Mind you, the vast majority of this is from the frontiers, where it was used, repaired, and lost. Officers spent relatively little time there, and compared to the number of soldiers there were very few of them. So almost none of their armor would have had a chance to be lost or discarded in service.

Vale,

Matthew