Hello... I am looking for pictures of Legate, Tribune, General, or Caesar Muscle Cuirass.
I would like any references of the above in Art of the 1st Century, Archeological Finds, Tombstones, Columns Museum Pieces, etc. Not replicas. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
In his 1997 book, Roman Army - Wars Of The Empire, Graham Sumner had this to say about the muscled cuirass:
"With the possible exception of the Lorica Segmentata, the muscled cuirass is undoubtedly the most easily recognized form of Roman armor. This is due in no small measure to its continual and widespread representation throughout the entire Roman period in sculpture and art. Muscled cuirasses were common in the Greek and Hellenistic world and wealthy Romans in the early Republic would also have been familiar with them. It is therefore somewhat ironic to discover that not a single example from the Roman period has ever been recovered.
It was often believed in the past that the cuirasses could have been made from moulded leather, this would certainly account for the lack of any surviving evidence. A more likely explanation is that despite their popularity with sculptors, who depicted all classes of Roman troops wearing them, they were as far as one can tell the exclusive preserve of the senior officers." (pages 62-63)
We do have the artistic evidence for late roman times. In the Fabricae section of the Notitia Dignitatum, there is a rigid torso cuirass, albeit it is drawn as a breastplate. Hamata is drawn separately.
Does anyone know of any links on the internet that would lead me to Roman Cuirass' in art or sculpture or Archeological finds? Or good "Keywords" to do a search with? I am running into road blocks and could use your help.
The conventional name is 'lorica musculata', you shouldn't need much more than that. As noted above the evidence is almost exclusively art historical in nature however.
It's been variously dated to the 4th C BC or (more recently) the 1st C AD, and is either Punic, Greek, Latin or Roman. Not much help, maybe, but it's the best we've got!
Representations in art are more common. Quite a number of emperors had themselves depicted in the muscle cuirass in official portraiture. Here's Hadrian in a relatively restrained example, and the Barletta Colossus (possibly Valentian or Honorius) showing a late example. The subject of this one from Side Museum is unknown, but shows the shape of the cuirass well.
Musculata were also worn by lower ranking officers - here's Timokles from Epidaurus, who is probably a tribune (although sometimes referred to as a centurion). An earlier style, looking more like a Greek spolas, is shown on the Ahenobarbus Frieze (1st C BC), but also turns up on 1st-2nd C AD depictions (like the tombstone of Flavius Mikkalus, which I can't find in any detail online at the moment!). The Ludovisi Sarcophagus shows what might be a centurion or officer in battle, wearing a musculata apparently covered in scales...
Lastly, the cuirass was also worn by rank and file troops, particularly in the later empire. The tombstone of Aelius Septimus (end of the second century) shows an early example. The Arch of Constantine shows a couple from the early 4th century.
Just type in Roman musculata cuirass, and select images!
You'll have to trawl through the chaff, but there are images of
quite a few original finds and statues!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
The leader of the SE Provisional Army (in the US), I can't remember his name but he made his own armor and determined based on archaeological finds that, in theory, the Classarii (marines) might have used muscle cuirasses made of leather because they served as a life preserver for about 2 minutes, before the leather got wet.
I, like many others, am strongly opposed to the leather musculata theory. I believe the entire idea that the Romans created these items in leather originates from Victorian-era misconceptions about Roman society. For example, many proponents of the leather musculata theory tout the bending appearance depicted on Roman statues. This is clearly artistic license, as these statues (of mainly emperors and the like) evoke the "heroic nude" pose from ancient Greece. As well, scholars of previous generations vastly underestimated the Romans' skill and scale of production concerning armor/objects in metal. Victorian-era thinkers looked at monuments such as Trajan's column, where all of the legionaries are clad in armor, and imagined a Romanticized past where all of these items were cut from leather/hide ('because there was no way that these ancient men could have provided hundreds of thousands of men with effective, metal armor...ridiculous!').
Finally, and most importantly, a leather musculata, when compared with one made of bronze or iron, is ineffective. A leather cuirass would have to weigh much more than a metal one to achieve anywhere near the same level of stopping power/protection. And let us not forget that the Roman commanders and officer class, as well as emperors who would later emulate them, were either on the battlefield themselves, or trying to depict themselves as men of the battlefield. They needed real protection, such as the bronze cuirasses we have from the Italian peninsula (when customs dictated burial over cremation) dated to the early Roman period.
This is a rather succinct summary of some of arguments you'll inevitably find in any thread concerning the lorica musculata. Enjoy
A god thing about leather is that when it's cut, even if it doesnt give much protection, it leaves a clean wound compared to chainmail or plate armor, which gets bits of metal in the wound which can cause infection. That's why I think the subarmalis was so important. They may have not worn leather musculata, but a leather subarmalis would be very useful.
Assuming your subarmalis is leather!
A good layered linen one has a great deal to be said for it!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Yes, but combined with a metal armour, you are fairly invulnerable!
Very much like composite armour today, the combination of a good armour and multiple layers,
Very little penetration should be achieved except perhaps by a point blank
Shot from a bow!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Where we are not sure if the Romans had the metal muscled cuirass the only thing we can consider are the depictions given to us from monuments, however in all cases we do find that there were two definate types ie the pictures of Emperors in pose but only in standing position for there is no way they could have sat down nor indeed sat on a horse.
The other type is the short muscled cuirass as shown by Nathan with the Timokles and the Ahenobarbus frieze, here is a picture showing both types where the one to the left is what would have been worn by commanders of the military so as to be able to ride.
[attachment=6107]00001109Medium.jpg[/attachment]
