That is what I said in my post that since hinges are visible on the statues and original artifacts although from an earlier period have them, then it shows continuity and would be as accurate as possible from what we know.
Suppose none of the statues from the Roman period showed a method of closure, what would be the choices? Tie loops, hinges, or buckles the latter of which, to my knowledge has not foundation with musculata. The former two would represent the most reasonable closure methods that would be based on older cuirasses. Thus with respect to the argument of using older armor 100 years later ONLY makes sense if you are talking about an entire piece of armor. I doubt there could be such an extrapolation for a closing method on armor like musculata that really cannot be closed in a myriad of ways. Practically all the armors from BC have hinges or tie loops. Some people say buckles, I do not know of any evidence so I cannot comment.
Being that we do have statues, we can look see persistence and continuity like in the Valentinian statue where hinges are used. However, if you have to choose a hinge, it would be best to use a real attested method not something on a statue. As I keep saying there is evidence that you see but there is other evidence within the realm of what is possible based on the surrounding evidence that is not necessarily implicit.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
I think that the hinges must come out from the front and back plates itself without adding seperately. I mean that hinges should be a part of the front and back plates.
This way we can reduce the gaps between two parts.
Thank you... I haven't had time to read through all of these posts yet. Our endeavor together on this is great.
Will you post pictures of the cuirass here... so people can see and offer more information before we proceed?
Also... if you can draw or show the example of what you are talking about so I can understand what you mean and incorporate the input from others.
The final decision will be mine... but the more input we get, will help you to create more accurate ones in the future for other customers. THe general consensus so far is this cuirass may be one of the best one's you can get without having to get an armorer.
NOTE: I am a large torso'ed man. Long from the shoulders to the hips and a 53" Chest. (You can keep those kind of comments at bay please... and thank you guys).
The bronze statue of Valentinian that shows the outside hinge is similar to what I made on the one for Doug' Arnold and is indeed much better than to try to make them as part of the cuirass.
This comes from the fact that a cuirass has to have a shape that fits the body of the man it is made for, and then of course comes the problem of how do you fit the pins that have to go through these hinges.
The cuirass I made had to travel the length of England a few times for fitting first the front half which came back for minor alterations, then both pieces with the back half and slight changes again.
What many do not understand is that in ancient times a craftsman would have had the person to make the fittings as it went along or they would have had a model of the mans torso for that is the only way to get a piece of this type of armour to fit correctly.
Here is another picture of the late Doug' Arnold wearing the one I made for him and it fitted him with comfort. I would however point out that the method I have shown earlier in that drawing is indeed a very good and tidy way to fit the 2 halves together, then rings that almost touch each other on the outside that can have leather thongs but do not put these rings so far apart as in the other one you produced they need to be close to the join of the armour.
It may be better for an individual to have the hinges like the statue but apparently the hinges attached to the armor in the pictures that I poosted worked rather well because it was in use for a long period of time whereas those on the statue could have been used. So the question comes down to accuracy vs something that maybe was for the sake of comfort. I have worn musculata with the hinges exactly like in the original finds and I have NO problem at all wearing the armor.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Suhel, if you make the hinges part of the armor, there is also the problem once they break....nad they will break. Hinges are the weakest part of any armor. You certainly wouldn't want to ditch a beautiful armor just beacuse the hinges snap! That is also probably why the ancients didnt do it :wink:
Markus Aurelius Montanvs What we do in life Echoes in Eternity
That is a very valid point that you make and also served a useful situation for myself when asked at a later date to make a modification to the fastening device for the one I made for the late Doug' Arnold. All I had to do was remove the outside hinges and fit the tongues and holding brackets to the inside of the armour and the buckles and straps were what was asked for that served Doug' very well when he needed to fit the armour himself.
Ave, Brian,
I guess I am little confused as to the fitting method used on Doug's musculata, (I do miss exchanging PMs with him). Is there any possibility that you would be willing to post a bit more detailed drawings of what you are verbally describing...........please?
Thanks,
Salve,
Vitruvius.....aka Larry Mager
Larry.
I'm sorry that I now do not have side views of that cuirass but have done a quick drawing of the type of hinges, these are very similar to small door hinges realy where the two halves go together then a pin goes in the pins of course were held by chains to the armour.
It was a situation where Doug' needed help to fit his armour as indeed any officer may well have had, then when he left the Secunda Augusta he still did the odd talk here and there so.
I later fitted tongues to the inside of the back plate and small brackets to the front and also small buckles with tiny straps to the outside, with of course the buckles on the back plate so that when the leater strap went through it pointed to the rear for it to be tidy this way Doug could fit the armour on his own.
The drawing of the tongues is shown at page one of this topic.
Brian,
Hi there and I'm sorry I didn't get to this earlier, but I forgot to Subscribe to this topic....oops! Thanks for the drawings. They will help when needed down the line. Jaqui and I sent You and Yours Our Best.
Salve, for now,
Vitruvius......aka Larry Mager
Larry.
Thank you for your compliments and the muscle cuirass is indeed a subject that many here on RAT have discussed at various times, however I think that for those who have indeed made this kind of armour are maybe the ones who can understand it better.
For where we see this kind of armour displayed in history it is mostly seen as a very neat and a tidy fit on Emperors and Officers, so what in fact I have been putting forward about these hinges and also the tongues that I developed to hold the edges tidy could well be just what was used for this purpose on the originals.
In fact as far as the tongues are concerned I don't think that these can be disputed for without anything like this it is difficult to hold the edges of a cuirass tidy together, if they were used in Roman times we would be hard pushed to see them for they are indeed on the inside of the armour and out of sight.
Ave, Brian,
So That's how it works......Is it me, Brian, or haveYou noticed on the statues that there are NO signs of rings on the sides of the musculatas?
Here is a suggestion that I have, to wit: Unlike the Greeks, the Romans had the rings in the INSIDE of the armor. That would allow the laces needed to stay with the musculata AND explain the little tie-knot up under the statues' armpits. The side edges of the armor look like they may have been edged in leather and the friction between the two edges would help keep them stable. If one hammerwelds the tongue and groove to the inside (no rivits seen on statues until MUCH later), then along with the inside laces, the edges aren't going ANY where.......Brian, Matt, and all other Musculata makers, what do you think of my idea? Does it adequately explain the statues' appearance?
Salve from Antonia and I,
Vituvius......aka Larry Mager and Jaqui Mager
Larry, I think you should stick to actual evidence. If statues do not show rings does not mean they did not exist or that they were on the inside. Most examples have rings even in the absence of hinges to hold the armor together. I would really like to share photos but I had all my photos on an external drive and it crashed......everything gone.
How would you tie them? You would first put on your armor, hinge the sides, then raise your arms and have someone pull the laces and tie them under the armpit?
The musculata that has been attributed to the Romans although not 1st C AD, is the one found in D'Amato's book. If you get a hold of this picture, while facing it, the right side above the "love handles" there is a hole and then behind, at the edge, the hinge. So this is the hole for the rings you are looking for.
First go with the evidence and if all fails, the statues.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Ave, Doc
First off, Again, Thank You for your input, I do appreciate it (Big Smiley face). In a lot of ways it makes MORE sense than my idea....I like yours better!!! Any way, I am REALLY sorry to hear about the computer crash....because we can use ALL the info possible! Jaqui and I hope that you can somehow rebuild your collection. Jaqui also brought up a good point.....if nothing else, the Romans could be VERY practical when it came to manufacturing, so the simplest way to put on thearmor would be the best. If I understand You correctly, that is what you are talking about.
Thanks again for your input, my Friend,,
Salve ,
Vitruvius...aka Larry Mager
P.S. Anyone else who has an opinion...yea or nea , please let us know.lol
You are reading me correctly. The Romans were practical and did not necessarily look for armor to always be nice and tidy. Functional first....then whatever. I found this picture in a file of fine. Its the only musculata attributed to the Romans. Its the one I spoke to you about. I think you can see the hole on the side......your right.
If someone sees otherwise, please post....I am always interested in other opinions.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
![[Image: websitepic.jpg]](http://www.roman-artifacts.com/files/websitepic.jpg)
