Building musculata

[Damianus Albus]

I know there are many thread here about musculatas, I went through them briefly and I think that none of them touches subject Im interesed in.

I find that leather cuirasses or metal one with 6-pax are one of the few most recognizable things about roman reanacting and they are imo one of the biggest plagues.

I also find them made very badly, without any backup in sources, V-shaped with pressed muscules.

Best one I've seen so far in Matt Luke's made in brass. But honestly, you can count well done musculatas on fingers - it's sad.

Right now, I'm making one, fully custom made, made of steel (wanted to make bronze but good luck in finding big bronze plate... I've spent almost 2 months and not a chance... Maybe some day in future...) for a vexiliarus character.

I did some studies, compared survivng smaples of greeks/etruscan with romans sculptures but I still find few things missing and I'm unable to find them, explain them or I just need a bigger view, made by more people than just me.

I'm mostly concern about side view and back plate as I'm unable to find good photos of backs or sculptures, plus we have finds with different solutions and lower part of front plate.

I just made a quick draw to show what's on my mind.

Back:
We have finds with a back plate like a "t-shirt" but we also have finds with a longer plate which bend a bit to cover upper parts of rear.
So the question is, which solution is better and why? How does it look on roman sculptures? Is it better to make back plate like black line or blue line (draw)?

Front:
I'm a bit concern about bottom part of the front. On sculptures it seems like after reaching a squeeze part in waist, bottom part doesn't more forward. It says on the same level as a chest.
On the other hand we can notice on finds that it's not the case. Bottom part often bends forward, even more than a chest line.
I mean, when sitting in such armor which doesn't bend forward I would be a bit afraid about my masculinity
But it seems like it's not a problem if it bends a bit forward like on finds and attached picture.
But, again, if lack of bending forward is not a problem, why see this on finds?

I address these question mainy to people who already have made musculatas or own ones and can say something about practical use.
I would also love to see some back photos of sculptures as I'm unable to find ones.

Which solutions are better and why?
How much we can rely on sculptures if we see some differences between them and actual finds?

[Dan Howard]

Musculatas aren't anatomically correct - they are a lot shorter than they appear. They end at about navel level and the navel on the cuirass is located a few inches higher than the navel on the wearer. You can bend at the waist just like most other metal cuirasses.

When there is a discrepancy between the sculptures and physical examples, you ignore the sculptures. They aren't photos and rarely depict armour with much accuracy.

[Damianus Albus]

They can't end at navel level. There are examples which have almost 60cm height - hardly to end somewhere around navel with such height.
Another thing is, the wearers were probably smaller than we are today, so if we have 50cm height armor, we can't simply compare that height to ourselves.
Plus we have beautifly made (like on sculptures) waist (where armor is sqeezinga a bit) and then it expands again to cover hips, and hips are already on the navel level. I mean, you can't make wasit part on the lower chest level (so the whole armor ends around navel). It has to be made according to wearers anatomy. And like I said, we have 60cm height/long examples.

What's your opinion about back plate? Should it be more like a t-shirt or longer, covering upper parts of rear? 3 of which I attached have clearly long back plate which cover wearers rear, but on the other hand one has short back plate. I would say that covering bottom part of spine, around the place where people usually complain about painful disease (don't know how to call that bottom part in english... Loins? ) would be very important and it stands agasint "t-shirt" size.

This one has almost 60cm (57,8cm) and the back plate, again, is not short but it covers upper part of rear.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I did add to the debate on this topic a few times over the years and supplied photographs, some perhaps not widely known or seen before of Muscle cuirasses showing the fronts, sides and backs where I could.

The one worth looking at is the Collosus of Barletta, many images of which are on Google images.

[Dan Howard]

They can't end at navel level. There are examples which have almost 60cm height

A handful of exceptions doesn't prove the rule. The vast majority of musculatas are a lot shorter than 60 cm - they are the same size as other cuirasses. The detail on the musculata does not line up with the detail on the wearer.

The obvious explanation for the exceptions is that they were not meant to be worn in battle. Some may have been specifically made to be a temple or funerary offering. Some may have been a masterwork by a craftsman constructed to demonstrate his skills to a patron or employer. Some may have been made for nobles to ponce around at a party or to pose for an artist. Some may be fakes made in the 18th-19th century.

On the photo you posted, look at the width of the chest section and the narrow arm holes. You won't be able to bring your arms across in front of your body. It would be impossible to properly wield a sword and spear or hold a shield in the correct position while wearing this. The back plate is too wide as well making it very hard to throw a javelin or shoot a bow.

[Damianus Albus]

But this wouldn't be a case when riding on horse.  Some medieval armors for a cavalry also lacked big arm holes - you would say that it is impossible to use sword properly, but this is how it was.

Other examples are often around 49-50cm - quite enough for a 170cm person to end below navel level.

This one for example (50cm). If we assume that the owner was smaller than 180cm (quite big chances) it would also end below navel. Same to the etruscan one in the first post (first attachement). Tho I'm unable to find dimensions of these two attached here. Plus some terracotas objects with hoplites seem to show that it did end below navel.

[Dan Howard]

It is pretty simple. If you can't move properly because it is either too long or too wide then it obviously wasn't meant for battle. Not sure how to say it any more plainly.

[Damianus Albus]

It is pretty simple. If you can't move properly because it is either too long or too wide then it obviously wasn't meant for battle. Not sure how to say it any more plainly.

I completly agree on that matter with you and for me lack of deep arm holes is huge disadvantage.

BUT I was talking with a person who knows things about medieval armors and he told me that for a infantry it would be suicide but for cavlry not at all becasue some medival armor, which were designed for cavarly units, also didn't have big arm holes and they were useful for cavarly, when you attak only on your right side without any need to switch for the left side.

In other words, according to him, lack of deep arm holes in some musculatas is not disadvantage at all if used for a cavalry unit, not infantry.

In other words he meant, that for infantry you want a bit less protection, but more mobility. On the other hand, for cavalry you want as much protection as possible becasue you don't need that mobility - you just slash on you right side, for the left side you push with horse (or turn whole torso, not just arm) and big plates on back are useful, again, for as much protection as possible.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

which were designed for cavarly units, also didn't have big arm holes and they were useful for cavarly, when you attak only on your right side without any need to switch for the left side.

Yeah that probably works fine for late medieval cavalry, and probably Hellenistic cavalry, but in the age of lance and bow warfare you had the need to switch between lance, bow, and sword, aim in any direction, and do complex maneuvers on horseback. So at least in the late Roman era, no.

[Damianus Albus]

And that's the thing.
We can discuss and assume many things which are reasonable but until someone who owns such armor (that's why those people were my main goal here) say a word, it's only theory.

I agree that lack of big arm holes is disadvantage and my musculata will have them quite deep into chest but if we talk about length, we just talk and think without any chance to try it practically - that's the problem.

For example I woild like to here about someone's experience with wearing short musculata and someone's with longer one etc. etc.

I'm aiming for the most practical solutions therefore any words from someone who made them or use them is priceless.

As for the ending around navel level, sides of the musculata would lie on hips and I can imagine that basing part of weight on hips would be very, very uncomfortable. But again, it's just my theory without any backup as I don't own musculata

[Damianus Albus]

So I faced new interesting feature in designing musculata.

Arm hinges.

I mean those legendary leather strips over arms which were not leather strips.

If we look at armor from prodromi, we see that those hinges are slim, but at the same time they have visible edges made by other metal.

If we look at roman sculptures we can see excatly the same way how hinges are shown, like on Prodromi with one small exception.
They are no longer slim. They are thick, really thick.
Achieving such thinckess by metal wouldn't be wise, plus it's a movable part so it would constantly scratch surface of armor.
So I figured out, what if those strips from hinges were backed with leather? That would explain why they are so thick, why edges seems thicker than strip itself, why on some examples we can see line going with this "edging" like a seam and it would be pratcial - no more metal - metal contact.
You also have to rivet to this strap some handle to tie it, so leather backing would also cover armor from any rivets from the inside. Or if you want to rivet some decorations.

I add quite good reconstruction by Matt Lukes, and as you can see, these strips from hinges are similar to prodromi but way to slim to match sculptures.

Just a theory...
Any thoughts?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

On the word of length, my Lamellar cuirass which is highly flexible is 65cm from the top of my shoulder to where it ends at my hips, and that would definitely be too long for a Muscle cuirass.

So I figured out, what if those strips from hinges were backed with leather? That would explain why they are so thick, why edges seems thicker than strip itself, why on some examples we can see line going with this "edging" like a seam and it would be pratcial - no more metal - metal contact.

Honestly that's not a bad idea. Backed/edged with leather like the hamata doublers on maille.

[Damianus Albus]

On the word of length, my Lamellar cuirass which is highly flexible is 65cm from the top of my shoulder to where it ends at my hips, and that would definitely be too long for a Muscle cuirass.

So I figured out, what if those strips from hinges were backed with leather? That would explain why they are so thick, why edges seems thicker than strip itself, why on some examples we can see line going with this "edging" like a seam and it would be pratcial - no more metal - metal contact.

Honestly that's not a bad idea. Backed/edged with leather like the hamata doublers on maille.

You know, it's just my theory... Nothing else. Based on sculptures, intuition and logic which isn't much.
But I'm strongly willing to make this theory come true with my musculata.

Who knows. Maybe it will become huge step forward in reconstruction of roman muscule cuirasses in future?

____
If anything, 60cm+ would be possible only at the center line of armor, while around 50cm at sides, making classic bottom line like on scuptures.

[Wobblefish]

Personally, I have always fancied that they just poured molten metal over a really buff dude to make the armor.

[Damianus Albus]

Personally, I have always fancied that they just poured molten metal over a really buff dude to make the armor.

Seems reasonable for bronze
___

Question here. Could someone familiar sculptures (with muscle cuirass) around 3-5th century (with great condition like colossus of barletta) post their exact names? I mean, I have plenty photos of different cuirasses but without any sign of their names and with low quality (becasue I don't know their names to find them in better quality).

Any hints for me?