Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[tlclark]

Thanks, Travis. I see your position more clearly now.

So, as you see it, there's a period of change at work here. First, there are linen/metal cuirass types co-existing, followed by leather/metel, then finally just leather cuirasses when we reach Antoninus Pius.

Close. Here's the way I would describe my current view which is open to revision.

The early musculata is largely inspired by the late hellenistic linothorax, meaning that in Republican and early imperial times, it is most likely leather or composite. However, it also strongly borrows on the greek bronze muscled cuirass, so there are obvious combinations and variations, and certainly some are bronze, I think the necklines are the dead give-away. The round necklines are probably meant to represent bronze cuirasses since that's the greek tradition for bronze cuirasses, they are all round. Square are probably a vestigal hangover from the linothorax.

It's probably wrong to think of the musculata as a type, like the segmentata or a hamata. Rather it is a class, with many subcategories and no doubt lots of variation. Also, we are looking at armor of a particular social group, officers and even high-ranking officers at that. Musculata worn by people just under them might have a totaly different construction.

Beginning in the early imperial period, there is probably a shift to more metal than leather cuirasses. I say this for two reasons. One, there is a lot of ornate breastplates with details that would be hard to render in leather, and lots of round necklines. This is more or less constant through the Julio-Claudian and into the Flavian period. From here, everything starts to change. Round necklines disappear, square becomes standard, the shoulder harnesses and tongue pteruges are obviously leather, and the hinges and torsos seem to have a lot more "twist" and torsion to them, something that would be impossible in bronze. This is also the time period we see a lot of those floppy cuirasses flung over tree-stumps which can't be explained by anything except leather or maybe molded laminate textiles.

Aside from Hadrian, whose every cuirasses is an elaborate showpiece with VERY ornate and diverse iconography, the emperors' image becomes standard, it is also at this time the musculata become more or less standard, this is the period of not only the MOST musculatae, but also the most detailed (from a technical view) musculatae. Details that have no real iconographic purpose, like the textured pteruges, the armhole flaps, are more common. They really do seem to represent actual cuirasses and not just some standard artistic type. And the details on these, all point to leather.

Now, that doesn't mean that all musculata are leather, just the the ones used by officers and the emperor are, which makes me think that these are parade or ceremonial pieces.

Then it all starts to go south. Side seams disappear, cuirasses start to take on torsions not even possible to human anatomy, there are bizarre flourishes, it really does seem that things are rendered more according to style than reality and after that, it's anyone's guess, but the scaled musculata shows up right about this time, so I would argue that that's evidence for a leather musculata that needs reinforcement.

There, hope that's clear.

On pteruges, I don't know what to think anymore. I'm fairly certain that they are cloth, but I am having a hard time deciding if they are felt, linen laminate, felt/linen composite, or possibly even weft-faced heavy wool bands!

Travis

[tlclark]

There is also plenty of evidence that hardened leather cuirasses were worn over mail in the middle ages. None of this is relevant to what might have been worn in Classical Rome.

I disagree. We are talking about the realm of possible when we bring up Medieval examples. A lot of the discussion has focused so far on what was possible and many seem to think that leather could not be used as armor. That is patently false. It may not prove the Romans had it, but it speaks to the possibility of leather armor in the Roman period.

Now about your other points.

The images you have clearly show a flexible garment. If it was intended to be used as armour then it would be rigid. Unless there is evidence of reinforcing plates (e.g. scales) - in which case they would be squamata or plumata, not musculata. It doesn't matter whether these flexible examples were made of leather or not since they cannot have been intended to be worn as armour. You keep mentioning hardened leather and then show us images of flexible garments. You can't have it both ways. A musculata made from hardened leather is not flexible.

I think this is a dismissal based on modern assumptions forced on the evidence and the definition of "armor". It's a semantic run around the evidence.

The musculata is obviously armor. When we see these flexible cuirasses next to these statues and they have ALL of the features of the musculata, then we can only assume that they are meant to represent the musculata. I can understand people arguing that they are largely ceremonial, but not armor at all? That's utterly arbitrary.

Also on the issue of flexibility, your argument ignores the nature of hardened armor. Hardened armor comes in a variety of hardnesses, depending on how it's prepared, and the length of time it is boiled or treated. The bergama statue shows a cuirass that is clearly not VERY flexible, but rather semi-rigid. Even slightly more rigid leather would provide more protection, especially if layered with an effective subarmalis, linen or mail.

Again I invoke the Hamblin rule. Armor should never be judged against some arbitary standard, but against the next best available alternative. Also, your analysis ignores the nature of armor and its importance beyond simple defense, which includes display and social rank. Since decoration was an important feature of the musculata, and a officer's status, and leather was one of the only materials that could be both molded AND flexible, it's logically the most probable material used for these cuirasses.

Travis

[tlclark]

Fourth photo down, from the Arles Museum. Musculata at the right, with all the trappings of war on it still. Looks pretty floppy to me, which suggests non-metallic, and because of the baldric, sword and focale (?) still on it not a subarmalis.

[url:29nwdmb4]http://www.leg8.com/photos/_2005/arles/musee_d_arles/sculptures.htm[/url]

Hmmm... :?

Tarbicus,

Thanks for the image!

That's one I hadn't seen before. It's very similar to the trophy on the Temple of Hadrian.

These things are everywhere when you start looking for them.

Travis

[Dan Howard]

The early musculata is largely inspired by the late hellenistic linothorax, meaning that in Republican and early imperial times, it is most likely leather or composite.

Why? What makes you think that the Greeks wore leather cuirasses? Virtually all of the evidence points to linen or metal. There is nothing to suggest that leather was used in the linothorax.

I would also like to see a depiction of a Roman wearing something over a mail shirt (something other than a cloak). If you can demonstrate that the Romans wore a cuirasss over mail then I might be more amenable to the suggestion of leather musculatas intended for the battlefield.

[Crispvs]

Tarbicus,

Nice photos.

I was just about to agree about the apparently flexible cuirass until I noticed that the image two above it shows two shields on the right which have a 'squashed' look to them. It then occured to me that the sculptor may have wanted to show the details of the pteruges on the left of the cuirass and squshed the shape of the cuirass to stop these details being hidden behind the shield.

Travis,

"Again, the preference for the archaeological record is itself a problem since the archaeological record preserves potential isolates and anomalies. As far as we know, we may be wearing reproductions that represent a very narrow band of armor that was only worn in one small region or time. Everyone sees these problems with the "artistic license" when it comes to the artwork, very rarely to they see the problems with archaeological finds. I'm an art historian by training, so my thing is the art, which is no less valid a source than a few possibly accidental survivals in my opinion. The best is to consult all sources and look for commonalities. We simply can't do that in the case of the musculata since the only firm evidence is the artwork."

All very good points which I wholeheartedly agree with. My thinking runs in a similar way, which is why I always advise extreme caution when looking at Trajan's column for information about things we have ample archaeological evidence for, but run straight to it when I want to talk about such things as marching kit. As far as I know, the column is still our only visual source of information on marching packs and one of only three sources of information on shield carriage. Until more physical evidence turns up (which it may not do) I will have to keep looking at the sculpture. As you say, we have no surviving example of a complete Roman musculata to study and even if we did have it might have been a unique artifact in the first place. Thus, as you say, we are forced to depend on our interpretations of the sculpture.

Crispvs

[Matt Lukes]

I see other explanations for the sculptural depictions, I don't see them as being hugely compelling- but they are interesting nonetheless.

I've gone over them in close detail, and while I can see arguments that these are subarmalia or linen or what not, leather is still the best option. Again, I say this in my article, no one doubts that the tongue pteruges and elaborate equestrian boots are leather, yet somehow they find the notion of molded leather cuirasses troubling. Ultimately it comes down to simple assumptions, assumptions that are not fully warranted.

Actually, my main alternative is that it's parade or non-combatant 'garment' armor- not actual battle armor. That kind of thing could indeed be shaped to look just like metal musculata, and thus be indestingusihable in sculpture.

As for boots and pteruges, since they aren't intended to offer protection from sharp, pointy things, I see no trouble with accepting them as being leather while still having doubts about a leather cuirass. Add to that the fact that leather footwear and garments are well-documented in the archaeological record...

Again, the preference for the archaeological record is itself a problem since the archaeological record preserves potential isolates and anomalies. As far as we know, we may be wearing reproductions that represent a very narrow band of armor that was only worn in one small region or time.

Absolutely- I recently wondered if the prevalence of battle damage and replacement fittings on Lorica segmentata artifacts was actually representative of the population or simply due to the fact that we find only those bits that were discarded because they were damaged.

Everyone sees these problems with the "artistic license" when it comes to the artwork, very rarely to they see the problems with archaeological finds. I'm an art historian by training, so my thing is the art, which is no less valid a source than a few possibly accidental survivals in my opinion. The best is to consult all sources and look for commonalities. We simply can't do that in the case of the musculata since the only firm evidence is the artwork.

I disagree- the issue of artistic license seems to be far, far more of a hazard than the potential skewing of our view because we only find a limited number of artifacts (relative to the original population of pieces). With artifacts, regardless if they're unrepresentative, we can still say that a given piece WAS used by someone. If we only have one, sure there's a possibility we're all using something that wasn't widely used, but it's all we have. With artwork, details may simply be in the artist's head and not real at all- which is not only unhelpful, but actualy detremental.

Now certainly if artwork is all we have, we do have to make do- but it becomes far, far harder to defend any kind of postulation. Even details actually represented will still have the doubt associated with the issue of potential artist impression. Multiple examples showing a particular thing are very helpful in addressing that of course.

One thing that occurs is that one possibility for the complete lack of any musculata artifacts is that they weren't actually commonly-used. And they're all associated with fairly high-ranking men, right? Both of those would contradict the idea that leather musculata were analogous to the cheap 'can't afford better' armor of the middle ages. So then why would someone who could pay for the protection of metal armor opt for leather?

Here's hoping a musculata is found in some peat bog some day!!

Absolutely- peat is a lovely thing

[Theodosius the Great]

I would also like to see a depiction of a Roman wearing something over a mail shirt (something other than a cloak).

How about a tunic ? Like this officer :

There, hope that's clear.

Crystal. Thank you, Travis.

[Dan Howard]

The contrast is poor on my screen. How can you tell that mail is being worn underneath?

[Theodosius the Great]

Admittedly, it's impossible to tell what's underneath the tunic. It could be anything. It's probably safe to assume he's wearing armor though (of some type). He has pteruges on his shoulders and his waist. Notice the fringes at the bottom.

[Matt Lukes]

Admittedly, it's impossible to tell what's underneath the tunic. It could be anything. It's probably safe to assume he's wearing armor though (of some type)

Assumptions like that are dangerous- I wouldn't make it myself. What if he simply hasn't donned his armor yet? Do any of the other figures in that sculpture have similar dress? Or do are they all wearing obvious armor? Is there any unrelated reason to think that anyone ever wore a kind of surcoat over his armor? From the way the tunica is hanging, it looks to me to be simply body form underneath- not armor which would be clearly larger than the man wearing it. Are those men actually soldiers or are they praetorians or ceremonial guards? I can certainly see the latter not necessarily bothering with a cuirass but still carrying a shield and wearing a helmet.

Anyway, I believe the issue is with some kind of extra layer of protection- specifically leather, not just any old thing on top or armor, right? Just because it may be shown that for some reason someone wore a tunica over his armor doesn't speak to protective leather over another form of armor.

It's an interesting picture though


Matt

[Theodosius the Great]

Assumptions like that are dangerous- I wouldn't make it myself.

In this case, I disagree. Everyone else is wearing armor (musculata). The picture is of the famous Louvre relief.

Is there any unrelated reason to think that anyone ever wore a kind of surcoat over his armor?

AFAIK, this is the only occurance. Please prove me wrong though, anyone .

From the way the tunica is hanging, it looks to me to be simply body form underneath- not armor which would be clearly larger than the man wearing it

He could be wearing a musculata. How else do you explain the pteruges ? You could assume he's merely wearing a subarmalis underneath, but as you said, assumptions are dangerous.

Are those men actually soldiers or are they praetorians or ceremonial guards?

Good question. They are called Praetorians for no apparent reason. The most one can say for sure is that they are "officers".

I believe the issue is with some kind of extra layer of protection- specifically leather, not just any old thing on top or armor, right?

Well, Dan said "anything" (other than a cloak), so....

It's an interesting picture though

Yes, it is in that it's unique, but not all that helpful, perhaps.

[Matt Lukes]

In this case, I disagree. Everyone else is wearing armor (musculata). The picture is of the famous Louvre relief.

Okay, that's what I expected- it does seem odd that one man would not be wearing armor.

He could be wearing a musculata. How else do you explain the pteruges ? You could assume he's merely wearing a subarmalis underneath, but as you said, assumptions are dangerous.

Woah- two big problems with that one: first pteruges aren't proof of musculatae, and don't by themselves suggest anything at all. And after saying that you disagree that it's bad to assume he must be wearing armor, how can you say it back? I wouldn't assume anything at all- but the fact is that if you look at the size of the musculatae on the other men, the one who's wearing a tunica doesn't have the same size under it.

Good question. They are called Praetorians for no apparent reason. The most one can say for sure is that they are "officers".

Ah, I thought this was the group of 'Praetorians'.

[Theodosius the Great]

Woah- two big problems with that one: first pteruges aren't proof of musculatae, and don't by themselves suggest anything at all.

True, he could be wearing chain mail.

And after saying that you disagree that it's bad to assume he must be wearing armor, how can you say it back?

Easily, because there's a context to support my assumption - i.e. everyone's wearing armor. But to assume that he is wearing nothing but a subarmalis is much more shaky because AFAIK, there's never been a subarmalis that can be clearly identified in sculpture. We don't know if pteruges were attached to armor or a subarmalis.

So depending on the context, some assumptions are safer than others, IMO.

but the fact is that if you look at the size of the musculatae on the other men, the one who's wearing a tunica doesn't have the same size under it.

Okay, good observation. It may suggest he's wearing chain mail. But like someone said earlier, sculpture isn't a photograph, so maybe the artist didn't catch some detail. Who knows...but those pteruges are attached to something Without all the facts, we need to make assumptions to formulate theories. Sometimes there's no choice.

[Tarbicus]

Perhaps it some kind of proto Heraldic surcoat worn over musculata or chainmail and the paint's worn off?

[caiusbeerquitius]

True, he could be wearing chain mail.

Or scale armour.