Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Leather Cuirass
#31
Quote:The lower edge is clearly what one would expect from a cuirass, while the armpit shows none and the "armour", at this point follows the body in the unrealistic "clinging" manner noted earlier by Giannis. Basically, the thing contradicts itself. I think the artist must have intended to convey the idea of armour, but whether metal or leather is impossible to guess.

The work undergone in illuminating the paint of such sculptures in that exhibit revealed that artists simply relied on painting on the edges of clothing or equipment much of the time. The same thing happened with that large archer statue they think is Paris: you can see the sleeves at the end of his arms, but nothing else shows up, and he looks like he's wearing some sort of full body jumpsuit. When they looked at the paint underneath, it turns out they just painted all the rest of the edges on. So, no, the artist in this case did not contradict himself.

If we could just get some info on why they have two reconstructions with different colours, we could probably have a better idea of whether it was intended to be metallic or not.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#32
Quote:The sculpture and the general reconstruction is reliable (i.e. the pattern on the tunic underneath), ...
I bow to your greater knowledge in this area, Ruben. I can't see a trace of colour anywhere on the sculpture. Did they use some ultraviolet technique to detect it?
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#33
Quote:
MeinPanzer:rg80a3c5 Wrote:The sculpture and the general reconstruction is reliable (i.e. the pattern on the tunic underneath), ...
I bow to your greater knowledge in this area, Ruben. I can't see a trace of colour anywhere on the sculpture. Did they use some ultraviolet technique to detect it?

Yes. Look at this PDF. It features some photographs of the actual sculptures (not this one in particular, though) taken under UV light. You can clearly see the patterns:

http://www.stmwfk.bayern.de/downloads/a ... _40-45.pdf
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#34
Quote:
paulaallen:2jox8v5m Wrote:The lower edge is clearly what one would expect from a cuirass, while the armpit shows none and the "armour", at this point follows the body in the unrealistic "clinging" manner noted earlier by Giannis. Basically, the thing contradicts itself. I think the artist must have intended to convey the idea of armour, but whether metal or leather is impossible to guess.

The work undergone in illuminating the paint of such sculptures in that exhibit revealed that artists simply relied on painting on the edges of clothing or equipment much of the time. The same thing happened with that large archer statue they think is Paris: you can see the sleeves at the end of his arms, but nothing else shows up, and he looks like he's wearing some sort of full body jumpsuit. When they looked at the paint underneath, it turns out they just painted all the rest of the edges on. So, no, the artist in this case did not contradict himself.

Please read what I wrote again, Ruben. If the sculptor sculpts a cuirass edge and then paints an armhole appropriate to soft material, he contradicts himself.
Reply
#35
Quote:
MeinPanzer:36j0xoxc Wrote:
paulaallen:36j0xoxc Wrote:The lower edge is clearly what one would expect from a cuirass, while the armpit shows none and the "armour", at this point follows the body in the unrealistic "clinging" manner noted earlier by Giannis. Basically, the thing contradicts itself. I think the artist must have intended to convey the idea of armour, but whether metal or leather is impossible to guess.

The work undergone in illuminating the paint of such sculptures in that exhibit revealed that artists simply relied on painting on the edges of clothing or equipment much of the time. The same thing happened with that large archer statue they think is Paris: you can see the sleeves at the end of his arms, but nothing else shows up, and he looks like he's wearing some sort of full body jumpsuit. When they looked at the paint underneath, it turns out they just painted all the rest of the edges on. So, no, the artist in this case did not contradict himself.

Please read what I wrote again, Ruben. If the sculptor sculpts a cuirass edge and then paints an armhole appropriate to soft material, he contradicts himself.

I don't think so at all. The lower edges of muscled cuirasses usually flared out more, and that's probably why it was sculpted while the other, flatter openings were painted. There's nothing contradictory in that at all.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#36
Hi, Ruben,

Again, I thought I'd made it clear that the contradiction is not in the artist's using two diferent methods of representation (sculpting and painting) but in what he appears to represent witht them, namely, a rigid piece of armour at the abdomen, and something soft and flexible enough to be physique-hugging at the armpit. Armour (even linen armour) has a degree of rigidity and does not adapt itself closely to the contours of the body, as cloth can. The artist has represented armour at the belly and clothing at the armpit, despite the fact that he appears to be representing a single, continuous item. I'm assuming there are traces of the original paint to show this. If there aren't, then the sculptor still contradicts himself by failing to mark where the sculpted armour ends and the real body begins. it's also possible that there was one sculptor and another painter, in which case they contradict each other and the painter, in failing to note the significance of the sculpted lower edge of the cuirass, contradicts himself. I'd still argue that it would be the sculptor's fault, ( as, presumably, would the hypothetical Greek painter!) for failing to depict a raised armpit edge around the armhole.
Reply
#37
I don't think so. If you look at the painted reconstructions the appearance of the edges is almost the same (at least for me wearing thick glases Smile )

It might be the angle or the distance the sculpture was intended to be seen from, a personal preference, a common habit, the beginning of a mental desease or someting else which let the artist to choose different techniques.

I think it was not necessary to have drawn-out edges at the armholes to give the impression of the armour the artist wanted to show in that special situation while he thought a drawn-out waist line was necessary.
Wolfgang Zeiler
Reply
#38
Quote:Hi, Ruben,

Again, I thought I'd made it clear that the contradiction is not in the artist's using two diferent methods of representation (sculpting and painting) but in what he appears to represent witht them, namely, a rigid piece of armour at the abdomen, and something soft and flexible enough to be physique-hugging at the armpit. Armour (even linen armour) has a degree of rigidity and does not adapt itself closely to the contours of the body, as cloth can. The artist has represented armour at the belly and clothing at the armpit, despite the fact that he appears to be representing a single, continuous item. I'm assuming there are traces of the original paint to show this. If there aren't, then the sculptor still contradicts himself by failing to mark where the sculpted armour ends and the real body begins. it's also possible that there was one sculptor and another painter, in which case they contradict each other and the painter, in failing to note the significance of the sculpted lower edge of the cuirass, contradicts himself. I'd still argue that it would be the sculptor's fault, ( as, presumably, would the hypothetical Greek painter!) for failing to depict a raised armpit edge around the armhole.

You were clear in explaining, but that is not a contradiction. It appears that the only reason the lower edge of the cuirass was sculpted in is because it flared out more than the neckhole and armholed. Painting on the upper edges isn't a sign of it being "soft and flexible" at all. It simply shows that the edges were not raised enough to warrant carving.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#39
Ruben, paul is right. Why would the artist be so inconsistant? Not all cuirasses flared at the bottom, some were lined with folded brass/bronze edging as were the neck and arm holes. That sculpture shouldn't even be considered as a piece of evidence because it's so weak in presenting anything even remotely clearly.

Seriously, this topic about leather for muscled armour is getting so old. And there is no evidence at all that really, and clearly shows it was used in such a manner, without being extremely weak.

Heck, I hope no-one 2000 years from now bases our respective cultures on what they find in ART. They'll never know what we were about or how we acted, dressed and lived.

Let it go guys.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#40
Quote:Ruben, paul is right. Why would the artist be so inconsistant? Not all cuirasses flared at the bottom, some were lined with folded brass/bronze edging as were the neck and arm holes. That sculpture shouldn't even be considered as a piece of evidence because it's so weak in presenting anything even remotely clearly.

Not all cuirasses flared at the bottom, but this artist was clearly trying to depict a cuirass that did. The two options are that the sculptor was an idiot who had no idea what a cuirass was or that he intended it to be that way. When someone would spend weeks and weeks working on a piece like this, I would assume that they knew what they were doing.

The problem is not with the sculpture, it is with our understanding of it. The painting is very clear, we just have insufficient information on this piece and why they reproduced it twice with different colours. I wish I could get a hold of a catalogue from the exhibit or something which explained why.

Quote:Heck, I hope no-one 2000 years from now bases our respective cultures on what they find in ART. They'll never know what we were about or how we acted, dressed and lived.

Let it go guys.

Are you actually suggesting that information on how the ancients acted, dressed, and lived cannot be gleaned from art? Comparing it to art today is not apt, as ancient art was created with much different goals and standards in mind than most modern artists. As with everything, it must be examined with an awareness of the context in which it was found and contemporary art.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#41
Quote:Not all cuirasses flared at the bottom, but this artist was clearly trying to depict a cuirass that did. The two options are that the sculptor was an idiot who had no idea what a cuirass was or that he intended it to be that way. When someone would spend weeks and weeks working on a piece like this, I would assume that they knew what they were doing.

I like to think that possibly this sculptor was an idiot. I've seen people spend hours and hours on projects and have them turn out wrong because A) they didn't research it correctly, or B) they lacked an integral skill at craftsmenship. Either scenario is plausible in this case, given the inconsistancy of this piece. If the lorica was indeed flared at the bottom, then why not build up the edges of the neck and arms to show the folded brass edging, as on the real pieces? Again, totally inconsistent to be used as evidence.

Quote:Are you actually suggesting that information on how the ancients acted, dressed, and lived cannot be gleaned from art?

I'm saying that using only one source when it concerns drawing conclusions about the Romans is folly. Unless you can check it against archaeological finds, or something that has been found in the written record, you're going out on a limb. Period. Art is completely subject to the artist's interpretation, since we don't know to what degree that is, it's extremely difficult to make conclusions based on it. Especially this particular piece...

Quote:Comparing it to art today is not apt, as ancient art was created with much different goals and standards in mind than most modern artists. As with everything, it must be examined with an awareness of the context in which it was found and contemporary art.

Not all modern art is existential or abstract. Check out a life drawing class at a local college or university. Not to mention there are thousands and thousands of examples of accurate though aritistic renditions of people. Again, you don't know what you're getting when it comes to something done 2000 years ago that can't be cross-referenced against anything else.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#42
Quote:I like to think that possibly this sculptor was an idiot. I've seen people spend hours and hours on projects and have them turn out wrong because A) they didn't research it correctly, or B) they lacked an integral skill at craftsmenship. Either scenario is plausible in this case, given the inconsistancy of this piece.

I guess we just think about this differently, but I don't think it is plausible that a sculptor would just accidentally not carve in a neckhole and armholes for the cuirass.

Quote:If the lorica was indeed flared at the bottom, then why not build up the edges of the neck and arms to show the folded brass edging, as on the real pieces? Again, totally inconsistent to be used as evidence.

Because some cuirasses had flared bottom edges but flat neck and arm openings, and I'm guessing that's what he intended to show here. You have to realize that this is not isolated to this piece. The sculpture of Paris as an archer that they reconstructed is similar- the sculptor carved in the edges of the clothing at his hands and his feet, but for the rest it just looks plain, like a full-body jumpsuit. However, when the paint was reconstructed, it showed that there was actually some sort of jerkin or sleeveless tunic painted on over top of the jumpsuit. Now, was that sculptor also an idiot for carving in the edges of one piece of clothing but not another?

Quote:I'm saying that using only one source when it concerns drawing conclusions about the Romans is folly.

Nobody was just relying on one source. In this case we were just discussing this particular piece.

Quote:Unless you can check it against archaeological finds, or something that has been found in the written record, you're going out on a limb.

"Check it against archaeological finds"? This is an archaeological find.

Quote:Period. Art is completely subject to the artist's interpretation, since we don't know to what degree that is, it's extremely difficult to make conclusions based on it. Especially this particular piece...

Of course, but all that means is that you need to approach such art with different considerations in mind.

Quote:Not all modern art is existential or abstract. Check out a life drawing class at a local college or university. Not to mention there are thousands and thousands of examples of accurate though aritistic renditions of people. Again, you don't know what you're getting when it comes to something done 2000 years ago that can't be cross-referenced against anything else.

What I was referring to in comparing modern art to ancient art is that modern art has transformed itself several times over with different movements that fundamentally change the nature of individual pieces and how they should be interpreted. While realism is of course still common in art, a huge portion of art is modern or postmodern, so that today it ranges drastically in nature. In ancient times, almost all art followed the clear and restrictive guidelines of the day which dictated why a piece of art should be made and how it should appear. Variations of course did occur, but they were much less drastic than in modern art.

And I don't get why you are repeating that you can't cross-reference ancient art. Of course you can, and that's what art history is all about.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#43
I think I'll side with Ruben on this one.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#44
Good for you Dan. You win a free trip to leather cuirass land.

Ruben, discussing a piece is one thing, but using it as a piece of evidence for leather musculata when you've done nothing to prove it's validity is useless. That's all my point is about.

Quote:I guess we just think about this differently, but I don't think it is plausible that a sculptor would just accidentally not carve in a neckhole and armholes for the cuirass.

Why? Who said anything about it being accidental? Neither one of us can say for certain how the artist was operating stylistically. What I am seeing here is inconsistancy.

Quote:Because some cuirasses had flared bottom edges but flat neck and arm openings, and I'm guessing that's what he intended to show here. You have to realize that this is not isolated to this piece. The sculpture of Paris as an archer that they reconstructed is similar- the sculptor carved in the edges of the clothing at his hands and his feet, but for the rest it just looks plain, like a full-body jumpsuit. However, when the paint was reconstructed, it showed that there was actually some sort of jerkin or sleeveless tunic painted on over top of the jumpsuit. Now, was that sculptor also an idiot for carving in the edges of one piece of clothing but not another?

I'd LOVE to see a picture of an original cuirass that has no edging, rolled edge or flared spots on the arm or neck holes. So you've got one other example of the hundreds and hundres of roman pieces concerning armour. Bravo. Got anymore? Because until you have something more concrete to show me, 2 examples aren't going to get you much. If it's a definitive trend in Roman art, it still doesn't explain anything in terms of what the cuirass is made out of.

Quote:Nobody was just relying on one source. In this case we were just discussing this particular piece.

I'm sorry, but didn't you just contradict yourself here?


Quote:This is an archaeological find.

I meant in terms of actual armour found, so you have more than one source to say..."yes, the did it like this out of this material because." I thought that was obvious.


Quote:Of course, but all that means is that you need to approach such art with different considerations in mind.

And what consideration is that? That you can subject your own conclusions based on whatever you want, and in turn have them be whatever you want them to be? Not exactly how i'd apply knowledge to any facet of history.

Quote:In ancient times, almost all art followed the clear and restrictive guidelines of the day which dictated why a piece of art should be made and how it should appear. Variations of course did occur, but they were much less drastic than in modern art.

Really eh? So does that mean we should all start putting round rings on our trajan's column style helmets? If what you say is true, then every piece of junk hollywood helmet, cuirass and other roman costuming bit is "A-OK". Great theory, here's where and why it doesn't work. Remember, the title of this thread is "Leather Cuirass". My overall point is that it's rather shaky at best to base any theories on such armour made of hide on artistic renditions. If they found a preserved leather musculata somewhere, then you would have a 2nd source in which to cross reference the artistic one with. Understand? We reconstruct our gear based on as many different sources as we can. We try one thing, see how it works. Some new evidence is unearthed and published, and we adjust accordingly.


Quote:And I don't get why you are repeating that you can't cross-reference ancient art. Of course you can, and that's what art history is all about.

First of all, art history is art history. We're talking about FACTUAL HISTORY and RECONSTRUCTION here. It's an entirely different beast altogether, but thanks for bringing that up. Secondly, you've got what...ONE other example??? Proves nothing. Since this isn't just about art history, you're going to need more than just art to back anything else up. Remember the title of this thread? "Leather Cuirass". It wasn't..."Artistic Leather Cuirass", or "Leather Cuirass Depicted in Antiquity".

Perhaps you have misunderstood something along the way? Remeber the thread originator's post (bold text added by me):

Hello,

I've been scouring the Internet for some information on Greek armor, and this looked like the place to go, so I thought I'd ask a quick question:

I have seen a few reproductions of a "Greek Leather Cuirass" being sold by online retailers. For example, this one and this one.

Was such an item of armor ever actually used, and if so, are these even vaguely accurate recreations? Or would leather armor be more similar in form to the linothorax?

I know that Victor Davis Hanson's The Western Way of War does give a brief mention of "lighter versions" of armor appearing in the 5th century BC, made of "bronze or even leather and fabric" (Chapter 6, under the section about the breastplate). What I'm not clear on is whether this is just a reference to the linothorax, or to two separate types of armor: one of leather, and one of fabric.

I generally don't trust the retailers' descriptions of the history and accuracy of their product, and all of the reenactment sites I've seen don't seem to mention much about leather armor, so I thought I'd present the question here.

Thanks,
_____________________
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité

Legion: TBD
Reply
#45
Quote:Ruben, discussing a piece is one thing, but using it as a piece of evidence for leather musculata when you've done nothing to prove it's validity is useless. That's all my point is about.

I wasn't arguing that this is the be-all-end-all when it comes to leather muscled cuirasses. In fact, I think that both colour schemes shown in this thread could represent metal. I am mainly arguing against the fact that you seem to think that this piece has absolutely zero value when it comes to this debate, and that you seem to think that ancient art at large is "completely subject to the artist's interpretation, and since we don't know to what degree that is, it's extremely difficult to make conclusions based on it," which is a ridiculously wide-sweeping statement. As I said before, the piece itself is not the problem - it is our limited knowledge of it that is the problem.

Quote:Why? Who said anything about it being accidental? Neither one of us can say for certain how the artist was operating stylistically. What I am seeing here is inconsistancy.

Well, what does "inconsistancy" on the part of the artist imply then? That he suddenly changed his mind halfway through making the piece and decided not to carve in the edges of the upper openings? That he didn't know what a cuirass actually looked like?

Quote:I'd LOVE to see a picture of an original cuirass that has no edging, rolled edge or flared spots on the arm or neck holes.

First of all, all I'm saying is that the edges of the upper openings would have to be relatively flat when compared to the lower edge to not warrant being carved in. Even so, I don't know of many actual musculata that were contemporary to this piece (so Roman examples don't count), but there is a muscled cuirass shown in the Sarmatians Osprey title that dated to the 4th c. BC and that was pulled from the Don (?) which had flat upper edging, IIRC.

Quote:So you've got one other example of the hundreds and hundres of roman pieces concerning armour. Bravo. Got anymore? Because until you have something more concrete to show me, 2 examples aren't going to get you much. If it's a definitive trend in Roman art, it still doesn't explain anything in terms of what the cuirass is made out of.

I'm a little unsure of what you mean by this, but I assume you're referring to the example of the Paris archer that I referred to? First of all, this is a Classical Greek piece, so Roman examples can't really be used as good comparisons. Very few sculptures have undergone the kind of colour analysis that the few pieces in this exhibit have, and so it's no surprise that there are few other examples. However, I can tell you that on the Alexander sarcophagus, certain flat edges, like those of the shabracks, were not sculpted on, but painted, as well as the aforementioned Paris archer (which is nearly contemporary).

And remember, this is just an offshoot discussion of the Roman leather musculata. This example is Greek, not Roman.

Quote:I'm sorry, but didn't you just contradict yourself here?

No. You seem to be focussing on the fact that this is the only evidence that people are apparently putting forward as evidence for Roman musculata. This is not the case- this is an offshoot discussion about leather muscled cuirasses in general in which we are discussing this piece.

Quote:I meant in terms of actual armour found, so you have more than one source to say..."yes, the did it like this out of this material because." I thought that was obvious.

I don't think the absence of leather cuirasses in the archaeological record is any evidence of the use or not of such armour, for obvious reasons.

Quote:And what consideration is that? That you can subject your own conclusions based on whatever you want, and in turn have them be whatever you want them to be? Not exactly how i'd apply knowledge to any facet of history.

The considerations of who commissioned the piece, who the artist was and his relation to the commissioner, what the common artistic themes of the time were, what sort of artistic conventions were common, etc.

Quote:Really eh? So does that mean we should all start putting round rings on our trajan's column style helmets? If what you say is true, then every piece of junk hollywood helmet, cuirass and other roman costuming bit is "A-OK". Great theory, here's where and why it doesn't work.

You totally misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say that artists in ancient times were strict realists. All those things are a part of artistic conventions, conventions which were consistent and restrictive and which can be evenly analyzed over oftentimes dozens or hundreds of pieces within a time period. Some examples include the heroic nudity of hoplites, the nudity of defeated opponents, and as you mentioned the classicization of some armour in later Roman times.

Quote:Remember, the title of this thread is "Leather Cuirass". My overall point is that it's rather shaky at best to base any theories on such armour made of hide on artistic renditions.

Of course you can never be certain with iconographic evidence, but in this case that kind of evidence is as good as we are probably ever going to get.

Quote:If they found a preserved leather musculata somewhere, then you would have a 2nd source in which to cross reference the artistic one with. Understand? We reconstruct our gear based on as many different sources as we can. We try one thing, see how it works. Some new evidence is unearthed and published, and we adjust accordingly.

Thanks for being incredibly condescending. I don't think we need to find an actual piece of weaponry or armour to reasonably prove its existence.

Quote:First of all, art history is art history.

Meaning? Are you seriously dismissing an entire field of study?

Quote:We're talking about FACTUAL HISTORY and RECONSTRUCTION here. It's an entirely different beast altogether, but thanks for bringing that up.

I think you have a flawed understanding of what art history means. Art history includes a wide range of study, a very large amount of it, beliece it or not, involving facts. Most analyses of ancient art (funerary stelai, sculpture in the round, wall paintings, etc.) are art history. Much of it involves comparative study which is incredibly useful and which provides us with much of the dating we rely on when working with such pieces, among other things.

Quote:Secondly, you've got what...ONE other example??? Proves nothing.

I don't understand what you're referring to here, but even if it were just 2 examples, that would still prove more than nothing.

Quote:Since this isn't just about art history, you're going to need more than just art to back anything else up. Remember the title of this thread? "Leather Cuirass". It wasn't..."Artistic Leather Cuirass", or "Leather Cuirass Depicted in Antiquity".

Much, if not the majority, of our understanding of the material culture of the ancient world is based on iconographic evidence. How much ancient clothing do we possess, for instance? Yet we can extrapolate quite a bit about ancient clothing from artistic sources alone.

If you make a thread asking for evidence for the use of a piece of leather armour more than two thousand years ago and require an actual example in order to accept its existence then I'd say you are just wasting your time.

Quote:Perhaps you have misunderstood something along the way? Remeber the thread originator's post (bold text added by me):

Hello,

I've been scouring the Internet for some information on Greek armor, and this looked like the place to go, so I thought I'd ask a quick question:

I have seen a few reproductions of a "Greek Leather Cuirass" being sold by online retailers. For example, this one and this one.

Was such an item of armor ever actually used, and if so, are these even vaguely accurate recreations? Or would leather armor be more similar in form to the linothorax?

I know that Victor Davis Hanson's The Western Way of War does give a brief mention of "lighter versions" of armor appearing in the 5th century BC, made of "bronze or even leather and fabric" (Chapter 6, under the section about the breastplate). What I'm not clear on is whether this is just a reference to the linothorax, or to two separate types of armor: one of leather, and one of fabric.

I generally don't trust the retailers' descriptions of the history and accuracy of their product, and all of the reenactment sites I've seen don't seem to mention much about leather armor, so I thought I'd present the question here.

Thanks,
_____________________

Not every point of discussion in a thread has to relate directly to the OP. This piece was brought up and so we began to discuss it and how it could possibly be interpreted. And in this case, this discussion even relates directly to what you wrote anyway. You asked if they were ever used, and so we were discussing what evidence there could be for its use.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply


Forum Jump: