04-29-2007, 05:31 PM
Ruben, here's the problem. And I apologize for being condescending, my post was at times sarcastic and for that I'm sorry, but I have issues with this whole leather cuirass thing.
First, I am not dismissing art history. It definately has it's worth. But that value can only get you so far, before you're going to need a seperate source of information to back up your claims. Since there is absolutely no second source of information to back up leather musculata, to me it's almost pointless to keep bringing it up. Almost to the point of misinformation.
And lately it's been a trend on RAT. The problem arises, in my opinion, when someone new comes here, asking questions about the leather cuirass, and people start saying that it was viable as an armour type. Well, we dont' know that it was! It's better to say so, rather than prove a theory based on such a small amount of evidence, which really isn't evidence at all since it's so grounded in art. Especially when you have no other source to back up the artistic renditions we see, which even then we aren't sure what those artists were trying to convey!
In my mind, as Jim mentioned, it's all about propaganda. Officers, especially emperors, were to be portrayed as gods. Gods have the perfect body. So in art, it makes absolute sense then, that this perfection is going to be artistically rendered in their sculptures, taking precedence over anything based on actual reality. Chances are these emperor's didn't have six packs...
For example....a while ago I made a thread about pteryges, since I'm doing a centurion impression. Well, many reenactors use leather for them, and I was going to do the same. I made a diagram showing their layout, and posted it for people to comment on. After 5 pages of postings and many modifications, I changed my tune to incorporate leather tongue pteryges, over top of linen/felt rectangular ones. The reason being is that while we can't really tell what they are made out of based on sculptural artistic evidence, we do know that layered fabrics make excellent protection, and was in fact used by the greeks and later copied by the romans. So now I had 3 pieces of evidence, both in the artistic record, and archaeological, and even to a lesser degree modern reconstructions/testing.
That then, was enough to change my opinion, because I had quite a bit more to go on rather than one source. So basically my point is that I am not dismissing art history or it's importance. It opens a valuable window into Roman cultural aspects for us that can't be gleaned anywhere else. But, when it comes to making definitive or even conjectural theories about things based soley on that art, then you're going to run into problems. When we take something about a culture where we have some pretty big gaps in knowledge about, and add too much credence to something like this particular instance, it's running the risk of being unfounded. That to me is the greater danger, as opposed to just tossing theories around.
First, I am not dismissing art history. It definately has it's worth. But that value can only get you so far, before you're going to need a seperate source of information to back up your claims. Since there is absolutely no second source of information to back up leather musculata, to me it's almost pointless to keep bringing it up. Almost to the point of misinformation.
And lately it's been a trend on RAT. The problem arises, in my opinion, when someone new comes here, asking questions about the leather cuirass, and people start saying that it was viable as an armour type. Well, we dont' know that it was! It's better to say so, rather than prove a theory based on such a small amount of evidence, which really isn't evidence at all since it's so grounded in art. Especially when you have no other source to back up the artistic renditions we see, which even then we aren't sure what those artists were trying to convey!
In my mind, as Jim mentioned, it's all about propaganda. Officers, especially emperors, were to be portrayed as gods. Gods have the perfect body. So in art, it makes absolute sense then, that this perfection is going to be artistically rendered in their sculptures, taking precedence over anything based on actual reality. Chances are these emperor's didn't have six packs...
For example....a while ago I made a thread about pteryges, since I'm doing a centurion impression. Well, many reenactors use leather for them, and I was going to do the same. I made a diagram showing their layout, and posted it for people to comment on. After 5 pages of postings and many modifications, I changed my tune to incorporate leather tongue pteryges, over top of linen/felt rectangular ones. The reason being is that while we can't really tell what they are made out of based on sculptural artistic evidence, we do know that layered fabrics make excellent protection, and was in fact used by the greeks and later copied by the romans. So now I had 3 pieces of evidence, both in the artistic record, and archaeological, and even to a lesser degree modern reconstructions/testing.
That then, was enough to change my opinion, because I had quite a bit more to go on rather than one source. So basically my point is that I am not dismissing art history or it's importance. It opens a valuable window into Roman cultural aspects for us that can't be gleaned anywhere else. But, when it comes to making definitive or even conjectural theories about things based soley on that art, then you're going to run into problems. When we take something about a culture where we have some pretty big gaps in knowledge about, and add too much credence to something like this particular instance, it's running the risk of being unfounded. That to me is the greater danger, as opposed to just tossing theories around.
____________________________________________________________
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité
Legion: TBD
Magnus/Matt
Du Courage Viens La Verité
Legion: TBD
