Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but

[Magnus]

Not really Dave...linen has been a viable material for armour for a long time...do you know if there is a picture of this armour? Interesting to see if it was somehow molded as other musculata or if it was straight like a linothorax. But that evidence does not confirm that leather was ever used.

And yes....it's quite wussish. lol.

And Gil, I'd be careful about picking a fight with people here. And you may want to follow your own advice, especially the bit about evidence:

With all due respect, Dan, have you even read Travis' site? The evidence is all right there. Whether you choose to agree as to what it shows is certainly your choice. But to just keep repeating "where is the evidence", even after it's been presented to you, becomes tiresome. We get it: you don't agree they existed. I'm good with that.

I also find it a bit humerous that you're hung up on "evidence", yet made your pteryges out of LEATHER. Travis's site clearly states that the rectangular ones were in all likelihood fabric, NOT leather. And I quote "Nearly all of the modern reconstructions are made from leather, yet I think the evidence of the images, suggests cloth, rather than leather."

Care to explain that?

And to clarify, this is Bias (from dictionary.com):

bi·as /ˈbaɪəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bahy-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi·ased, bi·as·ing or (especially British) bi·assed, bi·as·sing.
–noun
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

You are clearly representing bias. You may counter with the same argument for me...but tell you what. Show me a real Roman LEATHER musculata and I'll change my mind. This isn't bias, this is simply coming to terms with the reality of the situation. And that reality is that the only evidence we have for leather is interpretational. That wouldn't even hold up in TV court.

I am not sure why you are so close minded at this point, given what Travis's site states. At no point on Travis's site does he EVER say for certain leather was used as the BODY of the musculata. He simply gives us his theory based on inconclusive ARTISTIC SCULPTURE. Then he does a brave thing...he lets us decide based on his findings. But I wouldn't get so fixated on it...because until they "find" a leather musculata...guess what? All you have is supposition, and that isn't worth a wooden nickle.

Know what makes more sense? Greeks used metal musculata. Travis gives artistic evidence of musculata used by Romans. Romans borrowed from the Greeks heavily. Roman musculata was very rare quantitatively vs any other armour type...finds are going to be extremely rare, IF at all. It's a MUCH stronger corroboration to say that the main body at least of Roman musculata was metal vs leather. There is little use of leather as a main armour type from this era. Period.

So maybe you should re-read his site? From my perspective, it seems you've only absorbed what you've wanted to further your own beliefs instead of weighing everything evenly.

And any conclusions on only one type of evidence is foolhardy, btw. Which is why Travis wisely leaves it open for further debate. Something you've missed apparently.

A few quotes which you should take into careful consideration from Travis' home page:

"But even in the most realistic pieces, an artist will have to use his judgment and we must be cautious."

"Interestingly enough, this doesn't mean they were ALL leather. When I have seen modern reconstructions of the musculata, they are nearly always, ALL leather or ALL bronze. I have never seen one that combines a bronze cuirass with a leather harness, but the evidence suggests that the cuirass could be bronze with leather harnesses, a proposition I had never considered before, but is clearly justified."

In reference to the Prima Porta:

"However, the artist, whoever he was, had an eye for detail, indicating that this may have been an actual suit of armor commissioned for Augustus, (not unlikely since parade armor for ceremonial purposes has a long tradition) or at the very least, the artist was familiar with similar armor.

There are several features that indicate that if this was a real breastplate it was made of bronze."

I've read Travis's site many times. There are 2 main points I don't agree with...but because Travis can only use one source of evidence, they're entirely open to speculation and the point of view of the reader.

The shoulder strapping could indeed be metal. Artistic style not withstanding, given the medium of using marble to accurately display 3 dimensional details is going to leave a bit of room for interpretation. I don't believe that the way the shoulders are carved is definitive enough to expressly say they are metal or leather. However, a rather irrelevant detail since we're talking about the body of the cuirass itself.

Second, the statue of the General from Bergama Museum in Turkey...the one with the 90 degree folded over "musculata". Let's say for a minute that it is indeed leather. Surely Gil in your experience you must know what happens to leather when it is bent. It cracks...it creates a seam due to compression, and the outer part will stretch. Add paint to that and guess what happens? It starts to deteriorate and will also CRACK.

Travis himself states that the leather would most likely be hardened, such as a cuir boilli. IF that's the case, do you really think it's going to bend to that extreme??? And if it does...guess what happens to hardened materials that get bent...that area begins to stress and becomes weak. AND...results in cracking.

Do you really, for one second think a high ranking officer, let alone an EMPEROR is going to strut around in garbage armour with cracks and paint chips?