Bronze or Leather?

That is a major sticking point isn't it? You can't even begin to decide the thorny issues of HOW to best build a musculata until we can come to a determination of what the musculata was made of. There are two prevailing theories, bronze and leather. Many of us have seen both in Hollywood recreations and re-enactors have some very definite views on the matter as well. Matthew Amt of Legio XX, whose standards are very high and whose research is impeccable, was convinced that all the ancient lorica musculata were bronze until I showed him one startling image. (More on that later). No surviving lorica musculata remains, so the best we can do is make an educated guess.

Let start with an obvious choice: a clearly bronze cuirass.

This is the late Etruscan bronze cuirass from the British Museum. This is the image commonly known from Robinson's 1975 work on Roman Armor. It is bronze with hinges (on both sides, interestingly enough) and rings, presumably for adjusting straps. This is one of the rare few bronze muscled cuirass from the Italian peninsula that is at all close to the Roman period. That would seem to answer the question in the affirmative that Romans made their cuirasses from Bronze.

Unfortunately, while there is a great deal of influence between the Etruscan and Roman cultures, they are not the same. This object also comes from a time, the Hellenistic Period, when the Etruscans were in decline and appropriating styles and technology from the Greek world. The existence of the muscled cuirass in bronze in the Greek World is demonstrated by numerous examples. Too numerous to mention. Etruscans were known to import a wide range of Greek materials and trade goods from all over the Mediterranean, so this might simply be a Greek object in an Etruscan context.

If there are Roman counterparts, then where are they? None have ever been found, which is surprising. A simple answer might be a difference in burial customs. Etruscans and Greeks buried their dead with lots of grave goods. With the exception of the Emperors and super wealthy, Romans did not, preferring to build monumental tombs but grave goods are not unheard of. You would think that at least one would survive. We have found other examples of Roman armor, but in general, most military equipment from the ancient world is rare, so it may be possible that they were all lost to the ages, rusted away or melted down. The lorica musculata were made for the elite of the Roman Army, meaning that there were far fewer of them manufactured than the lorica segmentata for example. Considering how few of those we actually have, it may not be surprising that the lorica musculata has not survived, but then plenty of rare muscled cuirasses survive in the Greek World, so why not Roman ones? The mind boggles.

This lone example then is insufficient to answer the question. The development of the Imperial Roman muscled cuirass is still a couple hundreds years off at the time this object was buried. That's a little too far for my tastes. There are however, depictions of the lorica musculata in art that seem to be indisputably bronze, but even then the data can be conflicting as we shall see.

The most famous of these is the Primaporta Augustus from the Vatican Museum.

This is the famous Primaporta Augustus, so-called because it was found in the House of Livia, the empress, at Primaporta. It dates to about 14 CE and was made when Augustus was in his 70s or shortly after his death.

It's a real masterpiece of showmanship and propaganda, linking Augustus to the mythical lineage of Julius Caesar and the sculpture of the Athenian Empire from the 5th C. BC. Looking closer we can see that the breastplate is no exception.

The breastplate has some very unique iconography. Images of allegorical figures surround the periphery of the breastplate demonstrating the Pax Romana that Augustus has brought to the world. You can see the figure holding up the heavens at top. In the middle is a specific representation of one of Augustus' diplomatic successes. The Romans had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Parthians and lost their military standards in the process. Augustus negotiated the return of the standards, and thus the future peace. We see the archetypical barbarian on the right handing the standard with the aquila back to the Roman soldier (himself wearing a lorica musculata.)

I mention this only as a note of caution. This is a completely unique iconography. No other breastplate has this imagery, which is rather specific to the reign and actions of Augustus. I have seen people wearing replicas of this breastplate, which, unless they are pretending to be Augustus, is pretty silly. In fact, the white armor that Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) wears in the final battle scene of 'Gladiator' is a copy of this armor, and it looks really anachronistic. The unique imagery suggests that this may not be an actual breastplate, but merely a work of art extolling the actions of Augustus, meaning we have to take it with a large grain of salt.

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. First, the detail is very ornate and of a very high relief. Boiled leather, or cuir boilli, can attain a very high level of detail, as can be seen in an excellent revivalist piece from the 17th C. in the Philadelphia Museum, but I find it hard to believe it could reproduce the undercutting we see on this example.

More telling is the obvious large barrel hinges on the shoulder copings. We can see more of this detail on the next example.

You can clearly see the side seams. There are hinges on the opposite side under the left arm that are very similar to the Etruscan example above with the notable exception; the hinges are not pin or barrel hinges as on the example in the British Museum, but rather strap hinges that pull the seams together. More importantly these hinges must be made from a flexible material, most likely leather of fabric, because they are shown to flex at certain points of the anatomy. There are four hinges clearly visible in the detail under the right arm. The hinge second from the bottom actually closes the seam of the cuirass at the narrowest point on the torso where the ribcage meets the 'love handles' of the abdomen. Since the second from the bottom hinge bends right at this juncture, it must be made of leather or a similar flexible material. If this hinge were made of metal, like a pin or barrel hinge, it would bind and prevent the cuirass from opening. This means that critical parts of this and other loricata must have been made of leather. This is in fact a common feature of loricata everywhere.

Here is an additional example from a loricata in the Vatican, showing these strap hinges. And here is another, also from the vatican. The type is very common. While the loricae segmentata have clear fasteners and buckles there are no clear fasteners on the lorica musculata, aside from the shoulder fasteners. Nearly all of the modern reproductions of the lorica musculata use buckles to fasten the backplate to the breastplate. However, while we know Romans had buckles and we find them on the lorica segmentata, there are no images of the lorica musculata with buckles as fasteners. The lorica musculata is NEVER seen with buckles. Instead, they use these rather small strap hinges and simple ties. At the top of the seam on the right side of the Primaporta, directly underneath the arm we can see a small tie.

This is the only obvious fastener and seems totally inadequate to hold on a piece of armor of this size and complexity, but there it is. One can only assume that this was not meant to be functional armor, or that the armor was more securely fastened with hardware concealed on the inside. The hinges appear to be straps threaded through the back and breast plates, rather than metal hinges that are secured by a pin as in the Etruscan example in the British Museum. Since this is often hard to see even in good photographs, I have drawn the following diagram. If they are leather straps, then the ties or fasteners might be on the inside of the cuirass. This might provide two benefits. First, to keep the fasteners from unintentionally catching on items while in battle (but that doesn't seem to a problem for the surviving examples of lorica segmentata). More likely, this method allowed for the cuirass to be adjusted and tightened more easily or it was a holdover from late Hellenistic examples of the linothorax that was also secured with ties.

The Primaporta Augustus also reveals some details about deocoration and color of Roman armor. There are traces of blue paint on this breastplate. Nearly all ancient statuary was painted, body hair and all, and armor was no exception. Since nearly all ancient statuary was painted, it appears that the same held true for the musculata as well. It seems odd that you would make this fabulous object out of bronze only to paint it, but that seems to be the practice. Here is this regrettably fuzzy image you can see traces of paint on the barbarians pants. The Ostia Trajan, which I will talk about later, has traces of red paint.

Color was the chief way of conveying life and vitality in the ancient world. Consider this image of Alexander the Great from the famous Alexander mosaic in the House of the Faun in Pompeii. Notice that the gorgoneion on the breast is rendered not in bronze, but is modeled in flesh tones. Hans Belting, wrote a great book on "Presence & Likeness" which are two very distinct ideas in art. "Likeness" is easy to understand, that's when you try to make something look like the original. Presence is quite different. Consider a wax museum. Sometimes the images in a wax museum are SO realistic you feel like you're in the "presence" of the actual person. As hard as it may be to believe, Romans were often trying to recreate "likeness" as a means of conveying "presence", the same kind of presence you get in a wax museum.

Now look at this image of Minerva from the Museo Romano Nazionale alla Palazzo Massimo. In this case the original colors were preserved because they used colored marbles to create the effect instead of paint. Look closely, even the gorgoneion on the aegis is in flesh-colored marble. That's why these were painted. In fact when you read the Aeneid, Vergil's classic, you can catch a sense of this in the description where he describes Aeneas' armor. It specifically mentions the Medusa's head with rolling eyes. The Medusa's head is the psy-ops of Roman armor. Now imagine you are a barbarian and some Hellenistic or Roman cavalry is bearing down on you. Imagine the gorgoneion or Medusa's head on their breastplates. First imagine them in bronze or iron or leather. Then imagine them in livid color, with pallid flesh tones and painted rolling eyes. Which is more likely to convey a sense of horror, which is more likely to affect you psychologically? The dramatic coloring of the Primaporta Augustus would have had a much greater impact than the sterile and serene marble that we see today.

Given all the features of this example, I think it is clear that there were high-end bronze breastplates manufactured in the Roman Period, that were in part, outfitted with at least some leather parts. So a re-enactor is definitely justified in having one, but probably only if they are playing the role of a legate, emperor or proconsul, but I would suggest they stick to more conventional imagery and paint them and not leave them polished bronze, and keep the fasteners either concealed inside or keep them very simple as with leather straps on the Primaporta and many other examples.

The only question then is if the majority of them were bronze, and here I think the evidence tells the exact opposite story as the Primaporta Augustus. For that discussion we have to go to the next image.

When I first showed this image to Matthew Amt his reaction summed up the whole matter. In his words,"Yeah, no getting around that one, is there? Just ain't bronze!! So, what the heck IS it? "

Isn't that the 64,000 sestersi question.

I have seen this sculpture in person and several others that are very similar. This is an Antonine era general from the Bergama Museum in Turkey. You can tell it's Antonine because of the hair and beard style, and also the twisted fringes on the pteruges, which are unique to the Antonine period of Marcus Aurelius. The heroic pose of a nude general/warrior standing next to his armor is quite common and goes all the way back to the Hellenistic period.

Looking at it, it has been suggested that this is a subarmalis and not the actual lorica. Having seen it in person I know that's not the case. The cuirass has all the details of a typical lorica musculata, the anatomical waistline, the tongue pteruges, and even the shoulder copings and harness, which are always on the outside of the lorica, so this is definitely a lorica musculata.

If you look closely at the lower abdomen of the cuirass you can see that it holds the shape of a human abdomen, but the material is obviously flexible. There is only one material available to the ancient Romans that could be BOTH flexible enough to bend like this example and rigid enough to hold a molded shape: boiled or treated leather.

There are many ways to treat leather but the most common method available in antiquity and the middle ages was boiled leather. Boiled leather, or cuir boilli, is very plastic and can be easily molded and was known throughout the middle ages. There are several recipes available on the net, using alternately wax, oil or water as the boiling medium. When set it's light and flexible, but rigid enough to hold it's shape and can even be carved or molded to take a high level of detail.

Here is a 17th C. parade shield made of boiled leather in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. It is rendered in a classicizing style with an incredible amount of detail, so it is certainly a feasible material for creating ornate pieces of armor.

There are of course two problems with this possibility. There is no specific evidence that the Romans had boiled leather. Pliny seems to suggest that leather armor was useless when wet, and Bishop agrees leather is unsuitable for armor. (Bishop, 1993) Considering all of the leather objects that survive from the Roman Period, including shoes, tents, bags (and even a bikini), it's hard to believe not one example of armor survives. At the same time these were relatively rare pieces so perhaps none did survive. But then there's the old canard that says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and since I can't think of another material that can account for the Bergama statue, I have to assume that these were leather.

Matthew Amt wonders if these were suitable pieces of armor, or whether these were purely ceremonial pieces by this point. (Please read his section on the lorica musculata) I think this might be the case. Roman generals were not like their Greek Hellenistic counterparts. They were more like modern generals, far removed from the immediate action, meaning that functional armor would not be necessary. Still there were plenty of Roman generals that got overrun and you would think they would want functioning armor handy. This may explain the fusion of the lorica squamata with the lorica musculata like we see on the Sarcophagus of Balbinus. A cavalry officer was more likely to get in a pinch in a fight and may have needed the bronze scales to reinforce his armor. Still while leather is reasonably serviceable, I think these were mostly ceremonial.

At this point we reach an impasse. There are enough examples of both to demonstrate that both bronze and leather were used, but what was the standard? Was bronze reserved only for elite showpieces? Did the value of lightweight armor outweigh the heaviness of bronze armor, even though its protective capabilities were better?

Recently, I got a long good look at an excellent musculata at the Ostia Museum that helped answer that question. This is the image of Trajan that was found in the Scoula de Traiano, in Ostia. Ostia was the ancient port city of Rome. This was likely an image set up in a wealthy collegia or corporation as demonstration of their support by the emperor, or their hope for support by the emperor for their trading association.

It has all the features of a classical Roman lorica musculata, the pteruges, the tongue pteruges, shoulder pteruges, and the gorgoneion or Medusa's head.

It has the molded shape, the shoulder harnesses, and the kilt with large tongue pteruges. (Incidentally, while the examples of the cuirasses are often very similar, the tongue pteruges have a wide variety of shapes, lengths and images, not unlike the more common cingulae. The kilt and tongue pteruges would allow the re-enactor a fair amount of individual expression. For more information see my section on "tongue" pteruges.) The iconography here, with the gorgoneion on the breast and winged victories astride animals is far more common than that seen on the Primaporta Augustus above.

Here in this detail we can see that the cuirass has clear side seams, and two small hinges. As luck would have it, there is another example of the musculata in the Ostia Museum that also shows side seams and hinges.

It should be noted that finding detailed representations of hinges and side seams is very fortunate. Most of the later examples of the musculata have NO hinges or even side seams. That would seem to indicate that the lorica musculata was soft enough to pull over the head, a thought which is hard to believe, since anything soft enough to pull overhead would make it essentially worthless as armor. It's possible that they were ceremonial pieces, but looking at a lot of the later examples, I have come to the conclusion that the side seams were eliminated by the artist as a matter of style. In general, when you look at the later examples there are a number of details that leads me to believe that they are not accurately representing the musculata. For example, on the Constantine in the narthex of St. John in Laterano there are no side seams, but there are also a number of other details that are less specific, such as the shoulder harnesses and the fringes on the pteruges which are more stylized than on the earlier examples, leading me to think we are moving towards a simplification of details in general. Generally side seams start to disappear during the reign of Hadrian and by the Antonine period that are almost non-existent. From that time until the end of the Empire, the style becomes increasingly abstract, and extracting any useful data about the lorica musculata from examples later than the Antonine period is extremely difficult.

In the examples above, however, the side seams are thankfully very clear. The presence of hinges and definite side seams seems to indicate that these may be bronze examples. Then I started looking at the shoulder harnesses. The two images here are details of the shoulder copings or harnesses on the statue of Trajan.

The harness is clearly fastened by means of a tie or thong, to a ring on the breastplate. In all cases, the harness curves smoothly over the shoulder, hugging it tightly until it reaches a similar fastener on the back. There are no obvious hinges at all, and the fact that the harness follows the curve of the shoulder so closely demonstrates that this is a flexible material.

It is possible to make a bronze piece that curves over the shoulder, but when compared to the Primaporta Augustus above where the shoulder pieces are obviously bronze, you can see that these harnesses are far less rigid. You can see this a little better on these examples from a bust of Septimus Severus also from the Ostia Museum.

While the evidence for the cuirass is a little ambiguous, the evidence for the shoulder harnesses is very clear. In nearly every case they appear the same: flexible straps without hinges that are pulled over the shoulder. They often are decorated with low relief, as in this example with the lightning bolt, which is common. They are also tied off with straps and the straps are attached to the harness with a simple knot or larch's head.

Here is another example from the Vatican Museum. This is the bust of Hadrian, where you can clearly see the harness strap and ties. In this case the tie is secured to the breastplate with a ring, and fastened to the harness by means of a lion's head ornament. Again, there are no hinges or obvious breaks, indicating that this is most likely molded leather. This is an excellent example of the gorgoneion or Medusa's head on the breast. There was a wide variety of types of the Gorgoneion, which is Greek in origin.

This also has an excellent example of the neck-guard, which can be seen at the back of Hadrian's neck. The neck-guard is not a consistent feature and neither are the necklines.

Here is a diagram showing how the neck-guard and shoulder harnesses function. (The neck guard is not found on hellenistic bronze cuirasses which have round necklines, but only on the late hellenistic linothorax. This is a point that will become important in my discussion of the linothorax and the origins of the lorica musculata.) In republican times the necklines are square and the neck-guards are minimal. Then during the Augustan and Julio-Claudian periods, the neck-guard mostly disappears and is replaced with a rounded neckline. By the time of Vespasian and the Flavians, both are being used and continue to be used through the reign of Hadrian. By the time of the Antonines, the square neckline becomes more standard. This is often a difficult feature to see since it is covered up by the head of the subject matter.

Many of these examples have ornate decoration as in the example of loricata of Trajan from Ostia above. Erotes, Nikes and thunderbolts are the most common, as shown in this example of a bust of Septimus Severus from the Palazzo Massimo in Rome. The harness in this case is embossed with a nike figure. Notice especially that even the molded figure conforms to the shape of the shoulder.

There is only one material that can be molded to high level of detail, but still flexible enough to conform to the anatomy of the shoulder. All of these details indicate, that at the very least, the shoulder harnesses were made of leather. In the vast majority of examples I have seen, this is the case. In fact, the only image I can think of where the harnesses are clearly NOT leather is the Primaporta Augustus, with it's large and prominent barrel hinges. All others follow this pattern consistently from the early empire, to the late empire.

This means that the lorica musculata, especially the shoulder harness, was at least in part leather.

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.

I think at this point the evidence that they used leather is overwhelming. Whether they used leather exclusively is something I'm not prepared to say, but I would suggest that leather was the typical medium. If I were relying on images from the later empire I would be more wary, but most of the images come from the high point of the empire before such stylistic conventions muddy the matter. The era of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius are noted for their attention to detail in military matters, as on the Column of Trajan. The images from Ostia could certainly indicate a combination of materials, but then hardened leather would need hinges as well. The presence of paint would seem to indicate leather, since it would need protection from the elements, but then the bronze examples were painted as well. I think paint indicates the Romans' love of color more than anything else, something we miss when looking at clean marble statuary. There is also the possibility that we are looking at a composite material, leather or laminate linen, but given the image of the Antonine general from Bergama, it can't have been too rigid.

Furthermore, there are a number of Roman accoutrements that are indisputably leather, such as the equestrian boots in the example of this loricata of Lucius verus from the Vatican. These come in open and closed-toe varieties as in this example from the Capitoline as well. These ornate boots were popular among the equestrian classes and the emperor during the imperial period, (although for some reason, Marcus Aurelius is never seen wearing them, and is always shown wearing the more prosaic calvary boots.) They appear to be molded leather, as do the tongue pteruges and their ornaments, although in the latter case they might be bronze appliquŽ on leather. There is enough evidence to strongly suggest that Romans made items out of molded leather. If the Romans had the technology and means to make molded leather boots and pteruges, why not the cuirass as well?

At this point I think the representational evidence demonstrates that Romans certainly had the technology to create molded leather cuirasses, whether they did or not is still a serious question. I believe that it depends in large part on the origins of the Roman musculata and its development as a piece of armor, which demonstrate that its heritage is not the bronze cuirasses of the Greek World, but the late Hellenistic linothorax. To consider this part of the problem please see my next essay on the origins of the Lorica Musculata.