First off, There are no accurate lorica musculata available on the market today

That much must be said right away. I have looked at a number of loricae in leather, steel and bronze and frankly, all of them fall far short when compared to the originals. As a matter of fact, at this time, I can not recommend a single existing lorica musculata. That is unfortunately the reality at the moment. That is why this project is so important. It's not just a matter of money and resources either. Most of the ones in movies, even big-budget films like Gladiator, are just as bad. At the end of the essay I will recommend a few suppliers, that are, at best, passable, but that is unfortunately the best we can do for the moment. If anyone is interested in creating an accurate musculata, and you have the skills, assets and resources to do so, please contact me.

Before we can begin to look at what is wrong about a lot of these musculata, we have to discuss what a good musculata SHOULD look like.

The chief feature of a musculata is that it is muscled. Any musculata not having a definite muscled shape is therefore immediately rejected, but there are a number of things that need to be said. First, the form of the muscled lorica is based on the classical male form. 'Classicism' refers to a period of art from the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome. More specifically, it refers to a specific style that epitomized the height of Greek Classical Sculpture from the 5th - 4th C. BC. For example, this work of art, the Tetrarchs, is 'classical' in that it comes from the Roman World, but it is only classical in terms of 'period' and not in style. The Classical style is noted for its extremely naturalistic and idealistic representation of the human form.

Now I am an art historian by training, which means I like to flap my gums, but I need to define some terms here, so forgive me when I put on my art historian's cap for a moment. Naturalism is a style where art is based on an object observable in nature; rocks, trees, people, anything really as long as it is found in the natural world. An abstract painting, for example, could never be naturalistic. Naturalistic art can be both detailed or stylized, but it has to be based on the original natural form. You can think of Naturalism as being a broad category containing a variety of styles. In the naturalist tradition things can be realistic or idealistic. Realism is easy to explain, realism is when the object looks very much like the original. Romans had a penchant for realistic art, so much so we often call it "verism" from the latin "veritas" or truth, since it is so truthful to the original.

Take this example. This is a republican era portrait. Every wrinkle and wart is rendered faithfully, it may not be pretty, but that's the point. Romans' valued realism since they felt it conveyed the presence of the individual. Romans, for the most part, liked to show people as they really were. Roman portraits are allowed to get old, and even ugly. Idealism is quite different. Idealism believes in an "ideal" standard. This standard or "canon" of proportions varies over time, from sculptor to sculptor, but in general terms, this ideal was set by Greek artists during the high point of Greek civilization, the 5th - 4th C. BC. This is style of the classical period.

Here is an example and it shows all the features of the classical period. This is the famous discobolos, or a Roman copy of it in the Palazzo Massimo, by the famous Greek sculptor Myron. The Greek ideal valued youth, health, athleticism, symmetry, strength and all the other features we currently associate with the classical form. (Any of you out there, male of female, that have bady-image issues, blame the Greeks, they started it -- although they at least allowed love handles!)

Now this is a rather round-about way of getting to the topic at hand, but the gist is that Romans have both styles, both realism and idealism. They valued realism for portraiture, but often idealized bodies. You can see the disconnect in this image of the emperor Claudius in the Vatican.

The face is realistic, but the body is idealized according to the Greek tradition, and that's the important part, in full-length official nude portraits, the body is almost always idealized, even when the face is not. The effect is almost humorous, but the affectation for idealized bodies is near universal in official portraiture. And the same is true for the lorica musculata. Whenever we see the lorica musculata it has the classical idealized form. So before we can build or purchase a lorica, we have to look at exactly what an ideal muscled torso looks like.

Consider this example. This is the famous Artemesion Bronze or 'Zeus' from the Archaelogical Museum in Athens. This is from the 5th C. or the Severe period, the very earliest period of the classical era. This is an absolutely beautiful work of art. It demonstrates both the skill and mastery of the artist, as well as their attention to detail. There are two things we should notice. First, it's absolute faithfulness to human anatomy. Compare it to this example which has little real relation to human anatomy, or this one, which is worse. This one is just flat-out laughable. It looks more like a beetle thorax than a human torso! Far too many musculata on the market have no grounding in genuine human anatomy, let alone the idealized classical torso. This is the single biggest problem with all reproductions, and it's a huge hurdle, one that can only be attempted by someone that has a firm grounding in human anatomy, like a trained artist. The Artemesion zeus is also a great example, because unlike all of the surviving loricata, this example is in bronze. If bronze was used to make the musculata, it's very likely that the skills needed to make it, could not be found amongst your average armorer or blacksmith. The similarities between bronze heroic statuary and the musculata are so close that they were likely made by the same highly specialized artisans.

Secondly, I want to point out its subtlety. The guy making this thing was a genuine artist. The muscles are not only correct, but the skill and mastery on display is just awe-inspiring. Even when a lorica musculata on the market exhibits something more than just passing familiarity (or more typically, complete ignorance) of human anatomy, the form is often grossly simplified, stylized or otherwise exaggerated.

Now exaggerated human form is not unknown in the classical world, as in this example. During the 3rd and 2nd C. BC, the human form became increasingly more stylized and exaggerated until it looked like a body-builder on steroids. Even then, there is a world of difference between this and this. But for the most part, the classical torso shuns the Schwarzenegger model, and looks to a more naturalistic form, and all of the lorica musculata emulate the more naturalistic form. Consider these examples.

In each case, the musculature is not overdone. This is far from the case in most reproductions. In most cases the muscles are far too exaggerated. This web site has some examples that more or less creates the muscles in an anatomical fashion, but they are far too exaggerated. The same can be said of this example, or this one. I have yet to see a single example that captures the subtlety or professionalism of the musculata we can see in the art.

Now look at this example of a Bronze Apulian Muscled Cuirass From the Metropolitan Museum in NY. Notice especially how subtle the musculature is. This is very similar to what we see, not only in classical sculpture, as in the Artemesion bronze, but also in the musculata. The general characteristics of this form are broad pectoral muscles that blend naturally into the anatomy. Likewise, the ribs and abdominals are clearly defined and articulated, but not over-exaggerated. Each section has a subtle transition to the next section. The presence of 'love handles' is also important. While the reproductions often over-exaggerate the muscles, they often remove the love handles entirely. Likewise, every lorica musculata has anatomically represented nipples and navel, provided that they are not covered by the decoration.

Another important feature of the lorica musculata, is that nearly all of them are decorated. As I discuss in my essay on the origins of the musculata, decoration is an important part of the muscled cuirass. While the greek bronze muscled cuirasses are not typically decorated, as in this example, Roman examples are nearly always extensive decorated. Nearly all modern reproductions lack any real decoration. Not only do they lack decoration, but when they are decorated, they are often decorated with themes and motifs that are anachronistic or just plain wrong. There is a wide variety of themes and arrangements possible, but even then, most of the modern reproductions are just flat out wrong, and this is a big deficiency in any modern reproduction.

Modern reproductions come in a wide variety of trims and fasteners in use, and there is virtually no evidence for any of them. Most lorica are completed with simple rolled or raised edges. There are many fancy and elaborate edges on Roman examples, including scalloped edges, but you never see these in modern reproductions. Here is an example of genuine roman trim with a scalloped edge (you can see it around the arm hole near the top of the image). The other edges are simple rolled (or sewn if leather) edges. In modern examples you see a lot of wide rimmed edges and lips that have more to do with 16th and 17th C. armor. Fasteners are even more problematic. Almost all the musculata reproductions that I have seen use buckles. While buckles were used on the Lorica Segmentata, there is no evidence for buckles on any of the examples of the musculata I have seen, in fact, the fasteners remain largely hidden. At a certain point, practicality takes over. If I had to insist on ties instead of buckles, nearly all reproductions would be instantly disqualified.

I consulted a few of the existing armor guides on the web and did a lot of searching of websites myself. To my regret, I turned up a lot of junk and no gems. The following lorica musculata are what I would regard as 'passable'. None of these are great, and I have excluded any that I thought were beyond repair. As I mentioned earlier, there are no 'good' examples. The following are examples that I think can be retrofitted or modified to be acceptable. None of them are what I would call "ready-to-wear" but would require major modification to be historically accurate enough for re-enacting. I have seen none of the following examples in person, so I can't vouch for their quality or value, only in their relative authenticity or, as is most often the case, lack of galling inauthenticity.

Sword and Stone

This is by far the best one I've seen. It's also ridiculously expensive. Still, it has small narrow hinges and ties, and not buckles for fasteners. The anatomy is also very good (with the exception of the missing love handles) and it has minimal, but accurate decoration in the form of the gorgoneion. The shoulder harness are a little iffy, and seem to be based on the primaporta Augustus, which is an anomaly, and probably should be replaced. Be careful though, they also sell another one as a part of a centurion's outfit which is laughable, in fact the whole outfit is a joke. They also sell this one as a "short" version which is probably best avoided. Just get the long cuirass and outfit the rest of the kit yourself, that would be my best advice.

Museum Replicas

In terms of anatomical correctness and subtlety, this one from Museum replicas in leather, is pretty good, better than most in fact. It has many drawbacks however; no backplate, no decoration, visible modern stitching and I know that museum replicas has a penchant for historical anachronisms, and a reputation for poor manufacturing, so buyer beware. Still, a talented re-enactor could remake this to be a fine lorica musculata with a lot of hard work.

Valentine Armourers

Valentine makes two muscled cuirasses in brass and iron. One, this one, is dreadful, with its extremely abstracted muscles, incised lines and broad lower flange. The one above is only a little better. Right away, you would have to do two things, strip away the antiquing and the wide lip along the bottom. The muscles are inexpertly rendered but more or less based on human anatomy. And of course, it lacks any decoration and uses buckles to secure it. The kilt of pteruges is very awkward, but the shoulder harnesses and shoulder pteruges are ok and more than passable. I suggested to someone that if they got rid of the broad lip along the bottom, got rid of the antiquing and painted it, it would be serviceable.

By-the-sword.com

By-The-Sword.com makes several manufactured muscled cuirasses. The ones in steel and brass are very stylized and not terribly anatomically correct with the muscles popping out. The leather ones look more or less like they were modeled on the metal ones, but since the leather holds less detail, the effect is not as bad. The ones in leather look more accurate, but again, the musculature lacks any subtlety. All are fastened by buckles and none have any shoulder harnesses or decoration to speak of.

Whyt Hawk Amoury

This is one to watch. He says he is working on a leather musculata, and will have pictures in a few weeks. I don't know anything about it, but I await its arrival eagerly.

Update: Here are some images of the leather armor above. General impressions? Not bad. He is obviously trying for a more natural feel than most, and trying to create something that isn't too over-exaggerated, but I think he needs more grounding in the anatomy. Somebody send him a gray's anatomy, I think he might actually be able to bang this out. The harness and other features are largely fantasy though, but I'm not sure he's going for authenticity anyway.