The main feature of the musculata is the muscled cuirass with its elaborate decoration.

I've spent most of this website discussing just the cuirass, its materials, manufacture and decoration, but there are many other features associated with the musculata that should be discussed, including the pteruges, the subarmalis, parazonium an the equestrian boots.

I am including these as a way for re-enactors to completely outfit their own officer's 'kit'. There are several features that are often associated with the lorica musculata, including, in no particular order, the kilt of pteruges (often with tongue pteruges), the shoulder pteruges, the subarmalis, the equestrian boots, the parazonium sword and often a cloak and fibula as well.

A side note on helmets. While it is certain that Roman officers generals didn't go into battle without a proper helmet, almost none of the surviving sculptures show a helmet anywhere. (The only exception I can think of is this rather odd image of Trajan Decius in which he is nude, except the helmet, which is almost certainly intentionally anachronistic.) We suspect that they used the attic helm, which is an entirely different topic, and beyond my scope. (For resources on the many permutations on the attic helm, I recommend this book: Antike Helme : Sammlung Lipperheide und andere BestŠnde des Antikenmuseums Berlin / mit BeitrŠgen von Angelo Bottini ... [et al.]. Mainz: Verlag des Ršmisch-Germanischennak Zentralmuseum, 1988. You don't need to know German, it has great pull-out charts that show the morphology of antique helmets of all types, not just the attic helm.) They are most likely shown without the helm for two reasons: one, the helmet would interfere with the depiction of the individual, who clearly wanted his features to be seen. Second, it is the the custom from the hellenistic time onward to show leaders without their helmets. I believe that this is probably something of a status symbol. A man without his helmet is obviously far removed the front lines, and has the rank of a general. This doesn't mean that they didn't require helmets, they almost certainly did, but they probably did not often have to wear them as their services were needed in planning and directing the battle. The helmet, as such, does not enter significantly into the iconography of the Roman general. About the other remaining objects, we have enough evidence from the surviving images to say a great deal.

---

The Herakles' or Officer's knot is another apotropaic device borrowed from the Hellenistic period. It appears in women and children's jewelry throughout the Mediterranean as a protective device meant to protect the wearer. On the lorica it is a sash tied around the upper abdomen just beneath the breast bone. The ends of the sash are then tucked back underneath the sash to keep them out of the way. It may have started as a functional piece of equipment, meant to secure the cuirass more closely. We don't see any buckles, laces or other obvious fasteners on the lorica other than a few small ties, small hinges, and the shoulder harnesses, so the officer's sash and knot may have been necessary. In time it developed into a badge or office, although it is uncertain exactly what it represented other than the rank of the officer. It is uncertain when or how an officer's knot was merited or when it could be worn. It is often left out, but is definitely a separate piece of equipment since it is often seen over the top of existing decorations on the cuirass, as seen in the third example where it is tied over a low relief of two heraldic griffins. In some cases the decoration is over the officer's knot, but I am inclined to believe that is a fantasy piece. Notice that the ends of the sash are fringed exactly as the pteruges, suggesting that this was made of the same material. Traces of paint have been found on some in red and blue.

---

This information was originally included in my "Bronze or Leather" Essay, but I put it here for two reasons. First, so it didn't interrupt the flow of the other essay, which is already too long, and secondly, to expand upon the subject in greater depth.

All of the following images are mine (except where noted) and are free to use.

A pterugerion (sing) or pteruges (pl) comes from the Greek and it means "feather" or "pendant". It is used to describe the protective flaps that cover the lower abdomen on the original Greek Linothorax. Later it was adapted to Roman armor and is a key component of the lorica musculata where it protects the thighs and upper arms. Originally the flaps were made of laminate linen and were rather broad and stiff, as is the early linothorax. By the Hellenistic period they become rather narrow and more flexible. Each layer of pteruges was backed up by at least a second layer of offset pteruges to guarantee maximal coverage.

By the Roman period there were short pteruges covering the upper arms, a short double row of pteruges over the lower abdomen and upper thighs, and a long kilt of pteruges that covered the thigh to just above the knee, as can be seen in this Republican example on the left from the Palazzo Massimo.

Whether this was an effective form of protection is debatable. Certainly in the early examples of the linothorax, the pteruges provided much need mobility and protection for the lower abdomen. By later periods the narrower and far more flexible pteruges seem to be far less substantial and probably only protected the wearer from incidental damage. (Although without a practical test on a decent replica it would be hard to know for certain.) Most likely they were largely ceremonial by the Roman period, and were meant to connect Roman Armor to the great military traditions of the recent Hellenistic period.

All evidence demonstrates that they were rather flexible, meaning that the material was either fiber -- most likely laminate linen -- or leather. Nearly all of the modern reconstructions are made from leather, yet I think the evidence of the images, suggests cloth, rather than leather. In particular the fringe, which would have had to have been attached separately if they were made of leather, but would have been a natural by-product of linen weaving. Also, nearly all the images of the pteruges have a bordered edge, suggesting a hemmed or sewn edge, as can be easily seen in this detail from the Primaporta Augustus. This also would have been a natural by-product of trimming laminate linen to prevent it from fraying, but would have been unnecessary and have to be added separately if they were made of leather.

Look closely at the fringes at the end of the pteruges. For some reason, most modern recreations use gold fringe, as if their subarmalis were cut from a French Roccoco divan. I think this tendency comes from the fact that when we see fringe today it is always on a fancy carpet or piece of drapery. I think the Roman pteruges were made of linen, like their Greek counterparts. All ancient fabrics were hand woven, and this made it easy to make fringed edges because the excess warp on the trailing edge could be easily twisted or rolled to make fringe. Ironically, to make fringe this way today is hard because modern fabrics don't leave the excess warp on the fabric. If I were making my own pteruges, and someday I will, I would probably make the pteruges from several layers of linen, edged on the sides and then I would fray the ends and twist them into fringe by hand.

Considering that the originals from the early Greek period were made from laminate linen, I think it highly likely that that practice continued into the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Side Note: If made from laminate linen, that means that a wide variety of colors were possible.

Notice the number and density of the pteruges in these next few images. On this example I can count eight or 9 on just the front. On the Prima Porta Augustus for example, I count ten on just the front of one shoulder. Considering that these were doubled up, and figuring that there were an equal number back and front, that's easily 40 individual pteruges on one shoulder! The same is true of all the images. The most I've ever seen on a reconstruction is about a dozen. Not to pick on my centurion at Legio XXIV, but his example of a subarmalis, which is otherwise excellent, has far too few pteruges, (only 6! that's less than a fourth on most images!!) and ends up looking anemic by comparison. Notice also that the pteruges not only overlap the second row, but they overlap each other in the first row as well, making it even denser. In some examples it looks like there are more than two overlapping layers of pteruges, in some examples I count three or four! Nearly all of the reconstructions I've seen have far too few. On most reconstructions, the range is about 12-20 pteruges, when on the statuary the range is more commonly 20-60 individual pteruges. Also, the pteruges on reconstructions are usually broad leather straps, 1.5-2 inches in average width. Now that is about the size they are on the statuary, but the statuary is not on a human scale, it's actually about 120% larger than actual size, meaning that the pteruges actually should be narrower.

This is another example from Ostia where there are at least more than two layers of pteurges. In this example there are at least three and possibly four layers. The bronze example is from a hellenistic statue that demonstrates the detail and complexity of the pteruges.

---

During the Republican period the Roman fashion for pteruges followed the Hellenistic custom, with two layers of pteruges, a shorter one that covered the lower abdomen and loins, and a longer one underneath that covered the thighs to just above the knee. Later in the imperial period, when the straight-line cuirass was replaced or modified to have a lower anatomical waistline, the upper row of pteruges was replaced by a single or double row of so-called "tongue" pteruges, because they are shaped like a tongue. This form comes from Greek custom as can be seen in this example from a hellenistic funeral relief in the Athens Archaeological Museum.

The simpler pattern of regular narrow straight pteruges are occasionally found on a cuirass with an anatomical waistline. The "tongue" pteruges are almost always found on a cuirass with an anatomical waistline and never the straight waistline version. The "tongue" pteruges, while derived from the Greek, are often decorated unlike the Greek examples. The tongue pteruges are also flexible by their appearance, but are highly ornate with low relief in a wide variety of images. Since the material is flexible, but also has ornate relief, it is probable that the tongue pteruges are molded leather, but laminate materials, such as laminate linen with thin metal plates or appliquŽ remains a definite possibility.

While the purpose of the regular pteurges is more or less clear, the purpose of the tongue pteruges remains ambiguous. They appear to be largely decorative in purpose and are appropriately ornate. The decorative themes of the tongue pteruges are, by far, more broad and varied than any of the other decoration on the lorica musculata. These undoubtedly served as additional areas to add to the iconographic meaning of the lorica and probably express a great deal about the individual. Just looking now at the few examples of tongue pteruges I have pictures of, I can clearly make out the following images: cornucopia, birds - all types, especially eagles, roosters and doves; bears, badgers, wolves, griffins, the she-wolf with Romulus and Remus, Dioscuri, horse heads, bucrania, rosettes, garlands, patens, river gods, Thetis figures, Nereids, Tellus, Mater Matutae, Oceanus heads, and many, many others! For more information on the various themes represented in the lorica musculata and their possible meanings, please consult my Themes page.

Tongue pteruges can come in one row or two and can have many different shapes. There are two basic patterns. The first have curved or scalloped edges, with varied and elaborate decorative motifs, as can be seen in these two examples.

The second type has straight edged longer pteruges. It is also common to see these tongue pteruges without varied decoration and instead use the simple acanthus pattern.

One common feature of the tongue pteruges that many have is a row of ferules or beads, and sometimes lacing, along the top edge of the pteruges near the anatomical waistline, as can be seen in the example below. The purpose of these beads is unknown. Sometimes these features can be very elaborate.

They may be vestigial "hinges" or hardware that allows the tongue pteruges to be fastened either to the cuirass or the subarmalis by means of laces. Perhaps they secure the decorations on the tongue pteruges, which could have been made of thin bronze plates. The hinges may allow the decorations to move freely without catching. However it's not always clear that these "hinges" are attached to the decorations, and often the decorations appear flexible and made of the same material as the tongue pteruges themselves. You can see this on the eagle head to the right of center on the image above and left. This suggests that the images on the tongue pteruges are embossed onto the same leather of which the tongue pteruges are made. I think the tongue pteurges may have been separately made or molded and that this feature shows how they were laced together, either to each other or to the cuirass or subarmalis. If true, this could be a precursor to Byzantine lamellar armor, which would be exciting. Even then the feature does not appear on all examples and is often excluded.

---

One of the more difficult objects to describe is the subarmalis; that is because no definitive unambiguous image of the subarmalis survives in art, though there are a few contenders. The subarmalis, as its name suggests is the padded protective clothing worn under the lorica to prevent the lorica from chafing its wearer or to cushion the wearer from the blows of an attacker. While we can never be certain what the subarmalis looked like, there is one question that is important to the study of the lorica musculata: Were the pteruges and tongue pteruges that we can see on the examples of the lorica musculata attached to the lorica itself or to the subarmalis? Most re-enactors have attached their pteruges to the subarmalis, though it is by no means certain that this was the practice. The cuirass clearly rests over the pteruges, meaning that at the very least, the pteruges are attached to the inside of the cuirass. There are no obvious signs on these examples that demonstrate how the pteruges could be fastened to the lorica itself. There are no visible rivets, buckles or laces Đ with the possible exception of the "laces" found on some tongue pteruges. However there are very few visual clues that demonstrate how the lorica itself was contructed and fastened, so this may not be unsual.

In images of the lorica musculata, the pteruges are nearly always present, even when the cuirass is not on a person, as can be seen in these examples of trophies.

The image on the left is a scene of two erotes erecting a trophy on an altar to Mars, found in the Palazzo Massimo. The second image is a trophy from the Temple of Hadrian. In both cases, the cuirass is shown with tongue and regular pteruges intact. The same is true in many other examples. In fact, when you see the cuirass, you almost always see the pteruges. This would seem to indicate that the pteruges were in fact attached to the cuirass. It may also mean that the subarmalis and its pteruges were so integral to the iconographic image, that they could not be excluded even if they were separate pieces of equipment. It would be like seeing a kimono without the obi, or a cowboy with the hat, but without the boots. Both are required to complete the ensemble.

I do have one image that MAY be a subarmalis, but it is very difficult to tell. These are images from a statue of Antoninus Pius from the Palazzo Altemps. You can see the full image on my images page.

The image represents Antoninus Pius as a heroic nude with his armor empty beside him. Automatically the image is suspicious, because the helmet is a Corinthian helmet, which was never in use by the Romans but was a symbol for the heroic past of the Greeks. The "armor" however bears all of the characteristics of a typical lorica musculata, complete with pteruges. It may simply represent the lorica itself, which at this point was largely ceremonial, but it might also represent the subarmalis. If it does, it does not suggest how the pteruges are attachŽ and only suggests that they were in fact attached to the inside of the protective undergarment. The fringe in the third image above is always a stylistic give-away, as that type of twisted fringe only appears on Antonine period monuments. There are a couple of images on the column of Trajan which might be representations of the subarmalis as well, and I hope to have images for them up soon.

We know that the pteruges were integral to the cuirass in the Hellenistic period, but by the Roman period this is no longer certain. At this point, the evidence is about 50/50. Most re-enactors have chosen, pragmatically, to attach the pteruges to the subarmalis since it appears that the cuirass covers the pteruges, which seems prudent.

There is one more feature of the subarmalis and cuirass that I would like to discuss. The feature is unmentioned in any of the literature, but it is common and may be an important clue to subarmalis and cuiasss construction. On many, but by no means all, loricata, there is often a flap under the armhole. The flap is solid and folds over the side seam of the cuirass, suggesting that it is part of the undergarment or subarmalis. Here are a few examples. Look closely at the bottom of the armhole where the armpit is and you will see a triangular or semi-circle shaped piece of material that folds down over the bottom edge of the armhole and lies flat against the side seam of the cuirass.

In each case, the flap seems to be solid, meaning that it is not part of the cuirass, but instead part of some inner garment, since we can't see the side seam through it. The location is critical. As we saw in the example of the Primaporta Augustus, which is missing this feature, there are no obvious fasteners on most lorica, except for a small tie at the top of cuirass. This flap would cover up any similar fastener. I think it's purpose then becomes clear. It covers the fastener at the top of the cuirass and prevents the armor from chafing the wearer, or the wearer from catching himself on the fastening tie. This functional feature has no ornamental value, and indicates that these artists are looking at genuine examples of armor. It also suggests that the subarmalis and cuirass, fit rather snuggly together and probably to the wearer as well, since it's hard to believe that the flap would stay in place like this if the subarmalis and cuirass were not attached in some way. What it demonstrates most, however, is that there are a number of details to this form of armor, that are just invisible. The Romans undoubtedly had some system for fastening these suits of armor that kept the fasteners comfortable and out-of-sight inside, where they wouldn't interfere with the movement of the wearer or be snagged while in combat. In other words, there is an untold wealth of practical technology about these artifacts, built up over centuries of Roman military experience, that seems lost to us forever. (Sigh).

---

Unlike common soldiers, who are shown in either typical caligae or greaves, most officer's are shown wearing the equestrian boot, so called because it was the boot most commonly worn by the cavalry and equestrian classes. The boot is most often open-toed, but it can come in closed toe form. It covers the instep, heel and ankle completely and reaches up to the mid calf or slightly above. The boot itself is usually very elaborately decorated with molded relief. The tops of the boots are molded to look like the heads and skins of animals. At first, the boots were probably made from actual animal skins, foxes or badgers, and the heads and paws were just left as part of the decoration. In time, the shape was retained but made more elaborate and the molded features of the animals head were incorporated into the design, with lion's heads being the most common. All the emperors are seen wearing them, with the exception of Augustus, who went barefoot a lot in his statuary, (a symbol of divinity appropriated from greek sources) and Marcus Aurelius, who is seen wearing a boot that is far more common, like the senatorial or simple functional calvary boot. Trajan is shown wearing similar boots on the Column of Trajan, but in his life-size portraiture he is always seen wearing the more elaborate equestrian boots. Even in his large sculpture, Marcus Aurelius wears the more pedestrian boot. This is part of Marcus Aurelius' own unique iconography, part of his "everyman" mystique, I think. Here are several examples, including an example of Marcus Aurelius' undecorated boots.

---

By no means mandatory, but still common is the parazonium, or officer's sword. This is a carry-over from the Hellenistic tradition, where the sword represented the status of the individual. When seen, it is always sheathed, but not on a baldric or belt. Rather it is nestled, usually in the left arm and carried around, somewhat like a scepter, and that is essentially it's function, a marker of power. Here are some examples from Roman statuary, and also a bronze Greek example from the Agora in Athens, as well as an actual ivory hilt.

---

There are several other items often associated with the image of the loricata, that might be considered to be part of the officer's 'kit' for the re-enactor. There are captain's staffs, fasces and many other implements, some of which can be seen in my images section. The two most common are the military cloak and fibula. The cloak, when seen is almost always fringed. It is a large rectangular piece of cloth worn in two ways. One is the more practical fashion, fastened on the right shoulder, leaving the right arm free. Here are some examples.

The other manner is to throw a fold of the cloak over the left shoulder, and then hold the tail of the cloak in the left arm or wrap it around the mid-section in an elaborate fashion. This is almost certainly an affectation of a 'heroic' mode and probably not the way it was worn on a day to day basis.

If worn in the latter fashion, the cloak doesn't need a clasp, but if you wear it in the former fashion it needs a fibula. From the republican time to the Julio-Claudian period, there are a wide variety of fibulae in use, mostly disc fibula. By the time of Hadrian, a particular type of floral disc fiubla becomes more or less standard. The fibula has a raised center, and the disc is decorated with radiating petals.