Hunnic equipment

[Diocle]

This doesn't change the fact that:

- Nor the Roman, nor the Huns ever built any muscled armor using iron or steel.

- It was absolutely impossible modelling the anatomy of a muscled armor using iron.

- The artistic knowledge and culture needed to sculpt a human breast in a realistic and natural shape, was not part of the Hunnic cultural background, as clearly shown by the pics of the previous posts.

- So, the Huns didn't own the technology, the knowledge and the cultural interest in producing anything similar to a muscled armor. Their cultural landscape and their artistic language was not the the same language that allowed the Greek-Roman world to build this kind of armor:



- Writing that the Huns used muscled armors, made by them using iron or bronze, it's so tragically idiotic that it's meaningless even talking of it, and actually I'm still asking myself why I'm here repeating these banalities.
(I'm sure that today in Europe, even the modern heirs of the 23rd SS, would agree with me, in this case! )

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Diocle, I've already used archaeology and textual sources to prove both of my points that the Huns did use muscle cuirasses and iron ones at that. Saying that the Eurasian nomads were technologically and artistically/culturally inferior to the Greco-Romans is wrong. It is very clear that not only are muscle cuirasses shown in Hunnic art, but they were used as well across Eurasia. Prior to their introduction to Iranian art in the 3rd century they probably used a different kind of Iron Cuirass which can be exemplified via the find at Kampyr Tepe and the various textual and artistic sources.

[Diocle]

Diocle, I've already used archaeology and textual sources to prove both of my points that the Huns did use muscle cuirasses and iron ones at that. Saying that the Eurasian nomads were technologically and artistically/culturally inferior to the Greco-Romans is wrong. It is very clear that not only are muscle cuirasses shown in Hunnic art, but they were used as well across Eurasia. Prior to their introduction to Iranian art in the 3rd century they probably used a different kind of Iron Cuirass which can be exemplified via the find at Kampyr Tepe and the various textual and artistic sources.

- Your pics prove exactly the opposite: The Huns didn't use and produced iron muscled armors.

- In the Hunnic art there are not muscled armors.

- I repeat for the second time that the Hunnic culture was different and that this doesn't mean that the Hunnic culture was inferior to the Greek-Roman culture.

- The differences between the Hunnic culture and artistic traditions and those of the Greek-roman world are a simple and clear basis to exclude that the Huns ever built anything even close to the idea of a muscled armor.

- In the ancient world there was not the technology to produce iron muscled armors.

Saying that the Huns produced iron muscled armors it is not only against history, common sense and archaeology, it's also a dangerous but laughable form of falsification of history, I don't add anything else, I'm bored Mag, there is a limit to the human endurance and I'm not a patient person Mag, ... nor a Doc.

[War lord]

- Your pics prove exactly the opposite: The Huns didn't use and produced iron muscled armors.

- In the Hunnic art there are not muscled armors.

- I repeat for the second time that the Hunnic culture was different and that this doesn't mean that the Hunnic culture was inferior to the Greek-Roman culture.

- The differences between the Hunnic culture and artistic traditions and those of the Greek-roman world are a simple and clear basis to exclude that the Huns ever built anything even close to the idea of a muscled armor.

- In the ancient world there was not the technology to produce iron muscled armors.

Saying that the Huns produced iron muscled armors it is not only against history, common sense and archaeology, it's also a dangerous but laughable form of falsification of history, I don't add anything else, I'm bored Mag, there is a limit to the human endurance and I'm not a patient person Mag, ... nor a Doc.

You realise that that entire post boils down to, "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm right because I'm right, what you think is so wrong it's laughable, also I'm getting bored of this." don't you? I really don't understand why you bother involving yourself in historical debates on this forum, when any time you're met with sources and scans you resort to Argumentum ad lapidem and quite often Argumentum ad hominem.

If you can't debate a Science Scientifically, don't debate it at all.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Diocle if you're going to argue, please provide source material of some kind, be it statuary, textual, artistic, or most importantly archaeological.

[wulfgar610]

Diocle, I've already used archaeology and textual sources to prove both of my points that the Huns did use muscle cuirasses and iron ones at that. Saying that the Eurasian nomads were technologically and artistically/culturally inferior to the Greco-Romans is wrong. It is very clear that not only are muscle cuirasses shown in Hunnic art, but they were used as well across Eurasia. Prior to their introduction to Iranian art in the 3rd century they probably used a different kind of Iron Cuirass which can be exemplified via the find at Kampyr Tepe and the various textual and artistic sources.

Could you detail this "proof" because I couldn't see any? For example an illustration shows scale armor. The commentary then claims metal scale, but how do they know this? Scale armor could be made form rawhide scale or animal horn just as well. Keratin or "animal horn" for example is a rather tough material. Armor is not automatically metal!

[Diocle]

Wulfgar, the boy is just trolling.


@Warlord: when I'll read an intelligent post by you, I'll open a bottle of Möet & Chandon 2004, I have it here, it's ready! I swear, I uncork the bottle exactly in the moment I'll read the first intelligent post by you, it will be a great moment! Try to write something good please, I know, you can do it!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Could you detail this "proof" because I couldn't see any? For example an illustration shows scale armor. The commentary then claims metal scale, but how do they know this? Scale armor could be made form rawhide scale or animal horn just as well. Keratin or "animal horn" for example is a rather tough material. Armor is not automatically metal!

There are three reliefs that clearly show muscle Cuirasses, one of which is 5th century Kidarite (the Kidarites were a Hunnic Group).

Figures F and D here - could be Kushan, could be Kidarite. Interstingly enough G depicts a corset of quilted material, probably a quilted linen Thorocomachus-like object:



Figure D here is the Kidarite Hunnic one, 400 AD:

[War lord]

@Warlord: when I'll read an intelligent post by you, I'll open a bottle of Möet & Chandon 2004, I have it here, it's ready! I swear, I uncork the bottle exactly in the moment I'll read the first intelligent post by you, it will be a great moment! Try to write something good please, I know, you can do it!

Argumentum ad hominem

[wulfgar610]

There are three reliefs that clearly show muscle Cuirasses, one of which is 5th century Kidarite (the Kidarites were a Hunnic Group).

Figures F and D here - could be Kushan, could be Kidarite. Interstingly enough G depicts a corset of quilted material, probably a quilted linen Thorocomachus-like object:



Figure D here is the Kidarite Hunnic one, 400 AD:

Not unlikely since the particular area had remnant Greek traditions. But, how do you know it is iron? How would you know it is not some other metal or not the most likely candidate, rawhide? The interesting thing is the naysayers dismiss the multitude of later Roman illustrations of muscle cuirass as "artistic licience". But you seem to be happy with a single reference in this case? And there's nothing stopping a Steppe king importing an expensive armor that tickles his fancy.

[Diocle]

Argumentum ad hominem

Hominem? Hominem who? Please!

@Mag why are you still posting horrid meaningless sketches about I don't know what and drawn (in a really horrid way) by I don't now who?

May I suggest you that in no one of those (horrid) drawings is represented a muscled armor and in no one of them you can observe anything suggesting that the lamellar and scale armors (horribly) depicted are made of metal, or leather, or bronze or linen?

Mag, can you show us a single surviving exemplar (just one, I mean) of Roman, Greek or Hunnic (even Japanese would be OK) muscled armor made of iron or steel? Thanks!

Put the thing in this way Mag, please: if I tell you that your dreams about iron muscled armors in the ancient world are like the American tale of 'Bigfoot', that is, an American fun story for American children, can you give me one single exemplar of such armor to show me that the iron-muscled cuirass is not your personal 'Bigfoot'?

[wulfgar610]

Besides proving Bigfoot was real, Lee Majors found startling evidence that Vikings wore iron muscle breastplates!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I've cited the 4th centuy BC Greek Podromi Cuirass as an example of Iron Muscle armor before. Merobaudes, Sidonius Apollinaris, and Claudian, the first and the latter actually went on campaign and saw the equipment of for whom they were writing, describe the Thorakies as being iron, or shining, or metallic. Merobaudes specifies Iron several times, including in his description of Aetius' military merits.

On top of the fact that Varangian Bras, which can be seen on two of the depictions, are only depicted on metal cuirasses and otherwise metal armor in this era, and not on Kavadions (which were a heavy padded arming jacket, essentially a Thorocomachus) until the 8th century and later.

@Wulfgar

I'm not against the use of muscle cuirasses, I'm against the use of textile or leather-based armor as a primary form of defense (disregarding shields of course, which were the primary form of defense for several millenia).

[Gäiten]

It seems you have fun, do not you?

[Diocle]

Merobaudes, Sidonius Apollinaris, and Claudian

Merobaudes???? In which work?
Now Sidonius for you is a reliable source about weapons and armors?
Can you quote in a more civilized manner your sources, please?
For example: Claudian: in which work? at what line? which translation are you using? Thanks!

describe the Thorakies

Do you know the exact spelling of what you call 'Thorakies'? I ask because in my Greek Dictionary (it covers also the Byzantine era) it doesn't exist.
Is it a new name for Bigfoot?

as being iron, or shining, or metallic.

So? what do you think having proved? What is the proof that the metal used is iron, Mag?
Why do you consider them muscled armors and you exclude they were lamellar or scale corselets?
And more: Why are you avoiding to admit that you have no proof of any kind about your invented Hunnic iron muscled armors?

I ask again:
Do you want to show us one of these fabulous Hunnic (or Roman or Byzantine or Greek or Persian or whatever..) iron muscled armors, Mag?

No fear, the Oberst of the 23rd is not here, .... feel free to speak, there shouldn't be any danger.

It seems you have fun, do not you?

Yeah, the observation is good, in my opinion actually he has fun, meanwhile the others ...

[wulfgar610]

I've cited the 4th centuy BC Greek Podromi Cuirass as an example of Iron Muscle armor before. Merobaudes, Sidonius Apollinaris, and Claudian, the first and the latter actually went on campaign and saw the equipment of for whom they were writing, describe the Thorakies as being iron, or shining, or metallic. Merobaudes specifies Iron several times, including in his description of Aetius' military merits.



@Wulfgar

I'm not against the use of muscle cuirasses, I'm against the use of textile or leather-based armor as a primary form of defense (disregarding shields of course, which were the primary form of defense for several millenia).

We don't know if that cuirass is iron. The claim is purely that of a German tourist that posted a picture of the cuirass on his website with the description of it being iron. This picture is then widely copied along with the description. But I'd say this is simply a huge error. If the Podromi Cuirass was iron, it would be extremely unlikely to be in the state of preservation it is, which is typical of that of a bronze cuirass. I've told you this before, but you continue with a claim that is doubtful.

The fact is textile, rawhide or Keratin based based armor is on par with maile and metal scale. Often with a lighter weight and a significantly lower cost. The armor that would be superior would be plate. Bronze plate would be quite effective, but is exceedingly rare in the later periods. So I can only assume that bronze cuirass were excessively costly. Composite armor like the LS also gave superior protection, but for some reason the Romans abandoned its use during the 3rd century AD. As for a full iron plate cuirass, there is no evidence prior to the 14th century AD. I'm not saying it couldn't be made, but without efficient case hardening the result would be something far weaker for weight than any of the other armors. Whatever references I've seen claim that effective case hardening of iron that size only became possible with the oxygen control furnace of the late medieval period.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Merobaudes???? In which work?
Now Sidonius for you is a reliable source about weapons and armors?

I'll get the passages from Merobaudes for you. I only have him in Latin so give me a while, as I gotta find them and translate them (again... I had it in my book but lost it when I deleted a paragraph. Stupid, stupid, stupid...)

Sidonius was exposed to the military, although he wasn't a commander, in the same manner as Claudian and Merobaudes was (except Merobaudes was a proven Comes and Magister Militum). He travelled with Avitus and Majorian, and accurately describes many battles as well as accurately describes military equipment in use (he uses and distinguishes between the Thorax, Squamata, and Hamata in the original Latin.)

As for Claudian, his works are more complete and I only have them in Latin, which means it would take far longer to find (unless OMH has the relevant citation). I'll see if I can check it out from my college library, they likely have a translation.

We don't know if that cuirass is iron. The claim is purely that of a German tourist that posted a picture of the cuirass on his website with the description of it being iron. This picture is then widely copied along with the description. But I'd say this is simply a huge error. If the Podromi Cuirass was iron, it would be extremely unlikely to be in the state of preservation it is, which is typical of that of a bronze cuirass. I've told you this before, but you continue with a claim that is doubtful.

The fact is textile, rawhide or Keratin based based armor is on par with maile and metal scale. Often with a lighter weight and a significantly lower cost. The armor that would be superior would be plate. Bronze plate would be quite effective, but is exceedingly rare in the later periods. So I can only assume that bronze cuirass were excessively costly. Composite armor like the LS also gave superior protection, but for some reason the Romans abandoned its use during the 3rd century AD. As for a full iron plate cuirass, there is no evidence prior to the 14th century AD. I'm not saying it couldn't be made, but without efficient case hardening the result would be something far weaker for weight than any of the other armors. Whatever references I've seen claim that effective case hardening of iron that size only became possible with the oxygen control furnace of the late medieval period.

From "Warfare in Ancient Greece" by Tim Everson (Published March 31st, 2013):

"An example of a bronze plated iron cuirass of this type was found at Tomb II at Amathus in Cyprus, but may be of Roman date (Gjerstad et al. 1935, vol. II p. 14 no. 77)"

As well as:

"The only complete surviving muscle cuirass of this type from this period was found in 1978 at Prodromi, near Thesprotia in southern Epirus. The two iron helmets found in this tomb have already been mentioned, and the cuirass is also of iron, dating from about 330 BC. The contemporary iron cuirass from the tomb of Phillip II, which is discussed below, is made up of fairly manageable flat plates except at the shoulders, and it is this Prodromi cuirass which shows the real skill in iron working that the Greeks were now attaining. Iron is much harder to work than Bronze, but is a much stronger defence. The drawback is that it is much heavier, especially because it was hard to work into thin sheets. No width measurements are given for the Prodromi cuirass in its original publication (Choremis, 1980, pp. 10-12) but the cuirass of Phillip II is 5mm thick compared to the usual 1-2mm for bronze cuirasses."

For comparison, Iron segmentata plates range from 0.5-0.9mm in thickness (Bishop and Coulston). This was due to the development of mechanized hammers and/or rollers, which is the only solution to the uniform thickness in Roman sheet metal. (D. Sim and J. Kaminski)

I'll get a source to describe the thicknesses and weight of leather and textile armor for the same protective value as maile or scale armor. Give me a bit to respond. It's fairly late over here and I'm neck deep in research on Germanic/Hunnic/Roman military tactics.

EDIT: Here is the find of pieces of an Iron Cuirass 2-3mm thick from the 1st century AD at Kampyr-Tepe in Bactria. It appears to be somewhat similar in construction to the Vergina Tomb Cuirass, based on the location of the surviving fragments.

Interestingly enough, that article also mentions an Iron Cuirass dating to the Sauromatian period from the region South of the Urals. I'll have to look that up.

https://www.academia.edu/1264355/New...m_Kampyr-Tepe_

[wulfgar610]

From "Warfare in Ancient Greece" by Tim Everson (Published March 31st, 2013):

"An example of a bronze plated iron cuirass of this type was found at Tomb II at Amathus in Cyprus, but may be of Roman date (Gjerstad et al. 1935, vol. II p. 14 no. 77)"

Yes but is what is referred to here, continuous or composite?

"The only complete surviving muscle cuirass of this type from this period was found in 1978 at Prodromi, near Thesprotia in southern Epirus. The two iron helmets found in this tomb have already been mentioned, and the cuirass is also of iron, dating from about 330 BC. The contemporary iron cuirass from the tomb of Phillip II, which is discussed below, is made up of fairly manageable flat plates except at the shoulders, and it is this Prodromi cuirass which shows the real skill in iron working that the Greeks were now attaining. Iron is much harder to work than Bronze, but is a much stronger defence. The drawback is that it is much heavier, especially because it was hard to work into thin sheets. No width measurements are given for the Prodromi cuirass in its original publication (Choremis, 1980, pp. 10-12) but the cuirass of Phillip II is 5mm thick compared to the usual 1-2mm for bronze cuirasses."

source?

EDIT: Here is the find of pieces of an Iron Cuirass 2-3mm thick from the 1st century AD at Kampyr-Tepe in Bactria. It appears to be somewhat similar in construction to the Vergina Tomb Cuirass, based on the location of the surviving fragments.

Interestingly enough, that article also mentions an Iron Cuirass dating to the Sauromatian period from the region South of the Urals. I'll have to look that up.

We are not arguing about composite iron cuirass. Why do you keep referring to composite armor as proof for an armor that isn't composite?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Choremis 1980 is the source he sites, which is the original find study. Pg. 10-12 covers the iron cuirass.

The Amathus cuirass is a continuous cuirass like the Prodromi.

The Kampyr Tepe article indicates that the piece is an Iron Thorax that was repaired, not a composite cuirass.

[Diocle]

Do you understand that an armor made for the King Philip II of Macedonia cannot be taken as a proof of anything, it was part of the burial of a King, it was not a common piece of the equipment for rank and file soldiers and probably it was a ritual panoplia for the burial of an extremely important character.

This is the pic of the Prodromi armor you can see on this page Archaeological Museum of Igoumenitsa:



This is the other exemplar, but it's not a muscled cuirass it's one piece of iron of rectangular shape assembled into an armor looking like the typical Greek shape, this is the armor of Philip II and it is not a muscled cuirass:



From these two exemplars of Greek ceremonial armor you deduct that the Huns were clad in iron muscled cuirasses, without a single proof and a single exemplar surviving? You are building your Bigfoot Mag.

Nor the Greeks nor the Romans ever employed iron muscled cuirasses because the construction of this items was impossible even in limited numbers, the Huns probably didn't even know that they existed, but, but, but ....

but today the companies, producing armors for reenactors, have discovered the new business: Iron Muscled cuirasses!

They are expensive, shining and made of steel and this for costumers grown in the mythology of the steel as only form of armor possible, it's the perfect goods.
So, the show has begun, and now, while the leather armors are still considered IMPOSSIBLE items, the money machine has begun its work: Romans, Greeks and (why not?) even the Huns were all clad in iron-muscled cuirasses!

So, ladies and Gentlemen: Buy them at the incredibly modest price of $ ......, sending your order at the following link: .....,

it is one of the most serious places in which you can buy ancient armors and equipment, as you can read on the famous magazine ......, devoted to the ancient warfare,

you can sign up at the following link: ....., to get the best Magazine you can hope to find at the modest price of £ ..... for annual subscription.

there you'll find interesting articles by Mr. ....... and Prof. ....... (actually two unknown dickheads, that is, two absolute nullities) explaining you why the Romans and the Huns preferred the iron muscled cuirassess for fighting,

so, ladies and gents, join the wonderful world of the Ancient and Late Roman reenactment groups, signing up for free at the following link: ........ ,

it's the site of the 23rd SS Division where you'll find other people with whom you can share your passion for Roman History!

Then, after having payed the modest sum of ....... US Dollars, to some of the companies supporting the activity of the site,

you'll finally be able to show an astonishing piece of hand-made ancient equipment (= pure crap) to your friends!


You can understand that the job of the 23rd is not easy, you have to induce a mass of poor morons to buy fake exemplars of Roman Invented equipment at prohibitive price, so, the business must be supported at all costs!
But the good work always rewards the efforts, and today you can see on Face Book the new recruits of the reenactment world proudly displaying shining models of iron muscled Late Romans armors!

Don't you believe me? Look:





Nobody cares if all this crap is just anything else than crap, nobody cares if it's just a laughable and at the same time tragic case historical falsification, nobody cares if this reconstructions are nothing else than voluntary falsification of our history, nobody cares if the young people watching this crap will be pushed to take a historical falsification as a truth, nobody cares about history ...
Actually what's is important it is the business, because, as you know, business is business.