muscle armor

Somdin · Post by **Somdin** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:08 pm

can anyone give me the pros and cons to a muscled breast and backplate and pssobly having to alter then to fit a smaller thinner body

Old Man · Post by **Old Man** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:16 pm

If you want armour to fit you need to go see the armourer.

Old Man · Post by **Old Man** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:18 pm

If you want armour to fit you need to go see the armourer.

Timothy Finkas · Post by **Timothy Finkas** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:34 am

Because the muscles are defined in proportion to the shape and size of the breastplate, I submit that a muscled breastplate is perhaps the poorest candidate to adjust to fit by the trimming of the edge. I'm not sure if this is what you have in mind but when you posted about being a skinny guy, that's the first concern that came to mind.

I agree with the previous poster, have one custom made. I suggest you contact Minamoto Armory for leather musculata and perhaps Darkheart Armoury for metal musculata.

Cheers,
Tim

Eyvandr · Post by **Eyvandr** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:20 pm

You could always talk to Sir Brand as well... His are outstanding if he is willing to do one.

Old Man · Post by **Old Man** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:30 pm

Here is one going on the Prefect, not done yet but well on its way. Fittings are the only way for a good fit. The front is staying on with no straps yet.

Ugo · Post by **Ugo** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:45 pm

BAM!:wink:

T. Finkas · Post by **T. Finkas** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:49 pm

Ugo in Longview Washington? What gives, Dude? You running from the law?

My dad's family is from Castle Rock, WA---one of the closest towns to Longview.

SirBrand · Post by **SirBrand** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:54 pm

Bam too

Muscled armour is the greatest

Just takes a long time to build, kind of an artsy thing. Oh yeah, the ladies absolutely love it too

Scorpus · Post by **Scorpus** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:17 am

Ba...um...well maybe no BAM, but how about a bonk...

Mine while not as good as the preceding examples was made when I was heavier than I am now. The benefit for a heavy guy was that it kept my gut from sloshing around when I would move...hehehe and it didn't look too bad either. I specifically made this because I had a big gut and wanted to look a little better on the field. I know you said your skinny, but if nothing else, you'll look good...

[img]http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/download.php?id=9256[/img]

pippin · Post by **pippin** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:14 pm

lol, abb's of steel

if you were that tuff you could just shape it of your chest

pip

Lawrence Parreira · Post by **Lawrence Parreira** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:44 am

I may be wrong but......I dont think that the muscles were as pronounced in the originals (ancient) muscled cuirass' as the modern repros are. The only way to obtain such definition in the stomach muscles are to lift weights. The ancient Greeks were more Athletic (as in track and field). They were in great shape but I doubt they looked like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Here is a pic of an original Greek cuirass. I got this from:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/gwar/hod_1992.180.3a.htm

please correct me if im wrong as I am planning on attempting one of these myself.

Fenrix · Post by **Fenrix** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:28 am

You know, I think I like that last piece the best. It looks more "normal" instead of freakishly oversized.

Baron Alejandro · Post by **Baron Alejandro** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:49 am

If you look at a lot of statues of the Doryphoros, you'll see a lot of the same musculatures as in that last piece.

jpuhl · Post by **jpuhl** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:31 am

Actually both cases would be justify by greek tradition. As stated Greeks took pride in track and field so a slimer tone musculaar would have been popular. If you look at the famous Agustus Prima Porta statue you will see muscle armor very similar to the one shown abouve. But since the other thing Greeks are known for is wrestling the ripped abs would not be out of line. If you want proof look at some of the statues of Herakles. There is a reason they pick Arnold to play him at times, he does appear ripped in many of the statues. Probly really came down to what the warrior wanted to portray either a slick athletic fighter, or a big strong juggernaut.

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:28 am

Actually the Greeks were aware of wieght training and there are surviving weights from the classical period in museums. There are also inscribed stones from lifting contests survive. Here is a brief summary from Wikpedia;

Hippocrates explained the principle behind weight training when he wrote "that which is used develops, and that which is not used wastes away." Progressive resistance training dates back at least to Ancient Greece, when legend has it that wrestler Milo of Croton trained by carrying a newborn calf on his back every day until it was fully grown. Another Greek, the physician Galen, described strength training exercises using the halteres (an early form of dumbbell) in the 2nd century.

The main difference is that they seem to have emphasized using a variety of exercise types to get into shape for fighting and sports instead of concentrating on wieghts to shape the body as todays body builders do.

As to the size of muscles in armout I have seen a number of originals in Greece, England, Germany, and New York. Many of the cuirass' have superb definition and proportion but I can't think of one where the muscles are cartoonishly large.

HammerHand · Post by **HammerHand** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:10 pm

This has been an interesting post- lots of info. But I've a few question on the cuirass itself. As the pictures display, there seems to be either a rolled edge or a turned piece kind of resembling the start of a hoop skirt. Which is more accurate? Or were both used at times? And at the bottom of the breastplate, does a musculatta always dip down at the belly? Was this just for looks or was it for protection of the upper part of the pelvis? Would the backplate mirror this also or sort of travel straight along the waistline?

Also, would the lower leather skirt straps actually be attatched to the breastplate or was a seperate belt worn underneath? Sorry for so many questions and I didn't mean to derail the original post. Thanks.

Andrew Young · Post by **Andrew Young** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:38 pm

Here is one that the late Mike Luznicky made...that I am repairing and reworking because the customer (fool) tried to deepen the muscles to appear more 'manly' and in dishing them, overcurled the arms and sides.....making the realignment one of the hardest things Ive ever done. It took three people to help pull out the shoulder arms which had rolled edges and an internal wife (oops, wire).... a mere quarter inch. Nothing worked, heat, annealing nothing...except brute strength. We finally had to cut the sides and shoulder arms down and make new hinges. Oh the neck realignment was nightmare too.

(btw thats not my anvil to the right---just one of many useful metal chunks, :lol:

Mike Garrett (Orc) · Post by **Mike Garrett (Orc)** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:51 am

Durasteel Corporation wrote:and an internal wife....

I'm just trying to picture that..... :lol:

(Sorry, couldn't resist). I would love to try musculata at some point. I like the look, but don't like (hate) everything that you see on ebay etc, masquerading as Musc. Besides, should be made to fit the individual, as someone said earlier. Sigh, another skill to try and learn :lol:

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:27 am

Ugo wrote:BAM!:wink:

Hey Ugo, that looks like my size :wink:

Matthew Amt · Post by **Matthew Amt** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:45 pm

HammerHand wrote:...As the pictures display, there seems to be either a rolled edge or a turned piece kind of resembling the start of a hoop skirt. Which is more accurate? Or were both used at times? And at the bottom of the breastplate, does a musculatta always dip down at the belly? Was this just for looks or was it for protection of the upper part of the pelvis? Would the backplate mirror this also or sort of travel straight along the waistline?

Also, would the lower leather skirt straps actually be attatched to the breastplate or was a seperate belt worn underneath?

Sounds like you want Travis Clark's page on Lorica Musculata:

http://astro.temple.edu/%7Etlclark/lorica/

If you can't find your answers regarding the Roman versions, they can't be found! There are also HUGE long discussions on the Roman Army Talk board, if you dig around:

http://www.romanarmy.nl/rat/

Bear in mind that the Greeks and Romans had different styles, some similar, some not. Many of the Roman versions actually seem to derive from the linothorax or linen cuirass, since the bottom edge is straight and the neckline is straight or square. Basically a bronze muscled version of a linen cuirass! (This was a startling realization!)

http://www.larp.com/hoplite/linothor.html

Others were much more like the Greek style, with the dip down in the middle to cover the belly (though the backplate would have a straight bottom edge). I keep forgetting many of the details, but I think the Roman versions typically had the shoulder flaps (again, adopted from the linothorax) while the Greek ones did not.

The pteruges or flaps around the waist and armholes are another huge debate in themselves. Leather or layered linen? Defensive or just for looks? Attached to the cuirass or a belt or a padded undergarment? Or all of the above?

In short, though, I'd mostly recommend NOT using reproductions as information if you want to know how they were really done--stick to looking at originals, or original sculpture and artwork. There are too many little subtleties that modern versions often miss. But you should be able to find enough variety in the originals to get what you like with mixing and matching.

Good luck!

Matthew

Andrew Young · Post by **Andrew Young** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:22 pm

Easiest thing to do is work out for a few years....dehydrate yourself for a week.....and electroplate your torso. Nobody will know the difference.

er...well, except of course that your armour might look like its really breathing....and might be slightly ticklish.

Lawrence Parreira · Post by **Lawrence Parreira** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:56 pm

some more I found from links on Matthew Amt's site. Pretty plain looking with no "Schwarzenegger" syndrome.

Syrfinn · Post by **Syrfinn** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:49 pm

I love the look of those, but well a muscled cuiress on me would look more like a keg.

But one of the gifts to myself, that I already got past my wife, is with my weight loss, that I am working on, is if I lose a bunch of weight, I can change my personna again and go with a myrmidon personna, and get one, and also a new helm.

And yeah, i just got a new helm, but I dont think she believes I would ever lose that much weight to get to it.

RenJunkie · Post by **RenJunkie** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:58 pm

Here's a question...How did one bend over considering the length of the front of the Roman musculata? Looks like it nearly got to the pelvis. Anyone know? I'm sure curious...

Thanks
Christopher

Matthew Amt · Post by **Matthew Amt** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:44 pm

The longest cuirasses may have been a bit restrictive, but I'm not sure. Most are quite small in appearance, since they only go down to the lower ribs, not to the hips. You can bend freely in them. They are also narrow across the front so that you can stick your arms straight forward easily.

My own bronze cuirass ends above my belt line, as you can see here:

http://www.larp.com/hoplite/Phil1.jpg

Granted, it's my first attempt at something like this, but it seems to work and have the right general proportions. Originals are always surprisingly small, and it's not because "people were smaller back then"!

Matthew

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:38 am

Ren, a couple of things; 1 the belly button on the cuirass seems to be a couple of inches above your real belly button on these,notice the foreshortening of the torso? 2 on the Met one the lower abs beneath the belly button jut forward more than is anotomically correct. I have seen that piece from the side and the armorer definitely left some room to help one bend over. 3. as others posted the bottom of the cuirass does not actually go down as low as it would seem since the belly button on the cuirass is above the real belly button.

Martin Hodges · Post by **Martin Hodges** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:45 am

Well, just to add a little more to the pot, here are pictures of two of the musculatas that I have done. I personally don't like the ones that are super swartzenegger-ish, so even when I hammer defined muscles, I try not to over do it--but that's just my personal preference.

In the bottom image, that musculata was just for funsies. I wouldn't even begin to claim it as historically acturate, but I like it anyway.

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:02 am

If your going for an early period look, most of these I feel are still way to "bulgy".
Look at the originals; they are "runners" bodies, not weight lifters bodies.
Here is one Mac did. Which in my opinion is the closest I've seen to an early period piece. Note: In this photo the lighting makes it look a bit more extreme than it is in person.

I wish I had a photo of the back; it is more impressive because of its subtlety.
There are some later period â€œRetroâ€

Halberds · Post by **Halberds** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:32 am

That sure is a nice looking one Mac did, thanks for the pic.

Hal

Old Man · Post by **Old Man** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:26 am

There are some statues that show more musle than others. So a little more definition is not wrong eather. Due to the lack of real examples, use the statues like this one.

Ideval · Post by **Ideval** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:30 am

You know, I think I actually prefer Ugo's version to the originals.

That said, it seems as though the originals all feature torsos that are very oblique heavy. This would make sense given the type of labor and/or exercise in the classical period.

Whereas, modern reproductions tend to have a tall, very narrowly-waisted torso, in keeping with the preferred "look" admired in our contemporary times.

IdÃ«val

RenJunkie · Post by **RenJunkie** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:17 am

I was sorta wondering about the ones like the Mac musculata. It looks like it is too long to stop just below the ribs. Is it just an optical illusion, or is it really long as it seems? Most of the pics of modern ones seem to stop lower too. Look at the elbows. My elbows land at my sides about where a normal BP stops, right below the ribcage. That and all the Roman ones I've seen appear to go lower in the front. Not all the way around, but just over the abdominal muscles. The Greek bronze ones I can definitely see them stopping at the normal BP area, but the Roman ones just seem longer in the front middle.

Thanks,
Christopher

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:41 pm

Ren, your point is well taken. All the ones I have seen were Greek. It maybe that the roman ones were diferent.

patric · Post by **patric** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:28 pm

this is the one that i want... sorry i couldnt find a picture of the real one.....

-patric

muscle armor

muscle armor

both are probly correct