Muscled Armour is common in film and television but was it ever used as a standard form of armour? I can see it being used as a ceremonial piece but I would imagine it is harder and more expensive to make without offering better protection so if any army did use it, why?
Geez, that armor looks like it would help a sword not slide off if you got stabbed which I would think would be a really bad thing.
Agreed.
I can imagine that someone, somewhere, at some point in time commissioned ceremonial armor that looked like that. But in real battle? Those massive pecs and abs would tend to direct blows directly into the heart and guts, instead of deflecting it aside. Which kinda defeats the whole point of armor. I have never heard of anyone who used armor like that.
Here is a pic of bronzed muscle armor from Ancient Greece, currently residing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. File:Ancient Greek Armor in Metropolitan Museum.jpg - Wikipedia
I don’t know whether it was ceremonial or not. I find the arguments in this thread compelling: although the Greek piece is more rounded to permit weapon deflection, the molding is nonetheless somewhat odd.
In retrospect I should point out that, yes Greeks and Romans did use the cuirass. And many of these were decorated to look muscled. But they tend to look more like this, lacking the large indents.
The style made a comeback in the 16th century under the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. See here. However it was used strictly for parades.
Just thinking out loud here.
I could see the sculpted piece in Measure for Measure’s link being more comfortable than a flatter one for someone whose body was similarly sculpted. I wonder if it could be more effective due to fitting the body closely with minimal air gaps.
I also wonder if there might be a psychological effect, making each soldier appear strong and solid to the enemy.
During the American civil war, the government would not provide armor, but some soldiers would buy it on their own. Usage declined due to its weight, but also because many of their comrades thought that armor was for wimps.
I wonder whether armor aesthetics were intended to compensate for the cowardice implicit in being an equipped soldier going against an unarmored enemy-- or fighting alongside an unarmored ally.
I also wonder whether some of the folds in the armor gave it greater strength.
This was my first thought - it makes you look like a badass, even if you’re past your physical peak.
Legionaries wore leather armour in peace time to accustome themselves to moving around in armour. I don’t know what that looked like. Of course, you’d expect it to be a bit more rudimentary and/or reminiscent of their battle armour than the one on the link.
There’s numerous Roman statues in the town’s Museum of Antiquities here that pretty clearly shows soldiers (especially emperors, IIRC, Trajan is one of them) wearing armour similar to that.