+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Leather Cuirass (/showthread.php?tid=7315)
Re: Leather Cuirass - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-15-2007
Stefane,the picture of the slinger you asked about,I took it from www.hoplites.co.uk , a site that it's now off.I don't remember what reference they had,I only remember it was interpreted as a slinger,due to the stone in his hand.Very interesting indeed,with the round pelta and the size of the stone.Unfortunately I can't help you more...
Can you post that lekethos from the National museum?
Sekunda even suggests that the spolas was woolen!But if you see,the man in the last link appears to be wearing this thick tunic *over* the other tunic?Isn't that suspicious?
Khaire
Giannis
Re: Leather Cuirass - D B Campbell - 05-15-2007
Quote:Sekunda even suggests that the spolas was woolen!And why not?
(Has anyone come up with that Pollux quote, yet?!
)
Re: Leather Cuirass - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-15-2007
Because of than one ancient note that it was leather.I don't know if it's indisputable though.Please some one who has this passage,post it again,in ancient if possible.
Also,In that frescoe of the Macedonians,people I believe that most of them are wearing sandals.Possibly some of them wear kind of "socks" under the sandals.There are some darker lines that are clearly srtipes and in the right position.In the site I took them from they also say they wear boots,but why should they be trusted?
Khairete
Giannis
Re: Leather Cuirass - MeinPanzer - 05-15-2007
Quote:Also,In that frescoe of the Macedonians,people I believe that most of them are wearing sandals.Possibly some of them wear kind of "socks" under the sandals.There are some darker lines that are clearly srtipes and in the right position.In the site I took them from they also say they wear boots,but why should they be trusted?
Khairete
Giannis
As I said in a post just above this, 7 of the 8 men wear "sandal boots" which are basically a sock reachig up to the mid-ankle with lacework running up to the ankle as well.
Re: Leather Cuirass - hoplite14gr - 05-15-2007
Sorry Gianni I have no image and curse me for not bothering to use the camera last February!
The only similar is the second image that user geala posted on page 10 but this comes from Berlin if memory serves me right and it probably an artistic error.
The first image again posted by geala is the best possible depiction if this was a spollas(??)
I can take the tought that if spollas was ypothorakion/subarmalis might be wollen but we are uncertain what truly a spollas was.
OK I am sorry but I fail to see heavy overgarment over chiton in the images that you post :oops:
Kind regards
Re: Leather Cuirass - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-15-2007
OK,never mind about the photo,I think I understood from your descriptions and geala's photos what it looked like.But let me explain better what I meant with the overgarment thick chiton.
![[Image: J382fromMunichperizoma.jpg]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o118/kadoglou_gr/J382fromMunichperizoma.jpg)
In the above picture you see the well known vase with the "perizoma"(who mentions the perizoma,by the way?).You see the pattern on it and also the light chiton beneath.Now look at this:
![[Image: GR8-1.jpg]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o118/kadoglou_gr/GR8-1.jpg)
Doesn't it look almost identical,just it covers the whole body?And if the perizoma is used to give some protection,and if the two things represent the same matterial,isn't it a logical speculation that this is a spolas?(given that the spolas was meant to offer some sort of protection).Unfortunately this image is not very clear and I understand why you have doubts about the chiton beneath it.I have doubts,too,then?!
And finally,one would ask,Is this supposed to be the same thing too?:
![[Image: Pelikewithwarriorsarmingfordepar-1.jpg]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o118/kadoglou_gr/Pelikewithwarriorsarmingfordepar-1.jpg)
Khaire
Giannis
Leather cuirass - Paullus Scipio - 05-15-2007
For Dan : No you couldn't !! --- but a pardonable exaggeration to make a point. My point here is that Greek armourers were technologically advanced ( for example their bronze is better in many ways than modern phosphor bronze ), and clearly knew their business. They developed equipment which could successfully resist hand-blows with kinetic energy of the order of, say, 30-40 joule, but it was sufficiently thin and light that it wouldn't resist much more. Fortunately for Greek history, when the Persians came along, their archery technology, optimised for use against horse nomads, their most common foe (arrowheads, shafts, ) also delivered kinetic energy of around 30-35 joules at target at around 50 metres.Thus Greek hoplite armour was adequate for the task, and once matters got hand-to-hand........
( By the way these figures are arrived at using a "ballistic pendulum" i.e. a yielding target, not a rigid one ).
As to what could happen if a foe with a more powerful bow was encountered, we have the anecdotes of Xenophon (Carduchian bows ) and Plutarch ( Indian arrow penetrating Alexander's armour ).
That the borderline was a bit "iffy" is implied by the rapid spread of scale re-inforcements shown in Art at the time of the Persian Wars.
You also took my previous post a little too seriously --- I was simply demonstrating that a leather 'segmentata' type armour did co-exist with Legionary armour. Did anyone ever wonder why learned historians and interpreters of the Column concluded that the armour depicted was leather ? My point here is that with the column alone as evidence, it was logical to reach that conclusion, given that armour of that type was so clearly depicted.
Re: Leather cuirass - Tarbicus - 05-15-2007
Quote:To Tarbicus : You are right that Everson is hardly a good source...Quel surpris... Ergo, Sekunda is useless....
Quote:...the idea here was to examine the original source material with a fresh, unbiased eye rather than seek to air old opinions.Which simply means, and sorry to spoil your party, "I want to ignore other scholars and their work."
Quote:What if , fellow RATters, I were to suggest not only that leather segmented armour existed, but that I had virtually absolute proof that it did ???? ( I can almost hear the murmurs of Heresy, Heresy !!)....No, it's not heresy, it's simply repeating what the Victorians said.
Quote:...Then let me tell you a story. In 1975, excited by the revelations in Robinson's "Armour of Imperial Rome", I travelled to Italy....Well done to the Sarmatians. Where is your evidence for Romans using leather segs as standard armour? It's a simple question, and non-hysterical. But you do say it wasn't Roman....
....And among the long sleeved scale coats and other armour, an incredible piece. Segmented armour that came down to the hips with no vertical shoulder pieces. Instead,
.....Segmented leather armour DID exist in 105 A.D., and is illustrated clearly on Trajan's Column !!! But it was Sarmatian rather than Roman....... still sure that leather segmentata didn't exist ?? The Romans copied many other things Sarmatian !!
I don't even understand what the flippin' thread's about anymore.
Leather cuirass - Paullus Scipio - 05-16-2007
To Tarbicus :
I confess to being at something of a loss as to how to answer your last post. Does your provocative, sneering and sarcastic post serve any other purpose than a personal attack on me ? I could reply in kind, but wiill refrain, in the hopes that moderation will prevail.
To answer your points;
1.Everson is not a good source because it relies on speculation that goes way beyond the evidence. I consider Sekunda interesting and have most of his books, although I don't always agree with his interpretations/conclusions.He is good with original material.
2.It doesn't mean that at all - those are your words. I meant what I actually said -- to have a 'fresh' re-appraisal of the original evidence, uncluttered by later interpretation. That is why I (and presumably) others have not quoted modern authors at length -- many of whom, like J.K. Anderson for example,allow for leather, and indeed think it more likely than linen.
3. Does this comment mean anything, other than being offensive? The original post was simply intended to be light hearted. To use your words,"don't get your knickers in a twist."
4. Read what I wrote again -- I did not say at all,nor seiously suggest, that legionary 'segs' were made of leather, merely that leather segmented armour did exist, and alongside legionary segmentata. That being so, and given that Sarmatian auxiliaries entered the Roman army, one can't entirely rule out the possibility that leather segmenred armour did too - there's plenty of evidence for auxiliaries of all sorts using'native' equipment, and for that native equipment to influence and eventually become Roman equipment.The other point, as I said, was to show how those 'Victorians' reached their 'leather'conclusion and to demonstrate once again the dangers of drawing conclusions from meagre evidence. For another example, see how the opinions on the use of 'manica' have changed in the light of new evidence.
"Enough with the negativity" --Donald Sutherland ,as a high hippy Tank Commander.
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Leather cuirass - Paullus Scipio - 05-16-2007
To Tarbicus ; P.S --A consensual answer of sorts to the original posted question appeared in this thread a few posts ago by Paul Allen
Re: Leather Cuirass - Tarbicus - 05-16-2007
Yes Paul, you may have guessed I hadn't seen your second post before I wrote mine. Believe me, there was nothing sarcastic about mine either, and I took what you said about segs on face value because that's how it seemed to me on the other side of the planet. Try using one of these :wink: as I'm afraid we can't see each other's faces. There was no personal attack (I have better things to do), I thought you were saying segs were used by the Romans (they apparently used what the Sarmatians came up with as you said) based on a single seg-like armour on TC, and it's that simple. Maybe I could have worded it better, but I didn't.
I won't talk about the subject without looking at secondary sources, so to keep the peace I'm out of this thread.
Re: Leather Cuirass - geala - 05-16-2007
Thank you, Giannis and Ruben, for the quick replies.
@ Giannis: I tried to answer your pm now (did not see it before, sry) but some strange things happened when I pressed the submit button. If you will not get it, please remark.
Re: Leather Cuirass - hoplite14gr - 05-16-2007
Giannis the "perizoma" is obvious.
The other two I´m sorry but I do not feel there is clear depictionof 2 clothing items.
I am still unclear what was the spollas though I lean towards the "ypothorakion" idea.
Hide armor was possible in Calssical time as here is a number of hide treating techniques that we cannot verify if the ancients used them.
Hide shields an even armor are asociated in more quantity with the Bronze Age with drastic reduction in Classical Age.
The reason was that the economic structure had changed and textile armor was cheaper. (Thats a big thread on its own)
Kind regards
Re: Leather Cuirass - Magnus - 05-17-2007
Quote:That's a lot of valuable information in this thread. I am reconsidering leather armour after reading it.
This is the kind of reaction I was hoping as a moderator to avoid on RAT. Now, with absolutely jack squat in the way of evidence, we have people doing greek armour a la hollywood style.
Way to go guys promoting something you have no evidence for, just whimsical theories based on speculation.
So much for RAT being a scholarly forum. :evil:
Re: Leather Cuirass - Magnus - 05-17-2007
Quote:Magnus:2bg21e6l Wrote:I disagree...at least for leather's defensive capabilities. If used as a solid piece it sucks.Unless it was layered over something else such as a mail hauberk, as was done in the Middle Ages.
Definately dan...but that's a later era. I totally agree with that...but it just wasn't around in classical times.