+- 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)
Leather cuirass - Paullus Scipio - 05-12-2007
For Ruben :- a fine example of 'sub-armalis 'with pteruges attached at skirt and arms is a drawing (by Peter Connoly, I think) of one such draped over a branch, from a statue in the museo del terme, Rome.It is shown as fig 158 on p.148 of Russell-Robinson's "Armour of Imperial Rome".
For Dan:- "thorakes" is used to mean 'body armour' from Homer down through Byzantine times. I don't know of any examples of the word used in any other context, but I am no Greek language scholar! A quick lexicon check shows no other meaning either.
regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Leather cuirass - Paullus Scipio - 05-12-2007
Well, here at last is the evidence summary I mentioned in an earlier post. It has taken a little while as it has involved scouring the literature, and artistic evidence.
I began, not by seeking to argue that linen thorakes did not exist in the period of the classical Hoplite and Macedonian era, merely that there is good evidence to suppose that the ‘tube-and-yoke’ body armour was more commonly, or more likely to be, made of leather or similar.
I agree with Duncan Head ( an old friend, though we have not been in touch for many years ) that we simply do not know for certain. As with virtually all things ancient, the evidence is fragmentary, scanty and occasionally contradictory.
Let us start by abandoning what we “thinkâ€
Re: Leather Cuirass - hoplite14gr - 05-12-2007
@Paul McDonnell
You are right "Thorax" is use for armor and even metaphorically in literature means protection.
You semm to have misse my post on the Kardouchian bow.
It was something like "bow heavy-weapon". "Regular issue" asiatic bow failed to make an impression on hoplites which means that their protection was good
Agree tha Pollux Onomasticon was a substantial breakthrough in this discussion.
Yet be reading the original Greek text even in linothorax the style of construction or painting could be different between Greek and Asiatic linothorax.
The Masistios example proves that Greek swere probably unfamiliar with thorax overgaments "epithorakia"
There is not evidence to show that Greeks used chain mail before the Hellenistic period and then it is doubtful.
They way Xenophon writes both spollades and thorakes were issued not only one or other.
@Ruben
The nails are on the paws hanging. Still looking for a good image.
@Dan
Seems that both types like pteryges part of undergarment or pteryges attached to the thorax were used. Personal tasta I guess.
The undergarment with the used of a thorax that has pteruges attached is interesting thought. I was about to argue but I wore one yesterday at the Elefsina event so I agree with your post.
Kind regards
Re: Leather Cuirass - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-12-2007
First about the "thorax" word.Thorax is part of the human body.It means chest.I suppose it was used to describe armour from the time of Homer,or better lets say from the time the metal cuirasses had the form of the human chest.See the bell cuirass for example.In my opinion there is no much difference between the bell cuirass and the later muscled ones,as both were trying to recreate the human body,only the first was more primitive.
Now,after about 500bc,the time that the new thorax came in use,we have so few depictions of metal cuirasses in art!And so few cuirasses found,in comparison with the helmets and even greaves.It is almost as if during most of the 5th century the metal cuirass faced destinction.But the word thorax is used frequently,to describe not the armour of the few very rich,or the generals,but of all soldiers.So I find it more likely that the word thorax was mainly used for the new type as well,even if it was leather or linen.So the arguement that the word "thorax" was used only for the metal ones and "spolas" only for the leather ones doesn't seem valid to me.
Also,the fact that the Asians used linen protection that was different to the greek,doesn't mean that the Greek thorakes were not linen.And if as you say,Paul,the greek thorax was imported or made to look like an egyptian or an asiatic one,why don't we ever see linothorakes in egyptian art?
Doesn't it seem more logical that if the Greeks were traditionally using linen armour(Homer,fragments from Thebes and Mycenae)that is stronger and has the characteristics we know(it is stiff but flexible and very likely to have been white),continued using it in classical times?
Honestly,when you read the word "spolas",with the fragmental description of it,that it hungs from the shoulders etc,does the linothorax as we now know it,come in your mind?And with this vast usage of that type of arnour,isn't it strange that there are so few references in the word "spolas"?It is more likely that when they said "thorax" they refered to the new type that almost completely replaced the older metal chest-like armour.
Your conclusion is that thorax is metal and spolas is the leather "linothorax",but for the reasons I said it may not be as you suggest.
Laudes for your post
Khaire
Giannis
Re: Leather cuirass - D B Campbell - 05-12-2007
Quote:Herodotus ... speaks of Assyrians wearing a ‘linen corselet’ and Caspians and Sarangians in ‘leather jackets’ (7.60-69).I like your "leather jackets", Paul. But Herodotus actually says "animal skins" (7.67: sisurnas). I'm still looking for this elusive evidence for leather armour!
Paullus Scipio\\n[quote]Pollux, in his ’Onomastikon’ at (4.70) quotes Sophocles as saying “ the Spolas is a ‘thorakes’(i.e. body armour) made of leather, which hangs from the shouldersâ€
Re: Leather cuirass - Magnus - 05-12-2007
Quote:Phew !! for those who have borne with me this far, I trust that I have demonstrated that not only was leather a possibility for the Hoplite corselet, but a probability.
Not really. Because your logic is biased...I don't get the feeling that you are being objective about your research. You're wanting to find evidence of leather cuirasses so bad, that it's skewing your perception of the evidence that is out there.
Re: Leather Cuirass - Sean Manning - 05-12-2007
Paul, some thoughts.
IMHO "thorax" just means body armour.
Alcaeus fr. 140 mentions what sound rather like hoplite arms, which did emerge early. "The high hall is agleam with bronze; the roof is all arrayed with shining helms, and white horse plumes to ornament men's heads nod from their crests. Bright greaves of bronze to keep strong arrows off cover the unseen pegs, and corselets of new linen, and a pile of convex shields. Chalcidician swords are there, and belts in plenty, tunics too. We can't forget this store now that we've taken on this task." (tr. M. L. West). The only thing missing is the spear, which was the standard Greek weapon in all periods after the Bronze Age.
Herodotus describes one type of armament for each people. By saying some people were armed like Greeks, he could both tell his audience that their gear looked familiar and imply that they used the different types of armour common in Greece while saving space. He remarks on Mesopotamian bronze helmets, for example, not because the Greeks didn't use bronze helmets but because they were shaped strangely. I know of no evidence for what type of Egyptian armour he believes the Persians adopted. Scale armour was common in Egypt too.
When did Pollux write, and when did the Sophocles he referred to live? There were many Sophocleses in addition to the tragic playwright.
The protective capabilities of linen depend on thickness. Thus a relatively thin armour of quilted linen (perhaps ten or fifteen layers) would have the protective capacities you attribute to the linothorax.
Re: Leather cuirass - MeinPanzer - 05-12-2007
Quote:For Ruben :- a fine example of 'sub-armalis 'with pteruges attached at skirt and arms is a drawing (by Peter Connoly, I think) of one such draped over a branch, from a statue in the museo del terme, Rome.It is shown as fig 158 on p.148 of Russell-Robinson's "Armour of Imperial Rome".
That's much later than Greek examples, and I'm not exactly sure we can identify it as a subarmalis, either. It definitely seems to have a shape to it, but I don't think we should get into yet another debate over what it is. At least in the Classical and Hellenistic periods I don't think there is any evidence of any kind of subarmalis with pteruges being worn.
Re: Leather Cuirass - MeinPanzer - 05-12-2007
Quote:@Ruben
The nails are on the paws hanging. Still looking for a good image.
Are we even looking at the same image? There are no claws and no paws depicted on that vase. The only article of clothing I can see is a plain tunic.
Also, I don't know why everyone is treating this Pollux passage as a new revelation... Duncan discusses it in a couple of posts in the "Linothorax Again" thread. Here's the citation:
Quote:Fn.45: Pollux Onomasticon vii, 70 quoting Sophocles (frag.10).
I'll see if I can get a hold of it to settle (at least) that part of the debate.
Leather cuirass - Paullus Scipio - 05-13-2007
Well, I am somewhat overwhelmed by all the responses !
As Jason Hoffman remarked, if you study something for 3 years ( or over 30 years in my case!), you get a 'feel' for it - and an appreciation of just how little we really 'know' and how much is pure speculation.We start by taking an interest in things military, and then broaden our interests in an effort to understand more.
Of course, we can't know one way or the other, as I started off by saying.(Until a corbridge chest/rosetta stone turns up, perhaps an undoubteded greek cuirass in a Scythian tomb in South Russia ? )
As an example, Sophocles (495-406 b.c. ), acknowleged as one of the three great greek tragedians, is known to have written 123 plays, of which we have a mere 7 ( most incomplete) and fragments of others, with the latest fragment being the one from the 'Epigoni'.
To Stefanos : I meant no disrespect, and was not 'ignoring' your post - I just didn't want to complicate matters with reference to 'longbow' type weapons. There are plenty of references to Greek armour being pierced by standard Asiatic/Greek weapons ( and special pleading such as 'it could have got round the armour' doesn't wash) -think how the remnants of the Spartans met their end at Thermopylae, for instance. Or again, Sphacteria.
To Giannis: Your point is noteworthy, and just goes to show how unreliable a single source can be - no depiction ( at least that I am aware of) in Egyptian art, or Persian art either, yet from other sources (greek pottery and literature) we know of Persians wearing tube-and-yoke cuirasses.And no depictions in Greek art of the tube-and -yoke before aprox 500b.c. (unless something that can be reliably dated turns up tomorrow) either. And yes, two types of body armour, two names, seems logical to me !Certainly my hypothesis could well be incorrect, but it is consistent with the evidence, and while anyone can point to flaws as I said earlier, the trick is to look at everything and come up with an overall view. Many thanks for your laudes.
To D.B. Campbell - I took the translation from the penguin classic, not having Loeb to hand,and 'animal skins' does seem better. I don't think the hypothesis hangs on one point, even without Pollux, the overall consistency is there, and I stuck largely to literature in this case - other arguments can be made.
And yes, all the research in "Warfare in the Classical World" was mine, and mine alone.
To Sean Manning: many tks for the full Alcaeus quote! , but it still sounds as if the poem is a "heroic" one - references in Greek literature and art to contemporary events don't commence until just after the Persian wars ,in Athens. I agree that H. was saving space by not explaining things his readers knew - which also implies his readers were not familiar with corselets of linen.
To Ruben: I agree with you that there is no evidence for 'subarmalis' type garments in Greek/Hellenistic times. The stiff/rigid types of armour didn't require it, and a mediterranean/middle eastern climate too hot to be conducive to thick padded garments! It is only necessary for flexible armour such as Celtic invented (in a cold climate ! )mail.My gut feeling is that 'sub-armalis' type garments came in with mail, and spread to other types of armour.
To Matt Lanteigne: I am not biased, but as you can see, there are many 'linophiles', so I merely put forward a case for leather. But if I am biased, what does your signature say about you ?LOL We must each put forward a best case for our causes, surely?
Narratio resumetur.......
regards to all, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Leather cuirass - Paullus Scipio - 05-13-2007
p.s. - the pollux reference isn't "new" at all, as Ruben pointed out. I first came across it in J.K. Anderson's "Military theory & practice in the age of Xenophon", in 1970 !
regards,
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Re: Leather cuirass - Dan Howard - 05-13-2007
Quote:There are plenty of references to Greek armour being pierced by standard Asiatic/Greek weapons ( and special pleading such as 'it could have got round the armour' doesn't wash) -think how the remnants of the Spartans met their end at Thermopylae, for instance. Or again, Sphacteria.I'm only aware of very few instances where the armour is specifically stated as being penetrated. Alexander's cuirass is the only one that immediately comes to mind and he was hit from close range [Plutarch's Life of Alexander, 63]. I would love some more references. Most arrow victims are injured where the armour is NOT - neck, face, armpit, groin, lower stomach, arms, legs, etc. There are plenty of ways for archers to decimate a host without scratching a decent piece of armour.
I have a problem with people claiming that some items were too hot for a Middle Eastern climate. There is plenty of evidence for thick textiles and felt being worn under armour by these cultures in the Middle Ages. This region wasn't any hotter during the Iron Age or Bronze Ages.
Leather cuirass - Paullus Scipio - 05-13-2007
Fair point, Dan, but in mediaeval times e.g. the crusades, armour was mail by and large , and part of the system was padding under the mail. Arguably it was essential, therefore necessary despite any heat discomfort.Not the case with more rigid armours - why would you wear hot padding if you didn't have to ?
As to your point about climate, it was different in Ancient time but I'm not sure off-hand if it was hotter or cooler -certainly North Africa had a more temperate climate in Roman times, apparently.Anyway, not too important, I guess.
As to armour penetration, yes, it is not easy to come up with examples ( though there are more of these than you might suppose) Epaminondas, Agesilaus (and others )succumbed to wounds in battle, to give but two notable examples. There is the incident in Xenophon referred to several times in this thread, the more general examples of Thermopylae, Sphacteria and Platea as well. I have a copy of a three hundred page thesis which deals with the subject of the effectiveness of Greek armour in the persian wars. It takes a multi- disciplinary approach, and concludes that the balance between offence and defence was narrow ( as is always the case throughout military history), and that the addition of scales etc shown in art was a reaction to Persian archery, optimised for range against nomad horse archers rather than armour penetration, but still effective.
I am a little leery of the argument that this is all explainable by non-armour- penetrative wounds - statistically unlikely, except in instances such as the one you refer to, where Alexander jumped down inside an Indian fortress and was shot at close range.
Certainly that would not explain the last stage of Thermopylae, with the survivors on the mound, presumably crouched behind their shields in a defensive 'kyklos' being shot to death.Furthermore, from military service I am familiar with wound trauma. As any modern archery huntsman will tell you, arrows kill by initial shock ,and blood loss( as do bullets).An arrow through the arm or other non-vital organ rarely kills unless it severs a major artery - and nature ensures these are not generally vulnerable.
On the whole, the picture we have is that Greek armour did a good job , commensurate with lightness, breathability and other factors, but was still vulnerable.
There is doubtless more, but we are getting off topic.
regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Re: Leather Cuirass - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-13-2007
I thought that Alexander was hit in the breast and the arrow went under his arm in through the opening of the cuirass.Was it actually penetrated?
Isn't it written that the new linothorax Iphicrates introduced was good because it "healed" itself when penetrated by arrows?So linen armour was supposed to be penetrated by arrow then?
Khairete
Giannis
Re: Leather cuirass - Sean Manning - 05-13-2007
Quote:To Sean Manning: many tks for the full Alcaeus quote! , but it still sounds as if the poem is a "heroic" one - references in Greek literature and art to contemporary events don't commence until just after the Persian wars ,in Athens. I agree that H. was saving space by not explaining things his readers knew - which also implies his readers were not familiar with corselets of linen.As far as I know, that's wrong, at least for Ionia. According to the commentary, lyric was the genre of the present, intended for a specific audience and usually dealing with the poet's present feelings and concerns or just trying to be amusing. Sappho wrote lyric, for example (and may have been a contemporary of Alcaeus).
This was a time of stasis and revolution on Lesbos, and we know of many changes of government. Alcaeus seems to have been banished for scheming with Lydia against one government. I see no reason to see the fragment as mythical.
Alcaeus was probably later than Tyrtaeus, the classic poet of hoplite battle.
Paul, Herodotus tells us that some Persian cavalry wore iron and bronze helmets. You don't think that suggests that his audience was unfamiliar with metal helmets, do you? When a style of armament looked different from hoplite gear, he described it. I think any form of soft armour not having the Greek cut would look unusual to his audience.