RomanArmyTalk

Scott wrote:

Quote:This could mean a number of things and doesn't contradict Cornelius Nepos, even if he does misunderstand a few things. Also, Diodorus's words do not rule out linen armor. Should we disregard all of Cornelius Nepos, or other writers, that allow a slight misunderstanding into their texts?

...As I said, no-one is ruling out "all of Cornelius Nepos". But he is clearly wrong/mistaken to say that Iphicrates replaced mail with linen armour, since mail didn't exist at the time. This is not a "slight misunderstanding", it is an error pure and simple.

Quote:Where we have a lot of information concerning troop movement and armor getting wet is from the campaign of Alexander. And we shall see in the end, in the muggiest of conditions where cloth armor would not be allowed to dry (i.e. in India), that Alexander receives a new supply of armor and orders that the old armor be burned (Curt. 9.3.22)....armour which he must have ordered the replacements for long before the Indian campaign On a side note, there are bits of evidence that point to Alexander, and most likely his troops, wearing linen armor: Alexander wears a linen corselet before the battle of Gaugamela (Plutarch 'Alex.' 32);..which we are specifically told is of Persian manufacture... Alexander can be seen wearing Type IV armor on the 'Alexander Mosaic'; Macedonian soldiers can be seen wearing Type IV armor on the 'Alexander Sarcophagus';..no-one is disputing that he wore a Tube-and-Yoke cuirass, but there is NO evidence whatever that suggests such armour was linen the iron Type IV cuirass from Vergina (I am taking this to be a non-functional celebratory piece, most likely worn while parading); there is no evidence that there was any such thing as "parade" armour, and as Giannis has pointed out, the wear patterns suggest otherwise on the vergina iron armour.... the example of the Roman emperor Caracalla wearing a linen corselet in emulation of Alexander (Cassius Dio 78.7.1-2). Like Nepos, Caracalla is likely mistaken - that a mad Emperor some hundreds of years after Alexander believed he wore 'linen' armour is hardly evidence of anything.... When these are pieced together it becomes very convincing in my opinion.Hardly! Indeed, the opposite. One is turning incorrect/flimsy pieces of evidence into a chain which does not in fact exist. Didn't you earlier say that you were not seeking to argue that mainland greeks wore linen armour?

Quote:Scott wrote:
Where we have a lot of information concerning troop movement and armor getting wet is from the campaign of Alexander. And we shall see in the end, in the muggiest of conditions where cloth armor would not be allowed to dry (i.e. in India), that Alexander receives a new supply of armor and orders that the old armor be burned (Curt. 9.3.22)....armour which he must have ordered the replacements for long before the Indian campaign

Right, and Alexander has been shown to have taken every precaution before advancing into foreign territories; this means advance acquisitions of food, water, and most probably armor replacements. He could have foreseen the dangers India's climate had to offer and ordered the armor with this in mind. It is not mentioned but certainly not beyond his scope.

Quote:On a side note, there are bits of evidence that point to Alexander, and most likely his troops, wearing linen armor: Alexander wears a linen corselet before the battle of Gaugamela (Plutarch 'Alex.' 32);..which we are specifically told is of Persian manufacture...

We are actually never told it is Persian manufacture, just that it was taken as booty at Issus. There is no evidence that this specific piece of armor was of Persian make.

Quote: Alexander can be seen wearing Type IV armor on the 'Alexander Mosaic'; Macedonian soldiers can be seen wearing Type IV armor on the 'Alexander Sarcophagus';..no-one is disputing that he wore a Tube-and-Yoke cuirass, but there is NO evidence whatever that suggests such armour was linen

Maybe not exact, glaring evidence; but there is enough supporting evidence which definitely supports this theory. Jarva believes Type IV could be little other than made of linen. I don't know why we are so against this? Why not? What is the objection? Alternatively, there is NO evidence that suggests such armor to be leather, or metal, or...etc.

Quote: the iron Type IV cuirass from Vergina (I am taking this to be a non-functional celebratory piece, most likely worn while parading); there is no evidence that there was any such thing as "parade" armour, and as Giannis has pointed out, the wear patterns suggest otherwise on the vergina iron armour....

As i noted in a previous post, I would be skeptical over anything on the cuirass being defined as 'wear' from a shield or anything else for that matter. The state the cuirass was found in hardly allows for such observations. We can come up with theories that might sound nice, but it is pure speculation.

Quote:the example of the Roman emperor Caracalla wearing a linen corselet in emulation of Alexander (Cassius Dio 78.7.1-2). Like Nepos, Caracalla is likely mistaken - that a mad Emperor some hundreds of years after Alexander believed he wore 'linen' armour is hardly evidence of anything....

You cannot pick and choose what texts offer mistaken information. This is what Caracalla believed the Macedonians wore, it is right in Cassius Dio (78.7.1-2). I find it odd that modern peoples believe they know more about a subject than ancient writers, who had more texts available to them etc. It is not a valid argument to simply say he was "likely mistaken" and that his assumption is "hardly evidence of anything." It is quite the opposite, this is great evidence that the Romans (or at least an emperor) believed the Macedonians wore linen armor.

Quote:When these are pieced together it becomes very convincing in my opinion.Hardly! Indeed, the opposite. One is turning incorrect/flimsy pieces of evidence into a chain which does not in fact exist. Didn't you earlier say that you were not seeking to argue that mainland greeks wore linen armour?

Yes, that is true. But I also don't consider Alexander or the Macedonians "mainland Greeks." :wink:

The iron cuirass may have been found in a relatively poor state,however,no matter how iron rusts,gold doesn't dissapear.The golden decoration in this cuirass is almost intact and nowhere does it show hints of modern restoration. The designs continue evenly all around in pure gold. Only small bits are a bit destroyed and the larger of these areas is the one on the left shoulder. Was that because of the shield? I'm not suggesting that it must be because of that,but still it's plausible to my eyes.
As for the armour being only ceremonial,i can say that this shield when seen up close is so stunning that one couldn't believe this piece would be carried in battle,with all the amount of ivory sculpture on it.
However,the cuirass itself seems completely usuable. It's not the first piece that has gold on it,whole helmets and greaves have been foun guilded,and a great ammount of swords with gold decoration. In addition,this armour has been reconstructed http://manningimperial.com/item.php?ite ... =2&c_id=35
The man who owns it says he can wear it all day without problem,and note that all ancient pieces are always lighter than modern reproductions.
http://ancienthoplitikon.com/thumbnaill ... b4ba21.jpg
Khaire
Giannis

Scott--
I may be late to this, but perhaps you have missed our conclusion (that is, the conclusion drawn by a number of us, and by no means universal) that linen armor may well have existed in Persia and/or Egypt, but that it is unlikely that the armor we see on Greeks is linen.
I'll be the first to state that you can make a case for linen armor, but I'll fill in Paul M-S's answer by saying that such a case involves stretching the evidence a long way to fit the facts as we know them. I think that most people still arguing for Greek linen armor in period are making a classic (as opposed to Classical) error of academic logic--attempting to prove something true, instead of attempting to look at the evidence for what it is.
It is more likely that the pale armors of Greek art are leather. This likelihood is supported by contemporary sources--which you can read in other posts on this forum. The paucity of linguistic support for linen armor--and the relative richness of linguistic support for leather armor--further sways the issue.
I don't think anyone doubts that you CAN make good linen armor. Glued, quilted, glued and quilted--all possible. I would suggest, however, that the cost of all linen armor would have been astronomical in 5th C. Athens--and that's an assertion, but one with support from contemporary sources, and one that can, I agree, be contested. Again, the likelier conclusion is that Athens--the center of the trade in hides--made leather armor--rather than importing expensive linen which required dozens of yards to make the layers to build the armor...
Have you looked at Pausanias? In Greek? He's very revealing--he mentions two linen armors in his tours of temples--and both mentions (from the 2nd C. AD) make it abundantly clear how remarkable he felt linen armor to be. One might even infer from his words that it is Asiatic. His mentions of flax fields for linen--and their rarity--is even more revealing.
I won't maintain that the case against linen is "proven." I'd be surprised if that case were ever "proven" either way. But I think that the burden of evidence--especially the crucial, in-period evidence--points to leather armors.
And if I'm kicking a dead horse, I apologize.

Quote:Fascinating stuff, but inundation and so on is not the same as wearing the armor in changing weather and temperature conditions. Static testing cannot provide much evidence--why not make a set and wear it camping for a week? And provide photos!

I make this caveat because I suspect that layers of linen placed under constant flexing pressure AND wet will have a different behavior.

Of course, it so seldom rains in Greece...

Which is largely irrelevant anyway. Sweat from the inside is a far greater problem than any amount of rain from the outside. Are there any ancient adhesives that are both resistant to sweat AND practical ? Some tree products might be water repellant but are too sticky or brittle to be practical. Animal derived adhesives do not handle prolonged exposure to perspiration well. There are also maintenance issues that haven't been addressed. Quilted defenses are far eaier to maintain and repair than glued.

Quote:The iron cuirass may have been found in a relatively poor state,however,no matter how iron rusts,gold doesn't dissapear.The golden decoration in this cuirass is almost intact and nowhere does it show hints of modern restoration. The designs continue evenly all around in pure gold. Only small bits are a bit destroyed and the larger of these areas is the one on the left shoulder. Was that because of the shield? I'm not suggesting that it must be because of that,but still it's plausible to my eyes.
As for the armour being only ceremonial,i can say that this shield when seen up close is so stunning that one couldn't believe this piece would be carried in battle,with all the amount of ivory sculpture on it.
However,the cuirass itself seems completely usuable. It's not the first piece that has gold on it,whole helmets and greaves have been foun guilded,and a great ammount of swords with gold decoration. In addition,this armour has been reconstructed http://manningimperial.com/item.php?ite ... =2&c_id=35
The man who owns it says he can wear it all day without problem,and note that all ancient pieces are always lighter than modern reproductions.
http://ancienthoplitikon.com/thumbnaill ... b4ba21.jpg
Khaire
Giannis

Why do we only have one? If this was more than simply an ornamental piece of equipment, and possibly a battle-worn type of armor common or fairly common to other soldiers/officers/etc., why is it that this is the only example that survives to this day? Many Macedonian tombs have been unearthed and none have anything remotely similar inside them. Compare this to the multitude of very fine bronze cuirasses that are extant.

And what does this mean? Surely Philip wasn't parading alone!
And anyway,why only one? Because Philip (some say that it was Alexander's) was the richest Greek of his day, the one and only king of all Greece. The guilded silver diadem inside the tomb is also unique.
Khaire
Giannis

Quote:Scott--

It is more likely that the pale armors of Greek art are leather. This likelihood is supported by contemporary sources--which you can read in other posts on this forum. The paucity of linguistic support for linen armor--and the relative richness of linguistic support for leather armor--further sways the issue.

Contemporary sources that don't use any evidence from the ancient sources to support their conclusion. I still don't understand how it is 'more likely' that the armor on vases is leather. How is it 'more likely'? What, besides the contemporary evidence, suggests this? Compared to references to linen armor in the ancient sources, leather armor almost doesn't exist (at least in the form of the Type IV).

Quote:I would suggest, however, that the cost of all linen armor would have been astronomical in 5th C. Athens--and that's an assertion, but one with support from contemporary sources, and one that can, I agree, be contested.

Jarva (in "Archaiologia on archaic Greek body armour")states that a linen cuirass (Type IV) made of nicer linen could cost about as much as a bronze cuirass (p.157), but that a cheaper linen cuirass could be made with inferior quality linen (p.153). His figures are based on careful price and labor reconstructions from various ancient sources.

Quote:And what does this mean? Surely Philip wasn't parading alone!
And anyway,why only one? Because Philip (some say that it was Alexander's) was the richest Greek of his day, the one and only king of all Greece. The guilded silver diadem inside the tomb is also unique.
Khaire
Giannis

No, not parading alone, but most likely the only one parading in such fine armor. Whoever owned the armor must have had quite an affinity for it (or it at least was highly significant or suggestive of something else) since it was buried along with them. If this was something other than ceremonial display armor we surely would have found other extant copies in other tombs or in a cache of temple offerings.

At first it was that "leatherophiles" were suggesting that since no direct evidence exists for linen,this armour and the properties that it shows could also have been leather. Especially since leather cuirasses existed in Thrace and Skythia. Then there was that big debate here in RAT where all known(to us) mentions of either linen and leather armour were extensively examined and there came that lexicon that defined "spolas" (a word used by Xenophon who says that a greek soldier wore it when he was killed by an arrow) as a "thorax of leather (?? ????????) attached (???????????) to the shoulders." And also says "...as Xenophon says 'and spolas instead of thorax'..."
So this reference was thought conclusive for all the "leatherophiles" and even some of the "linophiles",who then on are not even turning their head to any mention of linen thorakes. Not even the latest one,who clearly suggests that people in a city were provided arms,cloaths and linen armour.

Quote:No, not parading alone, but most likely the only one parading in such fine armor. Whoever owned the armor must have had quite an affinity for it (or it at least was highly significant or suggestive of something else) since it was buried along with them. If this was something other than ceremonial display armor we surely would have found other extant copies in other tombs or in a cache of temple offerings.

I don't see why this should have been so. Extraordinary men had extraordinary armour and they fought in it. And if it was great armour,they were burried with it. Other soldiers weren't burried with such armour firstly because they weren't burried with armour(except for the royal family in Macedonia,it seems), and secondly because they couldn't afford it. Iron plate armour was extraordinary even by the mere fact that they were iron. I know of only one more iron cuirass of that time,and that happened to be a muscled one. Should we asume it was also ceremonial just for this? It also had gold fittings.

@ To Paul M, who ironically implied in an older post that "stolas" could mean leather thorakes, well he wouldn't have said so if he knew that the form of the word isn't correct to be used in this context. Even if we asume that "spolas" has the same root as "stolas" then the plural of this would have been "stoladas". In the text the word is (plural) stolas which is the plural of (singular) "stola" or "stole" that can mean a range of things like "uniform" or "cloak" but NOT the same as (singular) "spolas"(=the leather thorax)

Khairete
Giannis

Quote:Why do we only have one? If this was more than simply an ornamental piece of equipment, and possibly a battle-worn type of armor common or fairly common to other soldiers/officers/etc., why is it that this is the only example that survives to this day? Many Macedonian tombs have been unearthed and none have anything remotely similar inside them. Compare this to the multitude of very fine bronze cuirasses that are extant.

I think I'll leave Paul to respond to your other points, since he's by now a veteran of this debate. To this I would just say three things. Firstly, other iron examples of cuirasses have been found. One from Prodromi, for instance, is very well preserved (now in the museum at Corfu), and the very fragmentary remnants of iron armour (likely a cuirass) were found in the tomb of Agios Athanasios. Secondly, as you well know iron does not survive very well through the ages. Thirdly, as we know from literary records, throughout much of the Hellenistic period, iron armour (both helmets and cuirasses) would have been extremely expensive, so that in the time of Alexander and the Diadochoi, we hear of only the richest individuals wearing iron armour. When you combine these three factors, it is no surprise why iron cuirasses are not a dime a dozen in Greek archaeology. And, in return, I would ask of you how many bronze cuirasses dating to the Hellenistic period have been found within the Greek speaking world (excluding Italy)?

And to provide something new, here is another literary reference which I don't think has been discussed before.

From A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page, ed. The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965):

Quote:Then eight thureoi, eight helmets, eight woven cuirasses [okto hyphantous thorekas], and so many blood-stained kopides, Hagnon son of Euanthes the violent fighter set up these arms from the Lucanians to Athena Koryphasia

This was an epigram recorded by Leonidas of Tarentum alongside another recording equipment captured from Lucanian cavalry which was dedicated as well. It is thought to have been authentic, and was likely written some time in the last years of the fourth century BC, but before 285 (when the Tarentines and the Lucanians were allied against Rome). The cuirasses would most likely be linen cuirasses, and it is interesting to note that they are woven. I don't think this is all that revolutionary, though, given that it is pretty well known that the Etruscans wore quilted cuirasses.

Contemporary means "from the time of the items in question" ie 6th, 5th, and 4th century BC. A contemporary source is one from the period under discussion. There are no contemporary mentions of linen armor, save the one line in Alcaeus, and he's Lesbian-Aeolian. Contemporary does NOT mean 3rd c. or 2nd c. or Roman or Medieval or an Osprey book. Okay?

I read Classical Greek. If you do not read Greek and you don't know the Greek sources, and if you think "contemporary" means "modern," I have to assume that you are not a trained historian. That's not a dis--please don't take it as such. I just want to know what to aim my arguments at!

The LSJ (That's Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon), is the world standard on the meaning of Classical Greek, lists both Spola and Stole--as interchangeable--but with the following meanings

????-? , h(, Aeol. ????? (q.v.): (??????):—
A. equipment, fitting out, “???????” A.Supp.764.
2. armament, Id.Pers.1018 (lyr.).
II. equipment in clothes, raiment, ib.192; ????? ??????? ?. S.Ph.224, cf. E.Heracl.130; “?????? ?????? ????????????” Hdt.1.80; “?. ??????” Ar.Ec.846; “???????” Hdt.4.78; “??????” E.Rh.313; “??????” X.Cyr.8.1.40; “?????????” Ar.Th.851, cf. 92; “??????” Pl.Lg.833b; “?????? ????? ?? ?? ????????” SIG1003.14 (Priene, ii B.C.): metaph. of birds, “?. ??????” Ach.Tat.1.15.
2. garment, robe, S.OC1357,1597, PCair.Zen.54.32 (pl.), 263.4,8 (iii B.C.), BGU1860.4 (i B.C.), etc.; ?. ?????, of the lion's skin which Heracles wore, E.HF465; ?? ?. ?????????? in full dress, M.Ant.1.7 (v.l. -??? ap.Suid.), cf. Ev.Marc.12.38.
3. act of dressing, ???? ??? ?. Orib.Syn.5.21.

and

?????? , ????, h(,
A. [select] leathern garment, jerkin, S.Fr.11, Ar.Av.933,935, 944, X.An.3.3.20, 4.1.18 (with v.l. ??????).
????? , h(, Aeol. for ?????, Sapph.55 (dub.).


I think you linen-o-philes should ask yourselves why in a country that grew virtually no flax, they would make armor from linen. I think you should ask yourselves what industry would make the armor--thousands of suits--without leaving a single trace of a trade in all of Greek literature. Shouldn't Aeschylus and Aristophanes at least mention the stuff? I think you should read Pausanias's descriptions, and all of the period references. Do a word count on the word "linothorax" on the Perseus Project. Find a mention of a man wearing a linen corselet in ANY period literature.

Against that, the evidence for leather is decent, even strong--and the evidence from reconstruction is, to me, conclusive, as it is simple, can be done with period techniques and tools, and plays to the strength of Athen's industry in period. And would have been cheap. And cheap must have been important, in period--important to a hoplite of 490, and still in 420, and doubly so to the tight-fisted managers of Alexander's treasury with 20K phalangites to armor...

As to the question of iron breastplates--Scott, I'm also going to assume you are not an archaeologist. Iron rusts away to nothing in about 200 years in most instances. In a 17th century grave, for instance, under ideal soil conditions, a gun barrel or a flintlock will leave a remain that can be identified as such. A 16th c. grave almost never leaves anything but a trace of oxidation. I suspect that unless conditions are truly ideal, the survivability of iron would be low. As an example, look in one of the standard sources--Battinger's 'Angriffeswaffen" from the Olympia series--and compare iron and bronze arrowheads. Any of the Scythian grave catalogs will give you the same result. Look at iron saurauters vs. bronze ones. It's not that they didn't exist--it's that bronze has a much higher survival rate.

I'm not arguing that there were thousands of iron thorakes--although I have heard it suggested and it is not impossible, by any means. One theory I rather liked was painted linen, or alum-tawed hide OVER iron. I can actually see that--not very different from the Wisby armor, really.

I think what really disturbs me about the linen armor of the linen-o-philes is that AT BEST linen, whether glued or sewn, would be a decent rival theory to the leather theory. The notion that so many people on this forum treat linen as a "fact" is too bad--bad history, and a tribute to the power of Connelly. AT BEST, we can say that we don't really know what those pale tube-and-yoke armors on vases are. Heck--they might have been bronze!

Quote:There are no contemporary mentions of linen armor, save the one line in Alcaeus, and he's Lesbian-Aeolian.

I don't believe that sexual orientation should count against him as a source- so intolerant! :roll:

I too looked up Liddell and Scott and found something quite interesting. They examined the quote in question:

Quote:??????-??? [?^?], ??, Dim. of ??????,
A. leather jerkin, Aen.Tact.29.4.

Thus the original quote posted:

Quote: "there were brought in linen corslets [thorakes lineoi], cloaks [stolidia], helmets [perikephalaia], shields [hopla], greaves [knemides], short swords [machairai], bows [toxa], and arrows [toxeumata] stowed away in chests like those of merchants, with the statement that clothing and other merchandise were in them."

According to LSJ does read as I proposed:

Quote:" there were brought in linen corslets [thorakes lineoi], Leather jerkins [stolidia], helmets [perikephalaia], shields [hopla], greaves [knemides], short swords [machairai], bows [toxa], and arrows [toxeumata] stowed away in chests like those of merchants, with the statement that clothing and other merchandise were in them."

So if we believe them, then much of this arguement evaporates since there were both linen and leather in use concurrently. Now we can start argueing about how either the leather or the linen was not a T-Y corselet, but some sort of vest.

Quote:

Quote:There are no contemporary mentions of linen armor, save the one line in Alcaeus, and he's Lesbian-Aeolian.

I don't believe that sexual orientation should count against him as a source- so intolerant! :roll:

I too looked up Liddell and Scott and found something quite interesting. They examined the quote in question:

Quote:??????-??? [?^?], ??, Dim. of ??????,
A. leather jerkin, Aen.Tact.29.4.

Thus the original quote posted:

Quote: "there were brought in linen corslets [thorakes lineoi], cloaks [stolidia], helmets [perikephalaia], shields [hopla], greaves [knemides], short swords [machairai], bows [toxa], and arrows [toxeumata] stowed away in chests like those of merchants, with the statement that clothing and other merchandise were in them."

According to LSJ does read as I proposed:

Quote:" there were brought in linen corslets [thorakes lineoi], Leather jerkins [stolidia], helmets [perikephalaia], shields [hopla], greaves [knemides], short swords [machairai], bows [toxa], and arrows [toxeumata] stowed away in chests like those of merchants, with the statement that clothing and other merchandise were in them."

So if we believe them, then much of this arguement evaporates since there were both linen and leather in use concurrently. Now we can start argueing about how either the leather or the linen was not a T-Y corselet, but some sort of vest.

Nice find! I didn't look at the entry in LSJ when I saw it for some odd reason. Anyway, this is what I've come to suspect thinking of this passage more and more since I found it. This is pretty clear evidence of a Classical Greek use of linen cuirasses (despite the fact that these could be Ionian Greeks), and so it seems clear that leather and linen cuirasses were in use at the same time, though it seems that at least in Xenophon's day, leather was the primary material in use.

I shall just confine myself to some odds and ends to respond to...

Scott wrote:
"We are actually never told it is Persian manufacture, just that it was taken as booty at Issus. There is no evidence that this specific piece of armor was of Persian make."
...true enough, though the inference is that it was. Of relevance to the subject of this thread is that it is described as 'quilted', and Tube-and-Yoke corselets which appear to be quilted are also shown being worn by Persians in the 'Alexander Mosaic'...


Scott wrote:
"Yes, that is true. But I also don't consider Alexander or the Macedonians "mainland Greeks."…… Many Macedonian tombs have been unearthed and none have anything remotely similar inside them."
....I shouldn't seek support from Macedonian tomb finds if I were you, Scott! :wink:
Many warrior tombs have been excavated (hundreds in fact) and many contain Tube-and-Yoke fittings. Unfortunately for your point of view, they also contain many leather fragments found in the torso area, but not a shred of linen! It is a pity that (so far) the full excavation reports have not become available...


Giannis wrote:
@ To Paul M, who ironically implied in an older post that "stolas" could mean leather thorakes, well he wouldn't have said so if he knew that the form of the word isn't correct to be used in this context.
...I was going to point to the LSJ entry, but Paul B. beat me to it ! D

Kineas/Chris wrote:
"There are no contemporary mentions of linen armor, save the one line in Alcaeus, and he's Lesbian-Aeolian."

At the risk of being pedantic, Alcaeus is not quite contemporary with the appearance of the Tube-and-Yoke in mainland Greece.
He wrote circa 620-600 B.C. in Lesbos and was a contemporay of Sappho, and his poetry only survives in fragments....all his known 'military' poetry, like that of Homer, seems to refer to the Trojan war ( another fragment refers to chariots, for example) and in any event he was writing at least 70 years or so before the first appearance of the Tube-and-Yoke corselet in greek art....and clearly it is impossible for him to be referring to something which didn't exist yet !!!
Ruben wrote:
"This is pretty clear evidence of a Classical Greek use of linen cuirasses (despite the fact that these could be Ionian Greeks), and so it seems clear that leather and linen cuirasses were in use at the same time, though it seems that at least in Xenophon's day, leather was the primary material in use."

Aaaah!...it warms the cockles of my heart to see someone else draw this conclusion apart from me !! D lol: