Firstly, Giannis, you are quite right that it is difficult to carry on a debate when several people take up opposing views at once!
I have not chosen to ignore counter-arguments, but rather argue the case for Greek Hoplite textile armour to have been made of leather. Others may put the case for linen armour if they can. So far as I am aware there is no evidence for the use of linen in the Hoplite cuirass other than the name “Linothoraxâ€
Paullus Scipio\\n[quote]So far as I am aware there is no evidence for the use of linen in the Hoplite cuirass other than the name “Linothoraxâ€
Hi Dan !
Nice to talk to a fellow "antipodean" ! I have much respect for your views, observed over the years as a passive observer of the RAT site.
For the sake of debate, I shall try to continue to support my "heresy" !
The flaw in your first point is that the thebes find ( and other mycenaean era finds e.g. fragments of linen greaves) and references in Homer are way too early to be relevant to Hoplite 500B.C - 400B.C.
As to your second point, notice that I deliberately used the term "textile armour" - whether it was linen,leather (or some other textile? we just don't know! ) - it would still deteriorate, being organic, and thus be unlikely to pass from generation to generation.So the point not relevant to the debate.
Now as to your third point, what is the iconographical evidence you refer to ?What documentary evidence are you referring to? ( and I trust you are referring to contemporary evidence - I guess Pausanias references, although not contemporary , are sufficient in themseves to prove that some sort of linen cuirass existed, if only for hunting in his day - see other threads) but remember I am not trying to argue that linen cuirasses did not exist.I would like to see more about this alleged"Thebes find" before accepting it is a 500b.c-400b.c. fragment of a linothorax. Even so, it would only show that linen thorakes existed( which we already know), and not refute my hypothesis that the majority are likely to have been leather ( at least in the Spartan world ! ).
Subject to whatever you (and others)may have to say in response, I would say that the iconographical evidence is inconclusive, the physical contemporary evidence non-existent for either, and the documentary evidence in my favour ( to save repeats, see Duncan Head and others,pp8-10, the "Linothorax again" thread)
Over to you !!
regards, Paullus Scipio/paul McDonnell-Staff
Quote:As to your second point, notice that I deliberately used the term "textile armour" - whether it was linen,leather (or some other textile? we just don't know! ) - it would still deteriorate, being organic, and thus be unlikely to pass from generation to generation.So the point not relevant to the debate.
How come we can buy original Napoleonic and World War One leather and textile items? Dan's point is surely relevant.
Just proves my point ! Of the millions and millions of Napoleonic or ww1 textile items manufactured, just a handful still exist to be bought for outrageous prices today, in the first case just 200 years later, and in the latter case, less than 100 years. Ergo, a tiny fraction of textile items survive to be passed on - thank you for adding to my point, wish I'd thought of it !
regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
linothorax literally means "linen armour". There is no way that you can make the case for the word meaning "Egyptian style linen armour" since the same term has been used to describe Greek linen armour for at least a thousand years.
The Thebes find does not date to the Classical period. It dates to the end of the Bronze Age. It was used to prove that the term linothorax was intended to describe armour made from layered textiles. Homer uses different terms to describe hide armour.
If we limit ourselves to the classical period then there is nothing to suggest that the Greeks wore leather/hide armour. Leather was worn earlier. Homer mentions it. Leather was worn elsewhere. So what? Just because the Chinese ate rice doesn't mean that the Greeks did too. FWIW there is plenty of evidence for flax being grown in Greece since the Mykenaian period. According to Chadwick the Linear B evidence even lists the regions where it was grown. Most of female society was centred around the weaving industry.
It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. It is up to those who argue the positive case to provide the evidence. All that is required of the negative case is to look for holes in the argument for the affirmative.
Leather provides worse protection than layered textiles.
Leather is not cheaper than layered textiles though rawhide may have been.
Leather armour is not mentioned in any classical Greek text.
Leather armour cannot be demonstrated in any iconographical evidence.
Quote:just a handful still exist to be bought for outrageous prices today, in the first case just 200 years later, and in the latter case, less than 100 years. Ergo, a tiny fraction of textile items survive to be passed on - thank you for adding to my point, wish I'd thought of it !
You can pick up the WW1 stuff for next to nothing, especially leather. Victorian dress uniform coats can be had for $170. There's heaps of the stuff to be bought.
Napoleonic is far rarer. You're ignoring the likelihood that they were not cared for simply because King's/Queen's regulation dress changed and simple fashion changed, so were therefore thrown out or recycled. It's the exact opposite of a linothorax which would be retained for further use. Sorry for detracting from your point :wink:
This should help dismantle the argument that flax wasn't grown in any quantity in Greece. The argument about "local leather" vs "imported linen" is ballocks. Flax was produced locally. From Chadwick, The Mycenaen World. p153.
"I discovered that in modern times too large quantities of flax have been grown in the south-west Pelopponese. Indeed the area in Greece which produced most flax for fibre was almost exactly the kingdom controlled by the palace at Englianos [the palace to which the Linear B flax evidence was linked]. This cannot be an accident, but must be due to especially favourable conditions for the cultivation or preparation of flax. In fact, the west coast has the highest rainfall in Greece, and consequently has much more plentiful perennial water supplies... It would not be surprising if flax-growing had been practised here from Mycenaean down to modern times... The mention by Thucydides [4.26.8] of linseed in connexion with the rations smuggled in to the Spartans on Sphakteria island shows that flax was then grown in the neighbourhood; and medieval records too list flax among the products of the area."
Sorry, guys, still not convinced !
Dan:-
1.See previous threads. Would you argue that "cuirass" - derived from french "cuir" means all chest protectors were made of leather when clearly the majority were metal ? "What's in a name? " (Shakespeare)
ditto the term "linothorax" ! In a thousand years, the term almost certainly changed meaning. Moreover there is little/no evidence for it's use 500b.c -400b.c. - see Duncan Head et al pp8-10 'Linothorax again cited earlier.
2. Quite right ! So you concede there is no 'contemporary evidence, then ?
3.So it may be that some flax was grown in classical Greece then? Even so, like grain, not enough to meet the needs of the many Poleis. The bulk was likely imported , therefore expensive. Dilutes my hypothesis, maybe, but doesn't negate it. Why is everyone carefully avoiding the Thucydides/ Xenophon/ Spartan/ contemporary connection ?
4. Fair point, once raw linen was imported, the weaving 'en masse' part was within the means of almost all households.So was Leather making !
"Leather provides worse protection than layered textiles - to use your term "bollocks" but I would prefer not to use inflammatory language. Do you have information on the energy/force of contemporary spears/arrows - I do! Leather provides adequate protection for the purpose under discussion and in any event the Thorakes was not intended to be weapon proof and wasn't (I can expand on this if we wish to digress).
Leather is not cheaper than layered textiles though rawhide may have been - what is your evidence for this? We cannot even determine the overall costs of "Hoplar"/arms armour.
Leather armour is not mentioned in any classical Greek text - Yes it is! Xenophon and others refer to the Spolas and all agree that this refers to a leather garment/armour worn over the torso, in particular by Spartans/Lakedaemonians.
Leather armour cannot be demonstrated in any iconographical evidence - disagree the iconographical evidence cannot be identified with any certainty, in fact if we were to go by this alone we could not even say it was textile and the only archaeological recovery of this type is from Phillip of Macadonia's tomb and this is iron!
To Tarbicus ; You haven't detracted from my point - the proportion is still the same - compared to the millions of items manufactured, very little survives. If you are saying, as you appear to do, that you cannot compare modern to ancient because circumstances were different then Q.E.D. - I refer you to my earlier points !
Lastly,Dan, your source would appear to indicate that flax, with it's large water requirement could only be grown in a small part of Greece, as I suggested, and surely not enough to supply all the greek poleis with enough linen to armour the entire citzenry of each? Despite easy access to Western Greece, the typical armour of Lakedaemon was apparently the leather 'Spolas'? Q.E.D ???
Good night all ! Time for bed !
regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Hi all, guys can i just suggest everybody take a deep breath, we are not all about to loose our fortunes here.
The argument between linen and leather has been ongoing for almost a century now and i dont think anybody is significantly going to change their opinions on the strength of this forum.
Arguing over whether something has been used as armour is a bit of a moot point as nearly everything has been used as armour at some point in history, from woven grass to fish skins.
arguing whether one is better armour than another is also moot as what you will use is governed by so many other things as well, cost, avaliability, terrain and weather to name just a few
Would an entire hoplite army have worn linothorax, absolutley not, just like the bell cuirass that preceded it it would have been an expensive peice of kit and only the higher classes would have been able to afford it.
I have been researching this subject for almost four years now and i cannot catagoriclly rule out a linothorax style armour being made out of leather or more likely rawhide, but as stated above proving a negative is impossible, 'prove that you dont have weapons of mass destruction'
All we can do as researchers seperated from the subject by 2500 years is look at the evidence and take a best guess, IMHO i believe the majority of linothorax were made from sheets of linen sewn together to make something similar to a medieval jack. but i would love to throw out all my research and be proven wrong by the discovery of one of them.
ps. I dont think the spolas was a designed peice of armour.
Jason
Quote:To Tarbicus ; You haven't detracted from my point - the proportion is still the same - compared to the millions of items manufactured, very little survives.
No, they are not my points at all. The items I point to in Napoleonic, Victorian, and the relatively short period of WW1 and up to WW2, would be scrapped deliberately, simply because of better or more fashionable designs being introduced. In the case of the first two, no self respecting officer of the British Army would be seen dead in a dress coat that was out of fashion.
It would be thrown out with the rubbish, or the parts recycled. That's why most have disappeared, is what I'm suggesting.
Quote:compared to the millions of items manufactured, very little survives
Try buying a fridge manufactured in the 1970's, even when millions were made.
Quote:If you are saying, as you appear to do, that you cannot compare modern to ancient because circumstances were different then Q.E.D. - I refer you to my earlier points !
Let's cut to the chase: You have no evidence to back up your theory whatsoever.
Quote:...the Spolas and all agree that this refers to a leather garment/armour worn over the torso, in particular by Spartans/Lakedaemonians.
Where is the source and argument for this undeniable truth and who are "all"? No offence, but I ain't just taking your word for it.
Spollas is a hottly debated subject since it appears sonly a couple of times in Xenophons works.
Some people think it was just a soft leather subarmalis-ypothorakio under metal armor.
Some belive it was light armor used by the Ekdromoi hoplites.
Interpretations 2:
From the Pylos battle freskoes and Exekias pottery paintings.
Nothing conclusive just bits and pieces.
Pesonally I lean towards the subarmalis-ypothorakio explanation.
As for the protection qualities of cloth armor please see the "linothorax" threads.
Homer speaks of LINOTHORIKTOS-literally "linenarmored" so with the aid of pictorial evidence and excavated material linothorax was certain.
Hide armor seems to have only circumstantial evidence so far.
Kind regards
Quote:Let's cut to the chase: You have no evidence to back up your theory whatsoever.
Amen brother. Since when do fragmentary theories at best constitute evidence?
Apparently some members of RAT can't read properly, or else don't understand what they read! :roll:
I have referred to the evidence both here, and to the references in the other threads (e.g. by Duncan Head). To suggest otherwise is simply to refuse to be open-minded. I repeat, can any one come up with some direct evidence for linen hoplite tube-and-yoke cuirasses ( linothorax is clearly inappropriate, since the term was long obsolete when this type of cuirass appears? )
Hi, Jason ! I agree with your post entirely (almost)! and I guess on the evidence you will have to abandon the use of the inappropriate archaic term 'linothorax' in your thesis/book !
When I opined my "heresy" ( not really heresy at all, if you are prepared to look at the evidence), I hoped that there might be something new out there, but apparently not. Certainly no"Rosetta Stone" !
I am in the process of summarising the current state of knowledge on this subject and will (hopefully) post it in due course.
regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
By the way I am curious as to why Dan Howard is so adamant that leather cuirasses couldn't have existed? As someone remarked, he is as constant as the tide.....
Do you have some evidence the rest of us don't or is itmerely your opinion?
regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff :lol: