linothorax and other white cuirases

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Oh god. First the Podromi cuirass isn't iron, even though that's obviously what it is. Then if it is iron, it's just "ceremonial."

It's not iron? Everything I could find said that it was. Well, I stand corrected on that note.

[Alexand96]

MMFA, I believe both Dan and I are just being sarcastic....I'm fairly certain from everything I've read about the piece that it is indeed an iron muscle cuirass (gasp). You know what this means?

[Alexand96]

MMFA, I believe that Dan and I are both just being sarcastic. I do agree - everything I've read about the cuirass says its composed of iron....must have been aliens.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Oh. I have a hard enough time with sarcasm IRL, let alone on the internet lol. :lol:

[Xavi]

Hi Dan
Probably you know the reasons of your "quilting" conviction is the only true one. The point is that you say it, but I did not see any resoning suporting your words.

Aldrete work show experimentaly that glued ones were possible to be made, and more resistant than quilted. I did not see any experimental data on your side.

Cornelius Nepos seems to sugest that Iphirates introduced linen armour.

You say:
"Did the Greeks and Romans wear linen and leather armour? Yes.
Was it made in the shape of a muscled cuirass? No."

I´m sure you have some sort of information that supports this drastical answer...

Quilting was for sure used, but also glues could been use, depending on the requirements of the armour.
I must say that Mediterraneans, do we love glues, more than quilting, a primtive technique of barbarians...

Egiptian museums are full of art work made with gluies.
Romans have a great knowlege of them. Aqueducts and bridges were glued with a special hidrophobic mortar...so good that they are still working. We use them to prepare canvas for painting.

In the other hand I have not seen any Roman post Augustus linen "quilted" armour of any officers in sculptures o paintings. All of them show a sort of musculata armours.

I do expect some feedback, including pictures to support your point of view.

[JaM]

why not glued? its relatively simple - such armor would be quite easy to damage, and once its "broken" it cannot be repaired. any cut or slash might break it unrepairably, so you would end up having an armour that is ok until first clash, and has to be replaced by a completely new suit for a next one... instead, quilted layers can be repaired quite simply, no need to get a new one just because you got hit and its structure got damaged..

but i bet there are many other points against it, and Dan will probably mention them..

[Xavi]

Repairing something quilted is not so easy. You have to stitch off all the piece, discharge the broken layers. cut new ones and saw it again. Is as complicated (or more) than making a new one.
With glue you can work out a simple mixture of linen, fabric, and glue, put it in the scratches and polish. Certanly less work and less material used.

[JaM]

maybe if you used superglue, but definitely not with natural glues available at the time.. once broken, you need a new armor.. and i didnt even mentioned whole another story of cleaning, and weather effect and maintenance etc..

besides, having such a rigid glued plate is not that different from metalic plate.. and metal would provide much better protection and would be much easier to wear.. like those Italic musculated plates Samnites used

[Dan Howard]

I have said this many times in previous posts. It would be very helpful to read those first before we go over the same ground again and again. Layered textile armour has been used on the battlefield for around three thousand years all over the world from the Americas to Europe to Asia. We have dozens of extant examples and many descriptions in various texts telling us how they were made. Every single one is quilted. Nobody has been able to produce a shred of evidence even hinting that this armour was made using glue. If you want to invent a new way of making armour and claim that it may have been done historically then you have to build a case for it using evidednce. Empty speculation and wishful thinking is not the way to do it.

[Xavi]

Hi Jaroslav
Ancient glues were excellent. You will be surprised.. Rabbit glue Is extreemly strong. Other casein base ones are as strong.

[Dan Howard]

maybe if you used superglue, but definitely not with natural glues available at the time.. once broken, you need a new armor.. and i didnt even mentioned whole another story of cleaning, and weather effect and maintenance etc.

If you have used neither glued nor quilted armour over an extended period then you have no idea how it functions and how it needs to be maintained. So you start by reading texts written by people who have done this and make reconstructions based on these writings and try to confirm it. Sitting in a chair and making empty speculations helps nobody.

besides, having such a rigid glued plate is not that different from metalic plate.. and metal would provide much better protection and would be much easier to wear.. like those Italic musculated plates Samnites used

This makes no sense at all. Quilted textile armour is just as rigid as glued armour. Go and look at some examples of real armour. Here, yet again, is a list of some fairly complete examples just in Europe. On top of this there are hundreds of smaller fragments, some dating right back to the Bronze Age. All of them are quilted, not glued.

Two of them are in the Holstentor Museum in Lübeck
A partial example is in a museum in Stendal - the chest section is still intact.
One is in the Musée des beaux-arts in Chartres
One is in the parish church of Rothwell, near Leeds
The Victoria and Albert Museum has a layered cotton example from India (called a peti)
The Royal Armouries has another peti from the arsenal of Tipu Sultan.

If you can't get to any of these places then go and look at good quality kendo armour. The arm guards (kote) are made of nothing but quilted cloth and are as rigid as a board.

Textual evidence of layered textile armour.

Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483)
And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar, not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the armpit and full under the arm, sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the Jack, but not too high behind, to allow room for the sallet. This Jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece [porte piece] of the same strength as the Jack itself. Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausess. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting.

Dominic Mancini (1483): writing about the archers in Richard III's army
They do not wear any metal armour on their breast nor any other part of their body, except for the better sort who have breastplates and suits of armour. Indeed, the common soldiery have more comfortable doublets that reach down below the loins and are stuffed with tow or some other material. They say that the softer the garment the better do they withstand the blows of arrows and swords, and besides that in summer they are lighter and in the winter they are more serviceable than iron.

Howard Household Accounts (mid 1400s):
I took to the doublet maker, to make me a doublet of fence; for every four quarters: 18 folds thick of white fustian, and 4 folds of linen cloth, and a fold of black fustian to put without.

Companion of Hernan Cortez (16th C)
The armour which they use in war are certain loose garments like doublets made of quilted cotton, a finger and a half thick, and sometimes two fingers; they are very strong. Over them they wear a doublet and hose all one garment, which are corded behind. This garment is made of thick cloth and is covered with a layer of feathers of different colours, making a fine effect… for neither arrows nor darts pierce them, but are thrown back without making any wound, and even with swords it is difficult to penetrate through them.

Aguado, History of Venezuela (16th C)
Out of sacking or light linen cloths they make a kind of surcoat that they call 'escaupil'. These fall below the knee, and sometimes to the calf. They are all stuffed with cotton, to the thickness of three fingers. The layers of cotton are quilted between folds of linen and sewed with rough thread…

The Irish "Cattle Raid of Cooley" says that Cúchulainn was wearing armour made of 27 layers of linen (liente) and an apron made from the hide of yearling oxen.

[Xavi]

Please show me any sculptures or painting of a quilted roman officers imperial armour, that Could match Suetonius lorica and I will agree on your claims.

[Dan Howard]

Please show me any sculptures or painting of a quilted roman officers imperial armour, that Could match Suetonius lorica and I will agree on your claims.

You can't even tell whether something in a sculpture is made from metal, leather, or cloth. How are you supposed to tell whether something has been glued or quilted? Even on real examples you often can't see construction details. The examples above have an outer layer of leather or fine cloth that covers the quilting underneath. Stop looking at sculptures and go look at real armour.

[Xavi]

The references are actually out of dates that We are talking.

[Dan Howard]

The references are actually out of dates that We are talking.

There are no surviving linen armours dating to the time in question so you have to look at how other cultures made the same thing. Iconographical evidence is useless because it can be interpreted too many ways. At best all it can do is help us learn overall shape of the reconstruction. If you think that glue was used then you need evidence. You start by looking at physical examples from the right region and time period. Then you look at neighbouring regions from the right time period. Then you look elsewhere in the world. Then you look at other time periods. Then you look through texts for descriptions. You haven't done any of this. Aldrete tried but he found nothing.