Linothorax design/construction

[PMBardunias]

I'm sure I'm not adding anything new here- I doubt anyone could at this point- but I think we are incorrectly linking every mention of linen and thorax and assuming a "Lino-thorax".

If we assume for a moment that Throakes commonly meant a bronze corselet, then to my mind a Lino-thorax is not a corselet made of linen instead of bronze. It is a bronze corselet held together by linen. If we accept an evolution in the full corselet to one where bronze was conserved to cover only the most vulnerable places, then the question arises of how to hold these together? In Italy, the answer was to link the various metal pieces together with metal as though chaining them together. In the linothorax, like the Lucanian or Samnite models, there would be metal breast and perhaps back plates, plural plates on the sides and plates over the shoulders, but all held together within a linen shell. no need for leather since if you accept my italian comparison the sections without inserted plates don't need them.

One note on this is that calling them a tube-and-yoke construction is misleading, for they are surely better described as Box-and-yoke. The distinction is important because the sides of the box were inflexible, whereas either linen or leather could be fashioned in a tube- and perhaps was on occasion.

Now over time the plates may have been reduced further to scales, either on the surface or within the linen like a coat of plates, but the name would be unchanged. The same proably holds true if we eliminate the metal all together and leave just the quilted backing because the continuum of decreasing amounts of metal would be gradual enough that there would be no clear demarcation for a new name.

Spolas seems to be the sort of apron or protection that a blacksmith might wear. If we take a Lino-thorax and add a leather front to it in place of metal, so that it now has the same placement of leather as a workman's apron, then why not call it that reguardless of whether there was linen or more leather supporting it?

[Tarbicus]

Pausanias's comment on linen breastplates not being so useful to fighters infers they were in use even then - in order to know they were not good in combat implies they had been used in combat. But as he was writing in the 2nd-C A.D. would he not mean a linen breastplate was of no use against 'modern' 2nd-C A.D. iron weapons which were probably of far better quality and effectiveness than half a millenium earlier - post Punic Wars? If so, all he really tells us is that a linen breastplate is no use against a gladius or spatha, or any other 'modern' 2nd-C A.D. blade, surely?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Modern tests(that someone can very well call not scientific) have proven that linen armour can be very well protection against modern iron.The 7th-6th century hoplites wore bronze thorakes, then suddenly there was a massive change towards linen(or leather),why,because it was lighter?But then,heroes,Titans and Gods are depicted in the new armor in sculptures and vases.This does not make sense except the new type of armor could be as luxurious,expensive and well protecting as the older bronze one.And it is perhaps interesting that in some cases(like the temple of Aphaia in Aegina) depicts heroes in armor,but this armor is the new type.On the other hand the Siphnian treasure depicts both types.And this is one of the first depictions of the linothorax.
Paul B. your thinking is based on the given that "thorakas" means only bronze cuirass.I don't see why this is given,since the word existed before the hoplite reforms and I think it existed in Mycenean times,too. You surely cannot claim that the majority of thorakes in that time were bronze,since only one piece of armor has been found that is bronze(the Dendra panoply) and possibly traces of some others.Thorax is a part of the human body,everything that covers that(the chest) is called a thorax.People did not always protect their chest with bronze,so bronze is in no way linked with the word thorax.
Also,the first linothoraxes depicted in art do not have any scales at all.These appear to be an add on,during time.The Siphnian treasure shows plain surface and pottery shows all-white thorakes withe designs that resemble painting or stitching.The linothorax was not designed to be a base of bronze plates,originally.It became so partly and gradually(scales to the left side,to the front,to the pteryges and rarely in all the surface).
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Also,the first linothoraxes depicted in art do not have any scales at all.

Yes they had no scales, but within the linen are breast and back plates as well as side and perhaps shoulder plates as well. If I am correct then roman pectorals or Lucanian/samnite plate armors are simply the same plates held together with straps and chains instead of in a linen shell.

This is what gives them the tell-tale boxy shape.

Scales came later, both inside and out. To judge from the helmets painted with scales we cannot rule out a joint decorative/protective function for some patches of scale as well.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes they had no scales, but within the linen are breast and back plates as well as side and perhaps shoulder plates as well. If I am correct then roman pectorals or Lucanian/samnite plate armors are simply the same plates held together with straps and chains instead of in a linen shell.

There is nothing to suggest that between the layers of linen there was bronze plates.Other than Secunda's interpretation,based on Philip's armor.

To judge from the helmets painted with scales we cannot rule out a joint decorative/protective function for some patches of scale as well.

Unfortunately no scales of that time have been found,to my knowledge. Fortunately, scales are clearly not painted as is clear from many sculptures,some of which are very reliable(Parthenon and Aphaia,for instance)
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

There is nothing to suggest that between the layers of linen there was bronze plates.Other than Secunda's interpretation,based on Philip's armor.

And logic. The idea that hoplites went from full bronze thorakes to textile thorax protection, and yet kept at this early date such soon to be superfluous pieces of armor like thigh guards seems suspect to me. One reason to do this is that you can have thicker plates, or two plies of them, over the front of the body, while shedding the uneeded weight of bronze around places like the upper chest and shoulders. Also, if you were to use iron plates you'd have to do something other than a full cuirasse.

I actually have not read Sekunda on this matter, where did he write this?

Since I haven't read him I can't comment, but I don't think that the vergina cuirasse is anything like the plates beneath a lino-thorax. What that armor is, is a lino-thorax rendered in metal. The real linothorax would have been a textile support for smaller plates. In fact if we look back at the quote about "Neo-linen", could that be interpreted as meaning that the linen shell had been freshly replaced over recycled plates? This must have been done regularly.

Fortunately, scales are clearly not painted as is clear from many sculptures,some of which are very reliable

I wasn't clear. I don't say that the scales on armor are painted on. I'm saying that the choice to use scales on the outside of the shell may at times have had more to do with fashion than protection. When we see a plain front and scales on the sides of the body this to me is a problem unless we accept that there is a metal plate in the front. Either they are more heavily armoring the sides of the body- especially unlikely on the left- or there is an unseen metal plate. If you say that the front is armored with quilting and argue it's superiority to metal, then explain why they did not just quilt the sides? Also we commonly see a band of scales or some material running just below the ribs. This makes sense if it is protecting a joint in the plates beneath, otherwise is it simply decorative.

[Dan Howard]

Linen armour that was made of more layers would produce panels that are rigid. This is where the "box" appearance comes in. However armour this thick would not need reinforcing with metal scales. Pausanias suggests that at least some linen armour was made of significantly fewer layers. So does the Thebes find. These constructions would retain a degree of flexibility.

There is evidence to suggest that at least some typologies of linothorax were double layered at the front. This is why only the sides needed to be reinforced with scales. It would enable flexibility where it was needed. Having a double layer of this construction would make it completely rigid at the front and would have little trouble resisting every bow and hand weapon of the time.

Sekunda falsely reckoned that the Vergina iron cuirass was covered with cloth (it may have been lined with fabric but it definitely wasn't covered with it). He then extrapolates from this to conclude that all linothoraxes had metal plates inside them. You can't make a linothorax out of metal plates that looks the same as the relevant illustrations. The only viable options are layered linen (either glued or quilted) or leather/hide.

[PMBardunias]

You can't make a linothorax out of metal plates that looks the same as the relevant illustrations. The only viable options are layered linen (either glued or quilted) or leather/hide.

Why would a composite cuirasse of metal plates between quilted layers not fit the relevant illustrations? Since there is no obvious quilting to be seen, even rectangular pads of quilt would have had to have been faced with a smooth outer shell. Some vases seem to portray an obvious brigandine style armor. What I suggest is that at least early on there were large chest and belly plates within the layers.

The idea that you cover the Vergina cuirasse and get a linothorax I disagree with. The vergina is obviously a linothorax remade all in metal- like a pilos helm was a fabric original remade as metal. It has nothing to do with the evolution of the linothorax and would look the same no matter what the original was made of.

Once you showed me those Kendo armors you convinced me that glueing is unlikely unless some new evidence surfaces, but even those armors had a metal, now fibreglas, breast plate. It's so eazy to simply sandwich in metal plates where need be once you are quilting that there would have to be a compelling reason not to. I would need to be convinced that 17 layers of quilted linen is better protection that 13 and a bronze plate.

We also need an intermediary from bronze to all quilted. Composite fits this bill. Otherwise we have to figure out where the all quilted comes from. Usually these new lighter armors come from arming jackets, but I am unconvinced that the bell cuirasse had such a heavy padded undergarment. With no intermediary it would have had to been imported from another culture or adopted from lower class warriors who never wore all bronze.

The scheme I set up is a logical progression in lightening armor, not, dare I say it, a new armor type out of whole cloth.

[Dan Howard]

Why would a composite cuirasse of metal plates between quilted layers not fit the relevant illustrations? Since there is no obvious quilting to be seen, even rectangular pads of quilt would have had to have been faced with a smooth outer shell. Some vases seem to portray an obvious brigandine style armor. What I suggest is that at least early on there were large chest and belly plates within the layers.

I have trouble believing that the Greeks would have hidden metal armour. It would be on show and highly polished - not hidden by leather or cloth.

We also need an intermediary from bronze to all quilted.

Why? There is no such evolution from bronze to linen. Linen armour never stopped being used from the Mykenaian period right through to the Hellenic. Linen seems to have become more common among the elite during later periods and the style changed over time, but linen and bronze armours continue to see use simultaneously.

[PMBardunias]

I have trouble believing that the Greeks would have hidden metal armour. It would be on show and highly polished - not hidden by leather or cloth.

I agree that the display of bronze was a means of showing wealth, but if displaying shiny metal was this important they would not have adopted Linen in place of bronze. In fact, based on the wealth display idea they would be more likely to only switch if their armor was known by all to have these metal inserts. So I don think the display of metal arguement can be invoked here. Again, one obvious reason to move away from all bronze was to have thicker metal in strategic places and conserve weight.

Linen seems to have become more common among the elite during later periods and the style changed over time, but linen and bronze armours continue to see use simultaneously.

There was clearly a class difference in those who wore bronze and those who wore leather or textile armor. Thus as I said the elites would have to adopt from below or from afar.

[Dan Howard]

There was clearly a class difference in those who wore bronze and those who wore leather or textile armor.

Homer mentions three aristocrats wearing linen armour.

[PMBardunias]

Homer mentions three aristocrats wearing linen armour.

Ah, but with metal plates or without? There is no way to know.

By the way, I have often heard of the fragments of layered linen recovered, but never seen them. Do you know what the original reference is? Was there enough recovered to know if the armor was reinforced with metal?

[geala]

As far as I know, no linen is found for the classical and hellenistic times which could be connected with armour. There are finds from earlier times but the connection with armour is doubtful but possible. There are also finds of leather pieces from 7th and 8th c. which were interpreted as parts of armour.

I heard of a find of quilted linen in a tomb of a Greek soldier in Rhodos from about 350 BC, but that seems not to be published (and so does not exist).

I asked the question in the same forum (the EB forum where I read about the find of the quilted linen; EB is a game but the team consists of/ has some connection to scholars and is sometimes very well informed) wether somebody knows written or archeological sources for classical and hellenistic linen armour. I got no answer except one: a hint to the burning of the old armours of Alexanders soldiers (I don't know the source, but I have read about it), after they received new armour. You can perhaps burn leather armour but you can much better burn linen armour.

I don't believe that the linen/leather armour of the Greeks contained metall plates, although the insertion of thin bronze plates into the shoulder flaps would perfectly explain the springiness appearance when loose. Why should they attach metall scales to the armour if a solid bronze plate was in? The scales were not only on the sides but frequently also on the lower or whole torso.

[Tarbicus]

Why should they attach metall scales to the armour if a solid bronze plate was in? The scales were not only on the sides but frequently also on the lower or whole torso.

Personal preference or simple availability? Identification, just like the aspis? Where the abdomen had scales, perhaps the wearer thought a pectoral in the linothorax wasn't enough, but another felt linen was enough? Why would one Roman wear a squamata, another a seg and another an hamata, all in the same campaign?

[Paullus Scipio]

Why would one Roman wear a squamata, another a seg and another an hamata, all in the same campaign?

....I assume that is a rhetorical question, Jim ? The obvious answer being, because they lived in an age of indiviual craftsmen, rather than mass production.
But even today one soldier will prefer an AK47, and another an M4, another a Steyr...... and if you look at the news, no two American or British or Australian soldiers are identically equipped....... the things you mention are just as valid today!! D lol: