06-12-2007, 07:25 AM
The weights of the iron cuirasses mentioned by Plutarch seem rather strange. A cuirass of ~20 kg is beyond my imagination. Bullet proof cuirasses of the 17th c. weighted a lot less.
Does that mean that the Greeks could not make proper thin "normal" iron cuirasses? That the presumably soft iron was effective only when formed to a very thick and therefore heavy plate? The cuirass must have been of 6-7 mm strenght, which is quite incredibly thick.
Maybe not. The emphasis in Plutarchs story is clearly on the weight of the cuirass, not the material. A cuirass which was proof against a catapult bolt must indeed have been an extreme exception. That it is made of iron seems only to be a sidenote. This could be interpreted that iron as a material for cuirasses at least in the time of Demetrios Poliorketes was not that uncommon.
Does that mean that the Greeks could not make proper thin "normal" iron cuirasses? That the presumably soft iron was effective only when formed to a very thick and therefore heavy plate? The cuirass must have been of 6-7 mm strenght, which is quite incredibly thick.
Maybe not. The emphasis in Plutarchs story is clearly on the weight of the cuirass, not the material. A cuirass which was proof against a catapult bolt must indeed have been an extreme exception. That it is made of iron seems only to be a sidenote. This could be interpreted that iron as a material for cuirasses at least in the time of Demetrios Poliorketes was not that uncommon.
Wolfgang Zeiler