Actually, we have very little information to say exactly what or if any armor was used by other cultures, as most of our knowledge is based on findings in tombs from those periods, but usually, only influential men would be buried with their armors, while others would most likely just pass on to their relatives. I live in area where Celtic culture was dominant, yet nobody can tall these people were less wealthy than Romans were.. just recently in Bratislava there was an archeological discovery of stone architecture, with Roman style architecture and multiple mosaics from around 200BC, which kinda suggest Celtic tribe that lived here was wealthy enough to be able to have Roman architects come and build these buildings for them at that time..
![[Image: Image.aspx?id_org=600176&id_obrazky=4647]](http://www.muop.bratislava.sk/VismoOnline_ActionScripts/Image.aspx?id_org=600176&id_obrazky=4647)
anyway, that's not the point of this discussion.. if you read my posts again, it was all about the fact that there was no wealth difference between Hastati, Principes or Triarii during Republican period, or at least at the time they were using Maniple tactics. Middle Class citizens were selected to these groups based on Age, not wealth, and there is not a single mention stating otherwise. On contrary, even later, you can find in Roman sources like for example Caesars Bello Gallico him using word Hastatus to describe fresh recruits, or Triarius as veteran soldiers of the cohort, which clearly suggest this differentiation lived further into Caesar's time. ( for example in Bello Civili he specifically mentions to take all Triarii from his legions to form separate cohorts and putting them into reserve at Pharsalus)
Regarding armor and fighting naked, i could just quote Chris Matthew who dedicated entire chapter to the notion of Naked Hoplite, and ended up stating that artistic representation is far from actual use, while quoting multiple ancient sources, starting with (already mentioned) Plutarchos, or Xenophon (who specifically mention armor to be used) or even Homer. But of course, he also mentions examples where Hoplites fought without armor, but those are mentioned as an exceptions, like for example battle at Chaeronea 338BC, when Athenians needed to deploy large force so only shields, helmets and spears were provided.. (but again, it was mentioned as an exceptional thing, not as something that was very common, yet, those men didnt fought naked!)
Another thing is, that even idea that for example Pectorales were worn just over tunic feels a bit strange, considering how completely discomforting would be having these strapped to the chest and having just a simple tunic under it.. not something you want to have when you need to move around quickly.. it would have to be padded with something, which alone would provide some protection on its own. Similarly, even with mail you need undergarment, otherwise it would not protect you at all.. So, yes, i challenge the claim that they fought naked, without any armor,because armor doesnt have to be always metalic.
btw, about that felt armor, look at these pictures, that breastplate soldier wears (first one,not the second one), definitely doesn't look like its made of metal:
![[Image: JdFRHX.png]](https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/420x776q90/912/JdFRHX.png)
im guessing they are talking about this relief:
![[Image: roman-civilization-bireme-war-ship-relie...d122220060]](http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/roman-civilization-bireme-war-ship-relief-from-the-temple-of-fortuna-picture-id122220060)
anyway, that's not the point of this discussion.. if you read my posts again, it was all about the fact that there was no wealth difference between Hastati, Principes or Triarii during Republican period, or at least at the time they were using Maniple tactics. Middle Class citizens were selected to these groups based on Age, not wealth, and there is not a single mention stating otherwise. On contrary, even later, you can find in Roman sources like for example Caesars Bello Gallico him using word Hastatus to describe fresh recruits, or Triarius as veteran soldiers of the cohort, which clearly suggest this differentiation lived further into Caesar's time. ( for example in Bello Civili he specifically mentions to take all Triarii from his legions to form separate cohorts and putting them into reserve at Pharsalus)
Regarding armor and fighting naked, i could just quote Chris Matthew who dedicated entire chapter to the notion of Naked Hoplite, and ended up stating that artistic representation is far from actual use, while quoting multiple ancient sources, starting with (already mentioned) Plutarchos, or Xenophon (who specifically mention armor to be used) or even Homer. But of course, he also mentions examples where Hoplites fought without armor, but those are mentioned as an exceptions, like for example battle at Chaeronea 338BC, when Athenians needed to deploy large force so only shields, helmets and spears were provided.. (but again, it was mentioned as an exceptional thing, not as something that was very common, yet, those men didnt fought naked!)
Another thing is, that even idea that for example Pectorales were worn just over tunic feels a bit strange, considering how completely discomforting would be having these strapped to the chest and having just a simple tunic under it.. not something you want to have when you need to move around quickly.. it would have to be padded with something, which alone would provide some protection on its own. Similarly, even with mail you need undergarment, otherwise it would not protect you at all.. So, yes, i challenge the claim that they fought naked, without any armor,because armor doesnt have to be always metalic.
btw, about that felt armor, look at these pictures, that breastplate soldier wears (first one,not the second one), definitely doesn't look like its made of metal:
im guessing they are talking about this relief:
Jaroslav Jakubov
