Linothorax vs Spolas

[Marc320]

Hello All

I would like to add to the list of Paul two lines found in Eschyles

Line 1018 in ‘The Persians’
Ὁρᾷς τὸ λοιπὸν τόδε τᾶς ἐμᾶς στολᾶς

and

Line 764 in ‘the Suppliants’

(ΔΑΝΑΟΣ) οὔτοι ταχεῖα ναυτικοῦ στρατοῦ στολή,

Both have an indefinite military connotation.

Thank you for this fantastic exchange of views.

Marc

[Nikanor]

Indeed there is little evidence for a separate under-armour cushion garment or such, and indeed the whatever existing is circumstantial.

However I would not wait until we find the first hard-evidence to start talking on it and this is because of the abnormalities included in the elements we have at hands:

- 1. There is an overwhelming depiction of bare-feet fighters, soldiers, hoplites, cavalry etc. and a notable lack of depiction of any kind and of reference of any kind of military shoeware, until well into the hellenistic era.
- 2. There is a hyper-frequent depiction of fighters, soldiers, hoplites etc. either wearing armor or not entering the battle scene with their genitals exposed.

But:

1. Simple physics tell us that a military sandal/boot with a properly made for the task sole will offer vastly superior performance in terms of adhesion (among other). Adhesion is certainly not a headache for light weight infantry and archers in loose formation (many of whom certainly went with bare-feet) but it is for dense formation heavily armed hoplites. Why should we suppose that for 2-3 centuries they would reject such a big advantage given by a cheap (relatively to the rest of the equipment) boot?
2. Common sense (but there is physics and biology into it!) tells us that no type of fighter (let alone a hoplite) would ever enter the battle with his genitals hanging free in the air.

-----

So when artistic depiction takes so much freedom, what we are left to do is use a combination of verified facts, circumstantial evidence along with physics, biology, economics, common sense and above all, experiment. What does not work for us could not had worked for them.


1st Fact: No matter the work put on it, any metallic armor of any weight and with any type of thin lining worn over civilian-like cloth or naked skin (i.e. without padding) is not comfortable and hinders the fighter in real battle conditions. A loose fitting makes it move around all over the place, a tight fitting reduces tragically the protection offered. Period.

1st Strong evidence: Artistic depiction on vases and sculptures is not that helpful like in the case of bare-feet and free-hanging genitals. We have to start proposing the under-armour garment because of the fact above and the evidence below:

2nd Strong evidence: In all other cultures on which we have more information on their armour and garments, the metallic (and often other) armor was worn over a protective undergarment (most common type being padded leather or layers of fabric) - this being of varying thickness (from a thin one worn for comfort to the thicker ones aiming at increasing protection). The frequency of armors with integrated full-padding (apart their leather lining) while varying from culture to culture is certainly lower.

3rd Strong evidence: In terms of costs, the fabrication of armors with full integral padding to be worn over civilian-like cloth is more expensive than the fabrication of armors with simple lining to be worn over an inner padded garment. In most cultures these were seen more as form of high-art worn by aristocrats rather than weaponry for the average soldier.

4th Stong evidence: In terms of user experience and practicality, it is 10 times more practical to have separate armor and padding not just for costs but also for fitting purposes. A separate armor can always be fitted even if the bearer loses or gains weight and of course it can be handed to a relative and fit him too - only thing to be done is to play with the (much less expensive and easy to fabricate even by women at home) inner garment thickness. An armor with already fitted padding could be only worn by 1 bearer and he would rather not gain a lot of weight (if he lose at least he could add up some linen)

2nd Fact: In terms of performance against any type of thrusting or crushing action by close combat or long-range weaponry, if talking about same armor weight, thickness, materials it is the seperated armor-padding that wins over the integral armor-padding on all cases even in the case of "broken armor during battle" where in the first case the soldier could just take out the metallic outer armor and remain relatively protected with the inner padding while in the second case the soldier would have to just take out the whole armor, hope he would remain alive and go find it and repair it afterwards.

In reality the integral armor would be more of a fashion statement and a status symbol rather than a practical type of armor. Of course in some ancient Greek cities the soldiers were citizen-hoplites, people with some money who bought ornate high-quality armors and these were people who highly prized fashionable objects and status-symbols.

Still, these were practical people and very much knowledgeable of the basics of physics and thus I put my money on the undergarment.

Do not expect to find any padded-garments in graves of warriors as it is very possible that people would put their dead hero with the outer armor directly. The undegarment was certainly not considered with affection as the armor, while the overall fitting of armor and padding on a dead could be a hassle - burial was largely symbolic.

[Sean Manning]

Indeed there is little evidence for a separate under-armour cushion garment or such, and indeed the whatever existing is circumstantial.

However I would not wait until we find the first hard-evidence to start talking on it and this is because of the abnormalities included in the elements we have at hands:

- 1. There is an overwhelming depiction of bare-feet fighters, soldiers, hoplites, cavalry etc. and a notable lack of depiction of any kind and of reference of any kind of military shoeware, until well into the hellenistic era.
- 2. There is a hyper-frequent depiction of fighters, soldiers, hoplites etc. either wearing armor or not entering the battle scene with their genitals exposed.

But:

1. Simple physics tell us that a military sandal/boot with a properly made for the task sole will offer vastly superior performance in terms of adhesion (among other). Adhesion is certainly not a headache for light weight infantry and archers in loose formation (many of whom certainly went with bare-feet) but it is for dense formation heavily armed hoplites. Why should we suppose that for 2-3 centuries they would reject such a big advantage given by a cheap (relatively to the rest of the equipment) boot?

Perhaps because ancient Greeks didn't think like us, and hard soled boots are expensive? There is a similar lack of evidence for soldiers wearing hard boots in the Latin part of the medieval world. I think there are a few primary sources from the Latin world talking about men stripping off their shoes for a better grip ...

2. Common sense (but there is physics and biology into it!) tells us that no type of fighter (let alone a hoplite) would ever enter the battle with his genitals hanging free in the air.

Since many ancient fighters fought naked, or just in trousers or a tunic, I don't think this is a very good argument! Someone with too much "common sense" probably wouldn't end up in the front rank of a phalanx in the first place.

So when artistic depiction takes so much freedom, what we are left to do is use a combination of verified facts, circumstantial evidence along with physics, biology, economics, common sense and above all, experiment. What does not work for us could not had worked for them.

Are you sure? Perhaps a few million people over hundreds of years figured out ways of doing things that a handful of people over a few years don't figure out. Because modern experiments are always imperfect, we have to take the primary sources very seriously when we design them. There is a nice example of this where experiments with a man-powered trebuchet at the University of Toronto helped the experimenters realize that pictures of people hanging in the air off the pouch of the catapult weren't some artist's doodle, but a very accurate depiction of an effective way of giving more power to the shot. And for a long time some members of the English archery community scoffed at the scientists who said that the Mary Rose bows had 150 lb draws because they themselves couldn't use such bows, until a few people showed them that they could use such bows. Then there are all the things in historical martial arts that people used to dismiss as artistic license, or unclear writing, until someone figured out how to do them- often by doing their best to copy the art and text until something clicked!

1st Fact: No matter the work put on it, any metallic armor of any weight and with any type of thin lining worn over civilian-like cloth or naked skin (i.e. without padding) is not comfortable and hinders the fighter in real battle conditions. A loose fitting makes it move around all over the place, a tight fitting reduces tragically the protection offered. Period.

Are you sure this is true? The evidence that Greek greaves were worn over bare skin, with just the integrated felt lining for padding, is pretty strong. The same goes for 15th century leg harness; the English "How a Man Shall be Armed" text just tells the man to wear hose with some strips of blanket around the knees.

1st Strong evidence: Artistic depiction on vases and sculptures is not that helpful like in the case of bare-feet and free-hanging genitals. We have to start proposing the under-armour garment because of the fact above and the evidence below:

See above!

2nd Strong evidence: In all other cultures on which we have more information on their armour and garments, the metallic (and often other) armor was worn over a protective undergarment (most common type being padded leather or layers of fabric) - this being of varying thickness (from a thin one worn for comfort to the thicker ones aiming at increasing protection). The frequency of armors with integrated full-padding (apart their leather lining) while varying from culture to culture is certainly lower.

Do you have any examples of proof of this from Latin Europe between say 600 and 1100 CE? After de Rebus Bellicis, the first evidence of a separate padded garment under mail is from the 12th century. Dan Howard and others have been very politely insistent asking for sources, but nobody- including some pretty good medievalists and armour historians- has turned up anything.

3rd Strong evidence: In terms of costs, the fabrication of armors with full integral padding to be worn over civilian-like cloth is more expensive than the fabrication of armors with simple lining to be worn over an inner padded garment. In most cultures these were seen more as form of high-art worn by aristocrats rather than weaponry for the average soldier.

How do you know this? The only study I have seen, of English prices circa 1300, doesn't address whether a hauberk or pair of plates was lined because the primary sources don't talk about it. Jacks of plate in the 16th century were armour for common soldiers.

4th Stong evidence: In terms of user experience and practicality, it is 10 times more practical to have separate armor and padding not just for costs but also for fitting purposes. A separate armor can always be fitted even if the bearer loses or gains weight and of course it can be handed to a relative and fit him too - only thing to be done is to play with the (much less expensive and easy to fabricate even by women at home) inner garment thickness. An armor with already fitted padding could be only worn by 1 bearer and he would rather not gain a lot of weight (if he lose at least he could add up some linen)

I'm not sure that a bronze plate cuirass could be adjusted that much! They were fitted pretty closely to the body.

2nd Fact: In terms of performance against any type of thrusting or crushing action by close combat or long-range weaponry, if talking about same armor weight, thickness, materials it is the seperated armor-padding that wins over the integral armor-padding on all cases even in the case of "broken armor during battle" where in the first case the soldier could just take out the metallic outer armor and remain relatively protected with the inner padding while in the second case the soldier would have to just take out the whole armor, hope he would remain alive and go find it and repair it afterwards.

I'm not sure that broken plate armour would be a common problem on a Greek battlefield! The only common threats that might dent a cuirass were horses, shield strikes, and maybe thrown stones. And if you had enough money for a plate cuirass, you probably had enough for a second armour of some kind, or to send your boy to one of the merchants in the army to buy a new one.

[Nikanor]

If you ask me, i believe they could have worn the original felt version under their bronze ones some times, still this doesn not make it a specific kind of padding. It is a hat that made it into a helmet, like a number of other greek hats.

Hi Gianni. I am also of the same opinion and I would not jump to call the Pilos (or other hats worn in civilian fashion for the most of it) as armour-padding hat since padding of the helmet was the most easy and obvious case of inner padding:
- Take a civilian conical/rounded-type hat, add a bit of pillow-like fabric or leather or... sponge and fix it tight on your head and then wear your helmet on top so that it can move slightly over the hat in a case of crushing hit so as to absorb the hit
The advantage of that is that after the battle you take out the stuffing and use the hat when marching under the sun.

But the interesting question lies as following:
Certainly the Pilos-shaped hat is the most common hat you can find around in most European and Asiatic cultures and its civilian use is not related to military - yet in most cultures the hat is indeed associated with the military. So did the popularisation of the Pilos-hat civilian fashion develop out of the need to have a hat to stuff for the
helmet? Given that Pilos-hat does not protect much from the sun and rain but fits nicely in the helmet stuffed as much as you like it, I would guess that there is a some evidence for this, though we may never know.

Now it is also interesting to note that that the longer conical Pilos, stuffed with some padding and placed under the helmet would eventually take a shape similar to the Phrygian (side-less) cap. Historians up to late 19th century did not even distinguish much between them two. Another observation is that the stuffed Phrygian cap was both a civilian and a military cap (usually the side-stripes version) and then ended up giving the bronze Thraecian-type helmet - while the similarity of Pilos helmet with the civilian Pilos hat that had also found a military use under the helmet points as the only thing missing being the middle step, i.e. a padded Pilos used as protection in its own right. Unlike the Phrygian cap which was covering better the head, a Pilos stuffed hat would not be an excellent cover, not in this shape (even the Phrygian one, it seemed to be worn in war mostly with the side-stripes and longer back-neck) - but certainly I would stuff my Pilos and tie it on my head had I lost my helmet rather than going into a battle with nothing. Common sense. Still none would depict me in art with my... make-shift pilos helmet and there is no case that all of soldiers of a unit would had lost their helmets and thus forced to make make-shift helmets out of hats - thus becoming an event worth of recording.

Howeveer, I think (correct me if I am wrong) that in later Byzantine sources, the byzantine troops (the main heir of the hellenistic-roman fashion) wore too stuffed fabric hats underneath helmets and when in trouble wore only the fabric stuffed hats. Not convincing but all chances are this was the case in ancient times too rather than not.

Cushioning for armour? I'm all for it. Evidence for a subarmalis-leather jerkin or other separate garment worn under it, and also used as armour in its own right?

How often do we find fabric and layered leather objects? What is the number of preserved medieval armors in comparison to the preserved medieval subarmalis? Did medieval writers spend a lot of time describing subarmalis in comparison to the top armor?

Well that is the chance of finding a subarmalis. I do not expect to find it just like that. I just refuse to accept "no/minimal padding" on the basis of physics and biology and then I take the "most probable" case. Otherwise I would as well accept that at least a 30% to 40% of hoplites went to the battle naked below the waistline and about 90% of them wore no shoes when pushing with all their strength on their shields and against the enemy over hard ground full of small stones and lots of dust.

Every time that spolas or similar words are used in literature, they are worn in their own right, and never mentioned worn under other types of armour. Xenophon is far from such an example.

This could be due to a case of definitions. Maybe a spola indeed was meant to be worn in its own right but then maybe inner-padding could as well be a spola-alike, simply not mentioned as spola. Writers tended to describe the basics, i.e. what appeared to the eye.

[Nikanor]

Hi Sean, thank you for the line to line answer. Let me give some quick feedback below.

There is a similar lack of evidence for soldiers wearing hard boots in the Latin part of the medieval world. I think there are a few primary sources from the Latin world talking about men stripping off their shoes for a better grip ...

Depends on the circumstances. Maybe it was more comfortable (eg. in a case of muddy ground). There are circumstances that feet may beat shoes. First thing that comes in my mind is the metal floor of a modern ship. However, on the dusty grounds of Greece feet cannot beat the show just like that. All armies fighting in dense formations in history wore footware why would Greeks be the exception - especially when carrying 15-20kg of armor (even easier to slip)?

Since many ancient fighters fought naked, or just in trousers or a tunic, I don't think this is a very good argument! Someone with too much "common sense" probably wouldn't end up in the front rank of a phalanx in the first place.

Going naked in the Olympics was a rare exception and it was noted as such by ancient writers and accompagnied with a full story of how this tradition (only gradually adopted by most Greeks and over a long period of time) ended up. Had soldiers gone to battle naked, there would be no fuss about it.

1st Fact: No matter the work put on it, any metallic armor of any weight and with any type of thin lining worn over civilian-like cloth or naked skin (i.e. without padding) is not comfortable and hinders the fighter in real battle conditions. A loose fitting makes it move around all over the place, a tight fitting reduces tragically the protection offered. Period.

Are you sure this is true? The evidence that Greek greaves were worn over bare skin, with just the integrated felt lining for padding, is pretty strong.

Agreed but metal plates on legs and arms does not need more padding as no matter how much you add it will do little good to you while reducing agility. A more tight fit there is thus preferrable. This does not apply to body and head armour. A tight fit both hinders, tires, protects less and can be dangerous when pierced by magnifying the wound. Do the experiment. I cannot find a reason why it would had worked differently - leave the comfort aside, its physics getting into it. A tight fit is more expensive and performs inferior. Armors found do not seem to be that much tight fit either (take into account that people back then were much much thinner than us).

Do you have any examples of proof of this from Latin Europe between say 600 and 1100 CE? After de Rebus Bellicis, the first evidence of a separate padded garment under mail is from the 12th century. Dan Howard and others have been very politely insistent asking for sources, but nobody- including some pretty good medievalists and armour historians- has turned up anything.

Writers in the period up to 1200 AD did not write anyway much about much more basic equipment rather than the "modest" inner padding. I find this natural. Same can be for the ancient world.

3rd Strong evidence: In terms of costs, the fabrication of armors with full integral padding to be worn over civilian-like cloth is more expensive than the fabrication of armors with simple lining to be worn over an inner padded garment. In most cultures these were seen more as form of high-art worn by aristocrats rather than weaponry for the average soldier.

How do you know this? The only study I have seen, of English prices circa 1300, doesn't address whether a hauberk or pair of plates was lined because the primary sources don't talk about it. Jacks of plate in the 16th century were armour for common soldiers

This is the best assumption. It is extremely difficult to assume of the opposite of what I am saying given that the armor with integral padding had to be done and repaired by a highly qualified technician while the separate padding could be woven by your wife at home. Simple economics. Common sense. Nothing else. Arguing like sophists in the sense " and how do you know? How do you prove it" it will lead us nowhere. We certainly do not know and we can not prove. Let us start from the most common sense assumption while also testing other theories.

I'm not sure that a bronze plate cuirass could be adjusted that much! They were fitted pretty closely to the body.

... you mean to our modern bodies. For their bodies were much shorter and thinner.

[Dan Howard]

... you mean to our modern bodies. For their bodies were much shorter and thinner.

No. Their bodies are about the same height and a lot thinner than modern overfed fat-arses who don't do enough exercise. Their builds are actually very similar to many modern athletes and people who still perform manual labour for a living and everybody else in the world who doesn't have our ridiculous diet. A study was done of the skeleton found at the Dendra site in conjunction with the cuirass and my height and weight is only a fraction greater than the estimated build of the original owner. My replica of the Dendra armour was made from measurements of the original and it fits me perfectly. FWIW that armour had an integrated padded linen liner (traces of it still exist), not a separate padded garment.

There are tons of surviving medieval cuirasses and helmets with integrated liners. Medieval armour was worn both ways - some had padded liners and others were worn with seperate underarmour garments. Why would earlier armour be any different?

This is the best assumption. It is extremely difficult to assume of the opposite of what I am saying given that the armor with integral padding had to be done and repaired by a highly qualified technician while the separate padding could be woven by your wife at home. Simple economics. Common sense. Nothing else. Arguing like sophists in the sense " and how do you know? How do you prove it" it will lead us nowhere. We certainly do not know and we can not prove. Let us start from the most common sense assumption while also testing other theories

Anyone with the wealth to own these types of armour had multiple servants to keep them maintained. There is an anecdote in Usamah's memoirs where he cuts open his kazaghand to show Saladin how it was constructed. It had two layers of mail each with its own integrated liner. After he was finished with Saladin he would have tossed the armour to a servant to get it mended. His wife wouldn't have gone anywhere near it. Your "common sense" argument makes no sense at all.

[Nikanor]

Hi Dan, first let me say to you that your Dendra armour reconstruction is fantastic, I love it and I am seriously tempted to getting one piece after piece in future!

A. Speaking of average heights. Height can change hyper-dramatically even in 2 generations' time let alone in greater periods. While the anthopologic content of the Aegean space has never really changed remaining since early times what we all recognise as Mediterranean, the average height has changed dramatically numerous times. It is all well known that average height in Eastern Roman (aka byzantine for the illiterate) times the consumption of meat was most of the times satisfactory and average height had slightly increased and then fell right after the 1204 downfall of the Empire to become minimal in Ottoman times to slightly but steadily rise up in post-liberation times. Then, even more spectacularly modern Greek men rose from a WWII average of 1,67m to a current 1,77m - and that is the full picture, not any inaccurate survey based on digs, since army records record the quasi-totality of the population as army service in Greece is obligatory for all able male citizens).

By all means, the Mycenaeans whose graves we dig are mostly well-fed aristocrats who lived in an era of sub-tropical climate, agricultural produce and trade abundance and relative (relatively with later era of course!...) stability. The archaic and classical Greeks whose graves we dig are both aristocrats and middle-lower class but it is true that even among aristocrats we find... no giants! Apparently, with the post 1200 BC climatic change, the diet had changed so much that it influenced even the eating habits of aristocrats. Biggest example comes from the Macedonian kingdom (one of the most fertile lands in Greece famed for its tall men and cowboys), the two most famous kings, Philip and his son Alexander, were apparently extra-short.

Actually if we want to replicate an archaic 0,80m hoplite shield, we should rather add 5 to 10cm to cope for the size difference (for those of us who are more than 1,70 and more than 1,80) to be certain it will cover the same % of body as then.

B. Considering my argument (in the form of best possible assumption - in absence of strong data for either side) on the economics of integrated padding or seperate padded uniform I will repeat my complete line of thinking:

- It is true that we have no strong elements for presence of padding (i.e. more than a simple inner lining) either integrated or separate padding, thin or thick one, leather or linen.
- It is true that the ancient Greek types of armor we find are offering by themselves a satisfactory level of protection.

But,

- Note that we use hear padding as a general term - padding should not refer only to the medieval thick padded leather gambeson type. As padding we may refer to 2-3 thin laters of leather or linen - i.e. any type of non-civilian garment worn under the armour for better fit, comfort as well as some extra protection and absorption.
- No matter how well tailored and crafted, an armor of bell-type and even muscle type
it cannot fit rightly the body since a mere loss of 2-3 kilos will render it uncomfortable unless it is really lightweight which of course requires it to be ultra-thin which of course would provide an inferior protection (in the absence of separate inner layers) which of course raises the APPARENT question of why would anyone pay the modern equivalent of buying a full-exras BMW 5 series only to have a protection inferior than that of more modest materials.
- A relatively successful tight-fit armor of satisfactory thickness would still present lower protection levels than a loose-fit. It is really very questionable to say that Greeks would do it just to look like a statue. On every single such occasion of "they did it for style or out of ignorance or out of tradition" we were proved wrong. Remember the short hoplite swords, I guess we all know why today, remember the man-messanger vs. horseman-messanger - it is by now shown repeatedly that in real life athletic man-horse marathon runs in Britain that man goes faster long-distance on hills, let alone if speaking of the Greek terrain. For tight vs. loose fit there is no case one can prove the first offers more protection: its a case of pure physics. It is very questionable to argue that Greeks ignored that for the shake of any fashion or out of pure ignorance.
- Loose-fitting of the armor gives superior protection but for Greek armor types results in having the armor hanging like a bell on you reducing your agility. In Homer of course we read that fighters had avoided being killed by spears by shifting their bodies inside their armour - but if that makes reference to Dendra type of armor it may be understandable as a Dendra type may permitted that (Dan, need your opinion on this!) - Dendra type whose strength is not of course agility, can act like a spring - thus it is in much less need for padding apart an inner lining). However, loose fitting without padding for For 2-piece (front and back) Bell-armors is highly questionable - first ask yourselfs "what would be the advantage of having the armor ring on you like a bell". Why not fix it with inner padding when this could come in the form of cheap old linen from old civilian clothes prepared at home?

Of course the question that Stefanos and Giannis raised and discussed above was wether the spola could be described as a form of inner padding that could potentially be used as a stand alone item in the need (lack of metal, long distance marches). I am not sure if they do refer to the same design but under the term spola it comes to my mind the typical T-Y design we find on linothorax and later Roman mail hamatas. Here I cannot express an opinion other than that I have this notion (did not do a statistical survey) that the item spola seems to appear more often in long-march campaigns rather than in battles next door where you could carry the heavier types of armor in greater numbers - this implying that spola was to be used as a stand alone item. The T-Y shape too indicates more to that. Said this, it goes withoutsaying that a leather spola too would require some inner padding, integrated or separate, just as leather armor was used in medieval times. T-Y linothorax itself being a particular type of composite armour could be as the result of merging metal armor lining and padding in one bunch of layers but then still - still a separate, even thin, layer would always increase agility and protection.

- In general, I do believe that there is no case these guys developed uncomfortable, dangerous or low-quality for money armors. If it worked for them it HAS to work for us too and I am talking about basic things here (piercing capacity, basic agility and comfort in relation to the elementary hoplite co-ordinated tactical moves) not on details that we anyway ignore. As much as we can trust the lack of shoes and over-frequency of genital nudity of artwork so much we can trust for the absence of indication of inner padding - perhaps for them this was not even considered to be a real part of the armour but rather a "fitting aid", i.e. a detail of the overall picture.

[Sean Manning]

I have worn a hauberk over ordinary 14th century clothes (a linen doublet over a shirt). The only problem is that the mail was too large and not properly cut. A friend with a very nice replica English harness c. 1370 keeps lightening his arming garments; he finds that an arming doublet just needs to be two layers of sturdy cloth with plenty of eyes to lace the points to. In England in 1370, three layers of sturdy cloth over your chest was ordinary clothing.

Hi Sean, thank you for the line to line answer. Let me give some quick feedback below.

There is a similar lack of evidence for soldiers wearing hard boots in the Latin part of the medieval world. I think there are a few primary sources from the Latin world talking about men stripping off their shoes for a better grip ...

Depends on the circumstances. Maybe it was more comfortable (eg. in a case of muddy ground). There are circumstances that feet may beat shoes. First thing that comes in my mind is the metal floor of a modern ship. However, on the dusty grounds of Greece feet cannot beat the show just like that. All armies fighting in dense formations in history wore footware why would Greeks be the exception - especially when carrying 15-20kg of armor (even easier to slip)?

That's an interesting claim. What is your evidence that all armies wore heavy shoes? Medieval shoes didn't do much to protect the feet, and the usual solution to thick mud- strapping on a set of pattens- had other disadvantages for combat wear.

Since many ancient fighters fought naked, or just in trousers or a tunic, I don't think this is a very good argument! Someone with too much "common sense" probably wouldn't end up in the front rank of a phalanx in the first place.

Going naked in the Olympics was a rare exception and it was noted as such by ancient writers and accompagnied with a full story of how this tradition (only gradually adopted by most Greeks and over a long period of time) ended up. Had soldiers gone to battle naked, there would be no fuss about it.

But some Celts, for example, fought naked. Some Greeks went to war in just their clothes. Someone with any body armour and a helmet was well protected even if their family jewels weren't.

Do you have any examples of proof of this from Latin Europe between say 600 and 1100 CE? After de Rebus Bellicis, the first evidence of a separate padded garment under mail is from the 12th century. Dan Howard and others have been very politely insistent asking for sources, but nobody- including some pretty good medievalists and armour historians- has turned up anything.

Writers in the period up to 1200 AD did not write anyway much about much more basic equipment rather than the "modest" inner padding. I find this natural. Same can be for the ancient world.

But we have lots of descriptions of people putting on armour in Norse sagas and continental romances. In the 12th century, words for special padded garments under armour suddenly appear, and these are mentioned in literature and inventories, and occasionally turn up in excavations. Before then, nothing. We would expect to have some evidence from somewhere in Europe over the past 500 years if mail was usually worn over special padding. Claude Blair was aware of the problem in 1955, and since then the evidence has become stronger that early medieval people either wore mail with an integrated lining or just pulled it on over an extra tunic.

I'm not sure that a bronze plate cuirass could be adjusted that much! They were fitted pretty closely to the body.

... you mean to our modern bodies. For their bodies were much shorter and thinner.

No, I think Greek plate armour was fit tightly to ancient Greek bodies. Iron Age Greeks were not much shorter than their descendents in 2000, and taller than their descendents in 1900, according to the only evidence I have seen (a meta-analysis of skeletal evidence by Geoffrey Kron in Historia which supports Lawrence Angel's estimate of an average adult male height of 170 cm in the Classical period and 172 cm in the Archaic). The 18th and 19th centuries were a dreadful period for health and nutrition in the Old World, but the evidence suggests that ancient and medieval people were not very short. That would especially be true for the richest 10-20% of men who could afford bronze plate armour!

[Nikanor]

Hi Sean,

1. On shoes/bare feet, I have no evidence other than a conspicuous lack of evidence, one that makes stronger my case just like hoplite nudity. I do not place aside the possibility of fighters entering bare-foot in battle. For archers and light troops this could be even beneficial. For heavily armed troops especially those fighting in close combat pushing matches the advantages of bare-feet over a for-the-purpose made sole are less clear. Hoplites did not run or jump around but needed to stick their feet into the ground to push. See, at the end of the day one needs to just make the experiment - that is our job as re-enactors. All I am saying here is that there is thin chances that the % of naked feet (is it 80% or 90%?) in representations is representative of the actual % of footware among hoplites. Front ranks particularly should be particularly sensitive to this issue actually more than the protectiveness of their own armors as losing once balance meant certain death and endangering of his side.

2. On hoplite nudity, yes in Europe and Africa "provincial cultures" went around in what we would call "ritualistic military nudity". I ignore if this was ever the case in Greece other than the artistic ritualistic/fashion representation. Why this? Foremost for the single reference of Olympic nudity as an exception rather than the rule - nothing to do with prudishness and such, Greeks loved the human body, but certainly would not go around naked. Had this been common place (we are not discussing any stand-alone exceptions), I do sincerely find it very weird for ancient writers to had gone into the effort to explain why athlets competed nude and give the event that kickstarted that tradition. They would simply take it for granted that since warriors may fight nude, athlets too go compete nude (athletics started as part of military excercise afterall). Suppoting that hoplites commonly went on nude is identical to supporting that ancient Greek women occasionally went out nude on the basis of the numerous nude female depictions. Or that ancient Greek tribes were people with long straight noses starting from the forehead, a very rare human trait found only partially (as the majority has the Middle Eastern type one) in the region east of Caucasus on the Asiatic side and among tribes related to Middle East who do not look at all Mediterranean and one that is not at all found in any place today that ancient Greeks lived (from Greece to Minor Asia, Cyprus and Lebanon, to South Italy, South France, Eastern Spain - note too that these are the only places in the Mediterranean were populations are described as "Mediterranean" (contrasted to Basques, Portuguese, Magrebins, Egyptians, Albanians and Croatians who are not described as such).
Art is art and if it is to be taken literally we have to put everything in context. I did not see many expecting Italians to be like those depictions in the Renaissance paintings.
Art is art and cannot be taken literaly unless we put things into context.

3. On the size of ancient Greeks I cannot argue on surveys I did not read - apparently these researchers searched it more thoroughly to conclude to a more normal 1,70m average so I may accept it as it is. But then I do tend to get my ideas from things like the anatomical greaves which indicate the upper and lower part of feet and on them we may take an idea of the bearer. And on average these point at lower heights - let alone leg deformations (apparently due to carrying weights and training since childhood), nothing close to the nice shiny and flashy pictures we see in pottery.

4. On the tight vs. loose fitting, I do not know how do we establish that metal (with its inner lining) was worn directly over skin/civilian-like cloth. The armors both bell and muscle were tied on the sides and thus they could theoretically take a distance as much as the bearer wished - not suggesting that any great distance would be good either. However having either naked skin or a simple civilian-like garment in contact with the armor and its inner lining looks quite uncomfortable for a foot soldier (maybe works work for cavalry but not for infantry). You do not need any medieval thick gambeson but some layers of linen inbetween would greatly aid both comfort and above all agility and overall protection. It is a complete theoretic suggestion but it is not out of space to propose that the linothorax (an age-old invention not necessarily of Greeks) was developed out of the need to combine the metal part and the padding part in a convenient single piece.

Note also the example of another army, the Roman. The nice chain mail suits they were wearing and the lorica segmentatas were not always worn in the nice neaty flashy fashion shown on artwork. Chain mail was worn in a pot-belly fashion to losen up the chain above the leather under-layer and protect better rather than the perfect straight appearence we see most often on art. And then some of the lorica segmentata pieces found were ultra-thin (this taking into account the aging of the material) that the only reasonable explanation is the fact that these (at least these particular ones) were actually worn as additional protection over padding or leather-chain mail. Later Eastern Roman armour moved along that line afterall.

Of course this does not mean that "because it seems more logical and others did it" archaic-classical-hellenistic Greeks did it that way too but then not having clues for the one or the other direction (and artwork is certainly no clue) we pick our best and test it. For example, when I built my body-shield, people naturally gave positive and negative comments on it and among the latter was the increased weight (11kg). My guess was that if Roman oval shields were 8 to 10 kg, a body-shield would not weight less. If it weighted less, protection would be less (for same material) so what is the point of having it body-fashion and strap it on yourself? Well, we made it, and on my first trial I carried it around in a quasi-continuous manner for 3 hours and I could continue easily for at another. And I am not any trained bronze age warrior, not even train in any sport. Case solved. Body-shields were definitely heavier than later big archaic shields. Their size and presence of strap meant they were not meant to be played around Brad-Pitt-style but rather protect either the lance thrower or the chariot driver etc.

In that way, if it works we have a case. For me, tight does not work on the basis of lower protection (and here I set momentarily aside comfort and even agility which is a personalised experience depending on whether the armor is tailored or not). An armor firmly tied over some underneath non-civilian cloth layers seems to work should I be subject to wear and move around with it for 3-4 hours. Linothorax seems to combine to an extend both.

[Dan Howard]

There is not a single thing in this last post that can be supported by the available evidence. These long winded posts are contributing nothing useful to this discussion. Cut the speculation and start citing sources.

[PMBardunias]

- 1. There is an overwhelming depiction of bare-feet fighters, soldiers, hoplites, cavalry etc. and a notable lack of depiction of any kind and of reference of any kind of military shoeware, until well into the hellenistic era.

Properly hardened feet provide excellent traction for the type of fighting hoplites engaged in. We do see boots in art long before the Hellenistic age though, Boeotian hoplites are often seen wearing them on stelai. Actually, the most famous boots of the age were those designed by Iphicrates for his lighter troops, which may show that they were more useful for long, quick marches that in actual combat.

[Nikanor]

Dan, I do not know if you consider yourself an "experimental re-constructor" or a "simple re-fabricator/collector". In the second case I understand you will be not interested by such a discussion since in re-fabrication we only built things that are found intact and on which we can simply imitate to last detail. This of course cannot be done for the much of antiquity. We may have the Dendra armor or a couple of later archaic plate ones but no well preserved spola or linothorax. What do you want us to do? Sit and wait until the first find arrives? Stefanos and Giannis attempt to figure out, me too move along that line. You want to me to bring you more artwork and literature than the one presented already? I can do it, will I add anything more than we do not know? No. It is how we process existing information that matters. If I want to know on Dendra armour and its probable use, you are the first I will ask, not the museum's curator.

I propose you to built a hoplite armour and test it bare-foot and with proper sandals (say a caliga-like one) and then tell me your experience.

This reminds me of the pre-WWII international archaiologic community that ridiculously affirmed with great confidence the "non-Greek" nature of Mycenaeans on the basis of "differential art, style, culture" - i.e. hard-evidence. Back then it was mostly empirical archaiologists (i.e. not professionals) who did the maths and deducted that there is nothing really out there to suggest a non-greek nature of Mycenaeans (unless we start playing with words "Graekos, Hellen, Danaos" etc.). And then the first group was spectacularly proven wrong in the 50s. Had though they used a more proper deduction process, their majority should had presumed it and not wait till the de-coding of Linear B.

All I am doing here is doing the maths. We have no proper elements, we need to complete with deduction underlying that this is the "most probable theory", then put it to the test. That is the essence of re-construction.

It cannot be more obvious than the example of bare feet over footware:

1) No notable references to footware, no clear references on bare-feet either
2) Artwork shows bare-feet in majority however artwork shows nakedness in geat numbers that contradicts directly the "Olympic ganes exception" and the extraordinary story given to back it up.
3) Unless we mutated today, hardened bare-feet gives indeed very good adhesion but not the best in most cases, particularly in summer dry dusty landscapes
4) For close formations, soldiers need the best adhesion possible

2 deals with 1, according to 3 and 4 we deduce that most of the times soldiers would go for a proper shoe. In absence of proper shoe (worn shoes, or particular terrain) soldiers would go barefoot (those times, feet were always hardened).

No rocket science. And no more speculation than taking 1 literally and imposing bare-feet as the overwhelming example. That is the methodology we have to use for spolas too. If we wait to be told the last detail I am afraid we will have to wait for a time machine. Building only on what we have at hands so far ends up in half-truth which of course is a bigget lie than a half-truth + a speculation that works.

[Nikanor]

Slight correction to make it crystal clear:

Using only the unquestionable elements we have at hands and building something that does not work in field practice makes the whole reconstruction void.

Building something on the unquestionable elements we have at hands and supporting it with "most probable scenario" suggestions that actually work in field practice makes the whole reconstruction worthwhile.

Hoplite reconstructed armors (thorax, shield, helmet, greaves) have been reconstructed as 35kg assemblies that not even Olympic heavyweight champions can bear for more than an hour without risking ending up in hospital to 10kg lightweight assemblies that are pierced by women holding kitchen knifes making you wonder anyone would pay the price of a BMW to buy such a protection - and everyone claims to have been based on hard facts.

Depends on how you translate these facts then. Only if something does work, can then pass then to the next stage. In case of bare-feet, field says sole works better. Economics tells us that if you could afford a shield, you would afford a proper sandal. If not, then bare-feet would be the next best thing.

[Nikanor]

Actually, the most famous boots of the age were those designed by Iphicrates for his lighter troops, which may show that they were more useful for long, quick marches that in actual combat.

Wasn't Iphicrates from a middle-class family that was into shoe-making business? In anyway, many of his campaigns were in Thrace, a mountainous region where climate and terrain are particular (hot summers like the rest of Greece but notably more cold winters in comparison). Light-troops had more reasons than adhesion, at least for most months of the year, to wear shoes. Heavy troops would certainly wear more cloths inside their armors though we do not know much. However knowing that increasingly after mid-5th century campaigns extended all year round, it is very naif to suggest that troops wore their armours only when temperatures exceeded 12-14C. They would certainly wear it with much thicker cloths under and over.

[Sean Manning]

- 1. There is an overwhelming depiction of bare-feet fighters, soldiers, hoplites, cavalry etc. and a notable lack of depiction of any kind and of reference of any kind of military shoeware, until well into the hellenistic era.

Properly hardened feet provide excellent traction for the type of fighting hoplites engaged in. We do see boots in art long before the Hellenistic age though, Boeotian hoplites are often seen wearing them on stelai. Actually, the most famous boots of the age were those designed by Iphicrates for his lighter troops, which may show that they were more useful for long, quick marches that in actual combat.

I have seen, but cannot cite, a theory that many reliefs had leather objects like shoes painted on. That would explain why many sculptures appear to show bare feet. I always thought that most hoplites wore sandals, but my Greek hopla research is a bit rusty- we have come a long way in the past few years.