[split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear

[Dan Howard]

Your generalisation isn't really true. For example, as you are well aware from postings on other Forums, 'Buff' coats used by cavalry in the 17C were some 5 mm thick i.e. made from a single hide layer, and were considered perfectly adequate protection against swords and spent bullets, as I have posted on the other 'Phalanx' thread.

You don't need armour to stop sword cuts and spent bullets. A winter coat will stop sword cuts and spent bullets. Buff coats were not armour and were never intended to be used as such. They were designed as a replacement for their textile coats because leather is not susceptible to powder burns. Armour during the Civil War consisted of steel cuirasses.

If you were on a 'losing' side and having to run for your life, even after having discarded your shield, you are as good as dead.......
That too should be a factor in deciding how much protection you want, and may explain ( inter alia) the trend toward lighter equipment, including no body armour, in the 5c BC ( though it is likely that at no time did all hoplites wear body armour)

If a hoplite was worried about weight he would wear a bronze cuirass. It weighs significantly less than any armour made from cloth or leather. Why do you think they went to the trouble and expense of using metal?

[Paullus Scipio]

Dan wrote:
"You don't need armour to stop sword cuts and spent bullets. A winter coat will stop sword cuts and spent bullets. Buff coats were not armour and were never intended to be used as such. They were designed as a replacement for their textile coats because leather is not susceptible to powder burns. Armour during the Civil War consisted of steel cuirasses."

Sure, at Balaklava in the Crimean war, British Heavy Cavalry had difficulty cutting through heavy Russian winter coats, which led to much swearing by the troopers......

I'm afraid we are going to have to differ. Originally  'Breast-and-Backs' were worn over the buff coat, but once it was realised that the buff coat provided sufficient protection, 'breast-and-backs' were generally abandoned. I'm not going to split hairs over the definition of 'armour', suffice to say that if something was specifically worn for protection, then it is 'armour' regardless of what it is made from - so a steel 'breast-and-back' and a buff coat are both forms of 'armour'. And I don't believe 'powder burns' are a reason for wearing buff coats. 

Dan wrote:
"If a hoplite was worried about weight he would wear a bronze cuirass. It weighs significantly less than any armour made from cloth or leather. Why do you think they went to the trouble and expense of using metal? "

That is another generalisation that I don't think is necessarily true. The lightest bronze 'thoraka' I'm aware of is the 8 C BC 'Argos' Bell cuirass, which weighed a little under 4 Kg/slightly under 9 lbs ( but we must make allowance for corrosion - originally it will have been somewhat heavier. Muscled cuirasses varied considerably, some being as thin as 1mm average, others 2mm and hence twice the weight The heaviest described was an iron muscled cuirass, at 40 lbs/18 kg, supposedly proof against catapult bolts:
Plutarch: Demetrius 21.3
"3] For his use in this war there were brought to Demetrius from Cyprus two iron 'thorakes/body armour', each of which weighed only forty pounds. Wishing to show their strength and power of resistance, Zoilus their maker gave orders that a catapult's missile should be shot at one of them from a distance of twenty paces, and in the place where it struck the iron remained intact, although it did get a faint scratch, such as might be made by a graver.
[4] This 'thoraka' Demetrius wore himself; the other was worn by Alcimus the Epeirot, the sturdiest and most warlike of all the men under him, and the only one whose suit of armour weighed a hundred pounds (the rest used suits of fifty pounds weight); he fell in battle at Rhodes near the theatre.

Unfortunately, of the 50 or more extant Greek, Hellenistic and Italian examples, few weights are published. However a weight of 5-7 Kg/ 11-15.5 lbs would not be untypical, which is broadly the same as the 'spolas', especially a re-inforced one, though the muscled cuirass is slightly heavier it seems.

Xenophon describes one that definitely was. As the 'Ten Thousand' were retreating, they needed cavalry to chase off enemy light missile troops, and a troop of 50 were formed. [Xen III.3.20]
"20] These proposals also were adopted, and in the course of that night a company of two hundred slingers was organized, while on the following day horses and horsemen to the number of fifty were examined and accepted, and 'spolades' and 'thorakes' were provided for them; and Lycius, the son of Polystratus, an Athenian, was put in command of the troop."

Now 'spolades' are the familiar Tube-and-Yoke corselets, including composite ones. We know of only two types of 'hoplite' armour for this period and the other is the bronze muscled cuirass, so these must be the 'thorakes' referred to. The cavalry needed heavy body armour because they did not carry shields. Notice that were fewer than 50 'thorakes' in the entire army.

Later, in the Soteridas incident I referred to above [III.4.46]:
" [46] And Xenophon, riding along the lines upon his horse, cheered his troops forward: “My good men,” he said, “believe that now you are racing for Greece, racing this very hour back to your wives and children, a little toil for this one moment and no more fighting for the rest of our journey.
[47] But Soteridas the Sicyonian said: “We are not on an equality, Xenophon; you are riding on horseback, while I am desperately tired with carrying my shield.”
and he, on hearing the reproach, leapt from his horse. In another instant he had pushed Soteridas from the ranks, snatched from him his shield, and begun marching as quickly as he might under the circumstances, having his horseman's cuirass [θώρακα ἔχων τὸν ἱππικόν ]to carry as well, so that he was sore pressed; but he continued to cheer on the troops: exhorting those in front to lead on and the men toiling behind to pass him by, as he could but ill keep up the pace. Soteridas was not spared by the rest of the men. They gave him blows, they pelted him, they showered him with abuse, till they compelled him to take back his shield and march on; and the other, remounting, led them on horseback as long as the footing held; but when the ground became too steep, he left his horse and pressed forward on foot, and so they found themselves on the summit before the enemy.

Now clearly Xenophon's bronze cavalry muscled cuirass is heavier than the infantry 'spolas'. Overall, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the weight of the 'spolas' and the weight of the bronze 'thoraka', especially given a broad range of variation in both.....
There could be many reasons for preferring a bright, shiny expensive ( because it had to be tailor made, as our sources tell us) bronze muscled cuirass, but clearly lighter weight wasn't one of them.

I'm really beginning to hate this new format, which won't allow 'cut and paste' at seemingly random times, the cursor going back to the beginning of the previous paragraph, instead of a new one, and all the other annoyances that make posting here awkward and difficult!

[Dan Howard]

i'm afraid we are going to have to differ. Originally 'Breast-and-Backs' were worn over the buff coat, but once it was realised that the buff coat provided sufficient protection, 'breast-and-backs' were generally abandoned.

Actually the opposite happened. The buff coat was abandoned, not the plate. By the end of the Civil War it was all but impossible to find them and, even at the start of the war, they were getting scarce. This was written in 1640:

"For your buff coat I have looked after, and the price: they are exceedingly dear, not a good one to be gotten under ten pounds, a very poor one for five or six pounds."

A decade earlier a good buff coat cost 2-3 pounds, which was already a lot more than cavalry plate, which cost around 1.5 pounds. FWIW a buff coat weighs around 20 lbs and provides less protection than 1 mm of steel.

[Dan Howard]

There could be many reasons for preferring a bright, shiny expensive ( because it had to be tailor made, as our sources tell us) bronze muscled cuirass, but clearly lighter weight wasn't one of them.

You can interpret the texts any way you want but it doesn't alter the physical fact that in order for leather to provide similar protection to bronze it needs to be significantly thicker and heavier.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paullus Scipio wrote:
“I'm afraid we are going to have to differ. Originally 'Breast-and-Backs' were worn over the buff coat, but once it was realised that the buff coat provided sufficient protection, 'breast-and-backs' were generally abandoned.”

Dan wrote:
Actually the opposite happened. The buff coat was abandoned, not the plate. By the end of the Civil War it was all but impossible to find them and, even at the start of the war, they were getting scarce.

I don’t believe that is correct. While never general equipment, the Buff coat was common, even the better equipped infantry regiments had them ( such as the London Trained Bands). The Buff coat first appeared some time before 1600,  according to my aging 1935 copy of Fortescue’s “History of the British army”. In 1662 the Earl of Orrery’s horse were recorded “all in Buff coats and caps.” In 1666 the Irish Life Guards all wore Buff coats and Sandford records the Life Guards wearing Buff coats at the Coronation of James II in 1685, but it was ‘officially’ abolished in 1686, despite which as late as 1696 it was still being worn by cavalry on active service. Buff coats dating from James II’s reign are still extant, and to be seen in Rochester cathedral.
Hardly ‘scarce’ then, though it is possible that due to high demand there were shortages toward the end of the Civil War.
 
Dan wrote:
This was written in 1640:

"For your buff coat I have looked after, and the price: they are exceedingly dear, not a good one to be gotten under ten pounds, a very poor one for five or six pounds."

A decade earlier a good buff coat cost 2-3 pounds, which was already a lot more than cavalry plate, which cost around 1.5 pounds.

Information on cost is not commonly found, but is there for those who look. You refer to the oft- quoted letter of John Turberville, which is something of an aberration. In 1638 a richly decorated (with Gold and Silver lace) Buff coat is recorded in the Verney papers as two pounds 14 shillings, ( as you suggest) though of course as demand rose during the Civil War so did cost. Nevertheless, in August 1642 Joseph Vaughan, a leather contractor provided 53 Buff coats to a Parliamentary Troop of Horse for a  cost of  one pound 18 shillings each, and in 1646 Lt Col Thorp purchased 3 quality Buff coats at a price of four pounds 10 shillings, or 1 pound 10 shillings each – and that is halfway through the English civil wars (1642-1651). From other evidence it is apparent that a Buff coat was within the means of the typical cavalry trooper.

In the last couple of pages, we seem to have digressed away from the subject of spear-fighting in a phalanx, onto the related subject of armour, and now onto the English civil wars!
Perhaps we should try and get back on-topic......

Dan wrote:
"You can interpret the texts any way you want but it doesn't alter the physical fact that in order to provide similar protection to bronze it needs to be significantly thicker and heavier."

Firstly, I am not 'interpreting texts', I have gone to some pains to quote them and allow them to speak for themselves, including the Greek at critical points where mis-translation might occur. Certainly I think everyone realises that leather needs to be much thicker to provide a similar level of protection, but not necessarily heavier, as both the calculated estimate of Crispianus, supported by Xenophon's account confirm. Arguably, Xenophon's cavalry cuirass was heavier because it was fairly thick, and provided better protection than a typical Tube-and-Yoke. But nevertheless the general point holds true; that the two were of broadly similar weight, allowing for individual differences, and metal muscled 'thorakes' could be significantly heavier.

 And once again, a curse on the current format which won't allow me to paste a quote from Dan's post into an 'edit', forcing me to type it in full ( difficult for me because my hands ar relatively crippled)

[Dan Howard]

Certainly I think everyone realises that leather needs to be much thicker to provide a similar level of protection, but not necessarily heavier, as both the calculated estimate of Crispianus

His calculated estimate is only for 8mm, which is half the thickness you need to provide similar protection to 1mm bronze plate. So a spolas needs to weigh closer to 15-16 lbs to provide similar protection to a 8-9 lb bronze cuirass (assuming two layers on the front only). The 15 pound bronze cuirasses are over 1.5mm, which would require 4 thicknesses of leather for equivalent protection, bringing its weight over 20 lbs.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Dan, you repeatedly suggest that leather armour MUST provide the same level of protection as their metal equivalents. This is a wild speculation since it is nowhere written that this must be the case. It is obvious that metal armour of carious thicknesses, from crazily thin archaic cuirasses to catapult bolt proof cuirasses were in use by the Greeks, and probably at times simultaneously. There's nothing that prevents us consider that leather armour was used by the Greeks and provided less protection than most metal cuirasses.
The thickness of leather armour in other periods and cultures may be interesting, but none the less irrelevant, and as far as I am concerned, a leather spolas could provide anything from the best protection (thick, double, triple or reinforced) to the least protection, like a felt pilos, which seems to have been quite popular to hoplites by late fifth century.

Speculating the thickness of leather based on the level of protection that armour SHOULD provide is highly subjective and helps little to this discussion.

[Renatus]

 And once again, a curse on the current format which won't allow me to paste a quote from Dan's post into an 'edit', forcing me to type it in full ( difficult for me because my hands ar relatively crippled)

I am hardly the first person to turn to for technical advice but I do not seem to have too much trouble. What is it exactly that you are trying to do?

[Crispianus]

Certainly I think everyone realises that leather needs to be much thicker to provide a similar level of protection, but not necessarily heavier, as both the calculated estimate of Crispianus

His calculated estimate is only for 8mm, which is half the thickness you need to provide similar protection to 1mm bronze plate. So a spolas needs to weigh closer to 15-16 lbs to provide similar protection to a 8-9 lb bronze cuirass (assuming two layers on the front only). The 15 pound bronze cuirasses are over 1.5mm, which would require 4 thicknesses of leather for equivalent protection, bringing its weight over 20 lbs.

Not necesarily It doesnt mean such armour has to be the same thickness all over, only thicker at the shoulder, front and right side, you can thin other areas to compensate to some extent, neither have I suggested that such armour would be as effective as bronze or iron, the requirement is only that it provides some protection at an exceptable cost in affordability, weight, manouverability and stamina, armour is generally a trade off.. as I'm sure your aware... the shield, helmet and greaves would be the primary defence against most attacks in phalanx warfare I would think.

[Dan Howard]

Dan, you repeatedly suggest that leather armour MUST provide the same level of protection as their metal equivalents. This is a wild speculation since it is nowhere written that this must be the case. It is obvious that metal armour of carious thicknesses, from crazily thin archaic cuirasses to catapult bolt proof cuirasses were in use by the Greeks, and probably at times simultaneously. There's nothing that prevents us consider that leather armour was used by the Greeks and provided less protection than most metal cuirasses.
The thickness of leather armour in other periods and cultures may be interesting, but none the less irrelevant, and as far as I am concerned, a leather spolas could provide anything from the best protection (thick, double, triple or reinforced) to the least protection, like a felt pilos, which seems to have been quite popular to hoplites by late fifth century.

Speculating the thickness of leather based on the level of protection that armour SHOULD provide is highly subjective and helps little to this discussion.

The primary danger on any battlefield for three thousand years was from spears and arrows. All extant examples of leather/hide armour are heavy enough to do this. Any costume that can't stop this basic level of threat is not armour.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

If we had only medieval armour remains and no Ancient Greek metal armour preserved, we would have to speculate that Greek armour must have been made from 3mm thick bronze, plus thick underpadding. We would be completely off.

Now we don't have extant leather Greek armour, and we must speculate that it must have been 1-2 cm thick? We can be likewise completely off.

Not that I have any big problem with the spolas being one cm thick at places, but the overal way of making this kind of "conclusions" is wildly speculative, I wouldn't ever write it in a book.

[Paullus Scipio]

Dan wrote:
"The primary danger on any battlefield for three thousand years was from spears and arrows. All extant examples of leather/hide armour are heavy enough to do this."

Again, you make a sweeping generalisation without any supporting evidence. If you had said spears and missiles ( including javelins, slingstones, hand thrown stones etc) it would have been closer to the mark. Which weapons represented the major threat depended very much on time and place, for example out on the steppes arrows represented the major threat, whilst in internecine Greek warfare they were rare, but large heavy spears common......

As everyone knows, offensive weapons versus defensive protection are always in a constant 'arms race'. In addition, as I have repeatedly said, degree of protection is only one factor among many when producing armour, and 'weapon proof' is a rarity. Adequate  protection usually suffices. Once again the exceptional circumstances of Xenophon's anecdotes (Anabasis IV.1.18] referred to above, regarding Leonymus and Basias demonstrate that the combination of helmet (variable, but generally 1-2mm thick) shield and 'spolas' was considered more than adequate in most circumstances to keep out arrows or spearheads, javelin heads, slingstones etc, but not against the exceptional power (for the time) of the Carduchi longbows. Such evidence as we have points to 'spolades' generally being a single layer (i.e. circa 5-8 mm thick, which may have been 'hardened', with double-breasted examples being twice this thickness in front. Most of the protection from this 'spaced armour' for the torso came from the shield, with the corselet secondary. Hoplites did not fight 'shieldless', and thus had no need of 15-20 mm thick 'spolades' which for reasons of practicality, manufacture, weight, expense etc are most unlikely to have been the norm, as Ivor/Crispianus has also pointed out above.......

[Dan Howard]

If we had only medieval armour remains and no Ancient Greek metal armour preserved, we would have to speculate that Greek armour must have been made from 3mm thick bronze, plus thick underpadding. We would be completely off.

There are a lot of misconceptions around here about medieval armour. Medieval European underpadding was the same as all other underpadding. It was designed to improve fit and reduce chafing; it wasn't thick enough to provide any protection by itself. European armour ranged in thickness from 1mm like Greek armour up to over 8mm when firearms came on the scene. The human body doesn't change. There are only a few fundamental ways to make body armour and the same basic designs keep popping up again and again over the centuries and they faced similar weapons for most of that time. It is perfectly rational and reasonable to look at other cultures to get an idea of how Greek armour was made.

---

Again, you make a sweeping generalisation without any supporting evidence. If you had said spears and missiles ( including javelins, slingstones, hand thrown stones etc) it would have been closer to the mark.

Spears (including thrown ones) and arrows. This has been the basic level of protection for thousands of years. Anything that can stop these has no trouble at all against a sling shot or stone.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PnB2KoX...ture=share

[JaM]

great video!