Gaulish felt armor

[Caturix]

Polybius, about the battle of Telamon, writes that while the naked Gaesatae were annihilated by the javelins of the roman velites, the Boii and the Insubres were

"well protected by their trousers and vests [“saionâ€

[Conal]

and what about the trousers?

[MeinPanzer]

Caturix\\n[quote]Polybius, about the battle of Telamon, writes that while the naked Gaesatae were annihilated by the javelins of the roman velites, the Boii and the Insubres were

"well protected by their trousers and vests [“saionâ€

[griffin]

I just was looking over the passage on perseus, and I couldn't find the word that you mentioned "Saion". I checked my Greek dictionary and I couldn't find anything in there either.

The only words used to describe clothing in your citation are:

sagos: Which is a coarse cloak used by Gauls, and the origin of the Latin word sagum.
anaxurides: Which is usually translated as trousers.

If I could post the greek alphabet, I would, but I'm not so swift with that technique, so I've transliterated the Greek.

Perhaps your translation is using a different manuscript tradition. Which translation did you use?[/i]

[Caturix]

I wouldn't be so sure. The specific fact that both coats and trousers are mentioned implies that what is being discussed is not armour, unless you'd like to argue for some sort of organic leg armour.

Why not?
The use of organic greaves is attested in various context...

Clothing could confer some sort of defense against missile weapons

Against JAVELINS?
You won't be serious... a person with a camisia or a sagum can't be "well protected" against a javelin volley...

Even if they did wear organic armour, why would it be of felt and not of leather?

Because if it was made of leather Polybius would have used the word "Spolas"... for protection in linen or in leather we have plenty of terms in greek languge.

As I say, the use of felt protection is attested among Romans (Caes., Bell. Civ.), so I think we can hypotize something similar for the Cisalpine Gauls.

[Caturix]

The only words used to describe clothing in your citation are:

sagos: Which is a coarse cloak used by Gauls, and the origin of the Latin word sagum.

My fault.

I wrote the term incorrectly.

It's "sagos", not "saion".

[Ironhand]

I don't see why not felt. The Eastern Romans and Sassanids were supposed to use felt neck protection and possibly even as low class cuirass. And hey, it makes a good base if you can later equip them better as the felted wool cuirass becomes a subarmalis. Cloth armor has been used by many cultures from the ancient, medieval to the modern. Hell, aren't we STILL using cloth armor or am I wrong in that kevlar, nomex, dynema, nylon, and various fibers still the basis for armor.

Armour is not just about making yourself impervious to weapons any more than swords are meant to be indestructible and slice VWs. Any armour is better than none and unless you want to be naked to show courage you'd want to be protected at least from glancing blows. Just look at the nature of wounds, you could get a five inch deep cut to the right place and survive if no internal organs are injured or main arteries severed or a half inch nick to the wrong place and die. A layer of cloth could be the difference between surviving the battle and bleeding your life out from a nick. It amazing how much damage the human body can take and keep going so long as the mind if right and yet how fragile it can be at the same time.

[Caturix]

I don't see why not felt. The Eastern Romans and Sassanids were supposed to use felt neck protection and possibly even as low class cuirass. And hey, it makes a good base if you can later equip them better as the felted wool cuirass becomes a subarmalis. Cloth armor has been used by many cultures from the ancient, medieval to the modern.

You get exactly the point.

Furthermore, we know that linen, that was common in the Sout-East part of the Mediterraneum Basin was imported by Phoenicians in North Europe, but it still an uncommon fiber in Middle and Northern Europe until the Roman Imperial age.

So, seeing all the Linothorax-looking-like armor represented in celtic art and sculpture, reading that curious statement of Polybius and considering the use of felt protections against throwing weapons among the Romans, I hypothesize a celtic felt armor.

I don't want to say that Celts didn't use linen or leather armors, but I think that with all these points, the idea of linen ins't improbable... and however if the armor of the Boii and Insubres were in leather or linen Polybius woul have used the terms "Spolas" and "Linothorax"

[Untilatie]

Take a look on this... it's in french, but i think it's so interesting.

http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... view/13/14

[MeinPanzer]

Why not?
The use of organic greaves is attested in various context...

Such as?

Against JAVELINS?
You won't be serious... a person with a camisia or a sagum can't be "well protected" against a javelin volley...

Firstly, Polybius doesn't write that they were "well protected" by their clothing. Translated quite literally it reads "many of the Celts were well served (euchrestian) with heavy cloaks/coats (sagoi) and trousers (anaxuridon)." That word euchrestian simply means that they benefited from wearing their clothing, not that they were well protected. And heavier clothing could definitely confer some defense, especially heavier leather clothing. It might not be great, but it would provide something, especially when compared to wearing nothing, which is the entire point of that passage.

Because if it was made of leather Polybius would have used the word "Spolas"... for protection in linen or in leather we have plenty of terms in greek languge.

I don't want to say that Celts didn't use linen or leather armors, but I think that with all these points, the idea of linen ins't improbable... and however if the armor of the Boii and Insubres were in leather or linen Polybius woul have used the terms "Spolas" and "Linothorax"

This is definitely not certain, as has been shown by all the debates we've had here over linen versus leather armour over the years. Spolas was a word used in Xenophon's day; I don't think Polybius uses it at all and there's a good chance that by his day the terminology had changed (as it had for shields, for instance). And even if we did know that spolas was a term used to describe the leather tube-and-yoke cuirass, we don't know that it was the only term used to describe it, so we couldn't say for certain that because he didn't call what they were wearing spolades we know they are not leather.

Still, to get to the point, neither sagos nor anaxurides carry any connotation of armour with them, and for Polybius, a military author who would know his military terminology, to use such words to refer to a cuirass like that the Glauberg chieftain is depicted seems unbelievable.

I don't see why not felt. The Eastern Romans and Sassanids were supposed to use felt neck protection and possibly even as low class cuirass. And hey, it makes a good base if you can later equip them better as the felted wool cuirass becomes a subarmalis. Cloth armor has been used by many cultures from the ancient, medieval to the modern. Hell, aren't we STILL using cloth armor or am I wrong in that kevlar, nomex, dynema, nylon, and various fibers still the basis for armor.

Armour is not just about making yourself impervious to weapons any more than swords are meant to be indestructible and slice VWs. Any armour is better than none and unless you want to be naked to show courage you'd want to be protected at least from glancing blows. Just look at the nature of wounds, you could get a five inch deep cut to the right place and survive if no internal organs are injured or main arteries severed or a half inch nick to the wrong place and die. A layer of cloth could be the difference between surviving the battle and bleeding your life out from a nick. It amazing how much damage the human body can take and keep going so long as the mind if right and yet how fragile it can be at the same time.

I don't doubt they could have worn armour made of felt, but I'm just saying that from that passage there is absolutely no reason to A) take the description as describing armour and B) take that armour to be made of felt.

[Caturix]

Why not?
The use of organic greaves is attested in various context...

Such as?

The greaves from Dura Europos, for example...

Firstly, Polybius doesn't write that they were "well protected" by their clothing. Translated quite literally it reads "many of the Celts were well served (euchrestian) with heavy cloaks/coats (sagoi) and trousers (anaxuridon)." That word euchrestian simply means that they benefited from wearing their clothing,

Sorry, but I still don't think that normal bracae and camisiae can "well serve" or give you some "benefit" against a volley of javelin.

And heavier clothing could definitely confer some defense, especially heavier leather clothing.

What is the difference between "heavier leather clothing" and a light armor? I think we are almost saying the same thing...

And however, if the protection of the Boii and Insubres were made of leather, I think that Polybius wuould have written it in some way, because something similar existed among the Greeks.

It might not be great, but it would provide something, especially when compared to wearing nothing, which is the entire point of that passage.

I repeat, if a dress isn't specifically concieved to protect against blows or projectiles, It will not give you any notable defense against a volley of javelins. Even a really dirty and unclean dress :wink:

However, if you want, we can try... obviously I want to be the one that throw the javelin :wink:

Still, to get to the point, neither sagos nor anaxurides carry any connotation of armour with them, and for Polybius, a military author who would know his military terminology, to use such words to refer to a cuirass like that the Glauberg chieftain is depicted seems unbelievable.

The point is that probably Polybius hadn't a specific term to define the protections of Boii and Insubres, and uses the nearest Greek term to define them... we have similar examples in greek licterature... in some statements the celtic swords are described by Greeks as "Kopis machaira", but we know that the Celts didn'use curved swords.
The Greeks used "Kopis Machaira" to define La Tène swords just because they were mainly chopping weapons, and because in Greek language wasn't any term to define the weapon in specific.

I this case I think that the word "sagos" is used because Polybius wants to describe something that defend against javelins but definitely isn't a linothorax or a leather armor.

The use among Romans of felt protections (Coactilia) so bring me to hypothesize a felt protection.

[Conal]

a few points;

(1) That statue is, I believe, a few hundred years prior to Telamon.

(2) The majority of numistic evidence shows La Tene era Gauls sans armour, the exceptions being mail.

(3) It has been noted by different writers and at different times that the Gauls were generally armourless, an exception being the Crupellarius, which I have my doubts about.

(3) If felt as being generally used as an armour in 225BC it would have had a mention somewhere and if it was particular to Gauls then it would have been specifically mention as they were a big topic in those days. I know one bunch of guys who would have been using it, if it was cheap and effective ... Romans.

Keep in mind what Polybius is saying, that the naked warriors suffered more than those with clothes via Velite javelins. Armour aside, why so ... did they not have shields? As you have pointed out ordinary clothes would not impede a javelin. I dont think it reasonable to assume armour from what Polybius said. I am not convinced that the Geastate were anihilated for any reason other than they were in the front line and threw themselves at the Roman line. I think he was exagerating for effect on his Roman audience.

[Caturix]

a few points;

(1) That statue is, I believe, a few hundred years prior to Telamon.

Yes (and I said so before), but you have various evidence of organic armor in various gaulish context:

[url:104btqpq]http://koso.ucsd.edu/~martin/CelticSitter.gif[/url]

[url:104btqpq]http://usuarios.advance.com.ar/cernunnosgb/images/guerrier.jpg[/url]

[url:104btqpq]http://jfbradu.free.fr/celtes/les-celtes/roquepertuse1.jpg[/url]

[url:104btqpq]http://www.celticworld.it/immagini/ad_img/fgallery/fg_887_1118.jpg[/url]

Here, in the Frontone of Civitalba, while a lot of Celts are "Gaesatae-Like", in the first image on the left the second figure is dressed with something look like a padded armor: [url:104btqpq]http://www.ilmontesantangelo.it/assets/images/sassoferrato.gif[/url]

(2) The majority of numistic evidence shows La Tene era Gauls sans armour, the exceptions being mail.

As in literature, the naked barbarian is more a "topos" than a matter of fact.

Without doubt there were some Gaulish groups, as the Gaesatae, that fought naked, or Gauls so poor (The light infantry wich Polybius, Caesar and Tacitus, in different times wrote about) that couldn't afford any kind of protection, but is quite difficult that it was the rule.... padded clothing (or animal skins, or leather) is a kind of protection quite ancient, used along time and space by lot of culture, and quite cheap, if not heavily effective.

(3) If felt as being generally used as an armour in 225BC it would have had a mention somewhere and if it was particular to Gauls then it would have been specifically mention as they were a big topic in those days.

Is quite less impressive than the habit that some Gauls had to fight naked... and an organic protection isn't something of big interest...

I know one bunch of guys who would have been using it, if it was cheap and effective ... Romans.

As I already wrote, in fact Romans used it: it was the "Coactilia" (cfr. Caes., Bell. Civ.).

I am not convinced that the Geastate were anihilated for any reason other than they were in the front line and threw themselves at the Roman line.

And they were nakend...AND most important of all, their shield were small (smaller than the Roman ones and probably the other Celts').

Besides, at Telamon the Celtic army was attacked by two Roman armies and deployed in double directions: The gaesatae were not the only "front line" of the celtic army (that, in fact, facing two different armies had TWO "front lines")... But the Boii and the Taurisci weren't anihilated by javelins.

[MeinPanzer]

Why not?
The use of organic greaves is attested in various context...

Such as?

The greaves from Dura Europos, for example...

Which are, as far as I know, an isolated example. What other contexts are they attested in? But this is beside the point, because Polybius clearly states that they were wearing anaxurides and not knemides.

Sorry, but I still don't think that normal bracae and camisiae can "well serve" or give you some "benefit" against a volley of javelin.

They almost certainly could confer some benefit, especially leather clothing, as I've been saying. What, after all, would be the difference between a leather cuirass and a leather coat other than a few added layers and some stiffening? The latter would of course give such a cuirass a much better defensive capability, but I think you are underestimating the toughness of certain kinds of materials.

And, once again, you have to look at the context of the passage as a whole. This entire episode focuses on the exotic nudity in combat of the Gaesatae. Therefore, Polybius is emphasizing that the clothing provided some defense for the other Celts, but he doesn't imply that they were well-defended, simply that they found their clothing to be of benefit.

What is the difference between "heavier leather clothing" and a light armor? I think we are almost saying the same thing...

I think we are in some way, and yet above you state that you don't think that trousers and a jacket can provide you with some protection from thrown weapons. My primary distinction would be in the form, for which Polybius would have a different name.

And however, if the protection of the Boii and Insubres were made of leather, I think that Polybius wuould have written it in some way, because something similar existed among the Greeks.

This is a flawed line of thinking, because we don't even know for certain if the tube-and-yoke was always or even often made of leather. Again, if you go over the debates that have been raging here on the tube-and-yoke, you will find that while many good points have been brought up, it is by no means certain, and especially not for Polybius' day (which was some two centuries later than Xenophon's).

I repeat, if a dress isn't specifically concieved to protect against blows or projectiles, It will not give you any notable defense against a volley of javelins. Even a really dirty and unclean dress :wink:

I'm sorry, but I think you are just plain wrong in this. Heavy clothing could provide some benefit, and that is all that we can take from Polybius' passage (not that they were well-protected).

However, if you want, we can try... obviously I want to be the one that throw the javelin :wink:

The whole point is that across hundreds of men wearing heavy clothing and hundreds of men in the nude, I think you would find that the clothing, though perhaps only a small benefit, would provide some added defense.

...Only both terms he uses to describe the we have similar examples in greek licterature... in some statements the celtic swords are described by Greeks as "Kopis machaira", but we know that the Celts didn'use curved swords.

The Greeks used "Kopis Machaira" to define La Tène swords just because they were mainly chopping weapons, and because in Greek language wasn't any term to define the weapon in specific.

In this case, sagos and anaxurides are both words used only to describe the dress of foreigners (the former of the Celts specifically, the latter of all sorts of people who wear trousers) and do not have any sort of connotation of providing their wearer with some protection. Polybius would almost certainly have referred to their armour in some sort of Greek term for armour were they actually wearing any sort of it.

I this case I think that the word "sagos" is used because Polybius wants to describe something that defend against javelins but definitely isn't a linothorax or a leather armor.

From Liddel & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon:

SAGOS. a coarse cloak, used by Gauls. (Perhaps a Gallic word.)

This was a foreign word to refer to Celtic clothing. It was not used to describe Greek clothing.

Keep in mind what Polybius is saying, that the naked warriors suffered more than those with clothes via Velite javelins. Armour aside, why so ... did they not have shields?

Right from the passage: "For the Gallic shields not being big enough to cover the man, the larger the naked body the more certainty was there of the pilum hitting. "

Yes (and I said so before), but you have various evidence of organic armor in various gaulish context:

http://koso.ucsd.edu/~martin/CelticSitter.gif

http://usuarios.advance.com.ar/cernunno ... errier.jpg

http://jfbradu.free.fr/celtes/les-celte ... rtuse1.jpg

http://www.celticworld.it/immagini/ad_i ... 7_1118.jpg

Here, in the Frontone of Civitalba, while a lot of Celts are "Gaesatae-Like", in the first image on the left the second figure is dressed with something look like a padded armor: http://www.ilmontesantangelo.it/assets/ ... errato.gif

These are all roughly contemporaneous with the Glauberg figure, and predate Telamon by some time.

[Caturix]

Which are, as far as I know, an isolated example.

Maybe because we are speaking about DEPERIBILE material :wink:

These are all roughly contemporaneous with the Glauberg figure, and predate Telamon by some time.

???? Man, you must be joking... the statue of Roquepertuse is from late III B.C., the Civitalba Temple from the first of II B.C., and the Battle of Telamon is 225 B.C.

In fact we see a continuity of the use of organic armors in the gaulish context from V to II (and probably I) B.C.

And it's not so strange... funny people would have been the Gauls if, after starting to use chainmail, they would have quitted to use any other kind of armors, expecially knowing how expensive and long to constuct a chainmail is...

In a culture that heavily relied on wool dresses, the passage from heavy clothing to something like a padded felt armor is quite easy to hypotesize (and I repeat...the difference netween a "heavy colthing" and a padded armor is VERY labile)

... is a poor armor, but better than nothing... and knowing that Romans used in some circumstances felt protections too, mainly against projectiles, I think that it isn't a so foolish idea.