Gaulish felt armor

[Dan Howard]

Obviously not. But as I said iconographic evidence, puted together with various informations from ancient writers' statements can help us to make up some ideas.

Definitely, but some people invent ridiculous theories based on their interpretation of some statue or another and then go about manipulating the literary evidence to suit their preconceived notions. It would be better to approach the literary evidence with an open mind and then look for iconographical evidence to help support the text.

[Conal]

???? Man, you must be joking... the statue of Roquepertuse is from late III B.C.,

I am still researching this, but it may be that the style and gestures of the stautes may adte it to the 5th or 6th Century BC.

[Conal]

"P.S. About the greek painting you post, sorry but I'm quite convinced that are quite unrealistic an strongly based on the "topos" of heroic nudity, maybe exept this one: http://www2.unil.ch/iasa/iasa_c_est_aus ... _pilos.jpg

The last one is even a representation of the Achilles vs Hector legendary fight...

And here you have it in a nut shell ..... iconography cannot be trusted ... unless you find a datable example to link with it.

With things like nudity ... you can not be sure either way. Dismissing it as topos does not help.

Your opinion seems to be that men will always seek some from of protection ... maybe ... but that is all that can be said of it ... plently of cultures do not do so. People do the most illogical things. Some think they dont need real armour and even today smear themselve with ashes as protection against bullets!!! I have seen gunmen in the middles east, in order to show courage, run into the middle of the street to shoot ... with obvious (to you and me, but apparently not to him) consequences.

With reference to literary sources it is rarely those who were there who wrote the histories so they are relying on other mens memories. So unless what is said can be proven in archaolgy then it must be taken as potentially true :?

If you can link Iconography, Archaology and Literature you are doing well ... I dont think you have in this case.

[Caturix]

???? Man, you must be joking... the statue of Roquepertuse is from late III B.C.,

I am still researching this, but it may be that the style and gestures of the stautes may adte it to the 5th or 6th Century BC.

Without doubt the position and the gesture of the statue reminds of older models, but It's dated III B.C.

Most interesting thing, the square-structure of the armor reminds a lot similar armors like the ones on the Hallstatt scabbard, pointing out in my opinion a continuity of the use of some kind of protections.

B.T.W., You can see it in the museum of Marseille.

[Caturix]

I think that any different situation must be analized on its own context, and that unfortunately doesn't exist a "rule" tha we can use in all the circumstances.

We know that some kind of celtic warriors, as the Gaesatae, used to fight naked, but it's highly improbable that was a rule for all celtic warriors...

the existence among celtic context of the chainmail implies the existence of a subarmalis, so the involvement in celtic warfare of organic materials to build armors or part of armors; the existence of various celtic statues and depitcions from the V to the II B.C., linked with some findings (La Gorge-Meillet Tomb) studied and analized by Andreè Rapin, pointed out that organic armors were used by the Celts.

Of WICH material they were maded of, can be a big matter of discussion: why I hypotesize felt (however without negating a parallel use of leather or, maybe, linen), I've already explained: the presence of felt protections in italic context, and the passage of Ploybius about Telamon, that I still find curious (still not convinced that a woolen cloak can be of some use against javelins)

[Conal]

Without doubt the position and the gesture of the statue reminds of older models, but It's dated III B.C.

Th esuggestion is that the date is wrong ... that it is in fact earlier than the site at which it was found. If it is a IIIbc copy of an earlier style then teh armour would date earlier.

Most interesting thing, the square-structure of the armor reminds a lot similar armors like the ones on the Hallstatt scabbard, pointing out in my opinion a continuity of the use of some kind of protections.B.T.W., You can see it in the museum of Marseille.

The Halstatt scabbard is dated 450-350BC .... nothing to suggest continuity to 225BC.

think that any different situation must be analized on its own context, and that unfortunately doesn't exist a "rule" tha we can use in all the circumstances.

I agree no rule ... but to convince others its better to link as many sources as possible in a plausable way.

We know that some kind of celtic warriors, as the Gaesatae, used to fight naked, but it's highly improbable that was a rule for all celtic warriors...

the existence among celtic context of the chainmail implies the existence of a subarmalis, so the involvement in celtic warfare of organic materials to build armors or part of armors; the existence of various celtic statues and depitcions from the V to the II B.C., linked with some findings (La Gorge-Meillet Tomb) studied and analized by Andreè Rapin, pointed out that organic armors were used by the Celts.

Of WICH material they were maded of, can be a big matter of discussion: why I hypotesize felt (however without negating a parallel use of leather or, maybe, linen), I've already explained: the presence of felt protections in italic context, and the passage of Ploybius about Telamon, that I still find curious (still not convinced that a woolen cloak can be of some use against javelins)

All the sources you state are a lot earlier than Telamon., which was the starting point of this debate in that I believe it is self eveident that Polybius is not talking of armour of any sort but merely clothing .... put plainly and politely he is talking rubbish. You are right , javelins would not be deflected even by heavy clothing.

I am not saying that Celts did not ever use padded armour , just that I remain to be convinced that by 225BC they still did so.

This is a good debate though, robust, serious and polite, a learning process and something I will pay more note of in my Celtic studies more reading and reserch .... :roll:

I appreciate your initial post as it challenges pre-conceptions and complacency. Keep it coming.

[Donciorate]

Go here. This is a discussion about organic armor, at the bottom are pictures of vests of felt armor made by a Germanic Re-enactment group.

http://www.kelticos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=470

[Caturix]

Go here. This is a discussion about organic armor, at the bottom are pictures of vests of felt armor made by a Germanic Re-enactment group.

http://www.kelticos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=470

Ehemmm.... CELTIC reenactment group in that case, thanks... and the pictures are the same I posted here... actually the author of that post is me ;-) )

To Conal: the fact is that we have findings that testify the use of organic armors by Celts at least until Fourth B.C. (leaving the III B.C. Roquepertuse, because in fact I have read that the datation is uncertain)

I can see no reason for abandoning that kind of armor, considering that chainmail, without doubt used by III B.C. Celts, was something for the richest.

The use of chainmail too implies the existence of a "subarmalis"... and a felt armor is more ore less a thick subarmalis without a chainmail on it ;-) ) .

And however, I still think that Polybius describe a kind of protection.

[Caturix]

I almost forgotten... another thing that could state the continuity of the use of organic armors among the Celts could be this representation on a Roman coin
[url:2wthspcj]http://www.kernunnos.com/culture/warriors/dress.jpe[/url]

and also the various warriors depicted on the Mausoleum of the Julii, that the more I analize it, the more it seems actually the representation of a battle of the gallic wars.

[Conal]

I almost forgotten... another thing that could state the continuity of the use of organic armors among the Celts could be this representation on a Roman coin
[url:3n0jqodg]http://www.kernunnos.com/culture/warriors/dress.jpe[/url]

and also the various warriors depicted on the Mausoleum of the Julii, that the more I analize it, the more it seems actually the representation of a battle of the gallic wars.

Why is this not;

(a) Mail?
(b) An ordinary tunic?

[Caturix]

Can't be an ordinary tunic, because in coins with the same styleme normal tunics are as well represented:

Coin Tunic

Coin Tunic2

Coin Tunic3

However, unfortunately today I reserach more about that coin, and I found that actually it isn't an organic armor but a chainmail, looking to other examples of coins of the same matrix: COIN CHAINMAIL

[Conal]

More research needed by both of us then