10-15-2009, 07:16 PM
Scott--
I may be late to this, but perhaps you have missed our conclusion (that is, the conclusion drawn by a number of us, and by no means universal) that linen armor may well have existed in Persia and/or Egypt, but that it is unlikely that the armor we see on Greeks is linen.
I'll be the first to state that you can make a case for linen armor, but I'll fill in Paul M-S's answer by saying that such a case involves stretching the evidence a long way to fit the facts as we know them. I think that most people still arguing for Greek linen armor in period are making a classic (as opposed to Classical) error of academic logic--attempting to prove something true, instead of attempting to look at the evidence for what it is.
It is more likely that the pale armors of Greek art are leather. This likelihood is supported by contemporary sources--which you can read in other posts on this forum. The paucity of linguistic support for linen armor--and the relative richness of linguistic support for leather armor--further sways the issue.
I don't think anyone doubts that you CAN make good linen armor. Glued, quilted, glued and quilted--all possible. I would suggest, however, that the cost of all linen armor would have been astronomical in 5th C. Athens--and that's an assertion, but one with support from contemporary sources, and one that can, I agree, be contested. Again, the likelier conclusion is that Athens--the center of the trade in hides--made leather armor--rather than importing expensive linen which required dozens of yards to make the layers to build the armor...
Have you looked at Pausanias? In Greek? He's very revealing--he mentions two linen armors in his tours of temples--and both mentions (from the 2nd C. AD) make it abundantly clear how remarkable he felt linen armor to be. One might even infer from his words that it is Asiatic. His mentions of flax fields for linen--and their rarity--is even more revealing.
I won't maintain that the case against linen is "proven." I'd be surprised if that case were ever "proven" either way. But I think that the burden of evidence--especially the crucial, in-period evidence--points to leather armors.
And if I'm kicking a dead horse, I apologize.
I may be late to this, but perhaps you have missed our conclusion (that is, the conclusion drawn by a number of us, and by no means universal) that linen armor may well have existed in Persia and/or Egypt, but that it is unlikely that the armor we see on Greeks is linen.
I'll be the first to state that you can make a case for linen armor, but I'll fill in Paul M-S's answer by saying that such a case involves stretching the evidence a long way to fit the facts as we know them. I think that most people still arguing for Greek linen armor in period are making a classic (as opposed to Classical) error of academic logic--attempting to prove something true, instead of attempting to look at the evidence for what it is.
It is more likely that the pale armors of Greek art are leather. This likelihood is supported by contemporary sources--which you can read in other posts on this forum. The paucity of linguistic support for linen armor--and the relative richness of linguistic support for leather armor--further sways the issue.
I don't think anyone doubts that you CAN make good linen armor. Glued, quilted, glued and quilted--all possible. I would suggest, however, that the cost of all linen armor would have been astronomical in 5th C. Athens--and that's an assertion, but one with support from contemporary sources, and one that can, I agree, be contested. Again, the likelier conclusion is that Athens--the center of the trade in hides--made leather armor--rather than importing expensive linen which required dozens of yards to make the layers to build the armor...
Have you looked at Pausanias? In Greek? He's very revealing--he mentions two linen armors in his tours of temples--and both mentions (from the 2nd C. AD) make it abundantly clear how remarkable he felt linen armor to be. One might even infer from his words that it is Asiatic. His mentions of flax fields for linen--and their rarity--is even more revealing.
I won't maintain that the case against linen is "proven." I'd be surprised if that case were ever "proven" either way. But I think that the burden of evidence--especially the crucial, in-period evidence--points to leather armors.
And if I'm kicking a dead horse, I apologize.
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
