Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades

[rocktupac]

The problem is not in the conjecture, but in the reception. There was nothing wrong with Sekunda's or even Connolly's suggestion. You yourself inspired many a glued linothorax (I realize that is a rebuke at this point, sorry ). We just have to be clear that these are possibilities, not even probabilities.

In all fairness, glued linen armor (about 1cm thick) outperforms quilted linen, quilted and stuffed linen, and is roughly the eqivalent of (and actually somewhat outperforms) 2mm thick bronze armor.

[Paullus Scipio]

Without wishing to open a can of worms, that assertion is debateable at the very least.....others test results do not agree with your findings, unfortunately.

Even if true, the performance of a hypothetical glued linen Tube-and-Yoke is most assuredly not evidence of the existence of same in a Greek context ( though of course some sort of 'thorakes lineoi' certainly existed in Anatolia and the near East in Classical times - but there is no evidence whatever that these were glued linen, still less that they were 1 cm thick.) :?

[Dan Howard]

In all fairness, glued linen armor (about 1cm thick) outperforms quilted linen, quilted and stuffed linen.

Using that logic, since silk outperforms linen, the Greeks didn't use linen at all but silk to make their armour.

[PMBardunias]

Ha, good one! But this makes two points: First, that I can be convinced by EVIDENCE (and not by much else!). And second, all the more reason to be cautious with a new find! Remember, in its day, the glued linen theory fit the *evidence* that most of us had. This new piece *may* be armor, but I don't see any need to build it into a spolas or linothorax. To me, that goes beyond the evidence a mite too far.

Once bitten, twice shy! Although I did not build an adheso-thorax I did spend quite a bit of brain energy on the properties of different adhesives and construction processes to yeild the best pseudo-fibre-Glas armor, so I understand the caution. That's exactly why I am presenting this on RAT, not even my blog, because it is bald supposition and worthy only of discussion. A very good case, perhaps a better one, can be made for this being a composite bronze cuirasse as the authors suggest, but that is a far less interesting possibility.

[rocktupac]

Without wishing to open a can of worms, that assertion is debateable at the very least.....others test results do not agree with your findings, unfortunately.

The can of worms can stay closed, but I can only stick by the tests I have personally performed. I don't know the standards the "others" have kept but I do know those that I have held. I have witnessed it and have seen the results.

Even if true, the performance of a hypothetical glued linen Tube-and-Yoke is most assuredly not evidence of the existence of same in a Greek context ( though of course some sort of 'thorakes lineoi' certainly existed in Anatolia and the near East in Classical times - but there is no evidence whatever that these were glued linen, still less that they were 1 cm thick.) :?

Of course it isn't evidence. And I certainly hope you don't think linen corselets only existed in "Anatolia and the near East in Classical times." That would be silly. And again, of course there is no evidence that the linen corselets were 1cm thick. This is only a hypothetical thickness that linen armor must be to offer enough protection (and likely even more) as 2mm thick bronze armor and repel all arrow assaults likely to have been seen on an ancient battlefield.

[rocktupac]

In all fairness, glued linen armor (about 1cm thick) outperforms quilted linen, quilted and stuffed linen.

Using that logic, since silk outperforms linen, the Greeks didn't use linen at all but silk to make their armour.

No, using that logic glued linen is superior to quilted linen and quilted & stuffed linen. That's all.

Using your logic, since 5 inch thick steel outperforms silk, the Greeks didn't use silk at all but 5 inch thick steel to make their armor.

[Dan Howard]

There is just as much evidence for Greek 5 inch thick steel armour as there is for glued linen armour.

[Paullus Scipio]

There is just as much evidence for Greek 5 inch thick steel armour as there is for glued linen armour.

Touche !!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Paullus Scipio]

Rocktupac wrote:

This is only a hypothetical thickness that linen armor must be to offer enough protection (and likely even more) as 2mm thick bronze armor and repel all arrow assaults likely to have been seen on an ancient battlefield.

I hope you don't think that armour is meant or designed to be weaponproof ? To quote your earlier post: "..that would be silly...".

Armour, from the earliest times to modern tanks, is generally designed as a compromise between weight, protection, available materials, cost and other factors. Occasionally 'weaponproof' armour shows up ( such as Demetrius' iron cuirass, or the breastplates with 'shotproof' pistol marks from renaissance times) but these are never generally adopted.

That Greek Tube-and-Yoke armour and shields were not entirely arrowproof is shown by anecdotes such as the Spartan Callicrates, mortally wounded by an arrow in the side during the opening phases of Plataea, lamenting that he didn't get the chance to strike a blow, or the Spartan Leonymus on Xenophon's expedition who was killed by an arrow which went into the side of his body through his shield and 'spolas'.....and by modern studies such as "The Effectiveness of Greek Armour against Arrows in the Persian War" by P.H. Blyth 1977 ( now available on-line - which is just as well, as my original hardcopy is fading badly :lol: ) that shows that Greek helmets weren't 'arrowproof' either, though providing better protection than shields....

Armour studies, even hypothetical ones, should not begin from a premise of how much is necessary to totally defeat contemporary attacking weapons....

[Dithrambus]

Paullus Scipio wrote: Armour studies, even hypothetical ones, should not begin from a premise of how much is necessary to totally defeat contemporary attacking weapons....

Excellent point!

Even modern body armor is not impervious to all calibre of rifles/handguns etc. The 'holy grail' of armor is the perfect balance between weight and protection and one will always be sacrificed for the other, I agree that it is a mistake to assume that any of the ancient armor types were absolutely effective against missle, sword or spear, especially since we know they were not.

[PMBardunias]

Evidently generally aknowledged to not be proof against spear either (see below).

I recently read an author, who I luckily forget at the moment, claiming that the aspis would surely have been "proof" against a Brown Bess. Good for the fellow I cannot recall his name.

[Dithrambus]

I recently read an author, who I luckily forget at the moment, claiming that the aspis would surely have been "proof" against a Brown Bess. Good for the fellow I cannot recall his name.

Does'nt sound like the guy was truly familiar with either one! :roll:

[WorkMonkey1]

Rocktupac wrote:

This is only a hypothetical thickness that linen armor must be to offer enough protection (and likely even more) as 2mm thick bronze armor and repel all arrow assaults likely to have been seen on an ancient battlefield.

I hope you don't think that armour is meant or designed to be weaponproof ? To quote your earlier post: "..that would be silly...".

Armour, from the earliest times to modern tanks, is generally designed as a compromise between weight, protection, available materials, cost and other factors. Occasionally 'weaponproof' armour shows up ( such as Demetrius' iron cuirass, or the breastplates with 'shotproof' pistol marks from renaissance times) but these are never generally adopted.

A good place to start though, since then you know what the maximum thickness is you can deal with, thus what the heaviest weight was, then you can work down until you find the right weight/protection ratio and come to the same conclusion the greeks did.

Both of those anecdotes mention the warrior is killed from the side, is this suggestive of a weak spot in the armour? Presumably the left hand side where it is tied under the arm, Is this why you see scales being put under the arm pits? Extra defence against a perceived weakness in the armour.

Armour is never unbeatable, but it will react to perceived threats and changes in warfare.

[immortal]

I hope you don't think that armour is meant or designed to be weaponproof ? To quote your earlier post: "..that would be silly...".

Armour, from the earliest times to modern tanks, is generally designed as a compromise between weight, protection, available materials, cost and other factors. Occasionally 'weaponproof' armour shows up ( such as Demetrius' iron cuirass, or the breastplates with 'shotproof' pistol marks from renaissance times) but these are never generally adopted.

That Greek Tube-and-Yoke armour and shields were not entirely arrowproof is shown by anecdotes such as the Spartan Callicrates, mortally wounded by an arrow in the side during the opening phases of Plataea, lamenting that he didn't get the chance to strike a blow, or the Spartan Leonymus on Xenophon's expedition who was killed by an arrow which went into the side of his body through his shield and 'spolas'.....and by modern studies such as "The Effectiveness of Greek Armour against Arrows in the Persian War" by P.H. Blyth 1977 ( now available on-line - which is just as well, as my original hardcopy is fading badly :lol: ) that shows that Greek helmets weren't 'arrowproof' either, though providing better protection than shields....

Armour studies, even hypothetical ones, should not begin from a premise of how much is necessary to totally defeat contemporary attacking weapons....

A properly made steel breastplate will stop a musket shot or crossbow bolt. the 'pistol marks' you mention were pretty common thoughout Europe as a way of showing the buyer that the armour he has been made will actually protect him. They go much further back than the Renaissance.
You are also forgetting that you would try your hardest to NOT hit any armour when striking your opponent. The chances of a blade penetrating solid metallic armour is incredibly low.

I am highly dubious that an arrow could pierce a properly made piece of bronze armour, especially to the extent that is would cause any more than a fleash wound to the wearer.
Wounds against an armoured target are usually pure luck, striking a gap between the joints in armour, an eye socket or other exposed area.

Modern firearms and body armour and tanks are not valid for this argument. Firearms are now so destructive that they cannot be practally protected against. The best w can hope for is to damage limitation.

[rocktupac]

There is just as much evidence for Greek 5 inch thick steel armour as there is for glued linen armour.

Touche !!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ugh.

Armor is not meant to be weaponproof. I have seen 2mm thick bronze penetrated by multiple arrows (with different arrowheads) that 1cm thick laminated linen completely resisted. Of course the Greeks did not have 5 inch thick steel. I have read Blyth. I did not start out with the assumption that armor is meant to be arrow/weaponproof. Silly silly people.