Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades

[PMBardunias]

What is that square on his upper chest in that statue from the Louvre? I ask because sometimes there are bars between pteryges on the chest in later art. The level of detail on this one would seem to make it unlikely that such a feature as pteryges were just painted on, but it what the square on the chest made me think of.

[Thunder]

I actually came to a somewhat wider conclusion in regards to the Y&T cuirass, that, in some (not all) cases, the entire front and back plates could have been made from wrought iron. Slightly insane, I know, but it strikes me as more logical than supposing they were made from leather (which isn't great armour) or from linen (again, relatively light armour). Armour tends to become heavier and more resilient as technology advances, excluding the mass production of the matchlock musket and possibly the fall of the Roman Empire. So it strikes me as odd that the Greeks would trade heavier armour for lighter amongst even their heaviest troops.

[PMBardunias]

I actually came to a somewhat wider conclusion in regards to the Y&T cuirass, that, in some (not all) cases, the entire front and back plates could have been made from wrought iron. Slightly insane, I know, ....

I would not call it insane, since we do have one example of such and I have analogized this type of construction to later Char-Aina armor, there is a whole thread on it someplace here. This is also what Sekunda wrote, though evidently he would have it covered with linen, but I don't agree that this was widespread. We basically know of three main types of armor for hoplites, Thorakes of metal, Thorakes of linen, and Spolades, a word which has leather at its roots. There is some evidence that the terms spolades and Thorakes could be used interchangably, which would indicate either they bear the same basic meaning, perhaps originally being distinct,then converging, or they were two different modes of construction, only one a T-Y (for which there is no evidence). In terms of artifacts we have bronze and iron cuirasses, one, perhaps more, iron corslet in the form of a T-Y, and bits of furniture from T-Y's. I have to assume that if these bronze bits were found in a layer of rust we would know it. We should actually be able to determine if the soil around such finds was decomposed organic material, but I have not seen any attempt so the original soils must not have been conserved.

Now if the early T-Y were made of iron like the Vergina cuirasse, then it is unlikely that this armor would have been referred to as a linothorax, but rather either simply as a thorax or an "Iron" thorax to differentiate it from the bronze type. I don't think a non-functional veneer of linen would spawn the name. Thus this armor would not be the "linothorax" we read of. It also would not be the spolades we read of for there is no leather implied. The only reason to propose it was covered with linen was to make it conform to the name "linothorax", so the circular reasoning does not hold water to me. So if T-Ys were of iron, then we have no images of Linothorakes or spolades- which I find unlikely.

Thus the original form of the T-Y, if what we see on vases actually corresponds to either linothorakes or spolades, would have been of organic construction. The Vergina cuirasse either a simple mock up of a T-Y done in iron, or a later variant for which we cannot guage the breadth of use. This is distinct from the construction I suggested on this thread because here the armor is of organic construction. A "coat of plates" is first a "coat" and second concealing "plates". So presumably to a greek this would be a 'linothorax' or spolades just like T-Y with scales.

but it strikes me as more logical than supposing they were made from leather (which isn't great armour) or from linen (again, relatively light armour). Armour tends to become heavier and more resilient as technology advances, excluding the mass production of the matchlock musket and possibly the fall of the Roman Empire. So it strikes me as odd that the Greeks would trade heavier armour for lighter amongst even their heaviest troops.

The problem with this is that there are countless examples of T-Ys with scales. Unless we assume that scales were put on over iron plate, which is rediculous, then even under your scheme armor would have 'lightened" from plate to scale.

Yes Matt,I know I opened up this can of worms...Mia culpa.

[Thunder]

True, T&T's were developed with scales, but then again, how do you make scale armour? Soft leather, and you stitch on the scales. Which is entirely possible with a linen or leather construct of a L&T-type cuirass. I merely meant to suggest that this was a possible type of armour construction, possibly somewhere between the bronze cuirass' and cuirass' made of linen and leather. If you've got time and labour, which your average hoplite has (in the form of servants and/or family), scale is a relatively economical alternative to a plate cuirass as it can be made from scraps of material.

Also, weren't many of the scale reinforcings to the cuirass made on the sides? In my mind, the iron thorax type would be two plates of iron - one front, one back - with a soft or hardened leather/linen shoulder piece (as using an overarm spear with a rigid shoulder guard would be extremely difficult) and side pieces, all three of which would benefit from scale reinforcing to protect the man.

Personally, I disagree with the term 'linothorax' myself. Body armour tends to be a remarkably hetrogenous affair, and a basic design can find itself being altered and made from varying materials. Greaves, for example, have been made from leather, bronze, iron, and steel over the course of their existence

[PMBardunias]

True, T&T's were developed with scales, but then again, how do you make scale armour? Soft leather, and you stitch on the scales. Which is entirely possible with a linen or leather construct of a L&T-type cuirass. I merely meant to suggest that this was a possible type of armour construction, possibly somewhere between the bronze cuirass' and cuirass' made of linen and leather. If you've got time and labour, which your average hoplite has (in the form of servants and/or family), scale is a relatively economical alternative to a plate cuirass as it can be made from scraps of material.

With that possibility I would agree, it what this thread started with. But please, please keep in mind this is only a "possibility"

[Lysimachos]

On the above statue there is banding on his feet and shins also. These are generally interpreted as leg bindings. Why are the arms covered in segmented plate and the feet in bindings? Why can't the arms also be covered in an item of clothing and not armour?

Certainly a possibility. However, we know hooped limb armor existed and it looked rather like the arms on this statue. I've never heard the interpretation of the leg banding as bindings, but I have wondered why they only come part way up the leg--why not just wear greaves? The fact that the banding continues down the foot, then ends in something not too different from the foot guard from Ai Khanoum makes me lean towards it being armor, but I don't know why it only covers the lower leg. Also, other depictions of muscled cuirass with (apparent) hooped leg/arm armor exist, in, for example coins of Hormizd. In the case of Hormizd, though, part of me thinks the creator of those coins just mixed and matched things from earlier Kushan coins and it may not depict real armor.

I have no idea what the square on the chest of the statue is all about.

[rocktupac]

I actually came to a somewhat wider conclusion in regards to the Y&T cuirass, that, in some (not all) cases, the entire front and back plates could have been made from wrought iron. Slightly insane, I know, ....

I would not call it insane, since we do have one example of such and I have analogized this type of construction to later Char-Aina armor, there is a whole thread on it someplace here. This is also what Sekunda wrote, though evidently he would have it covered with linen, but I don't agree that this was widespread. We basically know of three main types of armor for hoplites, Thorakes of metal, Thorakes of linen, and Spolades, a word which has leather at its roots. There is some evidence that the terms spolades and Thorakes could be used interchangably, which would indicate either they bear the same basic meaning, perhaps originally being distinct,then converging, or they were two different modes of construction, only one a T-Y (for which there is no evidence). In terms of artifacts we have bronze and iron cuirasses, one, perhaps more, iron corslet in the form of a T-Y, and bits of furniture from T-Y's. I have to assume that if these bronze bits were found in a layer of rust we would know it. We should actually be able to determine if the soil around such finds was decomposed organic material, but I have not seen any attempt so the original soils must not have been conserved.

Now if the early T-Y were made of iron like the Vergina cuirasse, then it is unlikely that this armor would have been referred to as a linothorax, but rather either simply as a thorax or an "Iron" thorax to differentiate it from the bronze type. I don't think a non-functional veneer of linen would spawn the name. Thus this armor would not be the "linothorax" we read of. It also would not be the spolades we read of for there is no leather implied. The only reason to propose it was covered with linen was to make it conform to the name "linothorax", so the circular reasoning does not hold water to me. So if T-Ys were of iron, then we have no images of Linothorakes or spolades- which I find unlikely.

Thus the original form of the T-Y, if what we see on vases actually corresponds to either linothorakes or spolades, would have been of organic construction. The Vergina cuirasse either a simple mock up of a T-Y done in iron, or a later variant for which we cannot guage the breadth of use. This is distinct from the construction I suggested on this thread because here the armor is of organic construction. A "coat of plates" is first a "coat" and second concealing "plates". So presumably to a greek this would be a 'linothorax' or spolades just like T-Y with scales.

but it strikes me as more logical than supposing they were made from leather (which isn't great armour) or from linen (again, relatively light armour). Armour tends to become heavier and more resilient as technology advances, excluding the mass production of the matchlock musket and possibly the fall of the Roman Empire. So it strikes me as odd that the Greeks would trade heavier armour for lighter amongst even their heaviest troops.

The problem with this is that there are countless examples of T-Ys with scales. Unless we assume that scales were put on over iron plate, which is rediculous, then even under your scheme armor would have 'lightened" from plate to scale.

Yes Matt,I know I opened up this can of worms...Mia culpa.

Paul:

Great summation! Couldn't agree more. Very nice job indeed sir.

[rocktupac]

Also, weren't many of the scale reinforcings to the cuirass made on the sides?

There are numerous examples, and maybe even the same number actually, of the T-Y with scales on the front, or only on the abdomen or chest. I wouldn't say they mostly showed up on the side.

[PMBardunias]

Also, weren't many of the scale reinforcings to the cuirass made on the sides?

There are numerous examples, and maybe even the same number actually, of the T-Y with scales on the front, or only on the abdomen or chest. I wouldn't say they mostly showed up on the side.

Thanks, Scott. I've gone through an obscene number of vases now and I know Scott has too, and one thing I would caution is making too much of the notion that only the right, shieldless, side was reinforced with scales. While it is true that I have not seen only the left side covered with scales, I have seen only the front so covered and the sides plain, and I get the impression that usually when one side was, both sides were. I'd recommend to anyone just browsing the Beazley archives or CVA with any free time you have. I have been amazed at the sheer variability and sometimes oddity of what turns up. For instance it was sheer accident that I noticed the "banded" T-Y above and we recently found evidence of belting the waist.

[Paullus Scipio]

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I'm going to take issue with a number of slight inaccuracies in Paul's summation, for it is by letting 'small' things slide that they erroneously become accepted fact.......

We basically know of three main types of armor for hoplites, Thorakes of metal, Thorakes of linen, and Spolades, a word which has leather at its roots.

If we are referring to GREEK hoplites (which is what the word generally refers to), this is incorrect, only TWO types of armour are referred to in literature,"thorakes" and "spolades". No Greek Hoplite is ever referred to as wearing a 'thorakes lineous' or 'linous thoraka', only foreigners. [ e.g.( Xen Cyropaedia VI.2) Abradatus, a Persian, puts on "a breastplate made of linen ( 'linous thoraka') such as they used in his country"]

There is some evidence that the terms spolades and Thorakes could be used interchangably,

What is the evidence for this? I cannot recall off-hand any instance where the two terms are used synonymously, and they are usually used quite distinctively (e.g. Xenophon III.3, when 50 cavalry are formed and they, being shieldless, are given 'spolades AND thorakes' ( spolades kai thorakes) - and since only two basic types of Hoplite body armour are known for this time - bronze muscled cuirasses/muskelpanzers and 'non-metal' Tube-and-Yoke corselets, it is likely that 'spolades', known to be of leather, are the Tube-and-Yoke corselets, while 'thorakes' must refer to the bronze cuirasses, for before T-and-Y corselets appeared, all hoplites wore bronze body armour called 'thorakes'. Interestingly, there were apparently fewer than 50 'thorakes' among the ten thousand ( the shieldless cavalry needed the heavier protection of the 'thorakes' - Xenophon complains of the weight later - so some had to make do with 'spolades')

.....then it is unlikely that this armor would have been referred to as a linothorax, ....Thus this armor would not be the "linothorax" we read of.

We do not in fact read of the term 'linothorax' in the sources. As has been pointed out repeatedly in various threads, the term 'linothorax' is not EVER used of hoplite armour....it is a modern borrowing and variation on a Homeric term. The sooner this inaccurate mis-nomer is dropped, the less confusion there will be on the subject.

Thus the original form of the T-Y, if what we see on vases actually corresponds to either linothorakes or spolades, would have been of organic construction

Since the term 'linothorax' did not exist, that arguably leaves 'spolades', known to be of leather, as the only candidate for the Greek Tube-and-Yoke.

The Vergina cuirasse either a simple mock up of a T-Y done in iron,or a later variant for which we cannot guage the breadth of use.

That iron was a rarity for armour construction up to Macedonian times can be gauged from its comparative rarity ( subject to the usual archaeological distortions of the record) - one cuirass, and two or three Macedonian helmets. Further evidence of its rarity at this time is the anecdote of Plutarch (Demetrius XXI.3) of the two wondrous iron 'thorakes' made by Zoilus and presented to him - each was lighter than normal armour, and was 'proofed' by having a catapult shot at it.

I'm sure Paul did not intend these inaccuracies to creep in - he knows the word 'linothorax' is quite wrong, for example, but because many know the term, it is still commonly used. However, it is only by the more knowledgeable students of the subject, such as those here on RAT using correct terminology that these errors can be reduced from widespread use, if not entirely eliminated......

[Paullus Scipio]

On the above statue there is banding on his feet and shins also. These are generally interpreted as leg bindings. Why are the arms covered in segmented plate and the feet in bindings? Why can't the arms also be covered in an item of clothing and not armour?

Certainly a possibility. However, we know hooped limb armor existed and it looked rather like the arms on this statue. I've never heard the interpretation of the leg banding as bindings, but I have wondered why they only come part way up the leg--why not just wear greaves? The fact that the banding continues down the foot, then ends in something not too different from the foot guard from Ai Khanoum makes me lean towards it being armor, but I don't know why it only covers the lower leg. Also, other depictions of muscled cuirass with (apparent) hooped leg/arm armor exist, in, for example coins of Hormizd. In the case of Hormizd, though, part of me thinks the creator of those coins just mixed and matched things from earlier Kushan coins and it may not depict real armor.

I have no idea what the square on the chest of the statue is all about.

Dan raises a very good point regarding this rather problematic 3 C BC statuette, found, I believe, in Syria - if so then it cannot be 'Parthian' but rather Hellenistcic because of time and place. It is often assumed the 'hoops' on the arms are armour by analogy with the 2 C BC Pergamum reliefs showing a trophy which includes tubular/hooped arm pieces, a Tube-and-Yoke corselet ( the shoulder pieces decorated with 'thunderbolts') and a masked helmet, and also bearing the senior oficer's girdle tied with the knot of Heracles, like the statuette.....

One should also note that the 'body armour', if correctly depicted, cannot be a metal 'muscled cuirass' for the shoulder pieces descend down the arms, T-shirt fashion - often shown this way by artists ( if of metal, the wearer could not raise his arms, or get it on or off! ) either in error, as an artistic convention, or showing that the armour is something else e.g. mail, or some other flexible form...... or even some form of 'sub-armalis'.

A vexing conundrum !!

[Lysimachos]

Vexing indeed. Sometimes the most intriguing iconography ends up raising more questions that answers. I should mention that the Louvre website actually lists the date of that statue as 3rd cent BC to 3rd cent AD! Quite the range.

[PMBardunias]

If we are referring to GREEK hoplites (which is what the word generally refers to), this is incorrect, only TWO types of armour are referred to in literature,"thorakes" and "spolades". No Greek Hoplite is ever referred to as wearing a 'thorakes lineous' or 'linous thoraka', only foreigners. [ e.g.( Xen Cyropaedia VI.2) Abradatus, a Persian, puts on "a breastplate made of linen ( 'linous thoraka') such as they used in his country"]

Hoplites had access to all three types of armor. Lindos and Delos are Greeks, not asian, and even the mainland Ionian Greeks, if we assume that is where Aneas' anectdote ocurred, fielded hoplites. Thus, some hoplites likely wore textile armor. Even if you would claim that no Greek craftsman ever made a linen armor, it would be a mistake to assume no mainland Greek hoplite ever wore one given the availability and human tastes for the exotic. Alexander is surely not the first Greek to don an Asian textile armor.

There is some evidence that the terms spolades and Thorakes could be used interchangably,
What is the evidence for this?

If we assume that Spolades refers to a leather armor, and that there were not many styles of leather armor other than the T-Y in this period, then when we read of "Thorakia Skutinous" in the Delian treasury, the terms would be synonymous with spolades. There is a questionable occurence of the corrupted term Linou...spoladion which would match the symmetry of "Thorakia Skutinous- thorakes lineous". In fact if there was a Linou-spoladion, this would be good evidence for the armor originally being solely of leather construction, since there is a need to add the later qualifier of linen to the armor's name.

We do not in fact read of the term 'linothorax' in the sources. As has been pointed out repeatedly in various threads, the term 'linothorax' is not EVER used of hoplite armour....it is a modern borrowing and variation on a Homeric term. The sooner this inaccurate mis-nomer is dropped, the less confusion there will be on the subject.

It is irrelevent that the term "Linothorakes" is not used for armor in the hoplite period. Homer uses the term ????????? to designate an armor of unknown manufacture that is made of linen. Thus this is the first term, albeit converted to a noun in modern parlayance, for linen armor in Greek and is wholly appropriate, in fact I think it holds precedence. Where you have a problem is that so many have gone beyond the evidence to use the word "linothorax" as a synonym for T-Y, which is unacceptable. Using the variants 'thorakes lineous' or 'linous thoraka' does nothing to limit ambiguity and only adds needless complexity. The reason that Strabo could describe Lusitanians as "linothaxed" is that the meaning to a greek was simply an armor made of linen. It is the modern scholar who has assumed that the word equates to the T-Y. In seeking to change the use of the word you are in fact giving up on this point and by using "Linous Thoraka" you are accepting that this is a specialized label for a type of armor only seen in the period in question, thus equivalent to the T-Y. Some linothoraxes may have been T-Ys, but not all T-Ys were linothoraxes.

The Vergina cuirasse either a simple mock up of a T-Y done in iron,or a later variant for which we cannot guage the breadth of use.

That iron was a rarity for armour construction up to Macedonian times can be gauged from its comparative rarity ( subject to the usual archaeological distortions of the record) - one cuirass, and two or three Macedonian helmets. Further evidence of its rarity at this time is the anecdote of Plutarch (Demetrius XXI.3) of the two wondrous iron 'thorakes' made by Zoilus and presented to him - each was lighter than normal armour, and was 'proofed' by having a catapult shot at it.

Considering the dearth of Greek bronze scales in comparison to their frequency in art, I am less than convinced by an argument based on a lack of finds. The fact that 'wonderous" armors could be made of iron plate at late dates does nothing to disprove less impressive early iron armors made of scales or smaller plates. While iron was a rarity for armor, we think, Iron was a major export of some Greek regions and Iron weapons are of course common. Thus you'd almost have to come up with an explanation for a lack of iron in armor- limitations in technology, fashion, or perhaps the same reason that coffee sucks in Columbia- the divergence of the commodity for export.

[Paullus Scipio]

Hoplites had access to all three types of armor.
Evidence? There is no evidence I can think of, off the top of my head that the citizens of any Greek Poleis had access to, or commonly wore linen armour - and even if Aeneas' anecdote is correctly assumed to be referring to linen armour, no evidence that it was intended for Hoplites - it could just as easily have been 'local' armour intended for 'natives'....
Lindos and Delos are Greeks, not asian, and even the mainland Ionian Greeks, if we assume that is where Aneas' anectdote ocurred, fielded hoplites. Thus, some hoplites likely wore textile armor.That is pure assumption - as I said there is nothing to suggest the armour of Aeneas' anecdote has anything to do with Hoplites....so you can't say 'likely', only 'possibly'...
Even if you would claim that no Greek craftsman ever made a linen armor, it would be a mistake to assume no mainland Greek hoplite ever wore one given the availability and human tastes for the exotic. Alexander is surely not the first Greek to don an Asian textile armor.
You are setting up a straw man here! I never said that no Greek ever wore linen armour, merely that only two types - bronze and leather - are referred to in the literature .Anyway, doesn't this prove the point? The evidence suggests it was rare/uncommon, for instance the very anecdote you refer to. The fact is, when Alexander wore linen armour, it was sufficiently rare as to be remarked on, together with the explicit point that it was a captured Persian piece. The clear implication is that Greeks don't normally wear such 'foreign' armour

If we assume that Spolades refers to a leather armor, and that there were not many styles of leather armor other than the T-Y in this period, then when we read of "Thorakia Skutinous" in the Delian treasury, the terms would be synonymous with spolades.
Again, this is an assumption - to use your words "not many styles..." If there was leather body-armour, but not of T-and-Y form, it would be called something other than 'spolades', hence 'thorakia skutinous'. Only if the T-and-Y were the sole form of leather armour would the terms be synonymous.
There is a questionable occurence of the corrupted term Linou...spoladion which would match the symmetry of "Thorakia Skutinous- thorakes lineous". In fact if there was a Linou-spoladion, this would be good evidence for the armor originally being solely of leather construction, since there is a need to add the later qualifier of linen to the armor's name.
With all due credit to Ruben for this discovery, there is in fact no actual reference to "linou spoladion" - this is just speculation. Again, you are inferring far to much from "questionable"( your own word) uncertain evidence.

We do not in fact read of the term 'linothorax' in the sources. As has been pointed out repeatedly in various threads, the term 'linothorax' is not EVER used of hoplite armour....it is a modern borrowing and variation on a Homeric term. The sooner this inaccurate mis-nomer is dropped, the less confusion there will be on the subject.

It is irrelevent that the term "Linothorakes" is not used for armor in the hoplite period. Homer uses the term ????????? to designate an armor of unknown manufacture that is made of linen.
Homer and the T-and-Y are centuries apart from one another!
Thus this is the first term, albeit converted to a noun in modern parlayance, for linen armor in Greek and is wholly appropriate, in fact I think it holds precedence...but Homer's terminology has nothing whatever to do with Classical Hoplite body armour! Would you use other Homeric epithets to derive a name for much later equipment? There is no logic to this!
Where you have a problem is that so many have gone beyond the evidence to use the word "linothorax" as a synonym for T-Y, which is unacceptable.
Which is precisely the point. The word was 'invented' specifically by someone unknown as a name for the T-and-Y corselet - and fairly recently too. For example, Peter Connolly, the inventor of the 'glued linen' hypothesis, does not use the term in either "Greek Armies" (1977) or "Greece and Rome at War" (1981) Before that, J.K. Anderson and other scholars correctly used Xenophon's term 'spolas' for the T-and-Y corselet
Using the variants 'thorakes lineous' or 'linous thoraka' does nothing to limit ambiguity and only adds needless complexity.
How can this be so? These are the correct, and actual words used in our sources, used to describe 'foreign/Persian' armour. You are suggesting we should ignore the correct terminology in favour of a recently 'made up' word used incorrectly and misleadingly as a name for the Greek T-and-Y corselet/spolas?
The reason that Strabo could describe Lusitanians as "linothaxed"
Strabo does not use this term.is that the meaning to a greek was simply an armor made of linen.
It is the modern scholar who has assumed that the word equates to the T-Y.
Incorrect, I'm afraid. As I said, the word/term was invented specifically as a name for the Greek Hoplite's T-and-Y corselet,and it is wholly without foundation, and probably not invented by any 'scholar', since it is not even a real greek word.
In seeking to change the use of the word you are in fact giving up on this point and by using "Linous Thoraka" you are accepting that this is a specialized label for a type of armor only seen in the period in question, thus equivalent to the T-Y. Some linothoraxes may have been T-Ys, but not all T-Ys were linothoraxes.
I can't follow your logic here. What is wrong with using the correct and proper words used to describe foreign/Persian armours made of linen?If not all 'linothoraxes' are T-and-Y's, then why call them this modern made-up word, which is an incorrect description, and not even real Greek, to boot? You are here seeking to defend the indefensible.

The Vergina cuirasse either a simple mock up of a T-Y done in iron,or a later variant for which we cannot guage the breadth of use.

That iron was a rarity for armour construction up to Macedonian times can be gauged from its comparative rarity ( subject to the usual archaeological distortions of the record) - one cuirass, and two or three Macedonian helmets. Further evidence of its rarity at this time is the anecdote of Plutarch (Demetrius XXI.3) of the two wondrous iron 'thorakes' made by Zoilus and presented to him - each was lighter than normal armour, and was 'proofed' by having a catapult shot at it.

Considering the dearth of Greek bronze scales in comparison to their frequency in art, I am less than convinced by an argument based on a lack of finds.
Yes, I also made this point -" (subject to the usual archaeological distortions of the record)"
The fact that 'wonderous" armors could be made of iron plate at late dates ...not late dates - Demetrius was one of Alexander's successors.The armours described are similar to the 'Philip' piece - further evidence of the rarity and uniqueness of iron armour in Macedonian times. If iron re-inforcing plates had commonly been used earlier in T-and-Y corselets, such anecdotes would not be reported - that they are shows the that iron armour was exceptional.
does nothing to disprove less impressive early iron armors made of scales or smaller plates. While iron was a rarity for armor, we think, Iron was a major export of some Greek regions and Iron weapons are of course common. Thus you'd almost have to come up with an explanation for a lack of iron in armor- limitations in technology, fashion, or perhaps the same reason that coffee sucks in Columbia- the divergence of the commodity for export.

I don't believe so. Iron was much harder to work, technically, than other materials, requiring much higher temperatures for example. It was therefore a rarity in armour ( though not simple spear-heads and sword-blades) until those technological masters of iron-work, the Celts, came up with practical iron armour in the form of mail.

[PMBardunias]

Evidence? There is no evidence I can think of, off the top of my head that the citizens of any Greek Poleis had access to, or commonly wore linen armour - and even if Aeneas' anecdote is correctly assumed to be referring to linen armour, no evidence that it was intended for Hoplites - it could just as easily have been 'local' armour intended for 'natives'

It does not matter who the armor was intended for. I stated that three types of armor were available to hoplites. Those smuggled Thorakes, as well as the linen armor hanging in a home in Lindos or a treasury in Delos are obviously available. If linen armors were "around" for other troop types, or taken as booty from foreigners, then they were obviously "available". The onus is now on you to tell us why they would not be worn- especially because we know Alexander did so.

You are setting up a straw man here! I never said that no Greek ever wore linen armour, merely that only two types - bronze and leather - are referred to in the literature .Anyway, doesn't this prove the point? The evidence suggests it was rare/uncommon, for instance the very anecdote you refer to. The fact is, when Alexander wore linen armour, it was sufficiently rare as to be remarked on, together with the explicit point that it was a captured Persian piece. The clear implication is that Greeks don't normally wear such 'foreign' armour

Good, now we have gone from "never" to "normally". I never said that linen dominated. I said that linen was available and likely worn by some hoplites. Maybe more in the East, less in the West. Maybe an Acarnanian never saw one, while a rich Athenian with business interests in Melos had one.

Again, this is an assumption - to use your words "not many styles..." If there was leather body-armour, but not of T-and-Y form, it would be called something other than 'spolades', hence 'thorakia skutinous'. Only if the T-and-Y were the sole form of leather armour would the terms be synonymous

Are you suggesting that there is a leather armor in the Delian treasury that is not a T-Y? I should take care because that way leads to Spolades not being T-Ys! Do not arm your opponents.

With all due credit to Ruben for this discovery, there is in fact no actual reference to "linou spoladion" - this is just speculation. Again, you are inferring far to much from "questionable"( your own word) uncertain evidence.

With all respect returned, the evidence is good enough for "questionable" to be appropriate. Moreso in light of the use of Thorakes in both linen and leather.

We do not in fact read of the term 'linothorax' in the sources. As has been pointed out repeatedly in various threads, the term 'linothorax' is not EVER used of hoplite armour....it is a modern borrowing and variation on a Homeric term. The sooner this inaccurate mis-nomer is dropped, the less confusion there will be on the subject.

Does ????????? not refer to linen armor??? Had linen somehow qualitatively changed in a few centuries? Homer speaks of Linen armor, we later read of linen armor. It does not matter if they change the word order, the meaning is linen armor. If it is made of linen and it is armor for the chest the man has a linothorex, A chest protected by linen, colloquialized to linothorax for the armor itself:

??^??-????? , ?_???, Ep. and Ion. ??^??-????? , ????, o(, h(,
A. wearing a linen cuirass, Il.2.529, 830; “???????” AP14.73; [?????????] Str.3.3.6.

Unless you think that every reference to "Thorakes lineou" definitely meant a T-Y, then I could understand why you would want to seperate it out from the armor that Homer speaks of, for which we cannot know the form.

This could be interesting:

??^??-?????? , ??,
A. clad in linen, B.18.43, Hymn.Is. 1.

The citation seems wrong, for I cannot find lino anhything at B.18.43, but there is this:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... g=original

?????
???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??????
?????, ???? ?? ?????? ??????;

[Chorus:]
Who is the man said to be, and from where? How is he equipped? Is he leading a great army with weapons of war?

A nice instance of "Stolan" being used like "opla" to mean equipment, maybe armor.

Homer and the T-and-Y are centuries apart from one another!

Hom many centuries between a hardened leather "cuirasse" and the plate of a Curiassier? Here even the very form has changed, but still the word is appropriate.

but Homer's terminology has nothing whatever to do with Classical Hoplite body armour! Would you use other Homeric epithets to derive a name for much later equipment? There is no logic to this!

Yes, I would, as would Strabo if Liddell can be believed. Because the term has no specific homeric meaning, it is simply a way of saying linen corselet in Greek!!!

Which is precisely the point. The word was 'invented' specifically by someone unknown as a name for the T-and-Y corselet

No, it was used by a very good Greek who wrote the Illiad to mean an armor made of linen. That someone used this excellent term, but tried to give it a specific modern meaning it did not bear in the past to any greek is the problem.

The reason that Strabo could describe Lusitanians as "linothaxed"
Strabo does not use this term.

Do you have the Greek for the following? Liddell tells me he does.
"Their corselets are for the most part made of linen; a few have chain-coats and helmets with triple crests, but the others use helmets composed of sinews."

If not all 'linothoraxes' are T-and-Y's, then why call them this modern made-up word, which is an incorrect description, and not even real Greek, to boot? You are here seeking to defend the indefensible.

No, I am not suggesting that we call all T-Ys linothoraxes, that is enough of that! I am saying that we can use a generic greek term for "linen chest armor" coined in the Iliad to refer to any ancinet greek linen armor for the chest no matter what form. Since I am not certain that all Lineo thorakes were T-Y I think this is safer. You could just as correctly called them all Thorakes Lineou, but linothorax is alreay widespread. It is only the definition as a T-Y that is a problem.

I don't believe so. Iron was much harder to work, technically, than other materials, requiring much higher temperatures for example. It was therefore a rarity in armour ( though not simple spear-heads and sword-blades) until those technological masters of iron-work, the Celts, came up with practical iron armour in the form of mail.

You are going to tell me a Greek could make a mild steel sword, but not puch a bunch of scales in the manner his Anatolian neighbors had been doing for centuries?