03-08-2006, 09:33 PM
Most of the evidence seems to suggest that it isn't the tomb of Philip II. Philip III is a better guess.
The armour has completely mineralised so it is impossible to determine metallurguical composition. The current weight of the armour and thickness of the plate is considerably more than it would have been before corrosion set in. Currently, plate thickness is around 3mm. I'm guessing that it would have been 1-2mm when new. The plates were joined with hinges, not attached to a foundation. Some have said that it might have been covered with linen. This is very unlikely. Though it might not have been worn in battle there is nothing about it that would prevent it from being so used.
The armour has completely mineralised so it is impossible to determine metallurguical composition. The current weight of the armour and thickness of the plate is considerably more than it would have been before corrosion set in. Currently, plate thickness is around 3mm. I'm guessing that it would have been 1-2mm when new. The plates were joined with hinges, not attached to a foundation. Some have said that it might have been covered with linen. This is very unlikely. Though it might not have been worn in battle there is nothing about it that would prevent it from being so used.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
