greek armours

[Anonymous]

I don't think it matters what material armour is made out of; it has rarely in history been proof against the attacks you don't see coming and are unable to defend against. I've heard of some 17th century armour that has been tested and found bullet-proof (against the weapons it was designed for). We also have bullet-proof "vests" today and Philip 11's pseudo-linothorax, with its 5mm- (Yep! HALF A CENTIMETRE) thick plates must have been spear-proof (someone has suggested it might have been effective against catapult bolts!) but these are usually reserved for special situations - the infantry soldier who has to carry all the weight himself in normal battle conditions makes do with lighter armour which will "cover up" any mistakes he makes in his combat technique and make it difficult for his enemy to inflict the wounds that are the usual first step to getting killed, but won't save him if he gets sloppy or flanked or once he's so wounded as to be unable to continue his defence by other means. I agree that different armours would give different levels of protection, but metal armour will only be better than linen-and-leather once it's of a given thickness and weight. The quotes I've read seem to indicate clearly that Epaminondas was struck through a metal cuirass (isn't the word "betrayed" used?) and I believe that this was possible because, since he was fighting as a footsoldier alongside his men, he was equipped with armour of a "practical" thickness and weight. There must also have been another element; a mistake by his immediate supporters, a trip, a fault in his equipment, that made the attack fatal by exposing his armour to the supreme test - he may even have been targeted by a group of warriors whose mission was to ignore all others (at the risk of their own lives) in order to eliminate the enemy leader - but, once this happened, the armour would not be sufficient defence in itself.<br>
Paul <p></p><i></i>