09-09-2016, 02:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-09-2016, 05:19 AM by Paullus Scipio.)
Aldrete et al on the cost of linen armour.
To get back to the subject matter of this thread, back on page 7 I gave examples from Thucydides and Pliny on just how expensive linen could be, yet in the face of all the evidence the book claims a number of demonstrably false claims and so-called evidence, with regard to comparative costs of linen and leather, and availability. I’ll use this as just one example among many of the authors flawed methods and inadequate research.
“While such a hide may not have been extravagantly expensive to purchase, it is unlikely to have been an item the typical family farm had on hand......most small farms probably not have possessed a pair of oxen.”
This is an example of ‘special pleading’, a type of illogical fallacy. Note too that this is an assumption, with no evidence provided. Worse still, it is patently false! In Athens for example, the citizens were divided into four classes, the pentakosiomedminoi ( 500 bushell men – the richest), the Hippeis ( wealthy enough to own a horse), the zeugites ( 200 bushell men) and the thetes, who did not own land and were the poorest. Now the zeugites were the original ‘Hoplite’ class, the ‘middle class’ landowners ( a misnomer) and were defined as those who could afford a pair of oxen! These were needed because zeugites were NOT “small farmers” and needed oxen for ploughing! So, originally at least, all Athenian ‘hoplites’ owned at least a pair of oxen – who of course regularly reproduced, so the ‘hoplite’ did not need to wait until the end of the ox’s working life to obtain a hide, as the book asserts.
The other really flawed piece of arithmetic logic is that if you grew your own flax and used that to make your corselet, it was essentially "free" ! I hope the authors don't become economists ! Flax is a 'cash crop' and if it becomes personal use, then the farmer loses what it would otherwise have sold for i.e. its market price, which would be pretty substantial, so there wasn't much difference in cost between growing it or buying it in the market!
In addition, whilst flax was grown in Greece, because it was a poor country agriculturally, most of the arable land was put to food production, and relatively little to flax - certainly nowhere near the vast quantities needed to equip the tens of thousands of hoplites for all the different 'poleis'/cities.......
On cost, the book ignores the evidence of Thucydides and Pliny I quoted earlier on how expensive linen was - either through poor research and being unaware of it, or through selectivity, both poor methodology. Instead, they refer to the Roman Emperor Diocletian’s price edict of 301 AD to make a comparative costing of linen v leather, despite acknowledging that “calculating costs was notoriously unreliable.” This edict was a failed attempt to stop inflation by dictating the maximum cost of everything. Note that it is over 500 years after the period under examination. Even using this ‘unreliable’ comparison, the authors “fudge” this evidence to come up with approximately equal costs for both, which is far from the case. I mentioned earlier there were many types of linen, and Diocletian’s edict quotes several prices. First quality linen’s maximum cost was 1200 denarii per roman lb; second quality 960 d /lb; third quality 840 d/lb. Coarse linen, suitable only for ‘canvas’ type clothing for slaves and the poorest, was 250 d/lb; 125 d/lb ; and 72 d/lb. Guess which figure Aldrete et al use, without mentioning the others? Yep, the absolute cheapest, 72d/lb. Is it likely, if such a thing had existed at all, it was made from the coarsest and cheapest material? Certainly the items the authors made were not from the coarsest material available!
And guess which price for leather they used ? Yep, you guessed it, the absolute most expensive, good quality, already dressed and tanned ox-hide at 750 d per hide. This is not comparing ‘like with like’ for the comparison is supposed to be the raw material, and an untanned ox-hide cost 3-500 d. Whilst Jarva reckoned on two corselets per hide, Aldrete et all use ‘special pleading’ again to reduce this to one corselet per hide. ( cattle were small in ancient times, and hides vary in thickness and a uniform thickness would be needed – untrue, for every armour varies in thickness, depending what part it is to protect. For instance, many Tube-and-Yoke corselets were double breasted, giving double thickness frontal protection, but evidently our authors don’t know that much about how armour works, it is seldom uniformly thick.....) They reckon on 9 lbs of linen, and thus come up with a figure of 750d for a leather corselet’s basic materials against 800d for a linen one (adding in the assumed cost of weaving). For a slightly different comparison, soldier’s tunics cost 1,000-1,500 denarii.
However, even the authors have to acknowledge that these figures are ‘highly speculative’, despite which they then use them to conclude the raw materials were “roughly equivalent in price” which is patently untrue! No-one would use the coarsest material to make a protective garment, for such would have a very poor resistance – and indeed the items the authors made were NOT such material. The only real conclusion we can draw from comparisons of Diocletian’s edict is that a linen corselet would cost many more times that of a leather one, and that is consistent with the other evidence that linen would be hideously expensive, ( over 7,500 denarii for the raw material if 3rd class linen were used) something only the wealthiest could afford, and certainly not the tens of thousands of ‘ordinary’ hoplites !!
This is but one example of the authors use of ‘evidence’ which turns out to be not evidence at all, selectivity and ‘fudging’ of evidence, and poor and fallacious logic. One could pretty much point to similar criticisms of the bulk of the book, but it would be tedious.......
Paul B. wrote:
"I don't recall if I ever posted this little snippet I found In an old paper by Chrimes that cites a reference to the Spartan body armor as Aegis. "
Thanks for that!
I was aware that apparently Spartans referred to body armour as 'Aegis', but never knew the primary source. If true, this, like the use of 'spolas' for a 'leather thoraka' will be 'slang' names derived from the fact that back in mythological times body protection could be primitive animal skins......
To get back to the subject matter of this thread, back on page 7 I gave examples from Thucydides and Pliny on just how expensive linen could be, yet in the face of all the evidence the book claims a number of demonstrably false claims and so-called evidence, with regard to comparative costs of linen and leather, and availability. I’ll use this as just one example among many of the authors flawed methods and inadequate research.
“While such a hide may not have been extravagantly expensive to purchase, it is unlikely to have been an item the typical family farm had on hand......most small farms probably not have possessed a pair of oxen.”
This is an example of ‘special pleading’, a type of illogical fallacy. Note too that this is an assumption, with no evidence provided. Worse still, it is patently false! In Athens for example, the citizens were divided into four classes, the pentakosiomedminoi ( 500 bushell men – the richest), the Hippeis ( wealthy enough to own a horse), the zeugites ( 200 bushell men) and the thetes, who did not own land and were the poorest. Now the zeugites were the original ‘Hoplite’ class, the ‘middle class’ landowners ( a misnomer) and were defined as those who could afford a pair of oxen! These were needed because zeugites were NOT “small farmers” and needed oxen for ploughing! So, originally at least, all Athenian ‘hoplites’ owned at least a pair of oxen – who of course regularly reproduced, so the ‘hoplite’ did not need to wait until the end of the ox’s working life to obtain a hide, as the book asserts.
The other really flawed piece of arithmetic logic is that if you grew your own flax and used that to make your corselet, it was essentially "free" ! I hope the authors don't become economists ! Flax is a 'cash crop' and if it becomes personal use, then the farmer loses what it would otherwise have sold for i.e. its market price, which would be pretty substantial, so there wasn't much difference in cost between growing it or buying it in the market!
In addition, whilst flax was grown in Greece, because it was a poor country agriculturally, most of the arable land was put to food production, and relatively little to flax - certainly nowhere near the vast quantities needed to equip the tens of thousands of hoplites for all the different 'poleis'/cities.......
On cost, the book ignores the evidence of Thucydides and Pliny I quoted earlier on how expensive linen was - either through poor research and being unaware of it, or through selectivity, both poor methodology. Instead, they refer to the Roman Emperor Diocletian’s price edict of 301 AD to make a comparative costing of linen v leather, despite acknowledging that “calculating costs was notoriously unreliable.” This edict was a failed attempt to stop inflation by dictating the maximum cost of everything. Note that it is over 500 years after the period under examination. Even using this ‘unreliable’ comparison, the authors “fudge” this evidence to come up with approximately equal costs for both, which is far from the case. I mentioned earlier there were many types of linen, and Diocletian’s edict quotes several prices. First quality linen’s maximum cost was 1200 denarii per roman lb; second quality 960 d /lb; third quality 840 d/lb. Coarse linen, suitable only for ‘canvas’ type clothing for slaves and the poorest, was 250 d/lb; 125 d/lb ; and 72 d/lb. Guess which figure Aldrete et al use, without mentioning the others? Yep, the absolute cheapest, 72d/lb. Is it likely, if such a thing had existed at all, it was made from the coarsest and cheapest material? Certainly the items the authors made were not from the coarsest material available!
And guess which price for leather they used ? Yep, you guessed it, the absolute most expensive, good quality, already dressed and tanned ox-hide at 750 d per hide. This is not comparing ‘like with like’ for the comparison is supposed to be the raw material, and an untanned ox-hide cost 3-500 d. Whilst Jarva reckoned on two corselets per hide, Aldrete et all use ‘special pleading’ again to reduce this to one corselet per hide. ( cattle were small in ancient times, and hides vary in thickness and a uniform thickness would be needed – untrue, for every armour varies in thickness, depending what part it is to protect. For instance, many Tube-and-Yoke corselets were double breasted, giving double thickness frontal protection, but evidently our authors don’t know that much about how armour works, it is seldom uniformly thick.....) They reckon on 9 lbs of linen, and thus come up with a figure of 750d for a leather corselet’s basic materials against 800d for a linen one (adding in the assumed cost of weaving). For a slightly different comparison, soldier’s tunics cost 1,000-1,500 denarii.
However, even the authors have to acknowledge that these figures are ‘highly speculative’, despite which they then use them to conclude the raw materials were “roughly equivalent in price” which is patently untrue! No-one would use the coarsest material to make a protective garment, for such would have a very poor resistance – and indeed the items the authors made were NOT such material. The only real conclusion we can draw from comparisons of Diocletian’s edict is that a linen corselet would cost many more times that of a leather one, and that is consistent with the other evidence that linen would be hideously expensive, ( over 7,500 denarii for the raw material if 3rd class linen were used) something only the wealthiest could afford, and certainly not the tens of thousands of ‘ordinary’ hoplites !!
This is but one example of the authors use of ‘evidence’ which turns out to be not evidence at all, selectivity and ‘fudging’ of evidence, and poor and fallacious logic. One could pretty much point to similar criticisms of the bulk of the book, but it would be tedious.......
Paul B. wrote:
"I don't recall if I ever posted this little snippet I found In an old paper by Chrimes that cites a reference to the Spartan body armor as Aegis. "
Thanks for that!
I was aware that apparently Spartans referred to body armour as 'Aegis', but never knew the primary source. If true, this, like the use of 'spolas' for a 'leather thoraka' will be 'slang' names derived from the fact that back in mythological times body protection could be primitive animal skins......
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
