Conjecture on the T & Y construction

[Dan Howard]

There are a few aspects of armour construction that are universal regardless of how it is made. An important one is the fact that the midriff is almost never covered by rigid armour. Many cuirasses reach down to the bottom of the ribcage and stop at about navel level - leaving the lower stomach and groin completely unprotected. Others cover this area with a lighter type of armour that is more flexible.

Depictions of the T & Y armour seem to show armour that reaches down to cover most of the stomach with the pteruges depending down to cover the groin and thighs. If this armour is to conform to the above tradition then either the entire cuirass needs to be flexible (unlikely except for the variants made entirely from mail or scale) or the torso is covered by two different constructions - the chest is protected by rigid armour and the midriff is covered by something that is flexible.

There are some T & Y cuirasses that only have the midriff covered with scales. This makes no sense if the midriff is already as protective as the chest since the chest is always covered by the heaviest armour. The only reason to cover the midriff with scales is if the midriff protection is a lot thinner than the chest. The scales act as reinforcing while maintaining the required level of flexibility.

The above can be made from either leather or textile by simply varying the number of layers on each section of the torso. We know that metal armour was often made of varying thicknesses depending on which part of the torso is being protected and there is no reason why they couldn't have done the same thing with non-metalic materials.

If I were making this from textile then I would use 12-16 layers of cloth on the chest with vertical rows of quilting spaced closely together. Around the midriff I would use far fewer layers - maybe 4-6 with horizontal quilting spaced further apart (the closer the rows of quilting, the more rigid the result). The exact same construction can be made from leather except that there would be fewer layers. The midriff would only have one layer of light leather while the chest would be protected by multiple layers of thicker leather (perhaps 3 or 4).

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The T&Y seems to have been made to reach the navel, and the pteryges are from the navel down, not meant to cover the thighs but the groin. This way you have a very manageable armour even if it was rigid. Similarly the bell cuirass only reached the navel, and then the rim flared outwards to about45 degrees or even more, to protect as much of the groin as possible. Obviously this was not a.ways adeqate and they often used the mitra.
A cuirass that does not cover the navel, does not empede bending down. What i have found is that bending and crouching work differently. You can bend with your back straight, but to crouch you need to bend down your spine. In the front this makes your breast move forward. Interestingly, the tube and yokes usually had a band around the body in that place. Nowadays this is being interpreted only as decorative, but in fact there are even ancient depictions that show the cuirass bending exactly in that spot. One reference is the wounded Patroclus vase. If only this thin band is of lighter/more flexible material, then the cuirass can be as rigid as it might be. In my reconstruction I made this band around the chest and the other over the pteryges of one layer of leather instead of two. It does work.
Also the chest may not always be scaled because the shoulder guards cover most of it.
Not to say that what you are suggesting is inplausible, i'm just offering extra thoughts.
Khaire
Giannis

[Dan Howard]

Thanks Giannis. I suppose the main question is "how long were these corselets". If they were the same length as a bronze cuirass and stopped at the navel then there is no need for a flexible section at all. But that doesn't explain the scale reinforcing. It is possible that some were longer than others. The longer ones required a flexible midriff and the shorter ones didn't. I think it was Jason Hoffman who proposed that there were four distinct types of T&Y armour based on the illustrations we have.

[PMBardunias]

Many recreations are too long in my opinion. Here is to my mind the single best depiction of the T-Y. Note details like the fastenings left out of other vase depictions. (Also note the spear grip which is about 25% of the way from the spear but and should clinch the notion of rear-weighted dorys) If we assume his hand is on his hip, then you can see how short the panel section of the T-Y is. Note that the pteruges don't quite cover the naughty bits, which could admittedly be artistic liscense. Also note that the whole side is covered in large rectangular scales, while the abdomen is not. I am with Dan though in thinking that the flat panels were quite rigid.
[attachment=10904]linovase.jpg[/attachment]

This second image shows the range of motion of the thigh without needing a flexible tube section.

[attachment=10905]interestingpose.JPG[/attachment]

And this is just a very interesting image of a T-Y not worn and shown from the side. Note the many layers like a lorica segmentata.


[attachment=10906]e5th275252ZurichUniversityL54.jpg[/attachment]

[Dan Howard]

Thanks Paul. Those definitely depict a corselet that is the same length as a metal one - stopping at the navel. Do all T&Y illustrations show armour of this length?

[Crispianus]

Just a question, but what's to prevent those front panels from having a core of metal sheet?

[Dan Howard]

During the time in question armour made from metal plate seems to have been tremendously expensive. It would have been polished, decorated, and prominantly displayed, not hidden behind cloth or leather.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

More important than that, there are quite a few actual remains of these corselets. None of them had a metal core except of course the one from Philip's tomb in Vergina. From all the rest only the metal fittings have been found, some guilded, some silvered and some from the solid gold and silver. It seems that much of the decoration of these cuirasses was made of metal in various forms, disks, gorgon heads, eagles etc.
Also all the speciments from Thracian and scythian tombs were made of a mixture of leather and scale over leather, but none of them had any metal sheet.
It thus seems that the example from Vergina is unique in the archeological record, no less because large iron sheets were very difficult to make until that time. Even the iron helmets that become more frequent in hellenistic times were generally made from several smaller pieces (up to seven). The Corfu iron muscle quirass is also unique in its kind.
Dan, there are so many depictions of these tube and yoke cuirasses, and some of them seem longer than others, but this is an illusion i think, since the cuirasses universally follow the same anatomical design, and the pteryges never cover the thighs. Only in hellenistic times, or perhaps late classical, the pteryges change, becomming thinner, softer, and overlap. And they can be longer even down to the knee like the roman ones. Look at the Alexander mosaic for reference. Or the Alexander Sarcophagus.
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Surely in a place like Sparta for example with rich iron mines, Iron was cheaper than linen. Was it perhaps like coffee in Columbia, all the best stuff gets sucked out for export?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes, but iron sheet? As far as i know in archaic and classical times there was not the tecnology to make large sheets of iron.

[PMBardunias]

I don't know when they became proficient enough at working iron to make relatively uniform plate of the type seen in the 4thc iron T-Y or Iron Cuirasse. But they surely could make pretty big iron scales or plates big enough to function as a pectoral long before that, right? I honestly don't know.

[Crispianus]

I can add one to the Vergina armour again its 4th century.....

"Our conservators were also able to reassemble an iron, leather-coated cuirass almost identical to the one found in the royal tomb of Vergina" from:

https://www.academia.edu/4634272/M._Tsim..._4th_c._BC

unfortunately no pics...
What I was thinking though was recycled old metal objects made from plate....

[Dan Howard]

I can add one to the Vergina armour again its 4th century.....

"Our conservators were also able to reassemble an iron, leather-coated cuirass almost identical to the one found in the royal tomb of Vergina" from:

https://www.academia.edu/4634272/M._Tsim..._4th_c._BC

IIRC there was nothing to suggest that this armour was covered in leather. It may have been lined with leather but linen was usually used for this. The Vergina cuirass wasn't covered in leather but leather was found on the underside. Manning imperial has done the best reconstruction. They went with the assumption that it was double-breasted, though the original is missing this piece except for the border. Andronicos reckons that this piece must have been made of cloth despite no trace being found. I think that a fifth iron plate, perhaps lined with leather, makes the most sense.

The body of the cuirass is made up of four sheets, one covering the chest, one on either side and one over the back; a fifth section which however consisted of only a metal border and which must have been covered with cloth, and leather was found on the underside of the part which covered the chest.

Manolis Andronicos, Vergina. The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City, Ekdotike Athenon S.A., Athens, 1992.

[Dan Howard]

Surely in a place like Sparta for example with rich iron mines, Iron was cheaper than linen. Was it perhaps like coffee in Columbia, all the best stuff gets sucked out for export?

Given the amount of labour and charcoal needed to produce iron, I don't think it could ever be cheaper than linen even if all of the iron was produced locally and all of the linen was imported.