Armour against weapons or weather?

[geala]

I'm still looking for a simple armour which could be worn by a peltast in the early 4th c. BC. I'm thinking about a rather primitive jerkin. A composite armour with shoulder flaps would be already too much in my opinion.

I followed a sometimes unpleasant discussion in the EB forum about a quilted (leather or linen) jerkin without shoulder flaps, just looking like a vest. The arguments for it were enough for the use in the game but I would not like to base a reconstruction on it.

How would you interprete the following garments? The first is taken from Connollys "Greece and Rome at War", ed. 2006, page 50. No date of the painting (on a Bologna vase) is given; I would guess it's 5th Century).
The garment seems to be very soft, no stitching is visible. It could represent a fur surface (sheep fur vest?) but the design of the armholes seems to indicate a thick layered construction. And near the neck it is very plain, unlike fur. An aspis and knemides are shown aside but no cuirass: therefore I interprete the garment as the armour. Or is it just a cold weather vest? Perhaps it is a sheep fur with a/some layers of linen above? Or layered linen without quilting, so the bulky image shall show the soft and amorphous fall of the material not held together?


The second pic is from N. Secundas Osprey Warrior 27 "Greek Hoplite", page 25. A plain, soft garment which I would interprete as a "over-chiton" from very thick wool or, more so, layered linen (if I look at the end of the short sleeves). It looks very similar to some late medieval pictures of short sleeved gambesons. Leather could be also an option but the horizontal pleats indicate a softer material. I am curious wether a layered linen garment will show the pleats as in the picture.

Both could be some kind of hypothorakes, but that is not convincing to me in the context of the pictures.


I would like to make me a similar garment, consisting of some layers of linen (perhaps 6 to 10), not quilted and put on over the head. The protection would not equal that of a linen composite armour (which my peltast cannot afford) but a elusive distance fighter might have had profits even from such a light armour (which could easily double as a cold weather protection). A problem is still that although the garment is thinner than composite armours, the amount of linen necessary for it could have made the garment too expensive for a peltast.

What do you think about it? Comments are very appreciated.

[hoplite14gr]

Special capes from goat wool (felt) some descibe in Pallux Onomasticon did exist to protect from weather.
My interpetation are that this images might (??) show a spollas.
We discussed it in the Leather cuirass thread.

Kind regards

[geala]

That interpretation would please me very much.
I don't feel comfortable with the thought that the spolas looked like the normal tube-and-yoke composite armours. So I too think that a kind of spolas is depicted.

One problem is that the armour in the second picture could hardly be from leather because of the plaits. But who says that spolades could only be made from leather? (Pollux could however be interpreted that way)

If nobody contradicts in the near future we now know it for sure and for ever how the spolas looked like. :wink:

[Matthew Amt]

Hmm, I dunno... Yes, both of those garments look kinda bulky, but I'd be very reluctant to interpret either one as anything other than just clothing. A chiton is very full and baggy, and does some unexpected things when you wear it. And it would do different things depending on whether it's linen or wool, and the thickness of the fabric.

I also recommend against the whole concept of a poor warrior "just wanting to have SOME kind of armor", unless there is EVIDENCE that such men thought and acted that way. Sure, you find psiloi with a hide cloak over their arms to help ward off javelins and rocks, and modern writers will make all kinds of noise about some garment or other which might have offered rudimentary protection from something. But it seems clear to me that if a man could only afford a shield, that was considered perfectly adequate protection in combat! One of those vase paintings shows greaves as well, so he's even better off. Plenty of men went to war with no body armor, and didn't think anything of it. The shield protected. In most times and places, the men with real armor were very much the minority.

Basically, it looks like clothing to me! It MIGHT be a little heavier than usual, for colder weather, but that's it.

Khaire,

Matthew

[geala]

There we have the contradiction.

Thank you, Stefanos and Matthew, I would like to hear more opinions like yours. That it is only cloth is of course possible. For armour speaks that the men have helmets and weapons but ... perhaps that could be explained otherwise. Indeed the composition of the weapons is a bit strange (a hoplite with a bow; a man just with a sword alone, sacrificing, hmmm?).

If it is cloth than it would be very thick cloth. Look at the edges of the sleeves. The first garment could than be a vest from sheep fur, the second garment wool or linen (perhaps multilayered). For a chiton the second garment ist very narrow, mostly touching the lower body which results in the horizontal pleats. My chitons (also one with long arms made of thick wool) behave totally different. If it was cold weather cloth, the narrow cut however would indeed greatly add to the warmth of the overchiton.

I tend to interprete it more as armour not cloth, but I ebb between the both. :roll:

[MeinPanzer]

I also recommend against the whole concept of a poor warrior "just wanting to have SOME kind of armor", unless there is EVIDENCE that such men thought and acted that way. Sure, you find psiloi with a hide cloak over their arms to help ward off javelins and rocks, and modern writers will make all kinds of noise about some garment or other which might have offered rudimentary protection from something. But it seems clear to me that if a man could only afford a shield, that was considered perfectly adequate protection in combat! One of those vase paintings shows greaves as well, so he's even better off. Plenty of men went to war with no body armor, and didn't think anything of it. The shield protected. In most times and places, the men with real armor were very much the minority.

Thanks for posting this Matt, as I think it is something that people often forget to consider. When we look at evidence today, we often apply our own thinking to it and end up with conclusions based on our assumptions. We have this often with light troops, with thinking like "light troops wouldn't have gone into combat without shields/armour/a helmet," or "why would X kind of soldier wear Y kind of armour? Clearly Z kind of armour would be better suited," even when the evidence is oftentimes contradictory. I think we have to consider that we simply didn't think like these men did, or can't consider all the possible reasons why they would or wouldn't do something.

[geala]

And what would be your interpretation of the shown garments, Ruben? Armour or cloth?

[Paullus Scipio]

My "two penneth worth"
To me, both are clearly wearing clothing, and I totally agree with Matt on this subject - it should be remembered that even a "heavy" infantryman in the classical ( and roman, for that matter - at least up to early imperial times ) era regarded 'standard' equipment as helmet, shield, and spear - anything else was a bonus, and a decent shield was regarded as quite sufficient protection in close combat.
I'm afraid that Geala's proposition that the exixtence of the helmet/greaves imples body armour is simply incorrect - there are many depictions of such equipment, including Aspis where no body armour is shown.

[MeinPanzer]

And what would be your interpretation of the shown garments, Ruben? Armour or cloth?

The first I think looks like a rough wool garment worn over an ordinary thin tunic. The second looks like some kind of heavy cloth also worn over a regular tunic.

[hoplite14gr]

I tent to agree more with the clothing interpretation that is why I used question marks in my initial post.

In my opinion the first image might represent a "melote".
The term appears in Homer and describes a lampskin kind of jerkin.

I am not sure about the second, not about the material.
It could be anything.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

To me both look more like the chiton itself,without even another garment beneath it.Look in the famous vase with the hoplites arming up,for example.(Greek Hoplite p55)Some of the warrior wear ecactly the same garment,but the pleats are visible and show it's clearly a light chiton.
The second one is an even more crude depiction of a chiton,the painter's "mistake" is that he didn't do any pleats in the upper part,but anyway,even the lower curves and pleats can not be compared with the other vase!
So what is that cloth arrownd his waist?In my opinion it's an ephaptis.This was usually worn with nothing else but could also be worn over a chiton.(see Greek Hoplite p54,and plates B and F)
The double line in the edge does not indicate multilayered garment.It is just the hem line,also depicted in numerus vases.Don't change book,see examples on p.61 and plate D.
Just my opinion
Khairete
Giannis

[geala]

Sorry, Giannis, I can accept the plausible "cloth arguments", but the "one piece" part would be too much for me.

The lower parts of the chitons are depicted very skilfully with the typical vertical pleats. The upper parts are totally different. Another garment worn over the chiton would explain the pictures better than a false depiction of the one chiton.

A chiton would not behave like the one in the first picture. What is a point for you is the bulky appearance above the girdle but the fur like "waves" on the upper body cannot be explained. A fur over-garment would be a better explanation than the lost of ability by the artist. :wink:
(Same for the arming scene: I would say that two of the hoplites wear some thick garments over their chitons and beneath the composite cuirass; which reminds me that the left hoplite (putting on his greaves) has no cuirass nearby at all, perhaps only using the thick over garment.)

The second picture is not so clear, however. I would have never imagined it as the depiction of one chiton but when I look at it with your perizoma idea in mind, it could be possible. But I still prefer to interprete it as a second thick over garment. Mostly because a chiton in the upper parts would not behave like it. In addition the lower hem of the chiton is shown in one line. The hem of the short sleeves is shown with a double line. That could be easily interpreted as a thicker material and therefore a different garment. I concede that it has not to be interpreted as layered, it could also resemble thick wool. The lower hem of the over garment is not shown with two lines because you look to it from another degree (perhaps overinterpretation).

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The evidence is so little that I cannot say that you're wrong and I'm right.May I ask you however to look again in the arming scene.The lines intented to be pleats are clear in that "thicker" upper part and the strange bulky hem-lines in the sleeves are identical with those of the next hoplite who already wears his linothorax,and the pleats in the showlders of the latter are more clear.So it was not meant to be worn alone,and has the exact same characteristics of another chiton.
Khaire
Giannis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Also look at this thracian.You can clearly see the belt that separated the pleated lower part from the upper.And also the behaviour of the "thicker" garment in the sides.It's the same as the chitons,as there are no sleeves and when pined to the shoulders the fabrick is loose under the hands.

This is an interpretation of possibly that same Thracian.Do you find that more plausible?

[geala]

Who is the artist, I like the picture?

It is a possible interpretation. The belt is a problem. It is shown in the vase (or kylix?) painting in a distinct way that is not totally equal in the modern reconstruction. I commit the belt together with the bulky feature of the "upper garment" could be an argument for the chiton theory. On the other hand, when I draw my chitons up to get a bulky appearance like that in the vase painting (necessary to move your legs unimpeded) the chitons bulk hides also the belt on my front which speaks against it being just a chiton.

I concur that different interpretations are possible and we should not be too dogmatic.

To the arming scene: which makes me a bit pendant is the fact that the guy who puts on his knemides and the guy who closes his composite cuirass seem to wear other upper garments than the others. At least the appearance of the arm hole hems for me looks different, in a slightly other colour and a bit more bulky and "wavy" than that of the others. And from one guy no cloth at all is seen at the arms although all are shown with exactly the same lower chitons. Again I would say that different interpretations are possible.

Perhaps I'm a bit biased. Living in a country with not the sunniest climate I like the idea to have at least a reference for fur vests or thick wooly garments (if they already are not interpreted as armour). :wink: