+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book (/showthread.php?tid=22196)
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Creon01 - 08-28-2016
(08-28-2016, 07:49 AM)Paullus Scipio Wrote: The Penguin classics translation is "...a thickly qilted linen corselet which had been among the spoils captured at Issus...." whilst the Loeb has as you correctly posted the more literal translation "...a breastplate of two-ply linen from the spoils taken at Issus."
It is also the only time a Greek or Macedonian is described wearing a 'linen corselet', and it is not Greek, but a captured Persian example!
Does it say the corselet in question is Persian? Thousands of Greeks fought on the Persian side as well as the Greek General Memnon of Rhodes.
It is also not the only example of Greeks wearing linen upper body armor, see Cornelius Nepos, Iphicrates 1.3-4.
Although Connolly gets the majority of credit, or blame, for starting the idea of "glued linen" upper body armor in the Greek context, the idea was actually around for a much longer period.
From 1871 Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages
books.google.com/books?id=WrBCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=linen+armour+glued+layers&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX9rrr0uLOAhUPx2MKHbRpCNoQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=linen%20armour%20glued%20layers&f=false
From 1875 The Encyclopaedia Britannica
books.google.com/books?id=XjVnAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA554&dq=linen+armour+greek+glue&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-0M7LzOLOAhUX02MKHZHVAeQQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=linen%20armour%20greek%20glue&f=false
My friend who brought these to my attention is trying to source the statements regarding the use of glue to "harden and cement" the layers of linen.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Paul Bardunias - 08-29-2016
(08-28-2016, 04:05 PM)Creon01 Wrote: [quote pid='338853' dateline='1472370587']
It is also not the only example of Greeks wearing linen upper body armor, see Cornelius Nepos, Iphicrates 1.3-4.
Although Connolly gets the majority of credit, or blame, for starting the idea of "glued linen" upper body armor in the Greek context, the idea was actually around for a much longer period.
Nepos in the same sentence has hoplites in chainmail, so I am less than enthusiastic about his sources. Some like Nepos because he has Iphicrates double the length of the spear, from 8 to 16', thus essentially a sarissa. I lean towards the source of Diodorus (Ephorus?) who lengthens the spear by half- 8' to 12', which is about how long a man can use in one hand. Perhaps Nepos doubled the length of a hasta, thus about 12 feet as well. The problem with this source in any case is that Iphicratids almost surely kitted out in foreign elements and inspired by either Egyptians or Thracians. I don't think anyone has a problem with Egyptian linen armor. The other sources you found prior to Connolly are very interesting, if only because they are new to me. Note again, they are describing a non-greek context.
Interestingly, modern tests have shown a stiffening effect of not wine and salt, but vinegar and salt. It is my understanding that wine and vinegar could often be confused in ancient texts- a la the New Testament. I believe this was a technique used in later textiles, so perhaps the 19th century author was bringing a knowledge from observation in India or some place that still made textile armor.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Paullus Scipio - 08-29-2016
(08-28-2016, 04:05 PM)Creon01 Wrote:Quote:(sigh!) All of this has been discussed before here on RAT going back to 2007 .Please search and read the many 'Linothorax' related threads.I don't think it appropriate to rehash every example of evidence (and non-evidence) raised in them. Scott himself raised the very same point about Alexander's armour in one of them. However, it is drawing a very long bow to suggest that Alexander would wear the armour of a Greek mercenary, whom he regarded as traitors. "Spoils" here surely refers to the equipment of the enemy Persians, from whom it was appropriate to take trophies, and in context almost certainly the captured armour of Darius himself, or one of his relatives/"friends", who would have the choicest and richest equipment - as portrayed on the Alexander mosaic.(08-28-2016, 07:49 AM)Paullus Scipio Wrote: The Penguin classics translation is "...a thickly qilted linen corselet which had been among the spoils captured at Issus...." whilst the Loeb has as you correctly posted the more literal translation "...a breastplate of two-ply linen from the spoils taken at Issus."
It is also the only time a Greek or Macedonian is described wearing a 'linen corselet', and it is not Greek, but a captured Persian example!
Does it say the corselet in question is Persian? Thousands of Greeks fought on the Persian side as well as the Greek General Memnon of Rhodes.
It is also not the only example of Greeks wearing linen upper body armor, see Cornelius Nepos, Iphicrates 1.3-4.
The point about Nepos has also been raised several times in those threads, but I'll answer just this one point. He was a Roman writer 'floreat' the middle of the first century BC, ( therefore hundreds of years later) and is not a particularly reliable source. With reference to Iphicrates he wrote:
"He likewise changed the character of their cuirasses, and gave them linen ones instead of those of chain-mail and brass; a change by which he rendered the soldiers more active; for, diminishing the weight, he provided what would equally protect the body, and be light."
Idem genus loricarum et pro sertis atque aenis linteas dedit. Quo facto expeditiores milites reddidit: nam pondere detracto, quod aeque corpus tegeret et leve esset, curavit.
Firstly, the word 'lorica', like the Greek 'Thoraka' originally meant 'body covering' and later 'body armour' - of any material. By the 3 C BC and later, it referred to the mail 'lorica hamata' worn by Roman legionaries, which of course would be heavier than linen armour. Nepos is guilty of a huge anachronism in claiming that 'hoplites' wore mail armour. Secondly, we have an alternate version of Iphicrates reforms in Nepos' contemporary Diodorus Siculus, a rather more reliable source. At [XV.44] we have:
"For instance, the Greeks were using shields which were large and consequently difficult to handle; these he discarded and made small oval ones of moderate size, thus successfully achieving both objects, to furnish the body with adequate cover and to enable the user of the small shield, on account of its lightness, to be completely free in his movements. [3] After a trial of the new shield its easy manipulation secured its adoption, and the infantry who had formerly been called "hoplites" because of their heavy shield, then had their name changed to "peltasts" from the light pelta they carried.1 As regards spear and sword, he made changes in the contrary direction: namely, he increased the length of the spears by half, and made the swords almost twice as long. The actual use of these arms confirmed the initial test and from the success of the experiment won great fame for the inventive genius of the general."
This is almost identical to what Nepos says, so they were clearly drawing on a common source BUT no mention of body armour, so it is probably an embellishment added by Nepos, especially as it is anachronistic.
No evidence at all then.
Although Connolly gets the majority of credit, or blame, for starting the idea of "glued linen" upper body armor in the Greek context, the idea was actually around for a much longer period.
From 1871 Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages
books.google.com/books?id=WrBCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=linen+armour+glued+layers&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX9rrr0uLOAhUPx2MKHbRpCNoQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=linen%20armour%20glued%20layers&f=false
From 1875 The Encyclopaedia Britannica
books.google.com/books?id=XjVnAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA554&dq=linen+armour+greek+glue&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-0M7LzOLOAhUX02MKHZHVAeQQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=linen%20armour%20greek%20glue&f=false
My friend who brought these to my attention is trying to source the statements regarding the use of glue to "harden and cement" the layers of linen.
Unfortunately, your quotations have come out illegible, at least on my computer, but it is irrelevant anyway whose idea 'glued linen' was originally. Good luck with 'sourcing the statements', because they don't exist in the ancient sources!
As this sorry example shows, Aldrete and Bartell's historical research is flawed, faulty and selectively presented. There is no excuse for this, the more so as Scott had taken part in the RAT discussions from which he selectively borrowed, without acknowledging the fact.
Don't even get me started on the equally faulty pseudo-scientific 'testing' of their modern Linothorax, which had to use modern glues, because no ancient glue known could be made to work!
The facts, put simply, are these:
*In general, there is no contemporary literary evidence for mainland Greek 'hoplites' and Macedonians wearing linen Tube-and-Yoke corselets, let alone glued linen, though there is some for contemporary linen corselets, almost certainly quilted, being used in Asia Minor and the Persian Empire.
* Although we have hundreds of depictions of Tube-and-Yoke corselets in iconography, they are of little or no help in telling us what they were made of.
* We have no archaeological evidence from Central and Southern Greece for the Classical/Macedonian era, due to burial practices. We do have archaeological evidence from neighbouring countries with different burial practices, such as Macedon, Thrace and Scythia. Hundreds of remains of Tube-and-Yoke corselets survive, often in fragments but there is at least one intact one. In every case they are made of leather, often reinforced with scales, ( with not one of linen) just like those depicted in Greek iconography. Judging by fittings many of these may actually have been made in Greece.
Your book is therefore about a 'fictional' piece of equipment - the glued linen corselet - for which there is no evidence anywhere.
No-one likes to think that their years of work has been based on a false premise, and a waste of time, and you have my sympathy, but you have only yourself to blame for you were warned a number of times here on RAT that such was the case, by a number of people.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Creon01 - 08-29-2016
Paullus Scipio, yes, I have read all the posts on RAT regarding what folks think about linen armor and the Greeks, and just because you say it over and over (sigh) doesn't mean you are correct. Among the folks who accept the possibility/probability of linen upper body armor are Krentz, Adkins, VDH, Snodgrass, Connolly, Schwartz, Lendon and van Wees. Even Jarva while stating his preference for leather over linen ("for the time being"), presents a series of plausible arguments in favor of some form of linen being used. Are they ALL all wrong then, and their many decades of research and publishing as poorly conceived and executed as you say Aldrete's was?
When you dismiss even the idea of the Greeks using linen for body armor because no source you are aware of supports the idea you seem to say there is no need for further research into what is depicted not on hundreds, but on thousands of pieces of intact and fragments of pottery.
The question of the use of glue to harden and connect the layers of linen is a reasonable one, one that well-informed folks can disagree about without claiming someone is perpetrating a fraud on the public. New research and the use of new technologies should answer the question soon enough. Non-destructive techniques to test and evaluate even the tiniest fragments of linen, ancient glue and linen/glue residue in soils are already in use and when these studies are published I'm 100% certain that at least some of the upper body armor depicted on Archaic and Classical pottery will have been linen impregnated with glue.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Paullus Scipio - 08-29-2016
When it is based on nothing more than a supposition or wild guess, it is certainly not reasonable. I have already told you my statement was tongue-in-cheek irony, but you falsely believe otherwise (shrug). Very few who opine on the subject are well informed. We have had almost 30 years since Connolly's unevidenced assertion, and ALL the evidence that has come to light in that time favours leather over linen, so I would certainly NOT be "100% certain" that evidence of linen impregnated with glue (ancient fibreglass? LOL!) will emerge. Far more likely that more evidence for leather will emerge in Macedon etc. And is that really a good argument - that while evidence for glued linen doesn't exist now, it MIGHT emerge in the never-never of the future?
With regard to those you mention above, such an argument is called an ‘argument from authority’, which is a logical fallacy. Of those you refer to, Connolly wrote (“Greek Armies”1977 p.38 and “Greece and Rome at War” 1981p.58) “A linen cuirass was made of many layers of linen glued together to form a stiff shirt, about half a centimetre thick” without however offering any evidence at all for this idea, then or after until his death. The only other one to actually study the Tube-and-Yoke corselet was Jarva, and as you note he favours leather.
Creon wrote:
"When you dismiss even the idea of the Greeks using linen for body armor because no source you are aware of supports the idea you seem to say there is no need for further research into what is depicted not on hundreds, but on thousands of pieces of intact and fragments of pottery."
First, I don't dismiss the idea of 'linen' armour - provided some credible evidence for its existence is produced. Further research may well produce surprises, if the past is anything to go by. But further research based on pure speculation is pointless. The only thing all those depictions on pottery, painted friezes and statuary proves is that Tube-and-Yoke corselets existed without shedding any light whatever on what they were made of - as we have seen, Philip II's and others were made of iron!
Meanwhile, two questions for you:
*In Alexander's time we may conservatively estimate that there were over 100,000 hoplites and phalangites in Greece/Macedon. Each corselet needed many metres of linen - so millions of metres of very expensive linen needed. Where did it come from and how was it paid for ?
* Despite modern experiments, no ancient glue can be made to work successfully, as far as I know, so what was the 'glue' you claim was used ? ( Aldrete et al reckoned 'rabbit' glue, which is variously reported as being bought in an art store, or that they made it themselves )
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Robert Vermaat - 08-29-2016
People, take care about what you quote. I'm completely lost as to who is answering what - we have rules about this.
I've removed some excessive quoting (hoping I did not lose some answers in the process) as well as some personal stuff (those involved will recognise what I'm referring to).
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Creon01 - 08-29-2016
"The other sources you found prior to Connolly are very interesting, if only because they are new to me. Note again, they are describing a non-greek context."
I was very surprised when my friend, a reference librarian, brought these to my attention as I thought there was no stone unturned over the years.
I would suggest anyone interested in this question take a look at the links and you can draw any number of conclusions. Lots of 19th century "facts" are now considered questionable today with all the national, racial and class biases in play at the time, but the 19th century also brought us Edison, Darwin and Tesla's most productive period so we should not dismiss the period as some do now with a wave of the hand.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Paullus Scipio - 08-31-2016
No-one here is "dismissing" the 19C for after all, Classics and ancient history were far more popular then than now.
Unfortunately the two reference you give are both erroneous and inaccurate, partly as a result of far more knowledge being available now, particularly in the field of archaeology.
Both passages, the second one in particular, are based on Herodotus' description of Xerxes army, VII.60 ff. In the first one the author has anachronistically conflated neo-Assyrian friezes (8-7 BC)with Herodotus’ description of Assyrian troops (5 BC) wearing ‘lineous thoraka’[VII.63.1] – the construction is not described by Herodotus and seems to be imagination. The Romans of course did not generally use linen armour militarily – unless the author has in mind Pausanias’ description of them being used for hunting or Caracalla’s re-creation of Alexander’s phalanx:
"He organized a phalanx, composed entirely of Macedonians, sixteen thousand strong, named it "Alexander's phalanx," and equipped it with the arms that warriors had used in his day; these consisted of a helmet of raw ox-hide, a three-ply linen breastplate, a bronze shield, long pike, short spear, high boots, and sword." - Dio LXXXVIII.7.1-2 ( The first re-enactors? LOL!).
Like Plutarch's 'two-ply' linen corselet of Alexander, the 'three ply' here clearly implies a qulilted construction, and certainly not 12-18 'glued' thin linen sheets.
We actually know more now about Assyrian body armour than Greek, thanks to a combination of iconography, archaeology in the 20 C, and, believe it or not, literature – there are extant lists complete with descriptions of the armour, which was scale (metal plates fastened to a leather garment overlapping downward) or lamellar(metal plates attached to each other, overlapping upward), not glued linen. The scales were of iron, bronze, copper or leather.
The second piece is just as erroneous. Herodotus doesn’t mention linen at all in connection with the Persians, just armour “looking like the scales of a fish”, though iconography shows Persians in Tube-and-Yoke corselets as well. The reference to ‘mail coif’ is anachronistic, mail was invented by the Celts in the late 4 BC. Herodotus does not mention ‘linen’ corselets for the Egyptians only that they were ‘thorakaphoroi’/wearers of body armour. [digression: scale armour is supposedly an Egyptian invention, and Tutankhamun had leather scale armour, mounted on a linen undergarment, perhaps an indication of how costly linen was.]Where the 18 layers glued together comes from is again probably imagination, or perhaps echoing the earlier piece. The Romans did not use linen armour militarily (see above) and again this may be echoing the earlier piece. As Paul B. has pointed out, the 'wine and salt' is probably a reference to Pliny, who advocated hardening felt with vinegar so as to be a form of armour.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Paul Bardunias - 08-31-2016
"these consisted of a helmet of raw ox-hide, a three-ply linen breastplate, a bronze shield, long pike, short spear, high boots, and sword." - Dio LXXXVIII.7.1-2 ( The first re-enactors? LOL!)."
Thanks, you found my 3-ply reference. A bit more shaky than the 2-ply. Given the evidence from just the greave though, that is 1.5 cm of linen armor.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Crispianus - 08-31-2016
I've never used vinegar to make felt but usually some form of soap, but I suspect in doing so it would act as a degreasent as it makes quite a good cleaning agent and may cause the fibres to bond more closely together making a tougher and stiffer piece of felt, I think it may well be an interesting project...
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Dan Howard - 08-31-2016
(08-31-2016, 02:09 PM)Paul Bardunias Wrote: "these consisted of a helmet of raw ox-hide, a three-ply linen breastplate, a bronze shield, long pike, short spear, high boots, and sword." - Dio LXXXVIII.7.1-2 ( The first re-enactors? LOL!)."
Thanks, you found my 3-ply reference. A bit more shaky than the 2-ply. Given the evidence from just the greave though, that is 1.5 cm of linen armor.
It gives us two independent sources suggesting that linen armour was made of a few layers of a thick material rather than a dozen or more layers of regular cloth. We also have the Dura greave liner telling us that twined linen was used in a martial context. Combining these two data points gives us a probable method of construction. There seems to be more evidence for this proposed reconstruction during the time in question than any other alternative suggestion.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - rocktupac - 09-01-2016
(08-29-2016, 04:44 PM)Creon01 Wrote: "The other sources you found prior to Connolly are very interesting, if only because they are new to me. Note again, they are describing a non-greek context."
I was very surprised when my friend, a reference librarian, brought these to my attention as I thought there was no stone unturned over the years.
I would suggest anyone interested in this question take a look at the links and you can draw any number of conclusions. Lots of 19th century "facts" are now considered questionable today with all the national, racial and class biases in play at the time, but the 19th century also brought us Edison, Darwin and Tesla's most productive period so we should not dismiss the period as some do now with a wave of the hand.
I suspect that even if we uncovered a completely intact glued-together set of linen armor many would still argue until they're blue in the face that they don't exist.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Paul Bardunias - 09-01-2016
(09-01-2016, 03:30 PM)rocktupac Wrote: I suspect that even if we uncovered a completely intact glued-together set of linen armor many would still argue until they're blue in the face that they don't exist.
I know that some are perhaps too hard on slamming the door on adhesive, but lets not dismiss their objections simply because of the vehemence of their presentation. The fact is that your book makes a case for layers of glued linen. I am happy to entertain that as a possibility, but at this moment in time it is more weakly supported than leather, twinned linen and quilted linen. If there is some additional evidence for glued linen in the future, and I hear there may be, that will change everything. The case right now rests on drawing in glued linen from industries not even related to garment manufacture- I drew attention to mummies and masks on our thread back in the day, but even then knew it was weak at best.
The reason for the strong reaction against glue is that for a long time this was just the accepted fact based on no evidence whatsoever. No one even made a case as strong as yours, they simply hypothesized it and it caught on as dogma. They fight hard because they are fighting the force of history. Ask yourself if you would have looked at glue if that had not been the going assumption. If Connolly had claimed thick twinned linen the base material, it would be dogma today- and benefit from a lot more evidence.
Much of the ire at your book is simply because people wished you had tested a wider variety of possible materials, but this is unfair, you get to decide the scope of your study and someone else can falsify your experiments if they wish. Honestly, I do agree with Paul that you should have cited this website. Much of the information was obviously from our thread- even if you investigated it independently you saw it here first. I assumed that was Aldrete. Many of us have been plagiarized repeatedly by researchers who should know better, so we are sensitive to these issues.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - rocktupac - 09-01-2016
Hi Paul, thank you for the respectful reply. A lot has evolved for myself and Aldrete since our work on the book (some that goes back to almost a decade ago now), and we are both very much in the camp that believes linothorakes were probably made in a number of ways: leather, twinned linen, quilted linen, and even probably glued linen. Much has been speculated on -- and many assert that one is more probable than the other -- but the simple fact is we don't know. And that's what gets me; we don't know yet some argue on a subject as if we do know. I know the weak arguments and I know the strong ones.
We plainly say in the book that we don't know how the armor was made: "Whether the layers of these corselets were laminated together with glue or sewn together with thread cannot be determined with certainty. Given the widespread use of this armor and the lack of standardization in the ancient world, it seems safe to say that both methods were attempted." (166) I'm not sure how well some have read the book, but we never say we think it was only one kind of armor. I would suggest some people take another look, they seem to be misunderstanding things.
We also cite this website in the first page of the notes section. Was there something in particular you're talking about? I mean this sincerely, I don't quite know what you are talking about.
RE: Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book - Paul Bardunias - 09-01-2016
(09-01-2016, 06:29 PM)rocktupac Wrote: We plainly say in the book that we don't know how the armor was made: "Whether the layers of these corselets were laminated together with glue or sewn together with thread cannot be determined with certainty. Given the widespread use of this armor and the lack of standardization in the ancient world, it seems safe to say that both methods were attempted." (166) I'm not sure how well some have read the book, but we never say we think it was only one kind of armor. I would suggest some people take another look, they seem to be misunderstanding things.
We also cite this website in the first page of the notes section. Was there something in particular you're talking about? I mean this sincerely, I don't quite know what you are talking about.
To tell you the truth I had missed your reference to the thread because I expected it in the sections where there were obvious elements from it, but I am comforted. I will be candid with you and tell you I have had a negative opinion of Aldrete because I thought he nudged you aside and took advantage of you, but I recently saw his talk on Youtube where he gave you credit.
I think what annoys some, myself included, is that in advocating for linen, you really did a disservice to the evidence for leather. As I said before, you are entitled to your arguments and others are responsible to refute them, but the interpretations you chose for Spolas surely stuck in the craw of some. Whatever a spolas was, it was not an arming doublet- which we never see for classical hoplites. So you have invented an item that we have no evidence for to discount it. Second, the use of Spolas in the Birds is probably akin to a butcher's apron, leather worn for protection, not warmth. The very name Spolas or stolidia, if applied to armor is obvious slang in the sense that it literally denotes an abbreviated garment. Thus I would expect to see the term have more than one contemporary meaning. Another example would be referring to the aspis as a "willow" or even the term Hoplon itself.
Perhaps, since all of this was argued (ad nauseum) on the thread it was odd seeing such an obvious and already refuted claim in the book. But frankly we are in a grey area and there is no technical requirement to cite this website. This is one reason I wrote Hoplites at War, which is going to press this week. I got tired of seeing my own ideas presented back to me.