Linothorax vs Quilted linen vs spolas

[PMBardunias]

....I suspect that is an over-simplification. The stiffness is likely to be because more than one layer of leather was used ( assuming leather in the first place! ). Recall that in 17C Buff coats which were 'double layer', it was generally only the body which was 'doubled', with sleeves etc left single for ease of movement.

I don't disagree. I think it must have been either of more layers or a stiffer type of leather than the many other leather armors that are cut along the lines of a vest or coat like the Buff-coat you mention.

In addition, downward hacks with a sword/machaira would be a frequent type of blow in a close press. In addition, any blows from spear/sword which glanced off a helmet would most likely be deflected into the shoulder area...... no surprise that the shoulders were obviously considered a vulnerable area needing special protection, hence the 'yoke'.

I don't disagree that the broad shoulder pieces indicate an important protective function. In my opinion though, the driving force was the need to easily lift the arm into position for the overhand stab with the dory. I have experimented with the shoulder piece and the method of attachment seen on most early armors (a thong from the inner edge of the shoulder flap that connects near the center of the thorax) is great for this position. The flap flips up on its inner edge, which can cut into the shoulder, but doesn't hinder the arm. Because the raised arm also raises the shoulder and makes more of the weight fall upon it, it is nice that you can independantly adjust the yoke to balance this between the sides. A vest could not easily do this.

On the face of it one might wonder why the obviously stiff pteryges do not extend to cover the lower abdomen as for example later Roman ones did, which were clearly softer.

Some of this comes from a misunderstanding of what the pteruges are supposed to do. Often this is described as a "skirt", but it really is simply the protection for the abdomen. The segmentation allows for flexibility in movement of the torse. One more indication that the "tube" was quite stiff. The old bronze bell cuirasse had articulted belly plates for this function - often not worn. (yea, you all know this- its for the lurkers)

[John Conyard]

With some trepidation I have to disagree with Paullus Scipio about buff coats. I've owed a few and researched them at length. My last one was sold to a museum as a display piece. The leather isn't doubled around the body. It may be lined with linen, but there is no double layer of leather. Thick upper sleeves can be attached to the body, with thinner lower leather sleeves sometimes used. The leather is butt stitched. Some were high value objects, but the majority were more cheaply made for troopers. The leather is dressed with oil, generally fish oil, to make it flexible and resistant to weather.

Buff can be very stiff. But I when I see the upstanding yoke I think of laminated leather stuck together by it's own gelatins as done in India, or by dairy glues as in Europe. Layered leather was used as armour in India, Egypt and North Africa, and later in Islamic Spain. I can sense a move towards laminated leather by some on this thread.

If laminated leather was used as a base no doubt panels of rawhide, hardened leather or metal could sometimes be fixed to the surface to strengthen the curiass. Possibly, maybe, perhaps.

The shape of the armour always impresses me. The yoke protects inside the colour bone, while the soft belly can be protected by a double layer of armour. It's light and relatively easy to wear.

My pteruges are the right length, but my body is too short. The pteruges will be shortened as soon as possible.

[Paullus Scipio]

With some trepidation I have to disagree with Paullus Scipio about buff coats. I've owed a few and researched them at length. My last one was sold to a museum as a display piece. The leather isn't doubled around the body. It may be lined with linen, but there is no double layer of leather. Thick upper sleeves can be attached to the body, with thinner lower leather sleeves sometimes used. The leather is butt stitched. Some were high value objects, but the majority were more cheaply made for troopers. The leather is dressed with oil, generally fish oil, to make it flexible and resistant to weather.

.....I did not mean that buff coats generally were 'double layered', but I seem to recall seeing one or two better quality Gentlemen's Buff coats that were re-inforced in this way ( but I can't think where I saw it/them....I do recall some sort of scalloping effect, but I may be confusing different examples....)

My pteruges are the right length, but my body is too short.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[John Conyard]

A defense that wouldn't stand up in court sir!

You do see scolloped upper sleeves, with a lower sleeve set in to them, normally to help mobility around the elbow. William Dobson painted a nice example whilst in Oxford in 1645/46. He was short of materials and concentrated on the upper body.

I have given a buff coat a false front to increase it's size, but that's a modern concept. It was cosmetic, not defensive. At a later date buff coats may have had a material facing applied to them to mirror the millitary coat. A good example is in the Royal Armouries. In the 17th century extra protection to the buff would be provided by stylish metalic lace, or a good old fashioned iron breast and back. In the same way the tube and yoke is integral to the aspis and the rest of the panoply.

While scrapping the bottom of the barrel of comparative later technology, perhaps I could mention the Chinese use of layered laminated paper for armour. A similar concept, but in different materials.

[John Conyard]

In terms of the pteruges, what's happening here?

[attachment=0:2j16sq0v]<!-- ia0 Neried, Xanthos II.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:2j16sq0v]

Would they have been painted on later? Or are we looking at a "soft" armour?

[barcid]

Painted on would seem an easy answer & Etruscan Mars showing a stylish pteruges length, His armour finish is interesting even to a Lurker :wink:

[nikolaos]

John,

I like the look of your thorakes, but might consider what period you want to represent, as higher waist and longer pteruges seem to be present in vases like the Douris Arming scene from the end of the archaic, while shorter pteruges seem more classical.

Thanks,
Cole

[nikolaos]

And in the digression field, I ran across this this morning... Looks like there isn't much new under the sun...

It does make me wonder what 21st century re-enactors twenty-five hundred years from now will be arguing about

Have fun!
Cole

[John Conyard]

Thank's for the tip regarding the length of pteruges.

Today I was reading Duncan Head's WRG book "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars". He uses the Nereid monument from Xanthos in Lykia to illustrate two hoplites. One is based on the photo I posted, with an undivided skirt. The other hoplite illustrated has a full set of overlapping, and rather long, pteruges.

Therefore I think it could be safe to assume the artist was trying to illustrate two differing armours, rather than just painting on the pteruges at a later date. The monument is early 4th century.

[MeinPanzer]

Dan, I'm sorry to be your nay-sayer, but I can make a scale shirt where the whole shoulder thing hangs behind the back. On sheepskin, exactly like the Altai Scythic finds.

Which "Altai Scythic finds" are you referring to?

[Paullus Scipio]

John Conyard wrote:

Therefore I think it could be safe to assume the artist was trying to illustrate two differing armours, rather than just painting on the pteruges at a later date. The monument is early 4th century.

....I don't think it would be safe to assume this at all, because even a casual inspection of the real thing ( beautifully displayed in the British Museum) shows that, like all other major ancient monuments, a number of different sculptors were at work. It would be far safer to assume that the same type of body armour is being depicted in different ways by different artists.
BTW, it should be noted that later Tube-and-Yoke corselets, both Greek and Macedonian, show a style difference from earlier ones in that the waist tends to get higher, and the pteryges longer......

[John Conyard]

I stand gently corrected. You are right.

[nikolaos]

Paul wrote:
>BTW, it should be noted that later Tube-and-Yoke corselets, both Greek and
>Macedonian, show a style difference from earlier ones in that the waist tends to get
>higher, and the pteryges longer......

Funny, I suggested the exact opposite a few posts ago. So I went back and took a look, and believe that I can fairly state that we are both wrong.

Even just using examples posted in this thread: the recoloured grave stoa of Artistion and Achilles tending Patroclus wounds by the Sosias painter are two depictions of tube and yoke corselets from approximately 500 BCE. The former shows a high-waisted, long pteruged tube and yoke and the latter a short pteruged tube and yoke.

So it appears to be fair to say that the differences may well be two different styles that co-exist, not a temporal variation.

Thanks,
Cole

[Paullus Scipio]

Given the fact that a number of styles and cuts are extant in a given time period, you may well be right, Cole. However in the period, say, 525-450 BC, the waistline is generally around the hips or a little higher at roughly navel height. The length of the pteryges is also variable but not much, being fairly short. Both the 'Ariston' and 'Achilles tying the wounds of Patroclus' depictions fall within this type, and I would call any difference in waistline minimal, and falling within individual variation.

I have in mind later examples such as the two depicted in the Macedonian tomb of Lyson and Kallikles,(c.200 BC) where the waistline is much higher, at diapragm/sternum level, and the pteryges are significantly longer, preserving the overall length. This type is totally unknown ( at least to me) in the period 525-450 BC, hence my observation.

[nikolaos]

Ah, I understand completely.

It does strike me that the more discussions I see here the more I believe we must be careful to not only state our theories, but set date ranges for them and be careful with categorizing sources we use to support them by date.

Geography may be a factor we need to consider as well...

As if my head didn't hurt enough already.

Cole