Gaulish felt armor

[Conal]

Caturix\\n[quote]
{Yes (and I said so before), but you have various evidence of organic armor in various gaulish context:

[url:1qvkqr78]http://koso.ucsd.edu/~martin/CelticSitter.gif[/url]

[url:1qvkqr78]http://usuarios.advance.com.ar/cernunnosgb/images/guerrier.jpg[/url]

[url:1qvkqr78]http://jfbradu.free.fr/celtes/les-celtes/roquepertuse1.jpg[/url]

[url:1qvkqr78]http://www.celticworld.it/immagini/ad_img/fgallery/fg_887_1118.jpg[/url]}

I will need to look more closely at these

{Here, in the Frontone of Civitalba, while a lot of Celts are "Gaesatae-Like", in the first image on the left the second figure is dressed with something look like a padded armor: [url:1qvkqr78]http://www.ilmontesantangelo.it/assets/images/sassoferrato.gif[/url]}

"Looks like" maybe but not a definate attestment.

{As in literature, the naked barbarian is more a "topos" than a matter of fact}

True but the Greeks fought naked, in the body at least.

{Without doubt there were some Gaulish groups, as the Gaesatae, that fought naked, or Gauls so poor (The light infantry wich Polybius, Caesar and Tacitus, in different times wrote about) that couldn't afford any kind of protection, but is quite difficult that it was the rule.... padded clothing (or animal skins, or leather) is a kind of protection quite ancient, used along time and space by lot of culture, and quite cheap, if not heavily effective}

The fact that some cultures used organic armour is enough in my book to validate applying it when teher is no direct evidence ... as far as I can see it.

{Is quite less impressive than the habit that some Gauls had to fight naked... and an organic protection isn't something of big interest...}

Not sure what you mean here?

{As I already wrote, in fact Romans used it: it was the "Coactilia" (cfr. Caes., Bell. Civ.).}

I can't pin down that quote ... do you have a link to it please?

{And they were nakend...AND most important of all, their shield were small (smaller than the Roman ones and probably the other Celts')}

I have my doubts about this also, its really out of place with all other evidence that Celtic shields were LARGE .... it makes them sound like a suicide squad hock: .... maybe they were !!

{Besides, at Telamon the Celtic army was attacked by two Roman armies and deployed in double directions: The gaesatae were not the only "front line" of the celtic army (that, in fact, facing two different armies had TWO "front lines")... But the Boii and the Taurisci weren't anihilated by javelins}

I do not accept that anyone was anihilated by velite javelins. They were very much out-numbered so it was foregone conclusion they would lose badly.

[Caturix]

[url:2t2ozzhe]http://koso.ucsd.edu/~martin/CelticSitter.gif[/url]

[url:2t2ozzhe]http://usuarios.advance.com.ar/cernunnosgb/images/guerrier.jpg[/url]

[url:2t2ozzhe]http://jfbradu.free.fr/celtes/les-celtes/roquepertuse1.jpg[/url]

[url:2t2ozzhe]http://www.celticworld.it/immagini/ad_img/fgallery/fg_887_1118.jpg[/url]}

I will need to look more closely at these

Why you don't look to the article of Rapin, the best celtic weapon historian, posted by Untilatie?

http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... view/13/14

There is a good analisys about celtic organic armors, good and precise drawings of the celtic statues form V to III B.C. wearing organic armor and so on...

{And they were nakend...AND most important of all, their shield were small (smaller than the Roman ones and probably the other Celts')}

I have my doubts about this also, its really out of place with all other evidence that Celtic shields were LARGE .... it makes them sound like a suicide squad hock: .... maybe they were !!

A smaller shield (smaller than a 1.40/1.10 meters lenght like "standard" celtic ones) optimize a good fighting tecnique with the sword, something that is compatible with the Gaesatae, that were professionist mercenaries.

If you look at Civitalba, the naked Gaesatae in fact have a shield that is represented quite small to celtic "standards". Also, Polybius speak about a "small" shield (smaller than Roman and other celtic shield, I suppose)

{As in literature, the naked barbarian is more a "topos" than a matter of fact}

True but the Greeks fought naked, in the body at least.

What you mean?
Hoplites wear thorax wit a thoromacus under it, or a linothorax...even peltast and ekdromoi and psiloi wear tunics or leather fabric... maybe you are mistaking te concept of "heroic nudity" for reality
----------------------

P.S.

I'll search the statement of the Coactilia in Caesar and post it here

[Conal]

Caturix\\n[quote]
<<Why you don't look to the article of Rapin, the best celtic weapon historian, posted by Untilatie?

http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... view/13/14

There is a good analisys about celtic organic armors, good and precise drawings of the celtic statues form V to III B.C. wearing organic armor and so on...>>

I have downloaded it

<<A smaller shield (smaller than a 1.40/1.10 meters lenght like "standard" celtic ones) optimize a good fighting tecnique with the sword, something that is compatible with the Gaesatae, that were professionist mercenaries.

If you look at Civitalba, the naked Gaesatae in fact have a shield that is represented quite small to celtic "standards". Also, Polybius speak about a "small" shield (smaller than Roman and other celtic shield, I suppose)>>

Hard to say but I am not conviced.


<<What you mean? Hoplites wear thorax wit a thoromacus under it, or a linothorax...even peltast and ekdromoi and psiloi wear tunics or leather fabric... maybe you are mistaking te concept of "heroic nudity" for reality>>

Not all ...

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff10 ... 5thcen.jpg

http://www2.unil.ch/iasa/iasa_c_est_aus ... _pilos.jpg

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Sterile/I ... oplite.jpg

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Armor/Achilles.jpg


<<P.S.

I'll search the statement of the Coactilia in Caesar and post it here>>

Thanks

[Caturix]

"omnes fere milites aut ex coactis aut ex centonibus aut ex coriis tunicas aut tegimenta fecerant quibus tela vitarent'


"And then all the soldiers made protection for themselves with felt or padded cloth or leather, to protect themselves from the projectiles"

(Caes., Bell. Civ., III, 44)

---------------------

P.S.

About the greek painting you post, sorry but I'm quite convinced that are quite unrealistic an strongly based on the "topos" of heroic nudity, maybe exept this one: http://www2.unil.ch/iasa/iasa_c_est_aus ... _pilos.jpg

The last one is even a representation of the Achilles vs Hector legendary fight...

[Caturix]

...And Plinius:

"lanae et per se coactae vestem faciunt et, si addatur acetum, etiam ferrum resistunt"

"A vest of compressed wool, if treated with vinegar, can resist to iron"

Naturalis Historia, VIII, 192

[MeinPanzer]

Maybe because we are speaking about DEPERIBILE material Wink

Regardless, the word used to describe what they are wearing is anaxurides, not knemides.

???? Man, you must be joking... the statue of Roquepertuse is from late III B.C., the Civitalba Temple from the first of II B.C., and the Battle of Telamon is 225 B.C.

I was unaware of the dating of the Roqueportuse statue, but the Civitalba relief you've posted does not show any sort of organic armour. I'll post a much clearer image of the figure you're discussing later, but he is wearing a shaggy fur cape (which is quite commonly depicted among the Celts).

A smaller shield (smaller than a 1.40/1.10 meters lenght like "standard" celtic ones) optimize a good fighting tecnique with the sword, something that is compatible with the Gaesatae, that were professionist mercenaries.

If you look at Civitalba, the naked Gaesatae in fact have a shield that is represented quite small to celtic "standards". Also, Polybius speak about a "small" shield (smaller than Roman and other celtic shield, I suppose)

If you look at the Roman and allied infantry on the Aemilius Paullus monument battle scene, they carry exceptionally large scuta, much larger than are normally seen in Celtic or Hellenistic contexts.

[Caturix]

Maybe because we are speaking about DEPERIBILE material Wink

Regardless, the word used to describe what they are wearing is anaxurides, not knemides.

Yes... I don'want to say that Gauls used felt greaves like Dura Europos one, but just that leg protections in deperibile material are not inacceptables.

[MeinPanzer]

Maybe because we are speaking about DEPERIBILE material Wink

Regardless, the word used to describe what they are wearing is anaxurides, not knemides.

Yes... I don'want to say that Gauls used felt greaves like Dura Europos one, but just that leg protections in deperibile material are not inacceptables.

I don't doubt that it is possible, but more what I was getting at is that evidence for such leg armour does not come to us from the Celtic cultural milieu.

[Paullus Scipio]

Meinpanzer/Ruben wrote:

Firstly, Polybius doesn't write that they were "well protected" by their clothing. Translated quite literally it reads "many of the Celts were well served (euchrestian) with heavy cloaks/coats (sagoi) and trousers (anaxuridon)." That word euchrestian simply means that they benefited from wearing their clothing, not that they were well protected. And heavier clothing could definitely confer some defense, especially heavier leather clothing. It might not be great, but it would provide something, especially when compared to wearing nothing, which is the entire point of that passage.

Gentlemen, might I suggest that the attached picture from the Arch of Orange(AD 25) fits what Polybius is saying admirably? Here we see a Celt wielding shield and sword, wearing a helmet, but otherwise naked ( though just possibly wearing trousers), and lo and behold, he uses his sagum wrapped around his arm as additional defence against missiles, and perhaps offensively to flick into an opponents eyes or entangle his weapon.
Use of a 'hanging' defence, and it's ability to take the force out of missile weapons in particular, has been known since time immemorial. For example; Greek Triremes used hanging curtains called parablemata to protect rowers from missiles; and a traditional form of Spanish duel was with cloak and dagger.
I use hanging blankets as a backstop on a home archery range, and arrows never penetrate, even from 10 metres.

Add to this that woollen trousers would confer a degree of protection against random slashes, spent missiles etc which might otherwise cut, as was explained above, and I believe Polybius' probable meaning is perfectly explained.........

[MeinPanzer]

Meinpanzer/Ruben wrote:

Firstly, Polybius doesn't write that they were "well protected" by their clothing. Translated quite literally it reads "many of the Celts were well served (euchrestian) with heavy cloaks/coats (sagoi) and trousers (anaxuridon)." That word euchrestian simply means that they benefited from wearing their clothing, not that they were well protected. And heavier clothing could definitely confer some defense, especially heavier leather clothing. It might not be great, but it would provide something, especially when compared to wearing nothing, which is the entire point of that passage.

Gentlemen, might I suggest that the attached picture from the Arch of Orange(AD 25) fits what Polybius is saying admirably? Here we see a Celt wielding shield and sword, wearing a helmet, but otherwise naked ( though just possibly wearing trousers), and lo and behold, he uses his sagum wrapped around his arm as additional defence against missiles, and perhaps offensively to flick into an opponents eyes or entangle his weapon.
Use of a 'hanging' defence, and it's ability to take the force out of missile weapons in particular, has been known since time immemorial. For example; Greek Triremes used hanging curtains called parablemata to protect rowers from missiles; and a traditional form of Spanish duel was with cloak and dagger.
I use hanging blankets as a backstop on a home archery range, and arrows never penetrate, even from 10 metres.

Add to this that woollen trousers would confer a degree of protection against random slashes, spent missiles etc which might otherwise cut, as was explained above, and I believe Polybius' probable meaning is perfectly explained.........

Thank you. I was not aware of this image, but that illustrates quite well how it could have been used as a defense- the images of hoplites with aprons hanging from their shields also come to mind. Even if the men were still to keep the cloaks pinned around their shoulders but just pulled them forward to cover one arm, they could be used effectively to defend against missiles, I would imagine. No need for organic greaves and cuirasses.

[Caturix]

Gentlemen, might I suggest that the attached picture from the Arch of Orange(AD 25) fits what Polybius is saying admirably? Here we see a Celt wielding shield and sword, wearing a helmet, but otherwise naked ( though just possibly wearing trousers)

Excuse me, but without mentioning that the Arch of Orange is quite too recent to be used as a term of paragon for III B.C. Gauls, I think that it is probably the maximum example of ideal depiction of the look of Gaulish warriors, with little to do with reality of facts.

It celebrate the victory against the rebel army of Julius Sacrovir; according to Tacitus statement, the army of Sacrovir was composed of a percentage of warriors "equipped with the same weapons of the legions" (Tacitus, Annales, 3, 43) , a huge percentage of skirmish-like light infantry
"equipped with short spears, knives and others hunters' weapons" (Tacitus, Annales, 3, 43) and the slave gladiators named Crupellarii, with a characteristic heavy and cumbersome armor.

Nothing of this I see in the Arch of Orange... just the old cliché of the naked barbarian... sorry, but for the exterior look of the Gauls, I don't think the Arch of Orange can be considered realistic at all.

Add to this that woollen trousers would confer a degree of protection against random slashes

Excuse me... I have performed a lot of tests with a sharpened reproduction of a latenian blade... and belive me... if not padded and matted, no woollen trousers can give any protection, even against a random slash.

, spent missiles etc which might otherwise cut, as was explained above, and I believe Polybius' probable meaning is perfectly explained.........

I don't think so.

As for swords, my association performed penetration tests with javelins... and no fabric that haven't been matted on purpose can give any notable protection or avantage against a volley of javelins.

Putting together the evidence of gaulish organic armors and the use in Italy of felt protections, I'm still of the idea that the line infantry of the Gauls at Telamon (except for the Gaesatae), had had some kind of body protection a little more effective than simple clothing.

[Caturix]

the images of hoplites with aprons hanging from their shields also come to mind.

Hoplite's aprons weren't maded in stiff leather?

Even if the men were still to keep the cloaks pinned around their shoulders but just pulled them forward to cover one arm, they could be used effectively to defend against missiles, I would imagine.

Gentlemen... please... a cloak spinned around to cover an ARM can be used effectively to defend against javelins?

It's not History here that don't match, just Physics and a little bit of rationality...

No need for organic cuirasses.

So wat about all the celtic statues and representations?
What about the Statue of Roquepertuse?

I'm quite puzzled...

[Dan Howard]

the images of hoplites with aprons hanging from their shields also come to mind.

Hoplite's aprons weren't maded in stiff leather?

No probably not. Get a light flexible sheet of leather, canvas, or felt. Affix it at the top so that it hangs loosely like a curtain and fire arrows at it. Very few, if any, will penetrate (unless the range is unrealistically close). The curtain absorbs the impact. Sling shot is equally resisted. The Japanese had a similar defense called a horo. It was a cloak that was fixed at the neck and the waist and billowed out behind the wearer as he rode. It was quite capable of deflecting arrows while it was filled with air. I am thinking that javelins might be more effective though I doubt that this defense was designed with javelins in mind.

So wat about all the celtic statues and representations?
What about the Statue of Roquepertuse?

I'd like to know how anyone can look at a statue and tell the difference between leather, textile and felt. Often one can't even tell whether a particular item is organic or metallic, or even whether a garment is clothing or armour. Iconographical evidence isn't much use on its own.

[Caturix]

I'd like to know how anyone can look at a statue and tell the difference between leather, textile and felt. Often one can't even tell whether a particular item is organic or metallic, or even whether a garment is clothing or armour. Iconographical evidence isn't much use on its own.

Obviously not. But as I said iconographic evidence, puted together with various informations from ancient writers' statements can help us to make up some ideas.

[Andy]

Is that a Celt in the bottom right hand corner? If so he looks like he's wearing a chiton, as the fabric is gathered at the shoulders.