New Information on the Linothorax front? APA Meeting 2009

[Jason Hoffman]

The Greek for breastplate is Thorax, or thorakis, translators have had a field day translating it as - corslet, armour, breastplate, cuirass, body armour etc. If you are reading an english translation of ancient greek origin that mentions some form of body protection then the original word is probably thorax.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Very probably yes. And it means any kind of body armour,regardless pf for or matterial. Some have assumed that when the matterial is not mentioned,bronze is indicated by the Greeks. It's no more than that,an assumption. Thorax,and I think still toda in English the word is used for the same thing, means the arrea of the human breast. So breast plate would be the closest translation,if only for the word "plate" which indicates metal.
Khairete
Giannis

[Kineas]

I did a word count study a few months back (just before starting my armour, in fact) on words occurring with "thorax" in Greek literature. This kind of scholarship has been rendered easy by the web and by sites like the Perseus project.

Since you'll note that I didn't rush here to announce my findings, you won't be surprised that the results were utterly banal. There are, I think, six uses of linen with Thorax,and none of them is useful to this argument--most are from Herodotus's description of Persians and their allies. There are the same number (roughly) of "bronze" occurrences and they are better--they fall in period and refer to a Greek warrior's breastplate. There is one for wool (again, a Persian ally in Herodotus) and etc etc etc.

I didn't run "iron" or "leather" as associative words. I came to the conclusion, instead, that Greek authors used "thorax" the way 18th C. authors use "musket" as a catch all word needing no description. The useless bastards...

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Thorax is used as is the helmet or greaves,means nothing of its form or matterial. By the way the word for helmet is usually "kranos" (Homer uses another word) and for greaves "knemides".
Khaire
Giannis

[Sean Manning]

On the subject of the Alexander Mosaic, there seems to be a consensus that it is an accurate reproduction of the original (although some parts may have been misplaced). I believe that the parts which can be checked in archaeology, like the horse harness, are correct. The artist clearly made use of perspective- just look at the hoves of the horse and the feet of the rider in the bottom center section.

The mosaic has a lot of interesting brick-red tube-and-yoke armours on the Persian side. The Great King's driver wears one covered with a square grid of black lines. Leather, quilted and dyed cloth, take your pick. I don't claim to know any more!

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Most of the details suggest that the artists used the original painting since they didn't have access to the correct period items. The fallen chalkidean helmet under Alexander is interesting and I can't find where the artists used typical roman stylized characteristics. Only the sarissae points are a bit odd to me,but the masterpiece becomes even more so when you examine the small details,like the Persian jewelry. Another interesting thing is the falling percian who has a polished aspis in front of him where his face and expression can be seen. I'm afraid I'm getting off topic,but it's a pity we don't see much of the Macedonian side. One would suppose that the roman artists would have replaced the unknown items to them,like the odd boeotian helmet,however it is indeed seen being worn by a companion behind Alexander.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paralus]

The artist clearly made use of perspective- just look at the hoves of the horse and the feet of the rider in the bottom center section.

My wording is a little "harsh". Going from memory at the time. Yes the original painter made good use of perspective. I was referring to such things as the horse head to the immedite left of the king's chariot and the human head to its left. A couple os sarisae seem to terminate in his head and he seems to have no body. The horse's rear under him has no head. Also, the cavalryman - Giannis' fellow in the Boeotian helmet - behind Alexander is gripping a sarisa (more likely a twelve foot xyston) near to the point. This probably indicates the artist failed to grasp some of the intricacy of the original painting more than anything else; perhaps the transfer to mosaic played its part.

Also, there is a head to Alexander's right elbow. This is often taken to represent a Macedonian infantryman. He seems not to be helmeted and no weapon appears to be extant. Were he carrying a sarisa or dory one suspects it might have survived - at least in part. Is he Persian?

[Paullus Scipio]

Whoops! ....we seem to have diverged onto a new subject, namely a discussion of the Pompeii "Alexander Mosaic".Perhaps a moderator would like to move this sequence from Sean's post onward to a new thread.....
Some initial observations and comments to promote discussion of what I consider to be a highly accurate copy of a lost painting, and my all-time favourite piece of Ancient Art!
1. The arms and armour appear to be very authentically portrayed, despite the fact that the mosaicists, unfamiliar with it, may have mis-interpreted here and there...
2. The tunics of Darius and Alexander, now grey stones, were probably originally painted purple ( naturally purple stones being unavailable)
3.Darius alone, correctly, wears his tiara upright..
4. The red Tube-and-Yoke corselets have criss-cross lines in a diamond pattern, with a central dot, strongly suggesting some form of quilting; which ties in well with literary descriptions of Persian 'quilted linen' corselets.
5. A cavalry standard of 'vexillum' type is shown, though the design on it is lost
6.Alexander's equipment is noteworthy and detailed...xyston, sword, leopardskin horse-trapper etc. Interestingly and unusually, he has long sleeves ( Persian dress?) and most interestingly of all, his 'grey' body-armour could be interpreted as all-iron ( with the white on the stomach-band representing a 'gleam', like that on the bronze-faced aspis) or a conventional Tube-and-Yoke corselet with iron scale and 'yoke' re-inforcements.
7. The 'knobbly' javelin with throwing thong in the foreground is interesting given similar Thracian depictions etc
8. A 'birds-head' sword-hilt is unusual and interesting (just to the right of the Persian being despatched by Alexander)
9. The chariot wheel, with it's 'knobbly' tyres matches archaeological 'model/s' of Persian Royal chariots
10. I believe the Companion whose head is shown in profile and wearing a 'Boeotian' helmet is wielding a 'longche'/javelin, and the overhand grip indicates an intention to throw ( if it were a xyston of similar length to Alexander's gripped way up the shaft, we should see the tail project beyond the blank area)
11. The skimpy outline of a profile on foot to the rear of Alexander appears to be wearing the national 'kausia' head-dress rather than a helmet, as Paralus remarked. There is a similar occurrence described in literature....
12.I find it odd that anyone should identify the background figures as 'sarissaphoroi'/Macedonians. Firstly, with one possible exception ( and even that one, crossing the tree, is really too short - being comparable to Alexander's xyston in length), the spears depicted are 'Dory' length. Hypaspists perhaps? I think not. There are three discarded aspides in the foreground - the polished one being run over, and two partially shown ones in the foreground below and to the left of Alexander - indicative of fleeing Hoplites. The spears are shown 'sloped' over the shoulder rather than held horizontally in 'charge' mode - again indicating fleeing rather than advancing troops.The sole Hoplite face visible is clearly glancing fearfully/in terror back toward Alexander. The composition would not make sense to have sarissaphoroi/Hypaspists keep up with a charging Alexander ( I know - the footman in kausia - but he is at least behind Alexander, and may have clung to a horses tail). Darius would be long gone if Alexander only charged at 'infantry' pace, not to mention that it would reflect badly on Alexander's glory if any troops were to be shown 'ahead' of him. To me, the background figures are clearly fleeing Greek mercenaries.... which also happens to make much more artistic/compositional sense! D ......Further, in at least one tradition, Darius does not flee until after his troops break, contra the 'coward' version which has his flight causing his army to break....

I'd better stop here, but one could go on a lot more..... :wink: :wink:

[Paralus]

arms and armour appear to be very authentically portrayed, despite the fact that the mosaicists, unfamiliar with it, may have mis-interpreted here and there...

To my own eye they are excellently portrayed. The mosaicists might well have missed original artistic intent but I doubt they stuffed the basic details.

Alexander's equipment is noteworthy and detailed...xyston, sword, leopardskin horse-trapper etc. Interestingly and unusually, he has long sleeves ( Persian dress?) and most interestingly of all, his 'grey' body-armour could be interpreted as all-iron ( with the white on the stomach-band representing a 'gleam', like that on the bronze-faced aspis) or a conventional Tube-and-Yoke corselet with iron scale and 'yoke' re-inforcements.

You and I both agree this is an extended (12’?) xyston (“my god that’s no xyston it’s a bloody sarisa!â€

[MeinPanzer]

[quote]You and I both agree this is an extended (12’?) xyston (“my god that’s no xyston it’s a bloody sarisa!â€

[Sean Manning]

I was trying to get back to the armour, to tell you the truth Although the Alexander Mosaic would be a good topic for a thread. I agree with Paralus that some bits seem to have been distorted between the original scene and the state of the mosaic copy, like the two spears that vanish behind a head. But now I'm compelled to step between two duelling giants and throw in my own HS II.

I find it odd that anyone should identify the background figures as 'sarissaphoroi'/Macedonians.

I have no doubt that is what they represent. In the end this is art. To go back to the earlier point (all three victories in one piece) the original artist is trying – on the one canvas – to present Alexander’s “brilliant cavalry actionâ€

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:
[quote]Which “hopliteâ€

[Paralus]

I was trying to get back to the armour, to tell you the truth Although the Alexander Mosaic would be a good topic for a thread. I agree with Paralus that some bits seem to have been distorted between the original scene and the state of the mosaic copy, like the two spears that vanish behind a head. But now I'm compelled to step between two duelling giants and throw in my own HS II.

I don’t know that “duellingâ€

[MeinPanzer]

Paralus\\n[quote]The literal interpretation of the Alexander sarcophagus would, for instance, lead one to suspect that Alexander rode into battle regaled somewhat like a Persian. He (and his other cavalry) rode not only bare-back but also barefoot and without any greaves. Alexander, on the sarcophagus appears not to be armoured having only a Persian “shirtâ€

[Paralus]

Yes, I've seen the coloured renditions produced from those traces of original paint that still cling to the sarcophagus. Still, the Persian clothing and footwear is rendered in some detail (including leather thongs). These too were then painted over.

I take the point about greaves: it would seem, given those found in the Vergina burials (royal and otherwise), that this may have been a matter of choice. That is, the greave or the Macedonian "lace-up" high boot. Alexander is depicted elsewhere as wearing the latter. There is the notion that greaves were worn when on foot. His foot (and lower shin) have not survived but there is a distinct lack of detail (without seeing the sarcophagus "live") on the "Perdikkas" / "Antigonus" character.

Lastly the "Macedonian hoplite", rendered in close detail, marches into battle barefoot. We need not bother over those "heroically nude".

As a note on my previous post, the depiction of Alexander spearing a foe "sacrificing himself" for another has been argued as possibly a motif in Alexandrian art. Frank Holt in The Elephant Medallions draws the striking similarities bewtween the mosaic and the medallions. Must find the passage when back home.