Linothorax vs Quilted linen vs spolas

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,I have posted them many times,you must have seen them.
Here they are in their old display,the two famous gorgon heads that must have been attached to the shoulder flaps and some of the ring plates(rings are missing here

Here they are in the new museum,bottom left,with more fittings and with some of the rings attached

Here a close up of one of the gorgon heads. You see the attachment method behind the top of the head. The straps must have been attached through the hole between the snakes' tails.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1232/114 ... 4563_o.jpg
I'm sure I had posted a better image of the fittings somewhere,but can't find it. Somewhere in the beginners section I think
Khaire
Giannis

[Dan Howard]

That's a leap in logic. Herodotus describes Persian iron and bronze helmets, neither of which would be strange to Greeks except that the cut was outlandish. So Htd., Xenophon, and Plutarch could mention foreign linen armour because linen armour was strange, or because the cut was strange, or the decoration on the armour was remarkable, or because barbarian soldiers are strange. I believe Herodotus mentions a few examples of barbarians leather armour too although I can't find one in the Catalogue of Nations.

Well said Sean. This is a perfect example of only putting forward one possibility based on one's agenda. Lawyers need to do this but it is not a particularly useful trait for a historian. Never have I said that the Greeks did not use leather armour. Always I've said that there is no evidence for it. Recently I've amended that to agree that leather scale was likely worn. Regarding the so-called linothorax - when the iconographical, textual and physical evidence is taken together then we can definitely say that the Greeks used a "tube and yoke" style armour and that the most likely material from which it was made was multiple layers of linen - especially if the Patas report agrees with what we have been told by witnesses.

We have no idea whether that armour was called a "linothorax" but it is a decent abbreviation for "tube-and-yoke style Greek armour made of layered linen". It has previously been asked "why would the Greeks call it a linothorax if it wasn't made of linen?" This question is pointless since we don't know that it was even called a linothorax during the time period in question. It might be a good idea to use a different term to call reconstructions made of metal or leather. Linothorax simply means "linen armour".

FWIW the Patas find is alleged to be much larger that the earlier fragment found at Mycenae and includes part of the border. The latter one is too small to identify as anything other than layered linen. It could simply be a folded linen cloth but the second find at Patas makes it more likely that the Mycenae find was also from linen armour.

[MeinPanzer]

.....How sure are you of this? In photo 2 (the one with the two different coloured/sets of scales), the granulated 'crumbs' just below the bottom edge, but on the net bandage backing(modern) look awfully like old dessicated leather to my eye, but could be granulated 'rust' too I guess....... doubtless the scales have 'stuck' to one another due to corrosion.

I'm definitely not sure, but it doesn't look to me like the finds were in good enough shape to preserve leather, and all the "lining" portions appear to me to be simple discolouration. At any rate, we can't tell for sure, so we should count this out as evidence for leather-backed scale for now.

[Dan Howard]

I'm definitely not sure, but it doesn't look to me like the finds were in good enough shape to preserve leather, and all the "lining" portions appear to me to be simple discolouration. At any rate, we can't tell for sure, so we should count this out as evidence for leather-backed scale for now.

Even if it is leather backed scale, how can this possibly be classed as leather armour? As I said earlier, if attaching metal plates to some leather can be called "leather armour" then so can the lorica segmentata, coat of plates, brigandine, etc. It is fairly evident that the metal plates perform the active role while the backing is simply to hold the structure together. It is metal armour regardless of whether the foundation is made of textiles or leather.

[nikolaos]

Dan,

>most likely material from which it was made was multiple layers of linen

This is where I have to disagree with you Dan. In order to assert, as you do, that the "most likely" material for a thorakes was multiple layers of linen (I'm glad to see you drop the question of quilting) you have to make a lot of assumptions that don't have facts to back them up. What we can say for certain is a possible material for a thorakes is layered linen. But to jump to "most likely" you need a wealth of evidence that simply doesn't exist. One of Prof Eero Jarva's theses in "Archaic Greek Body Armour" is that leather is a possible material for non-metallic armour as well as linen for a number of reasons that have been echoed here: cost, extensive local leather industry, and so forth.

And if the scholars aren't willing to weigh in with certainty, its irresponsible for us as amateur interpreters of history to do so, as we're failing in our role as educators.

Certainty also prevents people from thinking, researching, and trying different things that may advance our knowledge or eliminate possibilities.

A good example is your comment:

"Even if it is leather backed scale, how can this possibly be classed as leather armour?"

Considering the best preserved scale armour from the period at the met is leather scales laced to a leather backing, its pretty certain they are leather armour. Which opens up another possibility for our interpretation of the thorakes... a leather thorakes with leather scales...

Thanks,
Cole

[Paullus Scipio]

O.K. my fine frozen Canadian friends, I’ll bite! Bait taken !
Christian/Kineas wrote:

That's 'Breastplates of new linen" and when I make this point to Paul, he insists that it is "out of period."

I'm not convinced either way. Alcaeus was born (probably) in the 40th Olympiad, around 620BC and was involved with attempts to overthrow Pittacus in the 42nd Olympiad, around 608. He may have served in the "Eclipse Battle" of 585. He died old--as late as 560 or so.

Further, although I've heard it asserted that there's no Tube and Yoke at this date, I'd offer by way of example that they become common in art by 525, and allowing for Greek artistic conservatism (just look at the time it takes them to adjust to changes in women's fashion!) it is perfectly possible that Alcaeus is talking about linen tube and yoke armours.

…first, I don’t "insist", but rather, as I have often said, assert that one thing is more probable than another…..

Let us consider Cole/Nikolaos’ Alcaeus quotation further, and I am going to be pedantic about him !

Firstly, it is correct that Alcaeus of Mytilene on Lesbos’ birth date is unknown – some commentators have him born before 630 BC, but it might have been as late as 620 BC, in which case he would have been a little young (12!) to have participated with Pittacus and the Oligarchs to overthrow the Tyrant Melanchros, though it is believed Alcaeus’ older brothers were among the leaders. ( Later Alcaeus would fall out with Pittacus)
That he ‘died old’ is only suggested ( I believe) by a fragment of poetry in which he describes himself as an ‘old man’ - but that may mean 50, or even late 40’s !
Certainly he is not heard of after 585 BC, and hence probably died not that long after – 560 BC, when he would have been 80 or 90 is probably stretching it a bit, and certainly Cole’s fragment was not written as late as this. What is incontestable is that it was written long before the ‘T-and-Y’ appeared in Mainland Greece ( see below).
I would also challenge the statement “…. that they become common in Art by 525 BC.” I’m curious as to how many examples you are basing this on ?
The earliest known depiction of an unambiguous ‘T-and-Y’ (white is sometimes used for other armours) I know of is on an Attic Black-figure ‘Eye-cup’ by Exekias ( floreat 540-530 BC). At least two examples of this eye-cup exist, and one version shows the fallen hero without, and the other with an un-mistakeable ‘T-and-Y’. This suggests that Exekias saw what to him was a new-fangled armour and he was quick to depict it. (contra Christian’s suggestion regarding conservatism in Greek art). [see attached]

Next, Alcaeus’ poetry only survives in fragments, of which the piece Cole quotes, often called ‘The Armoury’ is the longest. Some debate whether the reference is to Epic/Heroic matters or contemporary politics, but I believe that such a debate is un-necessary. Alcaeus sometimes makes scurrilous attacks on individuals ( such as when he fell out with Pittacus) but is usually circumspect when making political comment, usually using allegory, for example a poem about a ship on storm-tossed seas about to be wrecked is an allegory for the “ship of state”. All the surviving fragments of Alcaeus that have military references are to the Trojan War, the Abduction of Helen etc. It would thus seem likely therefore that ‘The Armoury’ is Epic/Heroic too, with an allegory to contemporary politics, and Alcaeus’ listeners at a symposium would take heed of the exhortation, it not being lost on them. That would put Alcaeus’ “ ..white corselets of new linen..” on a par with Homer’s “..linen corseleted Argives..” ( incidently, Homer may have been active around 670 BC, only a generation or two earlier)
So, we have Alcaeus writing on Lesbos ( off the coast of Asia Minor, where linen corselets certainly existed though not apparently this early) c. 600 BC, and the first known depiction of a ‘T-and-Y’ in Greece c. 535 BC, some 65 years later, and that is as close as you can pull these two together.

I would venture to suggest the possibility that the ‘T-and-Y’ was invented in Athens sometime around 535 BC, and was most likely made of Alum-tawed leather, which was a known major industry in Athens at the time. Later, during and after the Persian Wars, it would come to be re-inforced with scales and metal plates, particularly on the un-shielded side ( implying a need for increased protection against Persian arrows) and some may have been entirely covered in scales. Notice that the re-inforcement is added to the exterior whereas were it composed of layers it would have been easy to 'sandwich' metal plates, as Paul Bardunias and others have suggested.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,you have just posted the two sides of the same vase,there. Just in case you didn't notice it. Exekias painted one of the two completely naked,which means that his armour was stripped of him,perhaps by Hector. There is no base to say he was depicting something new to him.
Alcaeos is peaking of bronze greaves,a basic part of early hoplite gear,and especially of hollow shields ,which is a standard epithet of the hoplite shield. Homer may refer to hollow shields occasionally and rarely in fact,for his are usually just round and "great".
And let me point out some differences in reliability between "Homer" and Alcaeos. It is generally accepted that Homeric poems are a mix of older and newer additions and there is not even enough evidence that Homer was one person. Also his two poems were by far the most popular in the Greek world and most probably had many variations from time and place,or even singer and occasion. So it is very logical that we cannot rely on these poems to reconstruct armour of any age.
Let me say that Alcaeus is rather different. He's a specific person that lived in specific time and wrote many things,even if they haven't survived as well. These facts,together with the fact that at any given age of greek art,the past is represented in contemporary clothes/armour makes Alcaeus much more relyable than Homer to link armour described by him with the time he is writing. So we have all vases of the time,say 600 bc showing homeric heros in bell cuirasses,corinthian helmets and hoplite shields,and even fighting in phalanx(!) and at the same time we have a poet that's MAYBE talking of a homeric scene. Why should we believe that he's basing his description on Homer when no other form of art does it?
In the end,homeric or not,Alcaeus' fragment is much more important than you make it appear,Paul.
Similarly,some of Homer's armour may belong to the 7th century bc,including the "hollow round shields" and "linothoriktoi" heroes.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Sean Manning wrote:
That's a leap in logic. Herodotus describes Persian iron and bronze helmets, neither of which would be strange to Greeks except that the cut was outlandish. So Htd., Xenophon, and Plutarch could mention foreign linen armour because linen armour was strange, or because the cut was strange, or the decoration on the armour was remarkable, or because barbarian soldiers are strange. I believe Herodotus mentions a few examples of barbarians leather armour too although I can't find one in the Catalogue of Nations.

I think your comment would be true, if each example, particularly Herodotus, were examined in isolation. If we adopt a holistic approach however and look at the whole picture, we consistently see linen armour described as Asiatic, and never worn by Greeks, except Plutarch’s quilted example worn by Alexander, which he is careful to explain is a captured Persian example. As to the possibility of the ‘cut being strange’, it is apparent from the depictions we have that Persian ‘Tube-and-Yoke’ armour is usually of the same or similar cut to Greek, and where it differs, for example Xenophon’s linen cuirassed Chalybes, who have twisted fronds instead of pteruges, we are usually told so.

Like you, I can’t find any references to ‘leather’ armour in Herodotus’ catalogue, other than leather helmets ( along with wicker and wooden helmets) and rawhide shields, though Caspians are described as’ dressed in leather jackets/coats of skin’ ( not spolades) and the Libyans are described as ‘clothed in leather’/’equipped in leather’

Dan wrote:
Well said Sean. This is a perfect example of only putting forward one possibility based on one's agenda. Lawyers need to do this but it is not a particularly useful trait for a historian.

That’s rather unfair and a personal jibe, and I don’t have an ‘agenda’ other than to put forward what I consider to be the most likely hypothesis, backed by evidence. If I don’t put forward every single possibility, it is because it would be tedious to cover every possibility and then explain why one is most probable, so I leave it to others to put forward an alternate viewpoint.

Never have I said that the Greeks did not use leather armour. Always I've said that there is no evidence for it. Recently I've amended that to agree that leather scale was likely worn. Regarding the so-called linothorax - when the iconographical, textual and physical evidence is taken together then we can definitely say that the Greeks used a "tube and yoke" style armour

…one can agree the evidence supports this ….

and that the most likely material from which it was made was multiple layers of linen

….but not this, for which neither you nor others have put forward any credible evidence…

especially if the Patas report agrees with what we have been told by witnesses.

What ‘Patas report’? We have been told by Mr Saltimberi that it won’t be published for “at least 50 years”.
"witnesses?” – apparently, all we have is rumour and hearsay – Mr Saltimberi heard it from Mr D’Amato who heard it from…?
In any event, even if true in every detail, the existence of linen armour in 1200 BC or earlier is nothing to do with the construction of ‘Tube-and-Yoke’ corselets 700 years later !!!

Even if it is leather backed scale, how can this possibly be classed as leather armour? As I said earlier, if attaching metal plates to some leather can be called "leather armour" then so can the lorica segmentata, coat of plates, brigandine, etc. It is fairly evident that the metal plates perform the active role while the backing is simply to hold the structure together. It is metal armour regardless of whether the foundation is made of textiles or leather.

To a degree, I agree with Dan here. Greek Tube-and-Yoke corselets seem to have started being reinforced around the time of the Persian Wars, but partially, with scales and ultimately fully covered in metal scales; at least judging by Scythian and Thracian examples. Dan is right to call this latter ‘metal armour’, but if of ‘Tube-and-Yoke’ cut I would still define it as a variant of a ‘Tube-and-Yoke’ corselet. It is a question of degree, I guess, as to when ‘a scale reinforced corselet’ becomes ‘a metal scale corselet’.

[MeinPanzer]

Paul,you have just posted the two sides of the same vase,there. Just in case you didn't notice it. Exekias painted one of the two completely naked,which means that his armour was stripped of him,perhaps by Hector. There is no base to say he was depicting something new to him.
Alcaeos is peaking of bronze greaves,a basic part of early hoplite gear,and especially of hollow shields ,which is a standard epithet of the hoplite shield. Homer may refer to hollow shields occasionally and rarely in fact,for his are usually just round and "great".
And let me point out some differences in reliability between "Homer" and Alcaeos. It is generally accepted that Homeric poems are a mix of older and newer additions and there is not even enough evidence that Homer was one person. Also his two poems were by far the most popular in the Greek world and most probably had many variations from time and place,or even singer and occasion. So it is very logical that we cannot rely on these poems to reconstruct armour of any age.
Let me say that Alcaeus is rather different. He's a specific person that lived in specific time and wrote many things,even if they haven't survived as well. These facts,together with the fact that at any given age of greek art,the past is represented in contemporary clothes/armour makes Alcaeus much more relyable than Homer to link armour described by him with the time he is writing. So we have all vases of the time,say 600 bc showing homeric heros in bell cuirasses,corinthian helmets and hoplite shields,and even fighting in phalanx(!) and at the same time we have a poet that's MAYBE talking of a homeric scene. Why should we believe that he's basing his description on Homer when no other form of art does it?
In the end,homeric or not,Alcaeus' fragment is much more important than you make it appear,Paul.
Similarly,some of Homer's armour may belong to the 7th century bc,including the "hollow round shields" and "linothoriktoi" heroes.
Khaire
Giannis

Giannis, you have to separate in this instance art and literature. Classical Greeks portrayed Homeric heroes armed with contemporary arms because they had no or little idea about the appearance of the arms and armour of the Mycenaeans who lived almost a millennium before them. This is why, until "classicization" of arms in Homeric and mythical scenes appears around the Hellenistic period, Homeric scenes often reflect in detail the arms of the day in which a piece of art was created.

Literature, however, was totally different, as we can see in our received version of Homer's poems. To give the classic example, the mention of boars' tusk helmets in the Iliad shows that vestiges of ancient forms of arms could survive in the oral tradition for centuries to be set down in the written versions of these stories. Most literate Greeks were very familiar with the Iliad, if they had not memorized it, and so details like the arms described would be very familiar to later authors. If I understand Paul's argument, he is stating that Alcaeus' linen cuirasses could have been a poetic trope which he drew from the Iliad to make his Homeric description more Iliadic, and so it would not reflect his contemporary world.

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis wrote:

Paul,you have just posted the two sides of the same vase,there. Just in case you didn't notice it. Exekias painted one of the two completely naked,which means that his armour was stripped of him,perhaps by Hector. There is no base to say he was depicting something new to him.

Quite right Giannis ! Red Faces time.....I had garnered the two from the same sources, and the different tones of the respective photos, and the fact that they were listed separately fooled me into thinking two different eye cups were shown..... :oops: :oops:

In fact, although more than one eye-cup by Exekias seems to have survived ( see e.g. Beazley archive) this is the most famous one, with the bowl containing the image of Dionysius on the ship.....

It is still however the earliest depiction of the Greek 'Tube-and-Yoke ' that I know of, but one is always on the lookout for something new which might revise that. I still think Exekias was showing a 'new-fangled' type of armour - the other figures show conventional 'Bell' cuirasses - even if the idea of two separate eye-cups is incorrect.

Also, I was going to point out that Art and Literature are different, in that visual Art tends to show contemporary arms/armour, while literature/oral poetry preserves genuine details such as the famous Boar's tusk helmet, but whilst I write, I see Ruben has already made the point !
And Ruben's understanding is correct, that my point is that Alcaeus' poetry in a military context is invariably Epic/Heroic about the Trojan War etc, and his 'story' of old times would stand as allegory for contemporary events, and hence the reference to linen would be a reference to the past; a 'topos'/convention, which like Homer's details could well preserve an accurate detail from the past.
The difficulty remains, that it is unlikely Alcaeus refers to 'Tube-and-Yoke' corselets because he wrote some sixty or more years before the earliest known existence of this type of armour.......and yet this item is the closest anyone has found to 'evidence' ( which it is not, really) for linen !!! hock: hock:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Show me a greek tragedy abour homeric times where aspects of the distant past are present. You didn't comment on my point that Homer is a rather odd source,most scholars believing it is not a composition of a single man but the addition of details from different composers of different times. Now compare the pottery that is found in Athens alone or even more than originates in Athens. What if the t-y didn't originate in Athens? What if in Lesbos it was used a generation before it became popular in Athens? But the majority of pottery comes from Athens.
Anyway,my original point was that you rule out Alkaeus too easily.
Other than Alkaeus do we have other source saying that Chalkis was famous for its swords? Of what time? Does Homer mention anything about chalkidean swords?
Khairete
Giannis

[Dan Howard]

Considering the best preserved scale armour from the period at the met is leather scales laced to a leather backing, .

Except that the provinance and date of that particular item is disputed. A better example would be the Macedonian example posted earlier on this thread. I have no real problem with the claim that Greeks sometimes wore leather scale armor. Scale/lamellar is the most prevalent type of leather armour in many cultures. I have more of a problem with the tube and yoke style armour being made of leather.

[Kineas]

Wow--miss a night and you miss the party!

So...

First, I used to work in criminal forensics a little, and I guarantee that we could test all those scales with various current technologies and establish whether linen or leather was the backing. No need to speculate. Get some graduate student on it.

Paul, I won't dispute your disputation of Alcaeus--he's an historical figure, and he lived somewhere around 600BC. I think we can agree on that. And it is hard enough to interpret what an artist "meant" even in a modern context. So I think we have to take Alcaeus as read--it's a stretch to lump him with Homeric authors when he's describing other equipment we know to be contemporary. Paul, as you know, I'm no fan of the linen cuirass--but fair is fair!

FYI ( a little off topic) I've posted 54 new images from the ROM on facebook if anyone wants to see them. This is by far the most interesting, to me.



This is an archaic hoplite of 550-525 on the rondo of an Attic/Corinthian black figure (not red figure) cup. He's naked and hiding behind his shield.

I think that it is also worth mentioning two very minor "factoids' that may have bearing on this debate. Both are so common that I've always ignored them. The issue is leather armor, and there's one stock figure who wears it constantly...Herakles.

It was only when looking at Archaic red ware at point blank range that I realized that Herakles is wearing a linen chitoniskos (a garment I associate with "under armour") under his lion skin, or that, in the best example, his lion skin is very reminiscent of a "thorax." And I'll be the first to note that this is in NO way conclusive--there's a nice archaic statue of Herakles with a lion's head helmet, and that was clearly meant to be bronze. Herakles is so mythical as to defy "normalcy." But--it is worth noting that Herakles and his lion skin, belted over a chitoniskos with the paws coming over the shoulder like the yoke on a thorax, is a possible "armour meme" (I love all this jargon) that could refer to hide armour.

Even if it is not, I'd also note that I THINK we all accept that quivers were leather--yes? And Herakles quiver is almost always decorated in a very similar war to the "linothorax" art of, say, the Achilles Vase. In the"Berlin Painter's" Herakles vase (Antikenmuseum Basel Inv. B5 456) the quiver has both stitching lines incised, and painted decoration that is executed in very much the same manner as that associated with the armour. (and even if you don't buy my argument, it is the best depiction of a Greek quiver ever, if you want to build one).

Friends, I don't suppose for a moment that this is conclusive, nor that anyone will be convinced, but the compiling of apparently trivial evidence and counter evidence is the only way that we can arrive at any consensus.

[PMBardunias]

Herakles is so mythical as to defy "normalcy." But--it is worth noting that Herakles and his lion skin, belted over a chitoniskos with the paws coming over the shoulder like the yoke on a thorax, is a possible "armour meme" (I love all this jargon) that could refer to hide armour.

I have been struck by this in the past as well- especially when in some examples we see the "yokes" overlapping in front (That Keltic image recently shown does this I think). I have been looking for some feature of early yoke fastenings that would imply "paws", or conversely some image of a lion skin with paws that look like fasteners used on yokes. One problem is that I think the shape and somewhat odd manner of fastening the yoke inner edge to the tube is functional- allowing the arm to be raised easily for the overhand strike.

Also, is it just me or does this phrase seem to rule out glue: "white corselets of new linen". I would never say I just patched the hull of my fibreglas boat with new "Woven Roving". The composite should be more than it's base. The phrase could still work for quilted, but even then the amount of processing should be reflected. Something like "white corselets of close stiched linen". It could be explained if he knew they wore linothorakes from an oral tradition, but had never seen one and did not know how they were made.

[Kineas]

"New linen" has been in my mind all day. Why "new linen?" It's not Homeric. It could just imply sparkling white-ness, although in 18th C. America new linen was natural in color and not white. Does he mean that? Undyed linen?

I console myself that American Civil War reenactors have thousands of PHOTOGRAPHS and they still argue constantly about authenticity.

Hey--Alcaeus. How about a snapshot!