10-12-2009, 10:57 PM
Rocktupac/Scott wrote:
None are unequivocal, or even good, evidence for the use of linen armour by classical Greek Hoplites. One or two are in fact erroneous - Herodotus 1.135 for example makes no reference to linen whatsoever, but simply says that Persians "wear the Egyptian corselet", which is more likely a reference to the scale corselets of the Persians that Herodotus refers to elsewhere. Alcaeus and Homer are references to the mythical past of the Trojan War, Cornelius Nepos is an anachronism and obvious error, and very strikingly, the rest are all references to non-Greek linen armour....
All we can be sure of is that classical Greeks knew of linen armour, and therefore it is possible, although there is no direct evidence for it, that some mainland Greek Hoplite Tube-and-Yoke corselets may have been made of linen ( if so, possibly imported from Anatolia/modern Turkey, where linen armour is known to have existed at the time).
As to glued corselets ( ancient fibreglass :wink: ), this is pure speculation........
I understand very well the reasons you chose arrows as your 'yardstick', and have no quibble with that. Can I ask again what energy levels of weapon you were testing your armour against? Obviously, how closely you can replicate ancient contemporary weapons is a key factor in tests of this kind. Were ancient arrow forms ( reed with foreshaft) and heads ( tanged, and trilobate) used, for example, not to mention bows of the appropriate power, or were you limited by availability to modern-type weapons, whose characteristics are of course very different.....
Quote:The references:....useful to see the "usual suspects" gathered together for ease of reference, but I see that there is nothing new there that hasn't been discussed here before.
Alcaeus (2.19); Cassius Dio (78.7.1-2); 'Chronicle of Lindos' (29, lines 36-39); Cornelius Nepos 'Iphicrates' (1.3-4); Herodotus (2.182; 3.47; possibly 1.135); Homer 'Iliad' (2.529; 2.830); Livy (4.20.1-7; 9.40.3); Pausanias (1.8; 1.21.9; 6.19.7); Pliny 'Natural History' (19.2); Plutarch 'Alexander' (32); Silius Italicus 'Punica' (4.223; 9.586-598); Strabo 'Geography' (3.3.6; 13.1.10); Suetonius (19.1); Xenophon 'Anabasis' (4.7.16; 7.63); Xenophon 'Cyropaedia' (6.4.2).
OK, only 23 individual references and not "two dozen" as I stated earlier, but close enough (24 if you include the reference from Herodotus (1.135) that the linen armor originated in Egypt).
None are unequivocal, or even good, evidence for the use of linen armour by classical Greek Hoplites. One or two are in fact erroneous - Herodotus 1.135 for example makes no reference to linen whatsoever, but simply says that Persians "wear the Egyptian corselet", which is more likely a reference to the scale corselets of the Persians that Herodotus refers to elsewhere. Alcaeus and Homer are references to the mythical past of the Trojan War, Cornelius Nepos is an anachronism and obvious error, and very strikingly, the rest are all references to non-Greek linen armour....
All we can be sure of is that classical Greeks knew of linen armour, and therefore it is possible, although there is no direct evidence for it, that some mainland Greek Hoplite Tube-and-Yoke corselets may have been made of linen ( if so, possibly imported from Anatolia/modern Turkey, where linen armour is known to have existed at the time).
As to glued corselets ( ancient fibreglass :wink: ), this is pure speculation........
Quote:But within that balance, one would think that the intention to protect oneself from getting penetrated with an arrow was a factor in designing or for wearing body armor. I understand a piece of armor, whatever it may be, was not solely designed to resist penetration by arrow. The reason we tested the armor against arrow fire was because we could control the variables: range, pull strength of bow, angle to target, etc. We also carried out a number of slightly less-scientific tests using various weapons (slashing sword, double-edged sword, spear, axe, mace) and found that slashing objects (swords) or blunt force objects (axe, mace) hardly penetrated the armor and left only surface cuts while the thrusting objects (double-edged sword, spear) penetrated more easily from point-blank range....my point here is that you chose a 1 cm thick number of layers on the basis that this was 'arrow/weapon proof', but that the Greek armourers, like most, constantly strove for lightness etc and that if a piece stopped 75-90% of strikes, that was considered good, and if a new technique or material allowed increased protection at the old thickness, the armourers promptly thinned it, going for lightness rather than increased protection. This is most evident in the evolution of helmets, and possibly, shields.
I understand very well the reasons you chose arrows as your 'yardstick', and have no quibble with that. Can I ask again what energy levels of weapon you were testing your armour against? Obviously, how closely you can replicate ancient contemporary weapons is a key factor in tests of this kind. Were ancient arrow forms ( reed with foreshaft) and heads ( tanged, and trilobate) used, for example, not to mention bows of the appropriate power, or were you limited by availability to modern-type weapons, whose characteristics are of course very different.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
