Glued Linen Armour- a simple test

[rocktupac]

Scott wrote:
Where we have a lot of information concerning troop movement and armor getting wet is from the campaign of Alexander. And we shall see in the end, in the muggiest of conditions where cloth armor would not be allowed to dry (i.e. in India), that Alexander receives a new supply of armor and orders that the old armor be burned (Curt. 9.3.22)....armour which he must have ordered the replacements for long before the Indian campaign

Right, and Alexander has been shown to have taken every precaution before advancing into foreign territories; this means advance acquisitions of food, water, and most probably armor replacements. He could have foreseen the dangers India's climate had to offer and ordered the armor with this in mind. It is not mentioned but certainly not beyond his scope.

On a side note, there are bits of evidence that point to Alexander, and most likely his troops, wearing linen armor: Alexander wears a linen corselet before the battle of Gaugamela (Plutarch 'Alex.' 32);..which we are specifically told is of Persian manufacture...

We are actually never told it is Persian manufacture, just that it was taken as booty at Issus. There is no evidence that this specific piece of armor was of Persian make.

Alexander can be seen wearing Type IV armor on the 'Alexander Mosaic'; Macedonian soldiers can be seen wearing Type IV armor on the 'Alexander Sarcophagus';..no-one is disputing that he wore a Tube-and-Yoke cuirass, but there is NO evidence whatever that suggests such armour was linen

Maybe not exact, glaring evidence; but there is enough supporting evidence which definitely supports this theory. Jarva believes Type IV could be little other than made of linen. I don't know why we are so against this? Why not? What is the objection? Alternatively, there is NO evidence that suggests such armor to be leather, or metal, or...etc.

the iron Type IV cuirass from Vergina (I am taking this to be a non-functional celebratory piece, most likely worn while parading); there is no evidence that there was any such thing as "parade" armour, and as Giannis has pointed out, the wear patterns suggest otherwise on the vergina iron armour....

As i noted in a previous post, I would be skeptical over anything on the cuirass being defined as 'wear' from a shield or anything else for that matter. The state the cuirass was found in hardly allows for such observations. We can come up with theories that might sound nice, but it is pure speculation.

the example of the Roman emperor Caracalla wearing a linen corselet in emulation of Alexander (Cassius Dio 78.7.1-2). Like Nepos, Caracalla is likely mistaken - that a mad Emperor some hundreds of years after Alexander believed he wore 'linen' armour is hardly evidence of anything....

You cannot pick and choose what texts offer mistaken information. This is what Caracalla believed the Macedonians wore, it is right in Cassius Dio (78.7.1-2). I find it odd that modern peoples believe they know more about a subject than ancient writers, who had more texts available to them etc. It is not a valid argument to simply say he was "likely mistaken" and that his assumption is "hardly evidence of anything." It is quite the opposite, this is great evidence that the Romans (or at least an emperor) believed the Macedonians wore linen armor.

When these are pieced together it becomes very convincing in my opinion.Hardly! Indeed, the opposite. One is turning incorrect/flimsy pieces of evidence into a chain which does not in fact exist. Didn't you earlier say that you were not seeking to argue that mainland greeks wore linen armour?

Yes, that is true. But I also don't consider Alexander or the Macedonians "mainland Greeks." :wink: