Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades

[PMBardunias]

A while back I put forth the notion that metal plates might be fastened beneath the material of front of a linothorax or spolas for added protection. I'm surely not the first or only to have done so. One big objection at the time was simply "where is a surviving piece of this plate?" I agreed that it was a big problem to have nothing to point to.

Today I happened to read this paper:
New Data on Ancient Bactrian Body-Armour (In the Light of Finds from Kampyr Tepe)
Valeri P. Nikonorov and Serge A. Savchuk
Iran, Vol. 30, (1992), pp. 49-54

The paper describes a piece of bronze plate of Hellenistic date that the author assumes to have been a bronze plate cuirasse of an atypical form with a front plate made of multiple parts riveted together- perhaps damaged and repaired. But I wonder if it is an example of the under-armor plating I have sought. One thing I'll note is that I have always wondered about the decorative bands seen on the uper chest of many of these armors on vases. They are consistant enough to make me seek a function above decoration. If you look at the image below, you'll see a well known depiction of a corslet showing such a band on the right. On the left is the fragment of bronze armor found. In the middle is the two superimposed. It of course is coincidence, but the rivets even match up with dots on the band that one would assume were decorative motiffs. But perhaps the decoration occurs specifically to obscure the rivets. I welcome any opinions, this is of course speculation, and much more detail on that find is needed- like if there is room beneath the rivets for a later of material.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,the image provided is too small,and very hard to imagine why it might have been a part of the thorax as you have illustrated.
In my spolas thread i have demonstrated how the "decorative" bands might have had a function,and my belief is that they added flexibility and feedom of movement. In my reconstruction this is achieved because the bands are half the matterial in thickness than the rest of the cuirass. This helps me bend easier. When you bent there are two sections that need extra flexibility. One is of course in the belly button and the other just under the breast. In the Achilles and Patroclos vase,this is well illustrated on Patroclos' cuirass.
Now if we assume that there were metal plates inbetween,since they have to be curved in one axis,it would be impossible to bent on the other. More so if they were riveted together.
Also,if the spolas is a tube and yoke cuirass made of leather,then at least the one that the Spartan hoplite wore when shot by a Carduchian certainly didn't have metal plates underneath! No arrow could have penetrated shield,leather and bronze and kill a man! Also,the theory makes completely pointless the extensive use of scales on those corselets.
Last,this theory i think has originated on the Vergina cuirass,and this is quite differently constructed. Interestingly,in that cuirass the decorative band on the belly is just that,decorative.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Paul,the image provided is too small,and very hard to imagine why it might have been a part of the thorax as you have illustrated.

I don't understand what you mean by too small. The fragment could clearly cover the whole chest in its original, undecomposed state.

In my spolas thread i have demonstrated how the "decorative" bands might have had a function,and my belief is that they added flexibility and feedom of movement.

Perhaps, but they are not seen on all images, so clearly were not a neccesity. (Your spolas is great by the way!)

Now if we assume that there were metal plates inbetween,since they have to be curved in one axis,it would be impossible to bent on the other. More so if they were riveted together.

But no worse that a bronze plate cuirasse, which obviously functioned fine. Also, we don't know how far down the metal extended over the abdomen.

Also,if the spolas is a tube and yoke cuirass made of leather,then at least the one that the Spartan hoplite wore when shot by a Carduchian certainly didn't have metal plates underneath! No arrow could have penetrated shield,leather and bronze and kill a man!

Clearly there is a lot of room around the metal that an arrow could penetrate, as well as the sides and rear. Plus the bronze or iron might not be very thick. Enought to stop a sword or spear may fail against a huge Karduchian arrow.

Also,the theory makes completely pointless the extensive use of scales on those corselets.

Not at all. I would not expect both to be seen on an armor. This does I think make very good sense of an armor like that shown above that has a scales on the sides-even the left- but not the front. I am also not suggesting that all such armors had this reinforcement, but that plates beneath were an option like scales above.

Last,this theory i think has originated on the Vergina cuirass,and this is quite differently constructed. Interestingly,in that cuirass the decorative band on the belly is just that,decorative.

This has nothing to do with the Vergina cuirasse. I believe the vergina cuirasse to be an all metal mock-up of a textile/leather armor. This is more analogous to a coat of plates, with a the metal beneath the material.

[immortal]

Is it not possible that the T&Y was made in a number of different ways?
I think it is completely possible that some had large metal plates in them. Others may have prefered scale or another form of re-enforcing.
The argument that it would not allow movement is wrong, as Paul points out, why would it any more than a bell cuirass?

[WorkMonkey1]

Seems odd that they would start making armour of solid bronze (bell)
Then start making it in bronze but covering it in either leather, or linen, thus reducing it's prestige value (made out of bronze = more flashy) Also wouldn't the linen or leather be better under the armour as a last line of defence since metal will stop cutting/piercing blows better than either linen or leather would.
And then start making it out of solid bronze again (muscled)

Seems to me that they start to make T&Y cuirass' because they wanted to equip more hoplites, for cheaper, doing that in linen or leather will do this, but not if you have a fully articulated bronze chest piece under it.

Wm

[immortal]

It would still be easier and cheaper to produce one or two undecorated and unpolished plates that could be placed at the front of a T&Y cuirass to protect the vital organs, than it would be to make an entire bell cuirass. The linen or leather would stop you having to polish or treat the metal, so it would be more practical on campaign.

As I said before, I doubt that every T&Y had it, just as not every one had scale protection. As everything would be hand made it is quite likely there were several 'styles' or methods of producing the cuirass.

[hoplite14gr]

It was technically possible.
Paul's discovery adds to the theory. (though I am not hot for it)

What exactly is needed to prove it?

Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

Seems odd that they would start making armour of solid bronze (bell)...Then start making it in bronze but covering it in either leather, or linen, thus reducing it's prestige value (made out of bronze = more flashy) ...And then start making it out of solid bronze again (muscled)

Bronze plate never dissapeared and reapeared, this would have been a second option for armor. As for prestige value, high quality linen armor could be very expensive- a suitable gift for Kings and Goddesses. Such textile armors were probably encountered in Asia and would thus carry cache value as imports. Then there is simple fashion. Early modern cavalry shed their half-armor largely for fashion- due to a Polish musket ball that made wearing armor problematic for Gustavus Adolphus- as well as cost. Rather than helmets, they began wearing civilian hats, then put metal scull-caps or "secrets" beneatht hem to achieve some level of protection.

Also, this find just happened to be bronze, but I have a pet theory that if such under-armor plates existed they were usually iron, which does not survive as well. Bronze was expensive, while Iron was cheap in some areas of Greece- Laconian iron mines were famous as was their "iron money". Where is all the iron armor? The short answer could be it makes up much of the scales we see, iron scales being common in the near east. But perhaps due to an inability to make broad uniform plates cheaply, they made a composite of smaller plates.

Also wouldn't the linen or leather be better under the armour as a last line of defence since metal will stop cutting/piercing blows better than either linen or leather would.

Yes, but this was no impediment to the medieval coat of plates. There may be structual reasons for putting such large riveted plates on the inside. See a medieval example that is made up of more plates than I'd imagine in a T-Y below.

Seems to me that they start to make T&Y cuirass' because they wanted to equip more hoplites, for cheaper, doing that in linen or leather will do this, but not if you have a fully articulated bronze chest piece under it.

A chest piece would be far cheaper than a full plate armor. In fact "cheap" troops from Luristan in the east to Italy and Spain in the West wore a Kardiophylax or simply disk or rectangular plate on the chest. If this plate existed, it may not have covered much more than the upper front chest, or whole front panel of a T-Y. Scales being used elsewhere, or nothing at all. In the Hellenistic period we see hemithorakes, which were probably simply the front half of bronze cuirasses.

[PMBardunias]

Paul's discovery adds to the theory. (though I am not hot for it)

I'm not hot for it either actually as a feature of all T-Ys, because of something else I'm working on, but I think it possible and this find might just be evidence for it. Everything I have learned so far about the T-Y leads me to not seek to limit variation.

What exactly is needed to prove it?

That is my question as well.

[John Conyard]

Excellent find. Such metallic fiitngs would make a lot of sense, if only more fragments could be found. I certainly have one on my T&Y.

[Matthew Amt]

What are the circumstances of the find that make the author assume this is armor? Granted, that's often a good first guess with a substantial piece of sheet bronze, but it's not the only possibility! It looks to be about 14 inches long, and is curved top to bottom--that doesn't strike me as any sort of breastplate. At that length, it would have to be curved side to side, to go around the body, and it won't fit high up between the arms. Of course, it's hard to tell for sure which part is supposed to be "up".

It seems to me that if you want metal armor and can afford it, it's not going to be hidden. (Ancient Greece and Medieval Europe don't really compare well, on this point.) Sure, we know that the tube and yoke cuirass was sometimes reinforced by scales, but why assume that could also be reinforced by hidden plates? If you really want to equip troops cheaply and quickly, don't make armor for them!

Sorry to be a wet blanket, here, but it really sounds like a string of assumptions... And at some point we're going to run into people who combine this house of cards with Nick Sekunda's little fantasy about the linothorax being linen-covered iron, and a new unkillable factoid of Greek "coats of plates" will be born.

If it has 4 legs, a mane, and a tail, and says "neigh", there's no need to think "zebra". But at this point all you have is part of a leg and a little hair...

Matthew

[rocktupac]

Is it not possible that the T&Y was made in a number of different ways?
I think it is completely possible that some had large metal plates in them. Others may have prefered scale or another form of re-enforcing.

Exactly. It is highly likely that this type of armor was constructed based on personal wealth and personal preference. If you could afford metal scales to be attached, in order to clearly add additional protection, then the personal probably would opt for a corselet with metal scales. If corners could be slightly cut by adding crude metal plates under the armor then they probably were added also. I don't think we need to strive for a strict standardization in the ancient world.

[Dan Howard]

I'm with Matt. It is unlikely that that plate is from body armour. It isn't shaped correctly to fit the torso no matter which way is up.

[PMBardunias]

What are the circumstances of the find that make the author assume this is armor? Granted, that's often a good first guess with a substantial piece of sheet bronze, but it's not the only possibility! It looks to be about 14 inches long, and is curved top to bottom--that doesn't strike me as any sort of breastplate. At that length, it would have to be curved side to side, to go around the body, and it won't fit high up between the arms. Of course, it's hard to tell for sure which part is supposed to be "up".

Below is the portion of the paper dealing with this. Given the state of the find I don't put too much faith in its curvature meaning much either way. I have no access to the original description referred to below.

During work on the citadel (field director-S. A.Savchuk), part of a bronze corselet was found in Room 93. It was in a level below the earliest floor, and above this on the first and fourth floors respectively a large
bronze Graeco-Bactrian coin (still not identified more precisely) and a silver drachm of the last Graeco-
Bactrian king Heliocles (c. 145-130 B.C.) were discovered. Therefore, the level from which our piece of
armour comes dates to the Hellenistic period, or at least it is earlier than the reign of Heliocles. The piece is
a fragment of breast-plate with the edge of a hole for the left arm of the bearer (Fig. 1). It consists of two
overlapping parts fastened together by iron rivets upper part overlaps the lower one). The piece
measures 35 x 20 cm., thickness 0.2-0.3 cm., diameter of holes for rivets 0.3-0.6 cm., diameter of rivet-heads
0.8-1.3 cm.It seems very possible that the fragment belongs to a typical Greek cuirass (thorax). It is true that as a rule
the classical thorax consisted of two large entire plates for breast and back (in detail, see below), whereas our
breast-plate is made of two pieces at least. However, it may be supposed that in this case we are dealing with a
repair of the corselet after it was damaged in combat or through long use. If this supposition is correct, this
piece of armour from Kampyr Tepe is the most eastern find of the real Greek thorax. Its use in the Middle East
in ancient times was hitherto known only through representations of pictorial art (see below). Until now
the most eastern find of an actual thorax was an iron cuirass found at the First Prokhorovka barrow in the
Orenburg region (south of the Southern Urals), which is dated to the third-second centuries B.C.
(Rostovtzeff, 1918: 12-14, pls. 15, 16; Simonenko, 1989: 70).

Savchuk, S. A., 1989a. "Tsitadel' Kampyrtepe", Antichnyie r annesrednevekovyder
evnost..i. , 73-80.
--,
1989b. "U Oxiiskoi perepravy", Vekhi vremion. Rasskazy o
pamiatnikakihs toriii kul'turyU zbekistanaA. l'manakh-89(T ashkent),
69-75.

It seems to me that if you want metal armor and can afford it, it's not going to be hidden. (Ancient Greece and Medieval Europe don't really compare well, on this point.) Sure, we know that the tube and yoke cuirass was sometimes reinforced by scales, but why assume that could also be reinforced by hidden plates? If you really want to equip troops cheaply and quickly, don't make armor for them!

I addressed this above, but you are assuming that the T-Y was created to be cheaper. This may not be the case at all- you don't draw all your heroes on vases in the cheapest armor of the day. Better to go with Heroic nudity.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, here, but it really sounds like a string of assumptions...

I disagree, this is a string of assumption plus one piece of possible data. That puts it one piece of possible data ahead of glued linen, and thus it must be considered.

And at some point we're going to run into people who combine this house of cards with Nick Sekunda's little fantasy about the linothorax being linen-covered iron, and a new unkillable factoid of Greek "coats of plates" will be born.

The problem is not in the conjecture, but in the reception. There was nothing wrong with Sekunda's or even Connolly's suggestion. You yourself inspired many a glued linothorax (I realize that is a rebuke at this point, sorry ). We just have to be clear that these are possibilities, not even probabilities. But if they influence an archaeologist to take a second look at metal fragments, they could provide more data in the future.

[Matthew Amt]

Below is the portion of the paper dealing with this.

Cool, thanks. Hmm, really sounds like they found a piece of metal and assumed it was armor. Mind you, I think it *could* be, too! It would be very neat to find something different like that. But it is SO different from every other piece of known armor of the time that I think caution is required. Seems a tad thick, too, but that could be corrosion or a thickened edge, or just bad measuring... Agreed that the curvature is not necessarily indicative, but without seeing signs of it being warped or twisted I'm just taking it at face value.

I addressed this above, but you are assuming that the T-Y was created to be cheaper. This may not be the case at all- you don't draw all your heroes on vases in the cheapest armor of the day. Better to go with Heroic nudity.

Eek, I hope I didn't imply that I assume the T-Y was cheaper, because I don't! And I don't assume that vase paintings are perfectly accurate, either. And nudity is fine with me if it's all right with you, big guy...

I disagree, this is a string of assumption plus one piece of possible data. That puts it one piece of possible data ahead of glued linen, and thus it must be considered.

Oh, I'm considering it! Just trying to be careful and not run too wild.

The problem is not in the conjecture, but in the reception. There was nothing wrong with Sekunda's or even Connolly's suggestion. You yourself inspired many a glued linothorax (I realize that is a rebuke at this point, sorry ).

Ha, good one! But this makes two points: First, that I can be convinced by EVIDENCE (and not by much else!). And second, all the more reason to be cautious with a new find! Remember, in its day, the glued linen theory fit the *evidence* that most of us had. This new piece *may* be armor, but I don't see any need to build it into a spolas or linothorax. To me, that goes beyond the evidence a mite too far. Sekunda's theory, on the other hand, flew in the face of everything we knew!

We just have to be clear that these are possibilities, not even probabilities. But if they influence an archaeologist to take a second look at metal fragments, they could provide more data in the future.

Oh, I'm with you 110 percent on that one. I weep to think of all the storerooms that are filled with wonderful bits and pieces of ancient armor, never looked at since they were dug up and dumped in a cardboard box. The truth is out there.... (But maybe not quite as far "out there" as some of us have gone, eh?)

If you could afford metal scales to be attached, in order to clearly add additional protection, then the personal probably would opt for a corselet with metal scales. If corners could be slightly cut by adding crude metal plates under the armor then they probably were added also.

Even now there is no evidence for "crude" plates--for all we know this new piece was polished and gilded! And from what I've seen and learned of ancient metalwork, going from a shaped piece of bronze sheet to a nice smooth bright one was merely the work of some sanding and polishing, easily done by an unskilled assistant. It was the kind of work that they simply didn't hesitate to do back then. I just find it too hard to believe that someone shelling out the last of his funds for armor would have just barely not enough to afford metal scales on it, so he'd invent a completely new style of armor that is absolutely unknown in the historical record, rather than go with a perfectly functional and common un-reinforced cuirass and have enough change for lunch.

Frankly, from the armor work I've done, chopping out a few scales from the box of little scraps sounds a lot easier than forming larger pieces into a cuirass shape and then getting the darn things to fit together properly, and THEN using IRON rivets to put them together!

This piece COULD be armor. But if it is, it's a substantial piece of bronze defensive equipment, so there's no way it was made as a cost-saving item. Metalwork like that costs money, so it was not made for someone scrimping a few obols. Nothing else makes any sense.

Khairete,

Matthew


PS: Probably part of the boiler for Heron's steam engine.