Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades

[Paullus Scipio]

To Scott:
Once again, you call people who have far more knowledge than you, for a far longer period, on this subject "silly". At best that is ill-judged. At worst ill-mannered ( and certainly name calling such as that is not acceptable on this forum). To quote Tom Cruise; "Put your manners back".

Otherwise you may find that people who have been patient with a relative newcomer to this subject pointing out in full all the flaws in your hypotheses......and then you might find your use of that word coming back to haunt you..... :roll: :roll:

To "Immortal":
You might want to check facts, figures and information before venturing an opinion such as the above ( see e.g. Scott's equally controversial and anecdotal, but opposite views to yours on arrows penetrating bronze armour). The contest between armour of all sorts and offensive weapons is an old one - there is even a science called 'ballistics' going back a long time. The contest between firearms and modern armour is not at all irrelevant. The laws of physics remain the same, whether we are considering the penetration of an iron spear against a bronze breast-plate, or depleted uranium rounds against composite 'chobham" armour.
Since the pistol was not invented until well after 1500 ( allegedly by Camillo Vitelli in Pistoia Italy), it follows that pistol 'proof' marks could not have appeared before renaissance times.

[immortal]

To "Immortal":
You might want to check facts, figures and information before venturing an opinion such as the above ( see e.g. Scott's equally controversial and anecdotal, but opposite views to yours on arrows penetrating bronze armour). The contest between armour of all sorts and offensive weapons is an old one - there is even a science called 'ballistics' going back a long time. The contest between firearms and modern armour is not at all irrelevant. The laws of physics remain the same, whether we are considering the penetration of an iron spear against a bronze breast-plate, or depleted uranium rounds against composite 'chobham" armour.
Since the pistol was not invented until well after 1500 ( allegedly by Camillo Vitelli in Pistoia Italy), it follows that pistol 'proof' marks could not have appeared before renaissance times.

Don’t be afraid to use my name, it is in my signature. And please don’t be so condescending. Surprisingly I have heard of ‘Ballistics’

I never said anything about the pistol being used?? I just used your way of referring to them as 'pistol marks'.
If you read my statement you will see I referenced Muskets and Crossbows, both were around before the Renaissance (how do you define this time period??). Like it or not, a steel breastplate is resistant to these. Some of my friends are very deeply involved in medieval arms and armour, including the restoration of world class artefacts.

Yes, the laws of physics remain the same with modern weapons and armour, but they are in no way relevant to a discussion dealing with arrows and bronze armour. Would you use the argument "an AK 47 can penetrate a flak jacket, so an arrow must be able to penetrate bronze armour"?
You mention depleted uranium, if you know how this works, you would know that this is especially not relevant!

I simply do not believe that an arrow from the ancient world can penetrate a curved, properly made bronze cuirass, or a helmet. Especially not from combat range of an archer.
A lucky strike from a spear may do, but as I said you would do your best NOT to hit the armour.

Scott:
There is no way that some kind of mythical glued linen armour could outperform bronze. What bow did you use for these tests? How far away did the archer stand? Was it a flat sheet of bronze? Or an accurate reconstruction of a cuirass?

[Paullus Scipio]

My apologies for the condescension - it was indeed uncalled for - but put it down to irritation at broad assertions made without reference to evidence or the underlying science involved, combined with the fact that it is late here, and I'm consequently tired.....

I specifically referred to pistol 'shotproof' marks as one of a number of supposedly 'weaponproof' armours made from time to time historically - a particular example from a particular time ( indidently, a good many of these were 'faked'. Amusingly, a number of examples of 'shotproof' marks on armour have real bullet-holes alongside them, but of course their owners were hardly in a position to claim a refund !!! :lol: )

But we digress.

Yes, the laws of physics remain the same with modern weapons and armour, but they are in no way relevant to a discussion dealing with arrows and bronze armour.

The laws of physics are not relevant to discussions of arrows and bronze armour ? hock: hock: Is it any wonder a person gets irritable in the face of statements like this - I hope you did not mean this the way it reads.

Would you use the argument "an AK 47 can penetrate a flak jacket, so an arrow must be able to penetrate bronze armour"?

Of course not - but the laws of physics underlying penetration in each case are the same, of course.

I simply do not believe that an arrow from the ancient world can penetrate a curved, properly made bronze cuirass, or a helmet. Especially not from combat range of an archer.
A lucky strike from a spear may do, but as I said you would do your best NOT to hit the armour.

...and the evidence for this sweeping statement would be ? Do you have facts and figures regarding thickness , metallurgy and resistance of said armour? Tests of same? Or the forces and factors involved with regard to the many types of bow ( not to mention arrows) in the 'ancient world'? The questions you pose for Scott, valid as they are, apply equally to your own broad assertions..... D

[hoplite14gr]

Referee whistle blowing.......................... :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:
in the prototype text - the Spartan was killed by an arrow. It does not say anything about penetration.
The arrow might got him in an exposed place.
If any one has the patience to go to the linothorax threads he will find lots of people who have found out first hand
(by putting it to the test)that you cannot penetrate 15 layers of linen with knives, swords, spearblades, and arrows!!!!

My opinion is that in absence of conclusive evidence all hypotheses are valid (till proven wrong)

Yes nice and shiny metal was the goal or the ideal to aspire to.
But...who can deny that that family who could not afford full metal armor would not go to the extra effort and expence to reinforce the linothrax of the father, son, or husvand who would risk life and doom..... I am not strong supporter of this but I do not find it improbable either....

We argue from our desks/keabords...How would we think if we hat to face a stand up fight?

Experience has showed that most individuals err towards maximum affordable protection.

Kind regards

[Matthew Amt]

in the prototype text - the Spartan was killed by an arrow. It does not say anything about penetration.
The arrow might got him in an exposed place.

Bingo. You see a lot of that in medieval sources, too--armored men getting wounded or killed, with no mention of the armor itself being penetrated. I think we should avoid getting into the same old argument of weapons or arrows versus armor. They've been fought way too long and hard on many different discussion boards, and I think all that we can reasonably conclude is that most armor was effective against most weapons most of the time.

My opinion is that in absence of conclusive evidence all hypotheses are valid (till proven wrong)

Huh, that seems backwards to me! I take evidence as valid, and sometimes conclusive, whereas hypotheses that lack evidence, or fly in the face of it, are often a waste of breath.

But...who can deny that that family who could not afford full metal armor would not go to the extra effort and expence to reinforce the linothrax of the father, son, or husvand who would risk life and doom..... I am not strong supporter of this but I do not find it improbable either....

But we know that thousands of warriors from many cultures went to battle with less than the maximum amount of armor they might have had! For instance, in the Greek Archaic period we see plenty of thigh guards and armguards, but those mostly disappear in the Classical era. At least some of these are men who are perfectly well-to-do, whose wives and kids have nice clothes, and who have bronze cookware, private homes, slaves, etc. You can't convince me that they spent every last dime on every piece of armor they could afford, to the point of mortgaging the house and going on short rations. They don't strap dinner plates or spoons to their limbs. They already had the options of bronze cuirasses, or linen or leather cuirasses without scales, or with some scales, or with a lot of scales. Heck, by the date of this find, mail is an option, too, and probably a few types of lamellar armor. There is simply no reason to think that someone invented the idea of hiding plates inside an organic cuirass, just to get a little more protection out of it.

One more thing springs to mind--if this particular piece of bronze was made to go inside something leather or linen, presumably riveted in, why go to the effort of riveting 2 pieces together first?? Why not just rivet or lace them in place individually?

Experience has showed that most individuals err towards maximum affordable protection.

Not so at all. History is FILLED with examples of warriors deliberately going into combat with less armor than they could have, sometimes willingly removing pieces of armor before battle. Sometimes they died because of it. The idea that everyone going to war back then made every effort to be as well protected as possible is an entirely modern idea, completely contradicted by the historical record.

The whole "linothorax/spolas with hidden bronze plates" is a completely modern idea, too. Any chance we can drop it until some real evidence turns up?

Valete,

Matthew

[PMBardunias]

I take evidence as valid, and sometimes conclusive, whereas hypotheses that lack evidence, or fly in the face of it,

Back on topic, what evidence does this fly in the face of? Since we have zero reliable Archaeological evidence for the T-Y, and only know from accounts that part of it was made of linen or leather, this is in no way inconsistent with the actual evidence. It may be inconsistant with what many believe, but that is not the same thing. But if there is something that directly contradicts this let me know, that's why I posted it. You and I do not believe Sekunda is correct for example, but frankly his scheme is the only one that has actual archaeological evidence behind it!

There is simply no reason to think that someone invented the idea of hiding plates inside an organic cuirass, just to get a little more protection out of it......why go to the effort of riveting 2 pieces together first??...

Why do we believe that the linothorax was quilted or layered? Largely because medieval armors were quilted and various armors from other cultures show how a proven and effective textile armor can be made in this manner. We have no evidence for it past some images that might show such patterns. And yet I believe this to be the truth based on analogy and functional design alone. For some reason you (you in the broad sense, not just Matt here) disregard analogy with the same cultures in this instance.

You can see in the image above that the coat of plates includes a portion for the upper chest almost exactly as big as this find that is riveted together. The upper chest need not be mobile, so no articulation in needed. As to why use pieces, obviously you can get away with using scraps, making smaller castings, or if using Iron, large plates might have been impossible early on. Again, why did they use them on the coat of plates?

As for "hiding" the metal, far too much is made of the showyness of bronze and far too little of the value of high quality linen or fine leather. Obviously any hoplite who sheathed his aspis in bronze could have covered his thorax in thin cosmetic plates if all he wanted to do is glint in the sunlight. We do not have a good grasp on the fashion trends of hoplites, but it is interesting that they move from Corinthian helmets, not to a simple scull cap, but to at least two forms of civilian head wear done up in bronze. I have never seen a satisfactory explanation for this- lightening the helmet does not explain why they used a civilian form. Was there a trasition where the actual felt cap was worn? I generally reject the arrows sticking in at Pylos arguement, but the transition needs explanation. The move between organic and metallic might be complex and not one way. Metal beneath organic is one option along such a path.

[MeinPanzer]

in the prototype text - the Spartan was killed by an arrow. It does not say anything about penetration.
The arrow might got him in an exposed place.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it actually explicitly says that it penetrated his armour.

??? ??????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ???????, ??? ?????? ????? ????????? ??? ???????.

And then a brave Laconian man, Leonymos, died, having been shot through the shield and the spolas into the ribs.

The use of dia and the genitive is about as clear as could be.

[Dan Howard]

One more thing springs to mind--if this particular piece of bronze was made to go inside something leather or linen, presumably riveted in, why go to the effort of riveting 2 pieces together first?? Why not just rivet or lace them in place individually?

This is the main reason. The suggested construction is impractical and counterproductive. Real armour was riveted directly to the foundation to improve articulation. You won't find an example anywhere where the plates are riveted to each other unless there is no foundation involved. So, assuming the plates in question actually come from body armour, it is unlikely that a "coat of plates" type foundation is involved. In other words, if these plates come from body armour then there is no leather or cloth cover involved.

[Dan Howard]

I have seen 2mm thick bronze penetrated by multiple arrows (with different arrowheads)

Not using enough tin in the alloy decreases the protectiveness of the armour.
Not work hardening it properly decreases the protectiveness of the armour.
Using a flat sheet rather than a shaped breastplate decreases the protectiveness of the armour.
Not attaching a liner to the bronze decreases the protectiveness of the armour.
Not wearing a tunic under the bronze decreases the protectiveness of the armour.

Unless all of the above were simulated then the test tells us little about the performance of Greek armour.

[PMBardunias]

The suggested construction is impractical and counterproductive. Real armour was riveted directly to the foundation to improve articulation

While this is true for the abdominal section, it is not true for the upper chest, where this plate would cover. See an example of the same area of coverage in solid plate in a coat of plates below- even has nice lines of iron rivets for the fabric. In almost every coat of plates I have seen the upper chest is made of vertically oriented plates, which adds no mobility in a forward bend, though it could help in bringing the arms together. Mobility is not the main concern with the upper chest. As to why it is riveted, the answer is obvious, reguardless of what it was used for, somebody wanted a large plate when they had two smaller sections. I never claimed that this was an articulated section.

[Matthew Amt]

Back on topic, what evidence does this fly in the face of?

Sorry, not this piece in particular, I think I was thinking more about other parts of this discussion, like the idea that warriors typically wore as much armor as they could.

You and I do not believe Sekunda is correct for example, but frankly his scheme is the only one that has actual archaeological evidence behind it!

No, there is proof of the iron cuirass. There is still no evidence for linen covering it, which was his theory (at least his theory that I was referring to!).

Why do we believe that the linothorax was quilted or layered? Largely because medieval armors were quilted and various armors from other cultures show how a proven and effective textile armor can be made in this manner. We have no evidence for it past some images that might show such patterns. And yet I believe this to be the truth based on analogy and functional design alone. For some reason you (you in the broad sense, not just Matt here) disregard analogy with the same cultures in this instance.

Not at all. If the evidence pointed in that direction, I'd be thrilled. But it has not even been reasonably established that this is armor, and even the hopeful archeologist did not mention any organic remains that may have covered it. If either of those two points were established, sure, ancient coat of plates! I could start one tonight (well, I'd like to see a little more of the layout, first!). But the coat of plates is not the only form of medieval armor that has no known relative in the ancient Aegean, so I don't see any reason to assume the existence of something that we have never gotten even an inkling of before. Sticking to what we know has always been my mantra, and I think it's just a logical and safe way to proceed.

You can see in the image above that the coat of plates includes a portion for the upper chest almost exactly as big as this find that is riveted together.

No, that is not a seam, that is a line of rivets for attaching the fabric or leather covering.

As to why use pieces, obviously you can get away with using scraps, making smaller castings, or if using Iron, large plates might have been impossible early on.

Castings? Sheet bronze is made by hammering. Granted, you have to start from a cast piece at some point, but large sheets of bronze had obviously been no problem for over a thousand years. If you're down to scraps, and are hung up on doing things as cheaply and easily as possible (which rarely seemed to concern the ancient Greeks!), scales still make vastly more sense.

As for "hiding" the metal, far too much is made of the showyness of bronze and far too little of the value of high quality linen or fine leather. Obviously any hoplite who sheathed his aspis in bronze could have covered his thorax in thin cosmetic plates if all he wanted to do is glint in the sunlight. We do not have a good grasp on the fashion trends of hoplites, but it is interesting that they move from Corinthian helmets, not to a simple scull cap, but to at least two forms of civilian head w...

I'm sorry, you're losing me. It's as if you're saying that they just had to add secret plates inside their organic armor because their helmets were not covering as much? Sorry, there simply isn't any logical way to debate such shotgun rationalizations. I can't prove that this thing is NOT a hidden bronze reinforcement for a leather or linen cuirass, but some of you guys seem to think that this means your theory is right. I better just bow out.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it actually explicitly says that it penetrated his armour.

DOH! My bad, I didn't go back and check the quote, just swallowed the misinterpretation. Thanks, Ruben!

Heck, too bad he didn't have a couple scraps of bronze riveted together inside his spolas, eh?

Sorry, folks, it's late and I really need to be doing other things. Apologies if I sound snarky...

Matthew

[PMBardunias]

You won't find an example anywhere where the plates are riveted to each other unless there is no foundation involved.

I learned not to make such generalizations about armor, there always are exceptions. For example, here are some riveted chest sections of coats of plates from the Wisby find that were then riveted to an organic shell. From left to right, the middle section, like an upside down "T" is riveted from 2 pieces, then riveted to the shell- left is the actual find, middle the diagram. In the right is another chest piece consisting of two halve, each made up of two riveted plates that were then riveted to the shell.

[PMBardunias]

If you're down to scraps, and are hung up on doing things as cheaply and easily as possible (which rarely seemed to concern the ancient Greeks!), scales still make vastly more sense.

Unless you have been given a bolt of fine linen, suitable as a royal gift as some linen was, or even cheap linen or leather that you manage to bleach real white or dye a pretty color, and don't want to cover it with crappy bronze scales. It is the notion that Bronze is the most attractive form of adornment that I was decrying. My understanding is that scales don't work so well under material, plates, even small ones, work better and are less likely to stab you.

I can't prove that this thing is NOT a hidden bronze reinforcement for a leather or linen cuirass, but some of you guys seem to think that this means your theory is right.

I would hope not. This is simply for discussion, not to inspire someone to waste a few hundred dollars on plates. But if there is any further evidence for a Greek coat of plates I can guarantee that we will never know unless someone asks the questions in this thread and gets people looking for them.

[Paullus Scipio]

It seems to me that in comparing coats-of-plates from the 12-13 C AD, or Asiatic examples for that matter with Greek Tube- and-Yoke corselets, something fundamental is being overlooked.

In every example of a coat-of-plates, the rivetting ( at least that between plates and organic material holding the plates) is externally visible. This is not shown on any depictions of Greek Tube-and-Yoke corselets that I can think of off-hand, but is definitely characteristic of all coats-of-plates from all cultures. Without this fundamental characteristic, I think it difficult to even postulate the possibility.......

[PMBardunias]

It seems to me that in comparing coats-of-plates from the 12-13 C AD, or Asiatic examples for that matter with Greek Tube- and-Yoke corselets, something fundamental is being overlooked. In every example of a coat-of-plates, the rivetting ( at least that between plates and organic material holding the plates) is externally visible.

You have to read the whole thread. Far from being overlooked,I addressed this in the first post. One thing that jumped out when I attempted to superimpose the plate on an illustration of a T-Y, basically chosen at random, is the the line of rivets matches perfectly with the decorative band across the chest that could have been applied to hide the rivets. In fact oddly in this one it even matches a line of circles that you cannot say are definitely not rivets! Though this is probably coinicidence.

Perhaps I need to be clear once again. Sometimes I post on RAT things that I am fairly sure are true about hoplites, at least as sure as anyone can be. Other times I simply throw out things that are possible so that we may discuss them. This is the later. A string of possibilities and coincidences that may be nothing at all- or this may be the first chapter in the discovery of a new form of hoplite armor. Although I am defending this to the best of my ability, I in no way believe this to be proven or true. You above all should understand this system Paul! :wink: