Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades

[rocktupac]

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:

Looking back on that post I am shocked I actually worte that. I do apologize. It was absolutely uneccesary and certainly not how I think of the people on this forum. Again, I apologize :oops:

[Paullus Scipio]

Scott wrote:

Looking back on that post I am shocked I actually worte that. I do apologize. It was absolutely uneccesary and certainly not how I think of the people on this forum. Again, I apologize

Do not be too shocked - we are all here passionate about our subject, and all at times guilty of stepping over the boundaries of politeness and courtesy - witness my own irritability and apology earlier in the thread. (

But we move on......

Paul B. wrote:

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!

Oh, indeed I do, and agree! One of the functions of a forum such as this is to throw up ideas so that with our collective knowledge and thoughts, they can be tested and insight gained.... While you may have touched on the point in your first post, you needed to speculate that decoration "hid" the rivets in order to explain why they are not obvious. My point here was that the rivets ARE obvious in these sorts of armour, from all cultures. Why would Greeks be unique in always covering them with some sort of disguising decoration? If there are things which support the postulated idea, one must also consider the other side of the coin - things which point against the idea - and here to my mind there are two major ones; namely the lack of the metal parts which we might expect to survive ( as with the mediaeval ones you have posted, when the organic parts are gone, the metal remains), and the fact that no obvious depiction of such an armour exists in a Greek context. As one can see, the human shape is universal, and hence lines drawn across torso or hips common, because it is the obvious place for such things to be, whether decorative lines or functional rivets.....so as you rightly point out, this gives rise to a strong chance of co-incidence.

[Lysimachos]

I think one thing that hasn't been noted enough regarding this piece of armor (if indeed it is armor) is that it is from Bactria. Being far removed from Greece proper, and in closer proximity to Central and East Asian cultures, armor in this region was somewhat different from that in the west. Finds from the arsenal of Ai Khanoum from a similar time period include many pieces of metal armor, presumably for a cataphract, including shoulder pieces made of a combination of plates and scales of iron; and leg armor of hoops of iron, with attached foot guard. In any case, items that are quite different from archaeological finds from the Mediterranean (though the hooped armor is known from reliefs and literary references). So, if it is armor, I don't think there is any need to tie it so closely to more typically Greek models.

On the other hand, if I were to compare it to an existing iconographic example of T+Y armor, I might look at Alexander's cuirass from the Alexander Mosaic, which appears as though it could be made of several pieces of metal connected together, along with scales. Of course, I don't see any rivets, but you never know.

[MeinPanzer]

I think one thing that hasn't been noted enough regarding this piece of armor (if indeed it is armor) is that it is from Bactria. Being far removed from Greece proper, and in closer proximity to Central and East Asian cultures, armor in this region was somewhat different from that in the west. Finds from the arsenal of Ai Khanoum from a similar time period include many pieces of metal armor, presumably for a cataphract, including shoulder pieces made of a combination of plates and scales of iron; and leg armor of hoops of iron, with attached foot guard. In any case, items that are quite different from archaeological finds from the Mediterranean (though the hooped armor is known from reliefs and literary references). So, if it is armor, I don't think there is any need to tie it so closely to more typically Greek models.

While this is true, this is only the case for heavy cavalrymen. That armour - and similar armour from Takht-i Sangin - belongs to cataphracts, and shows close affinities to Central Asian heavy armour (and contemporary Parthian armour, in particular). This makes sense, considering that it was directly adopted from Central Asian peoples, and it is very distinctive, being made primarily of iron scales and hoops. Iconographic sources, however, make clear that beyond this armament in use among heavy cavalrymen, Graeco-Bactrian armament was purely Hellenistic, including T&Y and muscled cuirasses. Considering that this fragment is made up of two large plates riveted together, the only real candidate for what this could be if it were armour would be a Greek style cuirass.

I do not think, however, that this is armour, as its general form is not really indicative of any kind of armour that I am aware of. Without further information contextualizing it (i.e. if many small fragments of sheet bronze were found around it but not published, or other arms and armour were found nearby), I would just identify it as a piece of sheet bronze of unknown use.

[PMBardunias]

being made primarily of iron scales and hoops

Hey Ruben, on the topic of "hoops", I can't recall if I shared this image with you, you'll find it interesting. The front of the armor is covered with overlapping hoop(?) segments of metal or organic constrction. Since it is on the outside, they are oriented in the reverse of the way plates are riveted on the inside of an armor, here the top overlaps the bottom like a snake belly. It is the way that later Roman segmented lorica overlap, but of course they lack a base material. The image is from a red figure showing Achilleus' armor dating from 500-450 BC attributed to Oreithya.

[PMBardunias]

My point here was that the rivets ARE obvious in these sorts of armour, from all cultures. Why would Greeks be unique in always covering them with some sort of disguising decoration?

Fulfilling my role of diabolical advocate, I don't claim they always covered the rivets. We know what rivets look like on greek vases, because they presumably riveted shield aprons onto their support- the first three images down on the left. Note the shield blazon, a new type of spitting cobra perhaps? There are countless dots and circles that you cannot prove are not rivets, some look just like the shield apron fasteners- see the right side of the image below. Then there are things like the bottom left below that are just weird! Notice this corslet fastens on at least the right, if not both sides- I think there is a loop of the knot on the right side. So I could say that obvious rivets are common on T-Y corslets and you cannot disprove this. This is a major problem of having so little data to work with and dealing mostly with art. I could say anything round and in the right place is a rivet, even if it were simply decoration.

[MeinPanzer]

Hey Ruben, on the topic of "hoops", I can't recall if I shared this image with you, you'll find it interesting. The front of the armor is covered with overlapping hoop(?) segments of metal or organic constrction. Since it is on the outside, they are oriented in the reverse of the way plates are riveted on the inside of an armor, here the top overlaps the bottom like a snake belly. It is the way that later Roman segmented lorica overlap, but of course they lack a base material. The image is from a red figure showing Achilleus' armor dating from 500-450 BC attributed to Oreithya.

I'm not quite sure I understand what's going on there with the epomides. Is the whole cuirass folded double vertically? What's that little flat behind the epomis? How do we know which side the epomis is attached to? It looks to me like the cuirass is folded double lengthwise, which is why the epomis is shown face- rather than side-on, in which case those overlapping segments are on the back and not the front. It's very interesting, and perhaps its an indication that portions of T&Y cuirasses could be made of more rigid leather plates.

[rocktupac]

Hey Ruben, on the topic of "hoops", I can't recall if I shared this image with you, you'll find it interesting. The front of the armor is covered with overlapping hoop(?) segments of metal or organic constrction. Since it is on the outside, they are oriented in the reverse of the way plates are riveted on the inside of an armor, here the top overlaps the bottom like a snake belly. It is the way that later Roman segmented lorica overlap, but of course they lack a base material. The image is from a red figure showing Achilleus' armor dating from 500-450 BC attributed to Oreithya.

I'm not quite sure I understand what's going on there with the epomides. Is the whole cuirass folded double vertically? What's that little flat behind the epomis? How do we know which side the epomis is attached to? It looks to me like the cuirass is folded double lengthwise, which is why the epomis is shown face- rather than side-on, in which case those overlapping segments are on the back and not the front. It's very interesting, and perhaps its an indication that portions of T&Y cuirasses could be made of more rigid leather plates.

Wow. Very interesting painting. It looks to me like the artist is attempting to portray the armor as simply rolled up like a rug. This looks exactly like what it going on here. Perhaps this is how the armor was stored?

[PMBardunias]

I'm not quite sure I understand what's going on there with the epomides. Is the whole cuirass folded double vertically? What's that little flat behind the epomis? How do we know which side the epomis is attached to?

I think it is just flattened dorso-ventrally, front to back. The thing behin dhte epomis is that neck-tab that is commonly seen on T-Y's. I know it looks like a single epomis with a border, but if you blow up the image a bit it looks like they are in fact two borderless epomides- the chest piece seems to extend up between them and the very tips are slightly off-set.

I agree that this could be bands of leather or metal, but even thick/stiff panels of linen cannot be ruled out. Like most of these images, it could be almost anything.

[rocktupac]

I know it looks like a single epomis with a border, but if you blow up the image a bit it looks like they are in fact two borderless epomides- the chest piece seems to extend up between them and the very tips are slightly off-set.

Oh interesting! I think you are right. You can even see that the upper most 'snake scale' comes between the epomides which shows that they are separate pieces and it is simply not a border. Great find.

[immortal]

Wow. Very interesting painting. It looks to me like the artist is attempting to portray the armor as simply rolled up like a rug. This looks exactly like what it going on here. Perhaps this is how the armor was stored?

I think the armour is just shown from the side, but rendered (as with a lot of ancient art) in an odd way... I don't think you could roll up a cuirass!
Body armour appears to have been stored on a stand. I believe there are a few depictions of them displayed in this way. Some vases show them standing freely, so I would assume they were fairly ridged, or at least enough so that they could support themselves.

[PMBardunias]

Some vases show them standing freely, so I would assume they were fairly ridged, or at least enough so that they could support themselves.

In playing around with tube shaped things like a rolled doormat or single layer of rug, you'll see that it does not have to be all that rigid to stand up on end like some of the T-Y depictions. This same tube will flatten if you lay it on its side in manner just like that vase image. Of course the added scales and plates makes the need for support greater, but the general principle of standing on end yet collapsing on its side still holds true.

[Lysimachos]

While this is true, this is only the case for heavy cavalrymen. That armour - and similar armour from Takht-i Sangin - belongs to cataphracts, and shows close affinities to Central Asian heavy armour (and contemporary Parthian armour, in particular). This makes sense, considering that it was directly adopted from Central Asian peoples, and it is very distinctive, being made primarily of iron scales and hoops. Iconographic sources, however, make clear that beyond this armament in use among heavy cavalrymen, Graeco-Bactrian armament was purely Hellenistic, including T&Y and muscled cuirasses. Considering that this fragment is made up of two large plates riveted together, the only real candidate for what this could be if it were armour would be a Greek style cuirass.

I generally agree, but the shoulder pieces from Ai Khanoum are made up of smaller scales and larger plates. I'm not aware of any iconography that shows cataphract armor (either Central Asian, or Greek) with shoulder pieces, but it seems to me these could be part of a metal T&Y cuirass used by a Graeco-Bactrian cataphract. Just because we have no full depiction of such a suit of armor does not mean it wouldn't exist. The combination of a Greek and Central Asian elements is certainly not unknown in cataphract armor, for example in this statue with Greek-style cuirass (muscled in this case) and hooped limb armor from Syria from the Seleucid or Parthian era in the Louvre:
.

As I noted before, Alexander's cuirass from the mosaic looks to me like a combination of metal plates and scales. This combined with the existence of plate/scale armor fragments from Ai Khanoum could mean that such metal T&Y cuirasses were used in the east. As long as we are in the realm of wild speculation, that is

I do not think, however, that this is armour, as its general form is not really indicative of any kind of armour that I am aware of. Without further information contextualizing it (i.e. if many small fragments of sheet bronze were found around it but not published, or other arms and armour were found nearby), I would just identify it as a piece of sheet bronze of unknown use.

Yeah, Nikonorov doesn't really say much about the find to give us an idea of why he thinks it is armor. I should mention that descriptions of the Ai Khanoum armor I have used are also from a work by Nikonorov (Armies of Bactria), and I don't know how much he got from the original report and how much is speculation on his part.

BTW, I have never heard of armor from Takht-i Sangin, did you mean Old Nisa?

[Dan Howard]

On the above statue there is banding on his feet and shins also. These are generally interpreted as leg bindings. Why are the arms covered in segmented plate and the feet in bindings? Why can't the arms also be covered in an item of clothing and not armour?

[hoplite14gr]

On the above statue there is banding on his feet and shins also. These are generally interpreted as leg bindings. Why are the arms covered in segmented plate and the feet in bindings? Why can't the arms also be covered in an item of clothing and not armour?

Well considering the existence of this type of armor for gladiators this is an aspect worth examining.
I do not know if i am for or against it but it it an interesting speculation.

Kind regards