Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades

[Paullus Scipio]

It does not matter who the armor was intended for. I stated that three types of armor were available to hoplites. ...with the implication that they were equally so - which is not true - the majority were Tube-and-Yoke, probably leather spolades, with a few bronze muscled 'thorakes', and perhaps a few linen examples on troops who had served in Asia Minor and aquired them by trade or capture - and this point needs to be clarified.
Those smuggled Thorakes, as well as the linen armor hanging in a home in Lindos or a treasury in Delos are obviously available. If linen armors were "around" for other troop types, or taken as booty from foreigners, then they were obviously "available". But not generally available to all. Alcaeus is not valid evidence because his fragments are consciously "Homeric" in style, and furthermore, despite attempts to stretch the introduction of T-and-Y corselets back in time, there is no evidence that such a thing existed when Alcaeus wrote, thus making the reference conclusively "Homeric"!
The onus is now on you to tell us why they would not be worn- especially because we know Alexander did so.
Another straw man! You know we agree that linen armour might be worn in Anatolia, but the 'availability' of it was not widespread or general, so the evidence suggests. In fact I see from your remarks post that you agree that the 'availability' of linen armour to the average citizen of a Greek poleis was rare.....

....The fact is, when Alexander wore linen armour, it was sufficiently rare as to be remarked on, together with the explicit point that it was a captured Persian piece. The clear implication is that Greeks don't normally wear such 'foreign' armour

Good, now we have gone from "never" to "normally".
Naughty!...you twist my words and take them out of context. I said that Greek hoplites are 'never' described in the literature as wearing linen armour, which is perfectly true ( only 'barbarians/foreigners' are)
I never said that linen dominated. I said that linen was available and likely worn by some hoplites. Maybe more in the East, less in the West. Maybe an Acarnanian never saw one, while a rich Athenian with business interests in Melos had one.
We agree then, that linen armour would have been uncommon - a rarity even - which is the clarification I was seeking to make. Linen simply was not, in all probability, available to the vast majority of Greek hoplites, especially as they tended not to venture far from home.....

Again, this is an assumption - to use your words "not many styles..." If there was leather body-armour, but not of T-and-Y form, it would be called something other than 'spolades', hence 'thorakia skutinous'. Only if the T-and-Y were the sole form of leather armour would the terms be synonymous

Are you suggesting that there is a leather armor in the Delian treasury that is not a T-Y? I should take care because that way leads to Spolades not being T-Ys! Do not arm your opponents.
No, not necessarily. In the Delian treasury/temple lists three different words are used for helmets - "kune", "perikephalai" and "kranos", in all likelihood to distinguish different types, though we have no way of knowing which was which. Similarly, "spolades" and "thoraka skutinous" (treated leather body armour) may refer to different types as well - perhaps different types of T-and-Y.

We do not in fact read of the term 'linothorax' in the sources. As has been pointed out repeatedly in various threads, the term 'linothorax' is not EVER used of hoplite armour....it is a modern borrowing and variation on a Homeric term. The sooner this inaccurate mis-nomer is dropped, the less confusion there will be on the subject.

Does ????????? not refer to linen armor??? Had linen somehow qualitatively changed in a few centuries? Homer speaks of Linen armor, we later read of linen armor. It does not matter if they change the word order, the meaning is linen armor.
But there is a difference - the Greek of Classical times ( in all its dialects) was not the Greek of Homer - and 'linothorax' is not even the correct archaic Homeric Greek. Why use an artificial 'bastardised' Greek-lish word for something we already have a correct name for?
If it is made of linen and it is armor for the chest the man has a linothorex,...only in archaic Mycaenaean, or whenever Homer is referring to, times...and not "a linothorex" - the Homeric term is a compound adjective, and may not refer to armour at all, 'lino-thorex' means, literally, "linen-chested/breasted" or "linen clad" and is used to describe the lesser Ajax at 2.529 "He was a short man, linen breasted/clad (or "linen armoured"/'lino-thorex') or 2.830 where the Dardanian Amphios is similarly described
A chest protected by linen, colloquialized to linothorax for the armor itself:
...and there's the rub. the 'colloquialisation' is not so - it is an invented modern noun, not even proper Greek, used, quite incorrectly, as a name for T-and-Y corselets

??^??-????? , ?_???, Ep. and Ion. ??^??-????? , ????, o(, h(,
A. wearing a linen cuirass, Il.2.529, 830; “???????” AP14.73; [?????????] Str.3.3.6.

Unless you think that every reference to "Thorakes lineou" definitely meant a T-Y, then I could understand why you would want to seperate it out from the armor that Homer speaks of, for which we cannot know the form.
Given the iconography, I think it possible that Persian 'thorakes lineous' MAY well have been of T-and-Y form.....

but Homer's terminology has nothing whatever to do with Classical Hoplite body armour! Would you use other Homeric epithets to derive a name for much later equipment? There is no logic to this!

Yes, I would, as would Strabo if Liddell can be believed. Because the term has no specific homeric meaning, it is simply a way of saying linen corselet in Greek!!!
I disagree....Strabo is certainly not using contemporary language, but is likely deliberately invoking archaic "Homeric" language, like so many Greek and Roman authors - as when a modern writer uses a Shakespearean phrase

Which is precisely the point. The word was 'invented' specifically by someone unknown as a name for the T-and-Y corselet

No, it was used by a very good Greek who wrote the Illiad to mean an armor made of linen. That someone used this excellent term, but tried to give it a specific modern meaning it did not bear in the past to any greek is the problem.
Strictly speaking, it is believed that 'Homer' did not write down anything! "Linothorax" is not an 'excellent term', it is a made-up modern 'Greek-lish' noun derived, incorrectly, from an archaic Homeric adjective and applied, quite wrongly, as the name for a Greek T-and-Y corselet. The word was not used by those who wore such corselets in Classical Greece, nor is it used by modern scholars who know their stuff, such as Anderson, Snodgrass, or Connolly. It is just plain WRONG!!!

If not all 'linothoraxes' are T-and-Y's, then why call them this modern made-up word, which is an incorrect description, and not even real Greek, to boot? You are here seeking to defend the indefensible.

No, I am not suggesting that we call all T-Ys linothoraxes, that is enough of that! I am saying that we can use a generic greek term for "linen chest armor" coined in the Iliad to refer to any ancinet greek linen armor for the chest no matter what form.
Like I said, since we know the correct classical generic Greek term for linen armour, why not use it, instead of some artificial made-up word???
Since I am not certain that all Lineo thorakes were T-Y I think this is safer. You could just as correctly called them all Thorakes Lineou, but linothorax is alreay widespread. It is only the definition as a T-Y that is a problem.
..And so long as it is used, people will automatically, and wrongly, associate the word with Greek T-and-Y's. That alone is reason to discourage use of the word. Further, since when did being 'widespread' make use of wrong terminology correct ??? There is no such thing as a 'linothorax' !! Period !! :wink:

I don't believe so. Iron was much harder to work, technically, than other materials, requiring much higher temperatures for example. It was therefore a rarity in armour ( though not simple spear-heads and sword-blades) until those technological masters of iron-work, the Celts, came up with practical iron armour in the form of mail.

You are going to tell me a Greek could make a mild steel sword, but not puch a bunch of scales in the manner his Anatolian neighbors had been doing for centuries?
Why would a Greek armourer make iron scales, when it was much easier to make bronze ones that were harder, and did not tarnish to boot - better in almost every way ?? In any event, you were not talking about iron scales, but iron plates inserted into Tube-and-Yoke corselets, and plate-making is something that the evidence suggests was not mastered until Philip of Macedon's time.....

[Thunder]

I have an answer why a Greek armourer would make armour of iron rather than bronze. It's considerably cheaper. Always was, all throughout the ancient world, which is why iron armour displaced bronze armour towards the late classical period. It's cheaper, and, in the form of scale, plate or mail, it will deflect a blow just as well (assuming Greek's weren't mad enough to go into battle without the usual heavy padding beneath their armour that you need to absorb enemy blows). In terms of metallic hardness, yes, bronze is more resilient. But could a citizen-soldier, or a mercenary, afford expensive bronze for their armour?

Linen and leather armour are 'light' armour types, in general. They stop glancing blows from hurting you. Mail, scale and plate are 'heavy'. They can actually stop a blow that will kill you (sorry if I'm stating the obvious). What vaguely bemuses me about the suggestion that the Y&T was the suggestion that it was homogeneously linen and leather, with the occasional reinforcing, when it could (I'm not saying it is) conceivably have been a plate harness for either bronze or iron plates for the poorer 'heavy' hoplite. There is little sense in the Greeks abandoning the bell cuirass for a lighter armour type en masse, unless either hoplites became poorer in the period, or there was a greater need for hoplites to fill out the rear and mid-ranks of the phalanx and wear a different type of armour.

[nikolaos]

I've been giving these arguments a miss for a while, as I've got too many projects to get done to retread the same old arguments. But as I am in the midst of making a spolas, I've been reading these, and have to make a comment.

Thunder, when you assert that iron was cheaper in a Greek context, I have to say that you're just wrong. We know they had it, we know they used it, and we know they used a lot more bronze. If iron was genuinely cheaper than bronze we wouldn't read about the Storm of Bronze, but the Storm of Iron.
Iron armour wouldn't have been a wonder and a rarity to greek authors.

Rarirty is a the cornerstone of supply and demand in economics. If its rare, its expensive.

Have fun!
Cole

[Dan Howard]

I find it hard to believe that iron armour was rare. The Assyrians outfitted a large portion of their troops in iron scale armour many centuries earlier. I find it somewhat easier to believe that solid iron plate armour was rare. There is a significant amount of difference in the skill and technology required to produce solid plates of iron large enough to make, say, the Vergina cuirass compared to the scale armour of the Assyrians. I am thinking that a lot of the scales depicted on hoplite armour would have been made of iron, not bronze.

[nikolaos]

Dan,

But where's the evidence? Consider how Herodotus makes a special point of the iron scales of the Persian Cavalry commander killed at Plataea. Another wonder. With what evidence we do have, bronze appears to be the norm in Greece. The question that needs to be asked is why, if in other cultural contexts, such as the Assyrians, iron scale appears much earlier, why does Greece appear to remain bronze based for some time? This is particularly interesting as Greeks did have iron available locally, and imported more.

As that aspect of the supply and demand relationship, my personal belief is that it comes to the question of labour. Transforming a smelted iron bloom by hand into into almost anything is extremely labour intensive, particularly making thin sheets or chips. Bronze on the other hand is virtually effortless to transform by comparison. It can be cast into a thin sheet, then hammered for thickness for a small fraction of the labour required for iron.

And labour is a factor in the supply and demand equation. It's my feeling that the effort of transforming iron was greater than the return on investment when that effort could more productively applied elsewhere, such as the production of food, the staple of wealth in ancient Greece.

There may be another cultural variation that leads to the longevity or primacy of bronze in Greece. If you consider that the a significant naval component to Greek military activities, the advantages of bronze over iron are significant in terms of corrosion. An interesting cultural parallel is early renaissance Venice, where bronze armour enjoyed a great deal of currency with Venetian marines.

Theories these may be, but in the abscence of evidence for more widespread iron usage in armour in ancient Greece, the question worth talking about is why was it that way, rather than projecting the existence of something that is not in evidence.

Have fun!
Cole

[immortal]

I find it hard to believe that iron armour was rare. The Assyrians outfitted a large portion of their troops in iron scale armour many centuries earlier. I find it somewhat easier to believe that solid iron plate armour was rare. There is a significant amount of difference in the skill and technology required to produce solid plates of iron large enough to make, say, the Vergina cuirass compared to the scale armour of the Assyrians. I am thinking that a lot of the scales depicted on hoplite armour would have been made of iron, not bronze.

You are forgetting that Assyria was an empire, Greece was not.
Assyria was very wealthy and had a very efficient infrastructure throughout the empire.
Urartu was the centre for iron working; other areas used iron much later. Babylon for example did not have a single iron smith until the 7th century.

The other thing to consider is the appearance of iron. Iron was not desirable in Assyria, it was dull, hard to polish to a high degree and considered inferior to bronze. The elite, royalty and nobility in the Assyrian army usually chose bronze for their armour, because, let’s face it, it is much more attractive. Iron takes a lot of work to polish it, even in the medieval period, polished iron armour was very expensive, and most were left black from the forge.
Do we know that they were really that worried that iron was stronger?

Maybe this was the same in Greece? As mentioned, iron does not lend itself to the methods used in the construction of hoplite arms.

I don’t think that casting sheets of iron is difficult is it? Ive been told by metal workers that bronze is much harder to work with than iron.
Also, remember bronze is an alloy, so you need two base metals to make it. Iron only needs one.

[PMBardunias]

The other thing to consider is the appearance of iron. Iron was not desirable in Assyria, it was dull, hard to polish to a high degree and considered inferior to bronze.

Just to jump back on topic for a moment, this is why we might see small pieces of unnatractive iron under a leather or linen shell as a coat of plates, rather than on the outside as pretty scales.

[nikolaos]

Stephen,

You write:

"I don’t think that casting sheets of iron is difficult is it?"

Casting iron is extremely difficult if you do not have the technology to create a blast furnace. Depending on the source, this invention occurred sometime between 500BCE to 0 AD in China. However, the technology did not penetrate to the west until much, much, later. There is also a materials difficulty. Cast Iron is brittle, which requires it to be substantial (like your frying pan) and hence heavy, which means you probably don't want to wear it on your head, and has a tendency to shatter, which makes it not a great candidate for getting between you and the pointy/cutty/crushy thing

Also, it would seem that iron worked well enough for hoplite arms that their spear and swords made the transition earlier. However, when it comes to armour it doesn't seem to have made the cut. I do agree with your point about Assyria being an empire though

Paul, as to the ugly little scales, lets see some evidence in a Greek context! Otherwise we're just jabberers

Have fun!
Cole

[PMBardunias]

Paul, as to the ugly little scales, lets see some evidence in a Greek context! Otherwise we're just jabberers

Have you ever seen 6th or 5th century Greek bronze scales?

[Dan Howard]

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that some Greek organic armour was reinforced with scales. Where is the evidence to demonstrate that they were all made of bronze and not iron? Who is the jabberer?

The "Assyria was an Empire" argument is complete bollocks. The Greeks had plenty of resources available. Why did people change from bronze weapons to iron? It had nothing to do with iron's superiority as a weapon material. The only logical reason is cost and availability. Iron is more difficult to produce than bronze but the cost is more than offset by the fact that the raw materials are much more readily available. Cost cannot be reasonably used as an argument against iron scale. Nor can technology - swords and spear heads are far more difficult to produce than iron scales, yet they were produced in their thousands.

[MeinPanzer]

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:

The scattered remains of cataphract armour from Old Nisa also included hinges, so contemporary armour for Parthian cataphracts may have similarly included shoulder yokes. The plates that make up the body of the cuirass (and at Ai Khanoum we don't even know if the two shoulder yokes belonged to the mass of scales) are still identical to those found in particular at Takht-i Sangin, and also to some plates from Old Nisa. My point is still that this type of armour was limited to the heavy cavalrymen as far as we are aware.

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

No, Takht-i Sangin, the large temple complex from southern Tajikistan which was built in the late 4th or early 3rd c. BC. A massive amount of arms and armour from the 4th-2nd c. BC were found inside, including portions of plate and scale cuirasses almost certainly belonging to cataphracts.

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?

Certainly a possibility. However, we know hooped limb armor existed and it looked rather like the arms on this statue. I've never heard the interpretation of the leg banding as bindings, but I have wondered why they only come part way up the leg--why not just wear greaves? The fact that the banding continues down the foot, then ends in something not too different from the foot guard from Ai Khanoum makes me lean towards it being armor, but I don't know why it only covers the lower leg.

Dan raises a very good point regarding this rather problematic 3 C BC statuette, found, I believe, in Syria - if so then it cannot be 'Parthian' but rather Hellenistcic because of time and place. It is often assumed the 'hoops' on the arms are armour by analogy with the 2 C BC Pergamum reliefs showing a trophy which includes tubular/hooped arm pieces, a Tube-and-Yoke corselet ( the shoulder pieces decorated with 'thunderbolts') and a masked helmet, and also bearing the senior oficer's girdle tied with the knot of Heracles, like the statuette.....

Firstly, the statuette was found in Mesopotamia, and is of uncertain date, though it is likely late Hellenistic. If it was found in Mesopotamia and is late Hellenistic, then it is almost certainly Parthian.

I agree with Michael; who has interpreted it as binding? It's hoop armour reaching up to mid-calf level, just like the hoop armour on his arms. These areas were probably left bare to better allow the cataphract to grip his horse and perhaps even to allow him to walk more easily when dismounted, and it matches exactly Plutarch's statement in the Life of Lucullus that the only parts of the Armenian cataphracts at Artaxata left exposed were the knees and thighs (28.4).

I don't think there's anything too mysterious about this guy. He's probably just a Parthian cataphract officer or king wearing a mix of Hellenistic (muscled cuirass), Iranian (helmet, also seen on the Seleucia on the Tigris cataphract figurine), and Central Asian/Iranian (hoop armour) armour. As far as the Hellenistic part goes, I would bring up the statues from Old Nisa showing Parthians wearing cuirasses (perhaps muscled cuirasses) with pteryges and Attic helmets.

[PMBardunias]

Alcaeus is not valid evidence because his fragments are consciously "Homeric" in style, and furthermore, despite attempts to stretch the introduction of T-and-Y corselets back in time, there is no evidence that such a thing existed when Alcaeus wrote

Paullus and I are going to let that arguement die, but this reference perhaps needs explanation. The earliest image I have been able to find for a T-Y is on the Francois Krater. The scene is the Kalydonian boar hunt and the armor is worn by Atalanta (and perhaps the man behind her). This dates to about 575 BC, which to me puts it within sufficient proximity to Alcaeus's reference to a "corslet of new linen" to make the T-Y form possible, if not probable.

Note the yoke is fully formed and extends down the front of the chest, but the shape is rounded instead of the later assymetrical form that I believe aids arm movement. More importantly, there are no pteryges. This is literally a Thorax, protecting the chest alone. The abdomen appears to be covered with a thick belt(s).

[Lysimachos]

The scattered remains of cataphract armour from Old Nisa also included hinges, so contemporary armour for Parthian cataphracts may have similarly included shoulder yokes. The plates that make up the body of the cuirass (and at Ai Khanoum we don't even know if the two shoulder yokes belonged to the mass of scales) are still identical to those found in particular at Takht-i Sangin, and also to some plates from Old Nisa. My point is still that this type of armour was limited to the heavy cavalrymen as far as we are aware.

Agreed. My point was that if the riveted plates from Kampyr Tepe are actually armor, they are likely cataphract armor. Especially as evidence like the Louvre statuette point to a combination of Greek and Central Asian elements in cataphract armor of the Hellenisic period. I suppose I was arguing that the Kampyr Tepe find could be armor, but if it is, this should not be taken as evidence for widespread use of metal plates in T&Y armor in the wider Hellenistic world, but rather just as another example of metal armor used in cataphract equipment in the east. Of course, Nikonorov's original argument is that it is simply a broken and repaired muscled cuirass and not T&Y at all.

...Takht-i Sangin, the large temple complex from southern Tajikistan which was built in the late 4th or early 3rd c. BC. A massive amount of arms and armour from the 4th-2nd c. BC were found inside, including portions of plate and scale cuirasses almost certainly belonging to cataphracts.

Sorry to keep veering off topic, but can you point me to resources describing these armor finds?

Firstly, the statuette was found in Mesopotamia, and is of uncertain date, though it is likely late Hellenistic. If it was found in Mesopotamia and is late Hellenistic, then it is almost certainly Parthian.

The Louvre website actually shows the origin as the Levant.

[MeinPanzer]

Agreed. My point was that if the riveted plates from Kampyr Tepe are actually armor, they are likely cataphract armor. Especially as evidence like the Louvre statuette point to a combination of Greek and Central Asian elements in cataphract armor of the Hellenisic period. I suppose I was arguing that the Kampyr Tepe find could be armor, but if it is, this should not be taken as evidence for widespread use of metal plates in T&Y armor in the wider Hellenistic world, but rather just as another example of metal armor used in cataphract equipment in the east. Of course, Nikonorov's original argument is that it is simply a broken and repaired muscled cuirass and not T&Y at all.

I disagree. Let's survey the evidence. From Graeco-Bactrian figural sources we have a handful of sources depicting soldiers wearing muscled cuirasses, namely the infantrymen on the Nisa rhyton, the Tillya Tepe clasps, and perhaps the Kampyr Tepe terracotta; and the cavalrymen on the coinage of kings such as Philoxenos and Hermaios. None of these depictions shows a cataphract. The only evidence we have from the Hellenistic period for cataphracts wearing plate armour (of any kind, as far as I am aware) is the two Louvre statuettes, the one posted in this thread as well as the almost identical, albeit much smaller and poorer in quality example also in the Louvre of unknown provenance. Regardless of whether the figurine under discussion came from Mesopotamia or the Levant (I'll discuss this below), it was far away from Central Asia, and it shows a combination of Iranian and Hellenistic, but not Central Asian, features. From Central Asia itself, we have numerous actual examples of cataphract panoplies (Old Nisa, Ai Khanoum, Takht-i Sangin, Chirik Rabat), as well as representations from figural sources (i.e. Khumbuz Tepe), and not a single piece of evidence suggesting that plate armour was used. Therefore, drawing upon the evidence at our disposal, the most likely explanation as to whom the Kampyr Tepe fragment of a cuirass would belong would be a non-cataphract, whether a lighter cavalryman or an infantryman.

Sorry to keep veering off topic, but can you point me to resources describing these armor finds?

The main publication is Litvinskii, Boris Anatol’evich and I. Pichikian, Ellinisticheskii khram Oksa v Baktrii, vol. 2, Baktriiskoe voory?ie v drevnevosto?nom i gre?eskom kontekste (Moscow: Izd. Firma "Vostocnaja Literatura" RAN, 2001).

This site is also the most likely candidate for the original home of the Oxus treasure, which is believed to have been buried on the banks of the Oxus during one of the waves of nomadic invasions in the last centuries BC.

The Louvre website actually shows the origin as the Levant.

Museum websites regularly get things like provenance and date wrong, especially on older items with fuzzy provenances. I believe that Rostovtzeff was the first to publish this figurine, and he states it is from Mesopotamia.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben/Mein panzer wrote;

"The Louvre website actually shows the origin as the Levant."

Museum websites regularly get things like provenance and date wrong, especially on older items with fuzzy provenances. I believe that Rostovtzeff was the first to publish this figurine, and he states it is from Mesopotamia.

I too was a little surprised when Ruben described the origins of this statuette as Mesopotamia since, as I vaguely recalled ( and posted), I was under the impression it was from the Syria region, so I did a little checking. Lysimachos' original posting referred to 'Syria' also. Duncan head, in AMPW (1982 - long before websites!) also states this bronze statuette is from Syria. OTOH, N. Sekunda, in "The Seleucid Army" (1994) states that it is from Mesopotamia, but goes on to say that Roztovtzeff thought it might represent a Parthian in 'Yale Classical Studies 5 (1935) p.234 and fig 46)....note that he does not say that Roztovtzeff thought it from Mesopotamia.....Sekunda then goes on to state that Seyrig also thought it Parthian (in SYRIA 47; 1970 pp109-110)

It seems to me that the latter are guessing the origins of an un-provenanced piece, and its similar companion, based on nothing more than the fact that the statuette has both 'Hellenistic' and 'Parthian' elements. Certainly the piece looks almost purely Hellenistic, but then so did much early Parthian artwork.