Linothorax vs Spolas

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I agree with all that has been said.
I only need to make a couple of points
Paul, it is perhaps significant that in Pollux's lexicon the spolas is NOT linked with the stola, and when he reffers to Xenophon, it is not to give one more meaning to the word, but to show how the word has been used.
Second, almost all cuirasses hung somehow from the shoulders. We could say that e muscled cuirass does (although much of its weight is indeed held by the ribs and hips, but the same could be argued for the tube and yoke), but Pollux makes the effort to mention the shoulder attachment.
And perhaps a third comment should be made about one of Xenophon's mentions of the word, where of the 50 newly formed hippeis, some of them were equiped with whatever "thorax" could be gathered from the whole army, and the rest with spolades. Now, it doesn't seem very logical that some of them had bronze cuirasses and the rest had animal skins hunging from their shoulders, something that stone throwels are often shown with...
And the Spartan that got killed from a Karduchian arrow, it is odd how the arrow killed him penetrating his shield and an animal skin that would lormally hung from his shoulders like a cape...

So we DO have some CLUES about what the spolas looked like, and we do have some CLUES about that the linen cuirasses were looking like. And for all we could possibly know, they looked the same!
Philip's cuirass was not covered in thin white leather but in linen! And we do know that the Persians used quilted linen cuirasses and we do know exactly what they looked like!
We also know how the greeks represented the persian quilted linen cuirasses on their vases, and we see the same effect in SOME of their representations of greek tube and yoke cuirasses but not all.

So yes, we don't have hard evidence for either case, but we do can make some educated guesses. They will be guesses none the less, but i think that they allow re-enactors to use whatever method they find fit for the construction of their cuirasses, and in fact this would give them a nice tool to use in explaining to the public this exact debate that we are having right now. And the mystery of the greek armour.
Khairete
Giannis

[Ghostmojo]

... Now, it doesn't seem very logical that some of them had bronze cuirasses and the rest had animal skins hunging from their shoulders, something that stone throwels are often shown with ... And the Spartan that got killed from a Karduchian arrow, it is odd how the arrow killed him penetrating his shield and an animal skin that would lormally hung from his shoulders like a cape...

That is interesting Giannis. Do you think the Spartan might have been a soldier in a Spartan army who was not necessarily a Spartiate? It doesn't seem very logical as you say unless, and I'm speculating here admittedly, but the reference to animal skins could possibly be applied to the Skiritai who seemingly wore animal skin armour (not hung from shoulders like hamippoi) and also had shields. They were light hoplites who could function as ekdromoi too. What do you think?

[katsika]

I, too would like to speculate a bit as well - I am wondering if the Spartan could have possibly been one of the Perioikos, and the skin mentioned could have been a clamys? In any event, it must have been one hell of an arrow - either that or it was a lousy hoplon and very thin leather underneath at that.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The thing i found odd in that passage was not that a Spartan was wearing an animal skin. It was that, if a spolas is an animal skin hunging from the shoulders, then it covers the back, and if the arrow penetrated the aspis, it is hard to see how it also penetrated the animal skin, that only covered the back.

I see absolutely no evidence for leather chlamydes. But the arrow was certainly a very extraordinary weapon, since the greeks used them as javelins! Xenophon usues the instance of the Spartan's death not to point out how loosy was his shield, but how devastating those arrows were!

There are (few) depictions of hoplites wearing animal skins hunging on their back (thus not acting as a cuirass but as clothing/symbol) but most of the times that hoplites wear them, they wrap them arround the body and only attach them to one shoulder, thus it doesn't fulfil the criteria of the spolas who's "attached to the shoulders"(plural).

A spolas and a linen cuirass in my opinion had the generic form of the tube and yoke -after all, Persians used linen tube and yoke and Skythians used leather ones, and the greeks were influenced by both!

Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Paul, it is perhaps significant that in Pollux's lexicon the spolas is NOT linked with the stola, and when he reffers to Xenophon, it is not to give one more meaning to the word, but to show how the word has been used.

Pollux defines the Spolas as used by Xenophon, but the word is clearly a more generic term for garment that could also be specific to a leather armor- not unlike the way the word hoplon has many possible meanings. If in fact "Stolidion" is another word for Spolas, this link is clearer. I don't think Xenophon's spolas was anything other than a T-y, but that does not mean that the word Spolas may not have meant many things other than the t-y, and as you note, we cannot prove it was not a vest even in Xenophon. Thus it is safer to define it the way Pollux does: Xenophon's Spolas is a "thorax ek dermatos".

The problem is that to call the T-Y a spolas is to pull the same underhanded trick that those evil linophiles played in applying the term linothorax to the T-Y. Since we know a Spolas is defined as leather from our one reference, suddenly that becomes the default material for a T-Y and we have to speak of a linen Spolas. Just call them all Thorakes of different make. Were we Spartans we would call our armor "Aegis" as Nymphodorus of Syracuse tells us.

By the way, the aspis was not weapon-proof. There are a number of recorded failures, most famous being when Brasidas was wounded through his trecherous shield by a spear- arrows generall penetrate better than spears.

[katsika]

I see absolutely no evidence for leather chlamydes.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement, but I have seen plenty of pottery images depicting people (hoplites and gods alike) wearing animal skins/furs (leopard, lion, antelope, etc.) chlamydes, which technically qualify as leather (that's how I'd vote anyway) - and these could, by manner of drape and fashion, be considered a clamys. Many show the paws of the skin knotted around the neck and one shoulder (even maenads wore leopard skins and Heracles, his lion), so I am unsure as to what you meant to say exactly.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

@Paul, i agree, but still using the word spolas in Xenophon's meaning is better that the use of the word linothorax. After all, we could be speaking with at least ONE ancient person from our time period, and we would understand eachother!
Now, the use of the word from Xenophon means that a wide range of military people would understand him.
And Pollux' source is clearly not Xenophon. For Xenophon never states that the spolas is attached to the shoulders. He merely uses a literary example, like we also do todat in lexicons. He does the same with other garments, first describing them and then adding one use of the word in Aristophanes, when Aristophanes never bothers to describe the garment.

@Bill, a chlamys is understood to have been a very specific type of garment, worn in a specific way. Anything that was worn over the shoulders and closed with a brooch was not called a chlamys.
And such a peculiar kind of clothing as an animal skin would not have been called so.
Pollux's lexicon goes in great depth to describe the different types of clothing, mentionning their material, thickness, way of wear, even colour/pattern some times. This is to mean that the greeks were actually quite specific with the names of their garments. Unfortunately all modern translations greek or foreighn go in no trouble to explain the exact meaning of the word. They just say "cloak" or whatever.
In that respect, there is no evidence that there were leather chlamydes, but i absolutely agree that some times animal skins were hung from the shoulders, like a said in my previous e-mails.

Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

i agree, but still using the word spolas in Xenophon's meaning is better that the use of the word linothorax.

I agree with that completely- moreso if you use it to say that "a Spolas was A type of T-Y made of leather, in use at the time Xenophon wrote". I just like order, so Bronze thorax, linen thorax, and Spolas, is not so neat as Bronze thorax, linen thorax and leather thorax.

After all, we could be speaking with at least ONE ancient person from our time period, and we would understand eachother!

Pollux turns to the word Thorax when needs to define spolas to his late audience, and surely any Greek since Homer would understand if you told them you have a Thorax- compounded with the term hide, leather, or linen. I'm not so sure a 6th century greek, when the T-Y first appears would know that a spolas always means armor.

The use of a name of a garment for armor has all sorts of ambiguities with civilian parallels, like the Medieval "jack" or "coat" of plates. In homer there are references to chalkiochlamydes if I recall correctly.

Then again we are stuck with Pilos for hat and helm, so maybe ambiguity is the norm.

[Ghostmojo]

... There are (few) depictions of hoplites wearing animal skins hunging on their back (thus not acting as a cuirass but as clothing/symbol) but most of the times that hoplites wear them, they wrap them arround the body and only attach them to one shoulder, thus it doesn't fulfil the criteria of the spolas who's "attached to the shoulders"(plural) ...

Perhaps this would be a good time to remind you of an image I posted somewhere on this site a few months back (an helmeted archaic warrior wearing what apears to be a lion or leopard skin):



Which is purported to show a warrior of the Skiritai. Further to this is the fact that animal skins are mentioned as playing some part in the festivals of the Skirophoria. Chrimes summation is basically that the Skiritai warrior (if he is one) is shown midway in his development from Homeric animal-skin clad hurler of whatever happened to come to hand - towards fully fledged hoplite. The name σκίροϛ (skiros) means tough or hard covering (non-metal) often relating to a 'skin'.

[hoplite14gr]

In the desgn is more obvioys that the real thing.

The pithos is dated from the Messenian Wars perios.

The leopard was associated with Dionysos. The got is mentioned in Pylos from the Bronze Age. So in my opinion it shows here a hoplite from the Amyklae mora with a Pylian ally (??)

Wearing leather chiton was considered degrading by the urban middle class that was composing the hoplites units. Woven clothes were considered the hallmark of civilization.

After some painful experiences wearing metal armor directly over my chiton I am convinced that spolas was more of subarmalis than anything else.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Note two things:
The man with the leopard skin is not a hoplite (he carries no shield)
and the skin is hung only from one shoulder, as i mentioned above. I doubt we could call it a spolas, based on Pollux. Perhaps a "Lybian" spolas, which Pollux is calling a "pardaliforon deras", a leopard skin ;-)

In my opinion the pithos above can be used for no arguement concerning the skiritae or anything else.Simply not enough evidence for them, and after all, what about all those corinthian or attic vases with animal skin covered hoplites?

I also haven't seen any evidence for greek sub armour. Xenophon suggests cuirasses with pteryges like this or like that, not subarmalis like this or that, and cuirasses are often shown hunging form walls with the pteryges attached on them.
Also, many people who have worn and fought in greek metal armour constructed accurately and worn directly over chiton for many hours have not reported any problems with it.
Khairete
Giannis

[Dan Howard]

IMO a lot more metal armour than we suspect, including mail, was padded with an integrated liner. If so then nothing more than a simple chiton would be needed underneath.

[Ghostmojo]

... In my opinion the pithos above can be used for no arguement concerning the skiritae or anything else ...

Perhaps you should read Chrimes' book Giannis? She develops her views in far more depth than I have recounted here. The pithos image above is slightly more than anecdotal whilst not being exactly proof of any kind which I accept. Nobody said he was a hoplite - in fact I pointed out this guy was perhaps somewhere along the path towards becoming one. I didn't say it was a spolas either. I was merely pointing out the fact that other forms of protective cover had been and might have been worn besides those we have been discussing. In opening out the discussion I was hoping to suggest that our perameters should perhaps be wider.

IMO a lot more metal armour than we suspect, including mail, was padded with an integrated liner. If so then nothing more than a simple chiton would be needed underneath.

I'm inclined to agree Dan. After all helmets contained an internal cap to assist with positioning and comfort - so why not armour as well?

[hoplite14gr]

I will agree with Dan too.
Especially because of painfull practical experience!

Absorbing blows directly from metal armor is VERY nasty experience!
Padding!!! Padding!!!

I don believe that all ancient troops had the stupid bravado to wear armor without
some way to cushion the blows.

So I strongly believe thatspollas was somathing of asubarmalis.

Kind regards

[katsika]

So I strongly believe thatspollas was somathing of asubarmalis.

Actually, a properly constructed spolas (leather with bronze scales/plates, etc.) is a very effective and comfortable protection, quite able to withstand a very nasty assault. Plus, a proper-fitting spolas affords the wearer greater mobility than that of a metal cuirass (and is more easily repaired - and less expensive than repairing metal). My spolas is two layers of heavy hide, which together are about 3/4" (total) thickness on the yoke and 1/2" (total) on the tube. Both articles have either bronze scales or bronze plates for trauma, as well as for decoration, and other skins as well (leopard, elk, pig, etc.). It is NOT a "let's all play dress-up" kind of "costume"; it is a REAL piece of armor, and weighs around 20 pounds. I don't believe an extra outer layer of armor would have been neccessary or even desired, as the Greeks had a penchant for decorating their spoloi. It would be completely uneccessary and undesiralbe to cover it with more armor, plus the hoplite's mobility and effectiveness would become seriously compromised.