01-31-2012, 09:07 PM
Indeed there is little evidence for a separate under-armour cushion garment or such, and indeed the whatever existing is circumstantial.
However I would not wait until we find the first hard-evidence to start talking on it and this is because of the abnormalities included in the elements we have at hands:
- 1. There is an overwhelming depiction of bare-feet fighters, soldiers, hoplites, cavalry etc. and a notable lack of depiction of any kind and of reference of any kind of military shoeware, until well into the hellenistic era.
- 2. There is a hyper-frequent depiction of fighters, soldiers, hoplites etc. either wearing armor or not entering the battle scene with their genitals exposed.
But:
1. Simple physics tell us that a military sandal/boot with a properly made for the task sole will offer vastly superior performance in terms of adhesion (among other). Adhesion is certainly not a headache for light weight infantry and archers in loose formation (many of whom certainly went with bare-feet) but it is for dense formation heavily armed hoplites. Why should we suppose that for 2-3 centuries they would reject such a big advantage given by a cheap (relatively to the rest of the equipment) boot?
2. Common sense (but there is physics and biology into it!) tells us that no type of fighter (let alone a hoplite) would ever enter the battle with his genitals hanging free in the air.
-----
So when artistic depiction takes so much freedom, what we are left to do is use a combination of verified facts, circumstantial evidence along with physics, biology, economics, common sense and above all, experiment. What does not work for us could not had worked for them.
1st Fact: No matter the work put on it, any metallic armor of any weight and with any type of thin lining worn over civilian-like cloth or naked skin (i.e. without padding) is not comfortable and hinders the fighter in real battle conditions. A loose fitting makes it move around all over the place, a tight fitting reduces tragically the protection offered. Period.
1st Strong evidence: Artistic depiction on vases and sculptures is not that helpful like in the case of bare-feet and free-hanging genitals. We have to start proposing the under-armour garment because of the fact above and the evidence below:
2nd Strong evidence: In all other cultures on which we have more information on their armour and garments, the metallic (and often other) armor was worn over a protective undergarment (most common type being padded leather or layers of fabric) - this being of varying thickness (from a thin one worn for comfort to the thicker ones aiming at increasing protection). The frequency of armors with integrated full-padding (apart their leather lining) while varying from culture to culture is certainly lower.
3rd Strong evidence: In terms of costs, the fabrication of armors with full integral padding to be worn over civilian-like cloth is more expensive than the fabrication of armors with simple lining to be worn over an inner padded garment. In most cultures these were seen more as form of high-art worn by aristocrats rather than weaponry for the average soldier.
4th Stong evidence: In terms of user experience and practicality, it is 10 times more practical to have separate armor and padding not just for costs but also for fitting purposes. A separate armor can always be fitted even if the bearer loses or gains weight and of course it can be handed to a relative and fit him too - only thing to be done is to play with the (much less expensive and easy to fabricate even by women at home) inner garment thickness. An armor with already fitted padding could be only worn by 1 bearer and he would rather not gain a lot of weight (if he lose at least he could add up some linen)
2nd Fact: In terms of performance against any type of thrusting or crushing action by close combat or long-range weaponry, if talking about same armor weight, thickness, materials it is the seperated armor-padding that wins over the integral armor-padding on all cases even in the case of "broken armor during battle" where in the first case the soldier could just take out the metallic outer armor and remain relatively protected with the inner padding while in the second case the soldier would have to just take out the whole armor, hope he would remain alive and go find it and repair it afterwards.
In reality the integral armor would be more of a fashion statement and a status symbol rather than a practical type of armor. Of course in some ancient Greek cities the soldiers were citizen-hoplites, people with some money who bought ornate high-quality armors and these were people who highly prized fashionable objects and status-symbols.
Still, these were practical people and very much knowledgeable of the basics of physics and thus I put my money on the undergarment.
Do not expect to find any padded-garments in graves of warriors as it is very possible that people would put their dead hero with the outer armor directly. The undegarment was certainly not considered with affection as the armor, while the overall fitting of armor and padding on a dead could be a hassle - burial was largely symbolic.
However I would not wait until we find the first hard-evidence to start talking on it and this is because of the abnormalities included in the elements we have at hands:
- 1. There is an overwhelming depiction of bare-feet fighters, soldiers, hoplites, cavalry etc. and a notable lack of depiction of any kind and of reference of any kind of military shoeware, until well into the hellenistic era.
- 2. There is a hyper-frequent depiction of fighters, soldiers, hoplites etc. either wearing armor or not entering the battle scene with their genitals exposed.
But:
1. Simple physics tell us that a military sandal/boot with a properly made for the task sole will offer vastly superior performance in terms of adhesion (among other). Adhesion is certainly not a headache for light weight infantry and archers in loose formation (many of whom certainly went with bare-feet) but it is for dense formation heavily armed hoplites. Why should we suppose that for 2-3 centuries they would reject such a big advantage given by a cheap (relatively to the rest of the equipment) boot?
2. Common sense (but there is physics and biology into it!) tells us that no type of fighter (let alone a hoplite) would ever enter the battle with his genitals hanging free in the air.
-----
So when artistic depiction takes so much freedom, what we are left to do is use a combination of verified facts, circumstantial evidence along with physics, biology, economics, common sense and above all, experiment. What does not work for us could not had worked for them.
1st Fact: No matter the work put on it, any metallic armor of any weight and with any type of thin lining worn over civilian-like cloth or naked skin (i.e. without padding) is not comfortable and hinders the fighter in real battle conditions. A loose fitting makes it move around all over the place, a tight fitting reduces tragically the protection offered. Period.
1st Strong evidence: Artistic depiction on vases and sculptures is not that helpful like in the case of bare-feet and free-hanging genitals. We have to start proposing the under-armour garment because of the fact above and the evidence below:
2nd Strong evidence: In all other cultures on which we have more information on their armour and garments, the metallic (and often other) armor was worn over a protective undergarment (most common type being padded leather or layers of fabric) - this being of varying thickness (from a thin one worn for comfort to the thicker ones aiming at increasing protection). The frequency of armors with integrated full-padding (apart their leather lining) while varying from culture to culture is certainly lower.
3rd Strong evidence: In terms of costs, the fabrication of armors with full integral padding to be worn over civilian-like cloth is more expensive than the fabrication of armors with simple lining to be worn over an inner padded garment. In most cultures these were seen more as form of high-art worn by aristocrats rather than weaponry for the average soldier.
4th Stong evidence: In terms of user experience and practicality, it is 10 times more practical to have separate armor and padding not just for costs but also for fitting purposes. A separate armor can always be fitted even if the bearer loses or gains weight and of course it can be handed to a relative and fit him too - only thing to be done is to play with the (much less expensive and easy to fabricate even by women at home) inner garment thickness. An armor with already fitted padding could be only worn by 1 bearer and he would rather not gain a lot of weight (if he lose at least he could add up some linen)
2nd Fact: In terms of performance against any type of thrusting or crushing action by close combat or long-range weaponry, if talking about same armor weight, thickness, materials it is the seperated armor-padding that wins over the integral armor-padding on all cases even in the case of "broken armor during battle" where in the first case the soldier could just take out the metallic outer armor and remain relatively protected with the inner padding while in the second case the soldier would have to just take out the whole armor, hope he would remain alive and go find it and repair it afterwards.
In reality the integral armor would be more of a fashion statement and a status symbol rather than a practical type of armor. Of course in some ancient Greek cities the soldiers were citizen-hoplites, people with some money who bought ornate high-quality armors and these were people who highly prized fashionable objects and status-symbols.
Still, these were practical people and very much knowledgeable of the basics of physics and thus I put my money on the undergarment.
Do not expect to find any padded-garments in graves of warriors as it is very possible that people would put their dead hero with the outer armor directly. The undegarment was certainly not considered with affection as the armor, while the overall fitting of armor and padding on a dead could be a hassle - burial was largely symbolic.
