Leather Cuirass

[Magnus]

That would require a LOT of hides though...not to mention the processing of those hides to make them into armour. Not very feasible when compared to linen.

Sounds to me like the "leather" was part of a subarmalis, though not comprising the entire garment.

[Paullus Scipio]

The reference to Xenophon might be to a 'missing' bit, but I think it refers to the passage where Xenophon talks about raising the cavalry unit, and equipping them with armour - spolades and thorakes. Since Xenophon was an experienced military man, I think he knew what he was talking about and that the best interpretation is that 'spolas' meant tube-and yoke corselet and 'thorakes' a metal cuirass, as I said earlier.

[hoplite14gr]

Though I agree with you Matt that linen was more common than animal material and more cheap I refer you again to page one of the "armor penetration" thread, to the link that shows a very resilient leather masculata.

Spolas was probably re-enforced on the vital parts or the most likely to be exposed/hit parts and I still belive it was more probably a subarmalis.

Kind regards

[Paullus Scipio]

If the experience of modern re-enactors is anything to go by, it is a lot easier to make a tube-and-yoke corselet from leather than linen.

I believe talk of a 'sub-armalis' is a "red herring". AFIK no such thing existed at this time in the greek world.

As I indicated earlier, sub-armalis type garments only became necessary with the introduction of "mail" and spread to other types of armour ( possibly including muscled cuirasses) from there........unless of course someone has some evidence for padding under greek armour......?

[MeinPanzer]

Right,Xenophon only said "spolades instead of thorkes"But the fact that the spolas is supposed to be "in contact" or "to touch" or to "be attached" to the shoulders,is a point for the shoulder flaps...He sais that it's a leather thorax,"thorax ek dermatos" but next he sais that Xenophon uses the word as alternative to thorax.A bit confusing...Probably because he did not know what he was describing and was based mostly in others' descriptions and mentions.In other words,he did the same as we're doing today,only he probably had more references,being closer to the classical times.
Khairete
Giannis

I agree that the specific mention of the shoulders suggests the shoulder yokes of the tube-and-yoke cuirass. The yokes are, of course, the most prominent part of such a cuirass.

I think with his usage of thorax he simply means thorax in the sense of a body armour; keep in mind that the second time thorax is used in that passage, he quotes Xenophon, so he is not really contradicting himself. By his day, "thorax" probably had just a general meaning.

That would require a LOT of hides though...not to mention the processing of those hides to make them into armour. Not very feasible when compared to linen.

Sounds to me like the "leather" was part of a subarmalis, though not comprising the entire garment.

Greece was a pastoralist society and, as has been stated before, it would be equally, if not more, difficult to get a hold of large quantities of linen in Greece. Rawhide could be used for armour, requiring little to no preparation, and even treated leather probably required a similar amount of work to construct a cuirass as making several layers of linen.

Pollux definitely indicates that some sort of leather armour was worn in the Classical period.

[Magnus]

Though I agree with you Matt that linen was more common than animal material and more cheap I refer you again to page one of the "armor penetration" thread, to the link that shows a very resilient leather masculata.

Spolas was probably re-enforced on the vital parts or the most likely to be exposed/hit parts and I still belive it was more probably a subarmalis.

Kind regards

You're putting a LOT of faith in a test that had no scientific parameters to it. That test has no validity that I can see from surface scrutiny for 2 major reasons:

1. The type of leather and how it was processed and hardened was by no way a copy of how it was done 3000 years ago. Thus, it is factually impossible to tell if the leather that was tested in the recent thread was even remotely close to resembling one theoretically used by the greeks. Thus, the test is completely irrelevant.

2. The weapon used...a modern steel, modern heat treated knife. If you can show me that the greeks were using Ka-Bars or M-9 bayonets, I'll bow down to that test. :lol: The test would also be more accurate if it was proven against spear tips, or arrow heads.

In order to test something and have any truth to it, you absolutely have to maintain the validity and accuracy of it. Otherwise any results are totally meaningless.

[Magnus]

If the experience of modern re-enactors is anything to go by, it is a lot easier to make a tube-and-yoke corselet from leather than linen.

Well, no, it isn't anything to go by. Do these reenactors kill the cow/goat, tan the hides themselves as well as constructing the armour? Or are they just buying the leather and making it from there? Thus which is easier from a modern stand point is rather irrelevant and out of context.

I believe talk of a 'sub-armalis' is a "red herring". AFIK no such thing existed at this time in the greek world.

Entirely possible. Though if you've ever tried on a segmentata, or even a metal muscled cuirass, you're going to need something under it to prevent chaffing and bruising. Armour is only as good as it's 1) ability to defeat penetration and, 2) ability to defeat blunt force trauma.

Without any padding underneath, any kinetic energy from a weapon blow is going to be transmitted right through to your organs, muscle and bone. That in itself will mean serious injury, taking you out of action. Thus even textile or leather armours are going to need some kind of padding to back it up.

As I indicated earlier, sub-armalis type garments only became necessary with the introduction of "mail" and spread to other types of armour ( possibly including muscled cuirasses) from there........unless of course someone has some evidence for padding under greek armour......?

Yeah, I could maybe see that...but anything that is stiff in any way shape or form, including linen or hardened leather is going to chaffe you. You're going to need something under it to prevent that. Not to mention my above points, which are somewhat life and death circumstances.

[Magnus]

Greece was a pastoralist society and, as has been stated before, it would be equally, if not more, difficult to get a hold of large quantities of linen in Greece. Rawhide could be used for armour, requiring little to no preparation, and even treated leather probably required a similar amount of work to construct a cuirass as making several layers of linen.

Pollux definitely indicates that some sort of leather armour was worn in the Classical period.

Really? I thought earlier in this thread (if I'm not mistaken), that there was extant evidence for linen's easier availability for the use of armour.

[MeinPanzer]

Yeah, I could maybe see that...but anything that is stiff in any way shape or form, including linen or hardened leather is going to chaffe you. You're going to need something under it to prevent that. Not to mention my above points, which are somewhat life and death circumstances.

The tunic worn underneath would prevent chafing. There's no reason to think that they found it necessary to wear extra padding underneath because reenactors feel the need to do so today.

Really? I thought earlier in this thread (if I'm not mistaken), that there was extant evidence for linen's easier availability for the use of armour.

Earlier in the thread it was established that in some areas of western Greece, linen was grown in some quantity in the Mycenaean period. However, the area suitable for growing linen in Greece was quite limited and we don't know how much/where it was grown in the Classical period. Wealthy poleis like Athens no doubt traded for it from Egypt, but that would mean that it probably wasn't all that cheap or plentiful.

[Paullus Scipio]

I have both a segmentata, and mail. I fight in mail, suitably padded, but not the segmentata.Under the segmentata, I wear a sheepskin shoulder yoke, which adds to comfort, and also keeps the shoulder section straight and at the correct angle.
I have often worn both all day, sometimes in very hot weather, and sweated a lot (!) but have never had chafing problems.

The point about leather/linen availability in Classical Greece has already been addressed. Given the existence of commerce and trade, we really cannot say which was "cheaper", but the point is probably not that relevant, since Hoplites by definition were the richer classes, and every other piece of Hopla was hardly "cheap".

I'm not sure your point about tests is entirely valid -even where the ancient material cannot be exactly duplicated, an approximation that is tested can tell us much, and is never completely wasted.

Apart from which, don't you think Pollux' "dictionary definition" is about as conclusive as one can ever hope for ?

[Dan Howard]

Any test that tries to claim that leather provides better protection than an equivalent item made of metal contradicts nearly 4000 years of military tradition. The entire point of using metal in the first place is because there isn't a low-tech material on this planet that provides the same level of protection without weighing considerably more. I ask again, what was the metalurgical composition of the bronze used in this test? What was its hardness? Until someone can provide details of the targets used by Blythe then this is the biggest red herring here.

Red Herring #2: that the Greeks did not produce enough flax to meet local demand. As Paul said, there is no way that anyone can demonstrate the relative costs of leather and linen during the time periods in question so it is a waste of time trying to introduce "cost" into the debate.

[Paullus Scipio]

Apologies, Dan - when I said earlier that leather or linen can provide "better" protection, I should have elaborated, by saying " under some circumstances, and against certain types of weapon".
I agree with you that metal offers the best protection against perforation/ penetration ( with certain exceptions ).But perforation isn't the only type of attack that armour must protect against. In addition, under some circumstances, when considering relatively low density materials ( compared to metal), penetration is proportional to momentum rather than kinetic energy.
I also wasn't referring to Blyth in this instance - he doesn't test linen at all, and his references to leather, and leather covered by scale, are brief.


I mean to explore all this further on Gianni's armour thread, and am in the process of preparing a lengthy "background" piece ( as and when time permits).

[geala]

That is a bit strange as the book I'm reading cites Blyth "Effectiveness..." S. 97, schedules 4.2, 4.3, 4.8 and 4.9 for tests with linen, leather and bronze. Blyth shall also have examined a probe of layered linen composed of app. 10 sheets. It shall have sligthly worse performance than 5 mm leather and 0,62 mm bronze and clearly worse than 1mm bronze. For me that sounds like that 5 mm hardened leather was similar to 0,62 mm bronze and 1 mm bronze was far better than 5 mm leather.
Is this wrong? Then I will inform the committee which had to judge about the thesis. :lol:

[Paullus Scipio]

My copy (acquired from the author in 1980 ) contains the following:

Table 4.2 -Dynamic perforation tests in flat plates of annealed bronze, 1mm
Table 4.3 - as above---------------------------------------------, 0.62mm

Table 4.8 - Dynamic perforation tests on leather 5mm; and annealed bronze, 0.5mm, on leather
Table 4.9 - Dynamic perforation tests on 9mm Gaboon plywood, and a canvas military webbing belt.

Blyth never carries out any tests against linen of any sort.

Tables 4.5 and 4.6 are tests against cold-rolled bronze, 1mm and 0.62mm
The gaboon ply is intended to give some idea of shield resistance (the later aspis appears to be a type of ply ) and the canvas web belt is intended to give an idea of textile resistance. The latter was largely a failure, and Blyth comments that " the difficulites....restrict interpretation."

In his conclusions, Blyth says "With regard to the corselet, information is insufficient to say much.We cannot be certain that corselets were spearproof, and they may have been designed primarily to resist a slashing blow, or as a second line of defence. No work was done on slashing."

[caiusbeerquitius]

thorax ek dermatos

Doesn´t it say "thorax made of skin/hide"? Where comes "leather" in here? Going for "skin/hide" would, then again, explain the "standing" shoulder flaps on the vase paintings, btw.

And ask yourselves: what would you rather wear: Armour made from leather or from hide?.
I´d wear hide.