Linothorax design/construction

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis said:-

One of Paul's arguements was that when linen,the material had always to be mentioned.

...NO! That is not what I said at all, Giannis! :roll: I have in the past made considerable allowance for the fact that English is not your native language, but you distort what I say EVERY time you post, constantly mis-quoting me. Is it any wonder others get confused between what I say and what others claim I say?
For the "N" th time, that is how Xenophon uses the word...for him, a Greek thorakes is bronze, and he uses a qualifier if he means 'body armour' made of something else, e.g. linen, thus 'thorakes lineoi', as worn by Asiatics ( and incidently, very likely quilted/padded)

But I cannot accept that every single time the word thotax is used in classical literature it refers to the bronze cuirass,whos finds in Greece are so few from the classical period.

...Here you go again! I NEVER said such a thing! :evil: :evil:
In fact, I have pointed out, as is evidenced by Xenophon collecting bronze thorakes for his cavalry unit, there were fewer than fifty present among the 'Ten Thousand', which is a good indicator of how comparatively rare it was at this time..... :wink:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul, you have said many times that when he is saying "thorakes" he means bronze ones. And that when saying spolas(only one or two times in his whole work) he means the tube and yoke thorax. And here you based the arguement that the phrase "spolades te kai thorakes" it means Bronze cuirasses and tube and yoke cuirasses. You're refering to this as if it is obvious and you say very easily that for Xenophon a thorax is bronze unless otherwise specified. Well it isn't that obvious. And if I'm misquoting you,here,the thread is open for everyone to read.
And by the way,it is strange that very often people are "misquoting" you even in threads I have not writen a word.It seems you noted that yourself.
Ok,then,from now on I'll be posting your exact words with my replies,if that makes you more comfortable.
Khaire
Giannis

[Vishtaspa]

What do the lexica say about the term thorax?

Well, lexica take this word in a very broad sense (as expected)
Hesychius:

theta 1014: Thorax: hoplon. purgos. chiton. stethos. soma. lorikion etc

"hoplon (a word with broad sense, primary "tool" and mostly in plural, "armour, harness), tower (i.e. defence) chiton, breast, body, "lorica" "

In other places, Hesychius also connects "thorax" with "chiton", vests...

It is clear the broad sense of this word both in classical greek and in late lexica, but I agree with Paul in that in Xenophon (as we can read in On horsemanship and the special use in Anabasis) it can refers to a more concrete thing, surely a kind of armour, perhaps metal one.
We must study both the overall meaning of a word in the whole writings, but after all, the specific meaning in an autor. For example, "lorica" in Caesar sometimes (I dont remember if always)means a kind of defence, a parapete.

Regards

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis wrote:-

Paul, you have said many times that when he is saying "thorakes" he means bronze ones. And that when saying spolas(only one or two times in his whole work) he means the tube and yoke thorax.

...yes I did (assuming "he" means Xenophon, and he mentions spolas more than twice)....but not...

But I cannot accept that every single time the word thotax is used in classical literature it refers to the bronze cuirass

(my emphasis). It is this sort of gross distortion that I strongly object to.... :evil: :twisted:

I am reminded of Dr Goebbels and his words to the effect that if you repeat a falsehood often enough, people will believe it's true.

Ok,then,from now on I'll be posting your exact words with my replies,if that makes you more comfortable.

....that would be nice, and would save much confusion, and I wouldn't have to waste my time correcting things I didn't write D ...and the real issues wouldn't be distracted from, not to mention reading the thread would be so much easier.......

[Paullus Scipio]

Inyigo wrote:-

In other places, Hesychius also connects "thorax" with "chiton", vests...

...and several dictionaries have" thorakes chest armour, breast plate, body armour, cuirass, often of bronze......"

Thank you for making the point that it is not just the general definitions we must look at, but each particular author's use of words, a point I have made many times. It is interesting that Xenophon is excluded from some lexica on the grounds that his 'Attic' isn't pure enough, being contaminated by Lacedaemonian etc and through use of technical terms....

[PMBardunias]

"spolia", coming from a root that means "to pull out, to skin"

Well, now you have brought me back to that point I just gave up on. This term could imply the action of putting on and more specifically peeling off an armor that goes on over the head and hangs from the shoulders rather than what it is made of. This would be an informative way to differentiate such from the tube and yoke that is bound around the body.

Though not leather, I once put on a somewhat undersized mail shirt and "skinning" would be a fair description of the process of taking it off.

[Sean Manning]

Sean wrote:-

All in all, I think a Greek could have called one of these armours either a thorax or a spolas and have been perfectly correct.

...maybe so, Sean, and even modern words can sometimes have a 'fuzzy' meaning, which can only be discerned from context....take 'tank' for instance, as in 'water tank' or 'well armoured tank'.

However, we are not concerned here with how a greek might have used 'thorakes', but how Xenophon used it, and distinguished it from 'spolades'. He is consistent in all his writings - 'thorakes' for him is clearly the bronze cuirass, and 'spolades' is the only other term he uses for hoplite body armour ergo....... D wink:

I'd have to see an analysis of every use of both words in Xenophon to be convinced that he always uses them in the precise technical sense you suggest. And I'm not sure if even that could prove it.

We seem to be agreed that either term could be correct for "tube-and-yoke cuirass" whatever Xenophon's personal usage was, and that spolas literally means "leather garment" but could more specifically mean "leather armour, very possibly with this cut".

Re: the apparent shortage of cuirrasses in the Ten Thousand, remember that many of them were from the poorest parts of Greece and that not all with a bronze cuirrass may have donated theirs.

[Paullus Scipio]

Sean wrote:-

I'd have to see an analysis of every use of both words in Xenophon to be convinced that he always uses them in the precise technical sense you suggest

....that's a big ask ! hock: I have done that analysis, and I am very confident(in the scientific sense) of the results...Xenophon's use of the words is clear and consistent, but to post such an analysis here......!!

And I'm not sure if even that could prove it.

.....phew! - I needn't bother then!

Re: the apparent shortage of cuirrasses in the Ten Thousand, remember that many of them were from the poorest parts of Greece and that not all with a bronze cuirrass may have donated theirs.

True, Sean.Which is why I used the word"indicator". Nevertheless,it does suggest that bronze curasses were pretty scarce, even if you multiply by factor ten , wouldn't you agree? :wink:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

We seem to be agreed that either term could be correct for "tube-and-yoke cuirass" whatever Xenophon's personal usage was, and that spolas literally means "leather garment" but could more specifically mean "leather armour, very possibly with this cut".

Yes,but if we can identify another garment/form of protection that would be leather, then the term "spolas" in Xenophon would not mean tube and yoke cuirass,or the possibility for it would be low. What i'm trying to do is find hoplite equipment in every form of art that appears frequently enough to be called "thorax" in a dictionary and that could be leather but not tube and yoke.
My problem is that I believe linen was used by the Greeks to make armour. Obviously leather was used,too,but it doesn't seem likely to me that leather and linen cuirasses would be identical. So I link more easilly the linen with the tube and yoke and my reasoning has to find another kind of leather protection that hoplites used.
Why do I prefer to link linen with the tube and yoke and spolas(leather) to something else?
+1) spolas is a leather garment
+2) spolas hungs/touches(ephaptetai) to the shoulders which may link it to the tube and yoke
+3) Xenophon puts some of his soldiers wearing spolades(mentions the word only two times ever)

-1) Spolas when mentioned in a text from the period it was used,and the tube and yoke was popular (Aristophanes) has a different meaning and nothing to do with war
-2) the properties of the tube and yoke as apear in art cannot be easilly explained by leather that makes good armour(this is not objective)
-3) Xenophon has a relatively big work and he choses to use this word only twice and in the most "exotic" of his works,when the soldiers some times had to invent or adopt things they would normally not wear(for example the shoes they made when their sandals were destroyed)

Linen...Paul M has achieved to prove that there is no streight evidence for the link between linen and the tube and yoke.
-1) When mentioned, linen cuirasses could be refering either in Greek or foreign armour.
-2) The dates we are sure linen was used were before the time of the tube and yoke(or at least from the time it became popular)
-3) The plain surface of the linothorax is not explained if the tube and yoke was quilted(unless you add an outer not stitched surface)
-4) The leatherophiles may add some of the other major points against linen that i cannot remember (I hope they'll add only the major ones, as I did with leather,otherwise the debate will start again hock: )

+1) The Greeks used linen cuirasses from very early, proven by text and actual finds. They knew linen armour till at least 7th-6th century bc. I don't think they abandoned it for leather just like that in the 6th century!
+2) Those cases who are interpreted as refering to Asian armour by the leatherophiles could well be refering to Greek armor,too. The fact that they are rejected is because this makes the other theory easier(this is my personal view)
+3) Alkaios is also rejected for a variety of reasons that cannot be proven and I could use him as "evidence" as easilly the others are rejecting him. It is almost certain he is talking about Greek armor and he wrote in a time that even Heroic poets used mostly modern terms and equipment(remember that vases and sculpture never use bronze age or older equipment in their heroes).And finally,we don't even know the poetry was "Homeric".Someone stated he might be describing dedications to a temple of Ares? (more on this please?)
+4) Properties of the linothorax are easilly explained by linen(glued or stitched)
+5) In many cases the Asiatic armour is identical to the Greek tube and yoke. So even if some of the mentions of linen thorakes are refering to Asiatic armour,this could be very similar to the Greek armour.
+6) In hunting scenes many times the men are depicted armed like in battle(in some archaic pottery they even wear bell cuirasses). I don't remember if I've seen tube and yoke in hunting,but it's probable. Linen cuirass is stated was appropriate for hunting...(the point against this would be that again it is not clear if the armour is greek or asiatic).

There are other prons and cons in either theory,and this is no way an exhaustive list of the points I can make,just from the top of my head.
All in all,unfortunately there is no purely objective opinion yet.
Khairete
Giannis

[geala]

@ Paullus Scipio

Hello Paul,

a different opinion about the dating would be Eero Jarva, Archaiologia, On Archaic Greek Body Armour, Rovaniemi 1995, p. 33-46 and 560. He does not agree with the estimation which John Boardman gave in (I think, but I'm not sure) Attic Black Vases, 1974.

Paul, I'm so free to say that you discuss as usually, perhaps a bit harsh but in an excellent and convincing way. But I'm not very happy with the ease with which you get rid of the poor Alkaios as a relevant source. That he wrote about anachronistic weapons is possible but for me it is more probable that he dealt with modern weaponry. Why should he spoke about cuirasses of new linen in the case he talked about old Homeric armour? Did he know and wanted to imply that linen armour was new in the 8th c. or in the 13th. BC? Hard to believe for me. His time, at the beginning of the 6th c., the mentioning of linen as a material for armour and the addition of the composite armour to the vase paintings shortly afterwards, make a good composition in my opinion.

You may not be convinced and this is absolutely ok, but you cannot wipe the source away and claim that no source for linen armour is given.

Critique about the sources is always possible, I could do the same for the two about hide/leather, being very late lexica, which tell us nothing about what kind of hide armour is meant, one refering partly wrong to Xenophon.

To Xenophons cavalry armour: why are you so sure that it was bronze? There were a lot of composite cuirasses depicted with cavalrymen. If these cuirasses were made of linen or leather or both and perhaps had metall scales attached they would have been quite heavy. And bronze armour must not have been heavier. A measurement of the weights of bronze muscle cuirasses in the Axel Guttmann collection came to the result of an estimated weight for the original pieces of 3,5 to 5,5 kg. This is not very heavy, isn't it. Perhaps Xenophon's armour was a very thick piece, giving us no hint to the actual material.

But perhaps the discussion is partly a misunderstanding. If you didn't imply that the tube-and-yoke armour was only made from hide/leather and named spolas, I was wrong. I thought so. Then perhaps there is even no difference between our positions. It is clear that leather as a material for Greek armour is substituted by the sources. I agree that leather is better based on facts than linen at the moment. It may be probable that spolas was leather tube-and-yoke armour. Perhaps it was a chiton-like leather jerkin instead. This discussion is fruitless. As a result, I would at the moment make my replica cuirass from leather (but I don't have to make one and so it doesn't make any difference for me wether it was made from leather or linen, I don't feel biased :wink: ), but I wouldn't blame anybody if he chooses linen as a material.

[Paullus Scipio]

Hi Wolfgang!
Hello Paul,

a different opinion about the dating would be Eero Jarva, Archaiologia, On Archaic Greek Body Armour, Rovaniemi 1995, p. 33-46 and 560. He does not agree with the estimation which John Boardman gave in (I think, but I'm not sure) Attic Black Vases, 1974. Correct regarding Boardman! ... I haven't read Jarva, but isn't he doing the same thing? He wants to support his case/hypothesis re:armour, and so he tries to 'adjust' the evidence/pottery dates to fit. I would sooner trust Boardman's dating because he is the foremost expert on 'pots', and because he has no subjective interest in armour and is therefore neutral.
Paul, I'm so free to say that you discuss as usually, perhaps a bit harsh ...my apologies if I appear that way, it comes from having to defend my views, one against many, and it is very fustrating when people don't take the time to read what I actually post, or else deliberately distort it. I shall try to sound less'harsh' in future but in an excellent and convincing way. ..Thank you!.. But I'm not very happy with the ease with which you get rid of the poor Alkaios as a relevant source ... Yes, I could see that...and it is probably one of the few areas where our views differ. It was for that reason that I said....'even if we accept Alceaus as contemporary'....(in order to avoid differing over this) That he wrote about anachronistic weapons is possible but for me it is more probable that he dealt with modern weaponry. Why should he spoke about cuirasses of new linen in the case he talked about old Homeric armour?
I think you misunderstand here; as I have said before, the linen is 'new', just as plumes 'toss', helmets are 'shiny', bronze armour 'gleams', heroes are 'great-hearted'...this is the epic poetry style. Did he know and wanted to imply that linen armour was new in the 8th c. or in the 13th. BC? I think neither, just that in his narrative, 'new' linen was used( he would hardly have said 'old'!). He might as easily have said 'tight-woven' linen, or some similar epithet.
Hard to believe for me. His time, at the beginning of the 6th c., the mentioning of linen as a material for armour and the addition of the composite armour to the vase paintings shortly afterwards, make a good composition in my opinion.
"shortly afterward".....and there's the problem.Ten years, or a hundred years, contemporary, or epic, he can hardly be talking about something that doesn't exist yet ( the composite tube-and-yoke corselet.) If his reference had been, say, 20 years after the first appearance of the Tube-and-Yoke, then, assuming we accept it as contemporary and not epic, you have a solid piece of evidence......but it isn't ! Of course, that may change if a piece of pottery appears, positively identified to say, 650-620 B.C with a clearly depicted Tube-and-Yoke on it.......and if more fragments of Alcaeus appear, making it clearly a contemporary description, not epic,...but at present? Logically,it must be rejected as evidence, for the time being.
You may not be convinced and this is absolutely ok, but you cannot wipe the source away and claim that no source for linen armour is given.
....Oops, I think I just did in that last bit! :wink: Sorry! )

Critique about the sources is always possible, I could do the same for the two about hide/leather, being very late lexica, which tell us nothing about what kind of hide armour is meant, one refering partly wrong to Xenophon.
[color=blue][i]I'm not sure what you mean here...Onomasticon clearly tells us that when Xenophon says'spolas' it means 'leather/hide armour which hangs from the shoulder'. What could be clearer than that? ...And obviously he has had access to sources we don't have, to make such a statement.

To Xenophons cavalry armour: why are you so sure that it was bronze?
...Because Xenophon uses the word 'thorakes', which means 'body armour' and earlier, before the Tube-and-Yoke, there was only one type of 'body armour' for Hoplites - the bronze 'Bell' cuirass, so 'body armour' and 'bronze cuirass' were the same thing..synonymous.'Thorakes' is the original Hoplite's bronze armour, but a new word is needed for the new Composite Tube-and-Yoke when it appeared - hence 'spolas'.....
There were a lot of composite cuirasses depicted with cavalrymen. Agreed, don't get me wrong here, but Xenophon recommends 'well-fitting thorakes', (which isn't to say that all cavalry could afford, or even prefer bronze) and his use throughout all his works is consistent with the fact that when he says 'thorakes', he means 'bronze body armour'. Don't forget that fewer than fifty 'thorakes' were donated when the cavalry were raised, so it was a fairly rare item among the ten thousand - which would be entirely consistent with the bronze 'muscled cuirass'...and the shieldless cavalry need the best/most protective, cuirass available ( for which there is no substitute for metal).
If these cuirasses were made of linen or leather or both and perhaps had metall scales attached they would have been quite heavy. And bronze armour must not have been heavier. A measurement of the weights of bronze muscle cuirasses in the Axel Guttmann collection came to the result of an estimated weight for the original pieces of 3,5 to 5,5 kg. This is not very heavy, isn't it.
...True, and I would agree with you... Perhaps Xenophon's armour was a very thick piece, giving us no hint to the actual material. ...except that he says that it is a 'thorakes', not a 'spolas'...consistency again. Naturally, I can't "prove" that Xenophon always means bronze, but his use of the word is 100% consistent with him meaning bronze, so, on balance of probability....
But perhaps the discussion is partly a misunderstanding. If you didn't imply that the tube-and-yoke armour was only made from hide/leather and named spolas, I was wrong.
...I have said many times that I don't rule out other materials, and not just on this thread - see my earlier posts. We don't (at present) have enough evidence to know....but at present there is more evidence for leather/Hide being the base material for the Tube-and-Yoke than any other material...though again that may change in the future. But the three new things that have come to light in this thread...Alum tawed Hide as a material, a second independent lexica reference to 'spolas' being leather/hide, and the Macedonian grave finds ( apparently...I hope Ioannis can get hold of the papers) all add to the jigsaw of pieces, and all point away from linen and toward leather/hide.
I thought so. Then perhaps there is even no difference between our positions.
...Other than perhaps the significance of Alcaeus... :wink: :wink: It is clear that leather as a material for Greek armour is substituted by the sources. I agree that leather is better based on facts than linen at the moment. It may be probable that spolas was leather tube-and-yoke armour.
...we are indeed agreed! D
Perhaps it was a chiton-like leather jerkin instead. ...except that there is no depiction or description of such a thing....
This discussion is fruitless.
Oh, I couldn't agree to that! This thread has turned up, as I say, three more pieces for the jigsaw...that wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been thinking about/discussing the subject. So certainly not fruitless, (except in the sense that we can't arrive at any definite conclusions, yet)....but the more it is discussed, the more new pieces will emerge...so definitely not fruitless! D lol:

[geala]

Just a few not so important remarks:

1. What I mean about the lexicas: both talk about leather thorakes, not diverting spolas and thorax. Pollux added that Xenophon could say spolas instead of thorax, what Xenophon did not do, at least in the scene with the slingers and the riders. Is Pollux wrong or is Xenophon inconsistent or both?

2. With the fruitless discussion I meant not this thread but the question wether spolas is the tube-and-yoke or a jerkin like leather armour or could be used for both. Jerkin like pieces appear some times in art, not so often however (just my feeling, not objective). I saw some examples on vases in exhibitions in Agrigent and Syracuse recently, some possible examples are shown in the leather cuirass thread (or may just be the chiton, see there). My problem is mostly the fact that I cannot bring together the tube-and-yoke and the mention that the spolas "hangs from the shoulder". It would be easier if it could be translated like "was affixed/closed at the shoulder".

[Vishtaspa]

I think Xenophon was not inconsistent. But in antiquity itself, sometimes the texts were misunderstood or corrupted. I must check the appataratus criticus of the Anabasis, but the correct reading of the passage is "kai spolades kai thorakes", nevertheless, it is posible that Pollux read a manuscript in wich was the lecture "kai spolas anti thorakos". Such text corruptions ocur several times in manuscript transmision. (and exist the possibility that in fact Xenophon wrote in that way, and Pollux had a good source). Of course, Pollux also could quote a Xenophon's lost work.
But what I mean is that several times inconsistences come from textual transmision and copists, not from the autor, who knows what is writing.

Regards

[PMBardunias]

Perhaps it was a chiton-like leather jerkin instead. ...except that there is no depiction or description of such a thing....

Perhaps there is and we simply fail to recognize it as such. One feature of the early Tube and yoke (T-Y) that seems fairly consistant is that the shoulder pieces attach to the breast via a thong on the tapering inner edge of the shoulder piece. The point of attachment is usually the center or at least towards the center of the tube and often quite low- sometimes on the belly. I have been pondering this somewhat odd system and why it should be so.

It is possible that the placement of the thong on the inner edge of the flap and a central attachment place the load bearing on the inside of the flap such that when the arm is raised the whole stiff shoulder-flap hinges on its inside edge, taking pressure off the part of the shoulder that goes up when you raise your arm.

If true, of itself this is an interesting design feature for a man who fights with an upraised arm, but there may be more to it. If we look at some later T-Y examples, often the attachment is higher and more lateral, with smaller shoulder pieces.

Sheer speculation, and it would require a systematic examination of images to be sure, but I put forth the thought that not all T-Y corselets are created equal. Perhaps the latter did slip over the head, the shoulder pieces being fixed or a decorative holdover- like the roman mail reinforcements I mentioned earlier. In these examples the shoulder pieces are added over a vest -like mail and there is no reason that they had to look like greek shoulder pieces- the Gallic cape-style would have worked just as well.

[PMBardunias]

This is an interesting image from a Corinthian vase. Looks like quilted armor, but could be just a pattern since the other hoplites on the vase seem to be in simple chitons.