Linothorax and Hoplons.

Ok so I'm almost done with my set of chainmail and ive decided to take up another project to keep me busy and learning.

Ive recently taken an interest in Linothorax and began doing research on its construction techniques. Seeing as Linothorax is made of many layers of linen i began to wonder if I would need to quilt it together or glue it, or both. From the sites that ive looked at, ive given different advice.

Also, Having taken a look at the Linothorax recreations Ive notice that the reenactors have much larger Hoplons than the ones in EB. Their Hoplons are from the Knee to the chin. In EB, they are about from the Hip to the chin. Realizing that EB strives for Historical accuracy, I was skeptical about the photos that I saw, but I decided to ask the EB team why their Hoplites have smaller Hoplons.

At first I thought it was because it was as big as the engine would let you, but then I realized that the Roman scutum is bigger so that was out of the question. Anyways, Im in no way saying that what EB has is wrong, just wondering about it.

While I cannot confirm this it may be related to model clipping issues, at least that was the problem we faced in XGM when wanting to represent aspis.

I would assume the aspis was made in varying sizes according to different purposes and individual preferences ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vasiliyi

Ok so I'm almost done with my set of chainmail and ive decided to take up another project to keep me busy and learning.

Ive recently taken an interest in Linothorax and began doing research on its construction techniques. Seeing as Linothorax is made of many layers of linen i began to wonder if I would need to quilt it together or glue it, or both. From the sites that ive looked at, ive given different advice.

---

If it's historical accuracy you're striving for with this reconstruction, be prepared to wade through a huge amount of discussion and not find a satisfying conclusion. There is no real answer to your questions, unfortunately. The best you can do is examine the evidence and take a best guess.

For some of this discussion, consult any of these many threads over at the Roman Army Talk forums on reconstructing and debating the linothorax:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax

Quote:

---

Also, Having taken a look at the Linothorax recreations Ive notice that the reenactors have much larger Hoplons than the ones in EB. Their Hoplons are from the Knee to the chin. In EB, they are about from the Hip to the chin. Realizing that EB strives for Historical accuracy, I was skeptical about the photos that I saw, but I decided to ask the EB team why their Hoplites have smaller Hoplons.

At first I thought it was because it was as big as the engine would let you, but then I realized that the Roman scutum is bigger so that was out of the question. Anyways, Im in no way saying that what EB has is wrong, just wondering about it.

---

As has been stated, it's probably a model issue. We know from excavated examples from Olympia and elsewhere that hoplite shields ranged from 80 cm to 1 m in diameter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

As has been stated, it's probably a model issue. We know from excavated examples from Olympia and elsewhere that hoplite shields ranged from 80 cm to 1 m in diameter.

---

yeah, the models represent people (proportionally speaking) in and around 6ft or more.

weren't people back then...considerably shorter? we're surprisingly well fed compared to the people then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

weren't people back then...considerably shorter? we're surprisingly well fed compared to the people then...

---

The average height for a Graeco-Roman male of the Hellenistic period was 1.72 m, a height which was not surpassed in many European countries until the late 19th century.

Italians and Greeks were not particulairly known for their height in the first place. Where in the world did you get that figure from?

Geoffrey Kron, "Anthropometry, Physical Anthropology, and the Reconstruction of Ancient Health, Nutrition, and Living Standards," Historia 54, 1 (2005). He bases his carefully-utilized figures on data obtained from hundreds of skeletons from various Greek and Roman cemeteries, looking at differences between, for instance, the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods. To quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kron, 72

Lawrence Angel's anthropological studies of Greek skeletal remains give mean heights for Classical Greek males of 170.5 cm or 7'7.1 and for Hellenistic Greek males of 171.9cm or 5'7.7, and his figures have been corroborated by further studies of material from Corinth and the Athenian Kerameikos.

---

By contrast...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kron, 75

Anthropometric studies of Greek military conscripts 20 years of age born between 1927 and 1945 show that the height of the average modern Greek conscript rose from 166.67 cm for those born in 1927 to 167.52cm for those born in 1935.

---

In other words, Hellenistic Greek males appear to have been on average taller than the grandfathers of many Greeks alive today.

what caused the fall? Hunnic invasion of the later ages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

what caused the fall? Hunnic invasion of the later ages?

---

Maybe, although I think the Turkish Invasion /heavy taxation could have had some influence aswell.

We should however also consider that were talking about avarage numbers, so a few more taler or less tall people could have made a rather significant difference pluss the numbers and dates of modern day greeks cover a period from 1927 to 1945 and show an increase in avarage height. (thoose were not exactly "quiet" years of History if we think of it).

I wonder however what the average height of modern day greeks might be?

Anyway size doesn't always matter: the story of Botond and the gates of Byzantium shows it well:beam:

Back to topic: I have no accurate knowledge of Hellenic armor or its parameters:sweatdrop: but Iwish you good luck with your project Vasiliyi:2thumbsup: (by the way: could we see some pics of that chainmail when you have finished it?:idea2:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The average height for a Graeco-Roman male of the Hellenistic period was 1.72 m, a height which was not surpassed in many European countries until the late 19th century.

---

hmmm so they were not shorter than the celts at all? :inquisitive:

...or the Celtic warrior class, who likely ate rather more in the way of animal protein (which is by and large the main thing in height developement), were on the average slightly taller still.

Average height is pretty directly a factor of nutrition, and as such not a half bad indicator of the average quality of living. I can well believe the numbers MP throws for Greeks in the early 1900s; AFAIK the numbers were something similar up here too those days, and average height has positively soared after WW2 thanks to increasing affluence and rising standards of living.

You can also attribute increased consumption of meat to beginning of the industrial era. Before then, people mainly lived on carbohydrates. In EB's era, people lived mostly off barley or wheat bread. In fact, it seems we can thank the Parthians for introducing rising bread as before that it was incredibly heavy and dense.

the general consensus on the apsis is that it was about 1m in diameter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantu

the general consensus on the "ASPIS" is that it was about 1m in diameter

---

You mean Hoplon, right?

The hoplon was of course much bigger than in EB.
Think about their way of fighting and how dead a hoplite with a small hoplon would have been.:juggle2:

The average size of people...
Well first of all people get much older today, than in the roman days so the average is influenced by a lot of old people. But still... most of the modern countrys have an average between 170 and 178. That is why the study qouted earlier in this thread had such an impact, when it came out. Personally I think it is as BS as the modern Macedocodian(the country of Makedonja) studies trying to proof, that the ancient macedonian culture had their roots in their country and not in greece. The scientist just wanted to be famous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

what caused the fall? Hunnic invasion of the later ages?

---

There was probably a decline from the beginning of the Roman empire onwards, with major falls in the Byzantine period. As Watchman notes, height is a good indicator of nutrition, and as such is also one of the best empirical indicators of standard of living. Greeks in the Classical and Hellenistic period enjoyed a very high average standard of living - one other indicator that we have is house sizes, and the discrepancy between house sizes in Classical Greece is tiny compared to just about every other western society which has come since. Evidence suggests that both Greece in the Classical period and Italy under Augustus and the empire were more densely populated than Greece and Italy up until the 19th century, owing to a large number of sizable urban centres. Furthermore, practices like frequent public sacrifices ensured that even poorer individuals could have a decent amount of protein in their diet.

For the Romans the numbers are slightly different, but not drastically so:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kron, 72

I have been able to estimate the (weighted) mean height of (deceased) Italian adult males at 168.3 cm (5' 6.4"), by synthesizing the results of 49 separate studies, based upon the measurements of long bones from 927 adult male skeletons form Italy dated between 500 BC and 500 AD.

---

Just for comparison's sake, military conscripts from Holland, now the tallest country on earth, did not reach a comparable average height until 1921! Another remarkable fact to note is that the average height in Wales in the 1980s was exactly that of the Hellenistic Greek male skeletons measured - 171.9 cm.

Here are some statistics from cemeteries roughly contemporary with the EB timeframe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kron, 73

Pontecagnano 4th - 3rd c. BC - 146 individuals - mean height of 169.1 cm
Pontecagnano (further excavations) 4th - 3rd c. BC - 38 individuals - mean height 168.6 cm
Camerano 4th - 3rd c. BC - 23 individuals - mean height 170.1 cm

---

From other cemeteries including burials from a wider timespan the burials have been measured on an individual basis.

Compare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kron, 74

The average height of Italian conscripts born in 1854 was a mere 162.64 cm, over 5 cm or 2 inches shorter than deceased Romans. Not until 1956, when the age cohort born in 1936 reached military age, would a segment of the modern Italian population match the Romans in height and therefore nutrition.

---

Quote:

---

hmmm so they were not shorter than the celts at all?

---

Though I've not seen comparable anthropometric studies of Celtic or Germanic burials, I suspect not. As Watchman has stated, if anything, it was only a small number of noble Celts or their retainers who would likely have been taller.

Quote:

---

You can also attribute increased consumption of meat to beginning of the industrial era. Before then, people mainly lived on carbohydrates.

---

Actually, this is largely a myth as well. In, for instance, Victorian England, the consumption of meat among the poor seems to have been much lower than among Graeco-Roman individuals. The industrial era brought wealth, but it also brought great inequality.

Quote:

---

We should however also consider that were talking about average numbers, so a few more taler or less tall people could have made a rather significant difference pluss the numbers and dates of modern day greeks cover a period from 1927 to 1945 and show an increase in avarage height. (thoose were not exactly "quiet" years of History if we think of it).

---

As Kron notes, if anything our numbers probably underestimate the average height of military age males:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kron, 72

We should emphasize from the outset that height figures derived from ancient cemeteries are likely to underestimate the actual final height of the Greek or Roman populations, since we are dealing with adult males of all ages, not, as in conscription statistics, with young men. It is very well documented that males tend to reach their final height between 18 and their early twenties depending upon their level of nutrition, and that their height gradually declines thereafter, particularly in middle and old age, by a good 3 cm or more according to some estimates.

---

Quote:

---

the general consensus on the apsis is that it was about 1m in diameter

---

As I stated before, the actual examples of hoplite shields vary between 80 cm and 1 m in diameter, with 1 m being the uppermost end of that range. The average was 90 cm.

Quote:

---

You mean Hoplon, right?

---

Hoplon was actually not the term usually used to refer to the hoplite's shield: see J. F. Lazenby and David Whitehead, "The Myth of the Hoplite's Hoplon," in The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 46, No. 1 (1996). The only really distinctive term we have from the primary sources for the hoplite's shield is the term "Argive shield," which isn't actually used all that often anyways.

Aspis is the name of the shield; IIRC hoplo* is a generic term for "arms" (as in "weapons"), as in hoplology (the study of (historical) armaments) and hoplophobia (fear of weapons), making hoplite something like "armsman" or "man-at-arms" in overall meaning.

all this height stuff gets me wondering: are there any figures for areas aside from greece and Rome? anything from, say, persia, Egypt, north africa, or arabia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Aspis is the name of the shield; IIRC hoplo* is a generic term for "arms" (as in "weapons"), as in hoplology (the study of (historical) armaments) and hoplophobia (fear of weapons), making hoplite something like "armsman" or "man-at-arms" in overall meaning.

---

Aspis is sometimes used to refer specifically to the hoplite's shield, but aspis is usually simply a generic term, and can be used to refer to a variety of shields. It remains that the only term which we find in primary sources which specifically refers to the hoplite's shield is the term "Argive" or "Argolic shield."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

all this height stuff gets me wondering: are there any figures for areas aside from greece and Rome? anything from, say, persia, Egypt, north africa, or arabia?

---

Dunno 'bout those parts, but over here the archeologists have been fortunate enough to find some reasonably intact skeletons from as far back as the Neolithic. Between the skeletal finds and estimates made based on grave sizes, it would appear prehistoric Finns were on the whole fairly well fed as the average height doesn't seem to have been much different from modern times. (It starts nosediving around the Early Modern period at the latest, in no small part thanks to increasingly effective taxation and plain growing population densities, and only begins to recover in the postwar era as already mentioned.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Aspis is sometimes used to refer specifically to the hoplite's shield, but aspis is usually simply a generic term, and can be used to refer to a variety of shields. It remains that the only term which we find in primary sources which specifically refers to the hoplite's shield is the term "Argive" or "Argolic shield."

---

Fair enough, but there was in practice exactly one type of shield the hoplites used (at least in their heavy-infantry role), no ? And unless I'm completely mistaken it's in any case way more accurate than "hoplon".

BTW, didn't they have fairly specific and well documented names for diverse smaller shield types...?

Wouldn't the persians prefer studded/quilted armour instead? It's cheap to produce and very useful in a shooty environment....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Fair enough, but there was in practice exactly one type of shield the hoplites used (at least in their heavy-infantry role), no ? And unless I'm completely mistaken it's in any case way more accurate than "hoplon".

---

There was, which is why, regardless of the scattered evidence for its ancient name, it is often simply easiest to call it the hoplite's shield.

Quote:

---

BTW, didn't they have fairly specific and well documented names for diverse smaller shield types...?

---

For certain kinds they did, but the Macedonian shield, for instance, is referred to variably as pelte or aspis. Aspis is really more of a generic term, so that in some authors a pelte could be referred to generically as an aspis.

I like to think of it in the same way that, for instance, the word cannon is used today. When someone talks about a cannon, usually what comes to mind is the generic type employed on pirate ships in the 17th or 18th centuries; in technical terms, however, it can have much more specific or broad meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Aspis is the name of the shield; IIRC hoplo* is a generic term for "arms" (as in "weapons"), as in hoplology (the study of (historical) armaments) and hoplophobia (fear of weapons), making hoplite something like "armsman" or "man-at-arms" in overall meaning.

---

Yes you're right, Historians generally say the same as well.

Ok, so now that we've discussed the varius sizes of humans throughout the ages, as well as the technical term for the Hoplon/aspis, I have another question to ask.

I was thinking about the Linothorax again, and I realized that fixing the Linothorax would probably be futile. Would they have to make new Linothorax for every battle? Or was there a way they could just patch it up without ruining its integrity?