Printable View
Can anyone please tell me when the Linothorax replaced the Bronze Cuirass as standard armour for Greek heavy infantry? I ask because on the front cover of my copy of Xenophon there is a photograph of a Hoplite depicted on a vase. The picture depicts him wearing a bronze cuirass yet I have seen depictions of Hoplites from the Peloponnesian War wearing a linothroax. I always assumed the Linothorax was a superior form of armour or is this not the case?
Not too sure, but it was a cheaper solution (linothorax), rather than superior and preferable to being naked...
With Philippos and later with the invasion of the Balkans, it became a tactical choice to have lighter hoplitai to move faster and support phalangitai...
But even during the hellenistic period there still were heavy hoplitai, who gradually discarded the aspis for the thureos...
not exactly, it's not because Linothorax is superrior or any way (indeed speaking protection per weight, linothorax was superrior, but overall protection in close combat (not against missiles), bronze bell cuirass is still better, and the bronze ones are most obviously better in damp seasons.
Linothorax originates from Egypt-Mesopotamian linen armour, and they are adopted first by the Anatolians and Phoenicians before spread to Greek populations through trade and battles. While bronze plate armour with muscles originates from Greece itself.
in the mid of first millenium BC, we can safely argue that Linothorax and bronze cuirass did coexist in Ancient Greek Military system. With linothorax are more popular on lower-to mid class soldiers, Bronze cuirass, has its own artistic values and preferred by Nobles, although some nobles do opt for Scale-reinforced linothorax and greaves (cheaper than bronze armour, but definitely better than plain linothorax)
speaking of vase and photograph, even scenes of illiad do depict people here wearing linothorax as well, while that may be questionable, all we can say is we didn't have enough evidence to either confirm nor deny the existance of linothorax in Greece at 1000 BC
You would have to differenciate between bell cuirass and Musculated cuirass. While the Bell cuirass is (according to my rather mediocre knowledge based on stuff you find on the internet and my grasp of the basics of physics) far superior in protection and cost(thus being cheaper), the Musculated cuirass may actually be even less effective as a scaled linothorax apart from the resistance against Macuahuitl of which I am uncertain but you don't slash at the torso anyway.
On the other hand the optical advantage of the Musculated cuirass is quite obvious, afterall, looking like a "golden" body builder is by far preferable over "fat robot" tho I wonder if less skinny citizens who failed to get around "service" wore a bell cuirass in hellenistic times.
Back to Linothorax vs Cuirass: afaik musculated cuirass and Linothorax were both used in hellenistic times. I think CW is quite right with his statement there. Tho I would like to add that there were more factors than Protection and cost, one is style(where the Musculated beats everything) another one is comfort (where the Linothorax is best*). Armor was not just a piece of equipment like hammer(which has to be wellmade, solid and affordable) but something you brag with and use for some while(like a car).
On Depictions I can only say: DISTRUST THEM!! Dipictions of clothes are only "accurate"(thus not totally wrong) when they depict an event that happend relatively close to the creation of the Picture. A very impressive example is the batte of Alexander at Issus where the only thing riminding of Achmaenid Persia is the chariot in the middle of the fray, here you see the Macedonians depicted in late medieval european armor and the Persians with turbans dressed up as Turks, sure the Picture has a specific message but It does show that Artists are seldom Historians or rather, seldom seek to acchive historical accuracy in their depictions of the past. So as the detailed vases showing Archilles in linothorax or the like all come from the 6th or 5th century it is quite likely that this is the fashion of that time rather than that of the 12th century.
*..., especially as most battles were faught on bright sunny days without rain or mud to get in the way of our brave warriors. When it's hot enough to run around naked it's definately too hot to fight around in a bronze cuirass. Tho I'm not informed on the present idea of temperatures during battles in ancient greece I think It was hot enough to prefer a lether/linnen "carbord armor"(as cardbord armor is often "tailored" similar to Linothorax... aww crap what's that plural) over a bronze heater. The fact that it's lighter is an added comfort.
Ahem. That painting was made 800 years after the actual events. Most vases were made less than 10-50 years after the events. Unless you count the achillean one, but really, what painting/vase exists depicting the siege of Troy soon after it happened?
Besides, there's an advantage on that type of anachronism, the depiction of the event might be anachronistic, but it is accurate to it's present.
~Jirisys ()
Well It was a response to "Linothorax in before 1000 bc" thus my argument that depictions that were made >100 years after the event often carry loads of Anachronisms is still valid. I'm not argueing against the existance of the linothorax 600 BC :rolleyes: I'm not even arguing against the existance of it 1200 BC I just wanted to mention that vases from 600 bc will most likely not represent 1200 bc equipment accurately.Quote:
Ahem. That painting was made 800 years after the actual events. Most vases were made less than 10-50 years after the events. Unless you count the achillean one, but really, what painting/vase exists depicting the siege of Troy soon after it happened?
Besides, there's an advantage on that type of anachronism, the depiction of the event might be anachronistic, but it is accurate to it's present.
And ehm, I actually did mention that Depictions are only (somewhat) accurate when depicting an event thats relatively close to the creation of the vase, painting whatever.
Yes and no, an example are Persians on greek pottery...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca Putt
Actually there was a lot of artistic license even among Greeks, like Spartiatai with kopis 'cos it gave them the "bad boy" status :D
During the EB era, Linothorax was a cheap armor type that gained mass adoption because people couldn't afford the standard hoplite kit anymore due to issues with land ownership and wealth distribution. This not only including metal armor but also weapons, and armor. In fact, most people began equipping themselves as lighter armed peltastai instead of hoplites so much so that peltastai became synonymous with greek mercenaries of the early EB period if I'm not mistaken.
Only rich people could equip themselves as classical hoplites.
Now this is a debate! Great responses everyone, really interesting. And thanks for reminding me about the dangers of anachronisms
Think of armour as the ancient equivalent of a modern man's business suit. (Business being, of course, another form of war - Gordon Gecko style!)
A muscled bronze cuirass is the equivalent of a very expensive Savile Row tailor-made-to-measure suit, which fits you perfectly as it is individually crafted and cut to your body shape and size. While a linothorax suit is the equivalent of an off-the-peg suit, made in a small number of standard sizes, bought in a department store.
Like an expensive suit today, bronze armour was a way to show off your wealth and sophistication, and set you apart from the common citizenry.
Armor isn't 1 size fits all, its usually tailored to the person. There's also a misconception about armor and hardness and tensile strength > padding. Padding/under layers is actually the more important component of armor as it is the layer that dissipates force. Even tanks work the same way with energy dissipating rubber/inert gas layers/empty space/dense materials. The surfacing material's main job is to stop penetration, the under layers stop energy transmittal.
In an environment with mostly glancing blows and large shields, you don't need to be protected with the absolute best surface/stopping layer. So things like linothorax are perfectly fine if you are fighting at range or in one direction in a not super duper lethal environment.
I'm struggling to remember what Mycenean pottery typically depicted. The Minoans, now there's a people with happy ceramics.Quote:
Originally Posted by jirisys
There's a fair bit of pottery on this site.
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm
I have no idea how accurate the ideas there are, but the archeological material look great.
Mycenean pottery looks pretty stylised to me. Quite like the Iberian stuff. I'd say variations on the theme of scale corselet for the main part.