Printable View
Is linthorax supposedly better protection on some levels than leather/cuirboilli? It seems this linen armor is not uncommon among the hellenic phalanx troops, so I'm assuming it is better than leather, but I can't help but be shocked that... _linen_ of all things is better than hardened leather.
Hi, I'm not entirely sure about this but my understanding is that the linothorax has been hardened by some process (probably involving oil) to produce a product rather like "lino" that you put on floors. This provided better protection in a melee as it is harder than leather, but it was very vulnerable to missile fire due to its somewhat brittle tendencies (hence ekdromoi hoplotai wearing leather and bronze scale). Also linen was cheaper than leather and could be produced in sheets of any size rather than a sheet the size and shape of a cow (due to it being woven), and, finally it was generally cheaper than leather.
Hope this helps.
Ah, I suppose, then, if you could make linthorax, leather of all sorts would be completely obsolete...
I thougth that linothorax was linen layering with a leather core.
No, i don't think so it was still better in certain situations, and after all linen was only obtainable in the Mediterranean. (or similar climates)Quote:
Originally Posted by Danest
Linothorax was made from about 15 layers of linen glued together - that is, if I am remembering correctly. The linen was made stiff just through the process of being soaked in glue and then furthermore by being so thick. The armor was quite good, all things considered, and would be akin to trying to cut through a phone book, but stiffer.
If not stored correctly, however, I think it could still sag a bit and become deformed and hence the importance of a stand of some sort to rest it on.
Indeed. Several strips of thin linen fabric were glued together in a process very similar to what we do with fiberglass. Laid in a mold, they were glued together into a semi-solid cuirass which was trimmed off and probably faced with bleached leather or linen (because the end result of all this gluing is most likely a drab mottled brown).
However, the protective nature of this armor is substantial. Each layer of linen and hard glue provides a very tough nut to crack, and remains semi-flexible. (Remember, this is glue way before the advent of plastics. It's made from animal horn or hoof, mixed with extract from fish bones).
Leather armor is also viable though, because it too is generally a couple of layers stitched together and then hardened (though not often boiled, as this provides a rigid and inflexible material that is fairly brittle... ceremonial armour, anyone.)
Today we have a rather childish understanding of body armor, I think, worsened by the fact that many of us play video or pen and paper role playing games, where armor is 'ranked' and given a rigid value structure. If you'll notice, in EB, units with linen armor are not too much worse off than those with mail, same goes for hardened leather.
The Linothorax itself went the way of the sling though. When the Romans conquered the east, they found no more use for the artisans creating this time consuming (though inexpensive) form of protection, and it passed into history as these men were employed in other crafts, the demand for their primary product slipping into the red.
I've been wondering what sort of glue they would have used.Quote:
It's made from animal horn or hoof, mixed with extract from fish bones
This would be something like thick jelly when applying it?
I always thought of the glue being a fairly thin application with the final product being kind of like modern Kevlar.
The way you put it sounds like fibre saturation with a fairly hard finish more like plastic/fibreglass :verycool:
While not being waterproof I would guess it should stand up to a bit of damp reasonably well, though you'd want to keep it as generally dry as possible.
Urnamma: Yeah, my first "knowledge" of armor came as a youth from RPG's with "rigid" values for armors... and over the recent years I've sought to correct that rather... incomplete (at best) sense of armor. Sometimes, though, it seems like the best way to figure out how well it works is just to watch it in action, which isn't the best way to go. :p But with SO many different types of armors in the ancient world, I'm figuring that there really were some that had superior qualities over others. I'm also surprised that some weapons, like the Falcata / Kopis are considered "obscure" by many people today who have never even seen one. They seem like weapons that would pack a serious punch, but we don't picture medieval knights with such things, no more than we'd picture them in battle wearing linen armor. ;)
Gotta admit that linen armor looks better then chainmail...
Unless I've misunderstood completely, the medieval falchion pretty much gives you the same effect (ie. Mucho Choppy) with a simpler blade structure and hence lower cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danest
Beats me why the falcata/kopis design pretty much disappeared by the end of the Roman period though, since it obviously did its job quite well. Anyone happen to know ?
One form of Kopis was used even in 2nd world war. ~;)
Kukri - sword/knife of Ghurkas is very close relative to kopis
You know, the inventor many of today's sports padding(I forget the name) created a high tensile strength material by soaking clothe material in liquid spider silk extract for his bear 'interaction' suit (google it). A small cotton pad treated with the stuff could hold up several hundred pounds. I couldn't help thinking about that in connection with linothorax seeing as its semi-flexible, dense, and fairly strong.
Everyone knows about the kukri. What I was wondering about why apparently pretty much everyone to the west of the Hindu Kush dumped the design sometime around the time Rome was still the big noise around the Med.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS
I think the main problem was that the weapon was more difficult to be trained in. You would think that you could just hack away with it, but to really take advantage of the weapon's shape and properties it probably required quite a bit of work. Things like wrist movement were probably very important; I can almost imagine a sort of "snapping towel" movement to really crack armor by adding torsion to the oncoming force of the blade.
So, we have training and time spent - add to that the fact that the weapon is more difficult to forge than what is an already time consuming straight blade and I think we have the main reasons why the kopis/falcata fell from common use; yet, we also can't forget that besides the tribes of Germania the two big powers were Parthia and Rome. The former wasn't big on infantry like they were cavalry and Rome had standardized equipment for their military, which worked very well with their incredibly tight formation.
If anything, with who were the major powers, the fall of the kopis/falcata was inevitable.
The first point is pretty questionable, given how very popular the design was for mounted use... heck, Xenophon pretty much starts off the eternal "thrust versus slash" cavalry-sword debate by recommending the machaira in Peri Hippikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
A better argument I could imagine would be the Parthians finding long straight swords better for things swords are really useful for, and axes and maces better for the rest.