Linen Armour?

**geala** · 09-15-2007, 07:06

Btw, I would be very pleased if somebody could give me a written or archeological source for linen armour for the Greeks in classical and hellenistic times. I firmly believe it existed but a proof is missing.

Linen is mentioned by Homer (8th c. BC) and then Alkaios (early 6th c. BC), but later sources (Herodot about Amasis gift, Xenophon about Asian armour,...) don't speak of linen in connection with Greek armour. Pausanias said that linen armour is not convenient for war purposes, only for hunting. We have pictures of white armour but that could also be painted leather instead of bleached linen (normal linen is not white). We have a source which said that the spolas was a form of thorax and made of leather.

I know from another thread that seemingly a piece of quilted linen was found in a tomb of a Greek soldier in Rhodos from about 350 BC, but it is not published (?) and what is not published and testable does not exist. Can anybody say something new about that finding or others?

**Watchman** · 09-15-2007, 12:16

Wasn't there a mention of the soldiers burning their old cuirasses upon receiving a new batch in the records of Alexander's campaigns ? Leather doesn't burn terribly well far as I know (and smell horrid when it does) and fire would thus seem to have been a somewhat unlikely method of waste disposal, which would logically suggest some form of fabric armour.

**antisocialmunky** · 09-15-2007, 20:32

Originally Posted by Watchman

Wasn't there a mention of the soldiers burning their old cuirasses upon receiving a new batch in the records of Alexander's campaigns ? Leather doesn't burn terribly well far as I know (and smell horrid when it does) and fire would thus seem to have been a somewhat unlikely method of waste disposal, which would logically suggest some form of fabric armour.

That makes it sound wonderful against flaming projectiles - leader is atleast somewhat fire retardant. I would think they would also not be ideal in inclimate weather either. Cold and moldy aren't exactly good descriptors for armour.

**Oleander Ardens** · 09-15-2007, 20:39

" Scale stops arrows and such pretty well by all accounts, and isn't half bad against most other weapons (although mail is on the average better it has some inherent issues with pointy things). Plus it's relatively cheap and simple to manufacture and maintain, which is always useful."

(NoScript has some issue, quotes etc are not working right now) Good mail with thick padding is almost arrowproof, at least Dan Howard writes that a heavy warbow (over 130lbs iirc) was not able to penetrate it with historic bodkins from a close distance (~ 10m).

But rightly the point is: Multilayered padding is excellent at absorbing the momentum of an projectile and a blow, but stops also the rare blunted arrowheads which were able to pierce the mail. The linothorax employs exactly the same mechanism to resist blunt, sharp and pointed force. So what is the essential difference between a scale-covered linothorax and a thickly padded scalearmor?

Both employ practically the same mechanism to stop an attack. The scales deflect it or deform both themselves and the blade/arrowhead, spreading out the force while pressing against the absorbing multilayered fabric. The fabric in turn spreads out the force even further and reflects the blunted arrowhead/spearhead while transfering the force into the fat and muscles which too absorb the impact.

So even if there are big differences in the construction the work rather in the same way, only that once has a thicker outer metalskin and a thinner inner clothlayers and viceversa. In fact every metalarmor makes good use of an inner mulitlayered fabric called padding which is of immense importance.

So we have a standalone linen armor but also metal armor making use of its characteristics in the thinner form of padding.

OA

**Watchman** · 09-15-2007, 22:53

As a random side note, I understand arrowheads designed to pierce mail tended to be long and needle-like - the better to exploit the natural "openings" of the armour and punch through the inevitable padding underneath. Those designed against more solid-surface armour conversely tend to be comparatively short and robust "spikes" which can take the impact without snapping or deforming (as the aforementioned needle type tends to) and punch a hole.

Anyway, I also understand practical tests suggest scale, with its smooth surface and (at least) double-layered armour elements, resists arrows and similar pointy things somewhat better than mail all other things being equal - mail always had some issues with points due to the way they get into the individual rings. (If the target is decked out in something like good lamellar or better, you may about as well try to start sniping at his face then.)

**Oleander Ardens** · 09-19-2007, 18:31

As a random side note, I understand arrowheads designed to pierce mail tended to be long and needle-like - the better to exploit the natural "openings" of the armour and punch through the inevitable padding underneath. Those designed against more solid-surface armour conversely tend to be comparatively short and robust "spikes" which can take the impact without snapping or deforming (as the aforementioned needle type tends to) and punch a hole.

I agree. But strange as it sounds no medieval bodkins of steel or hardened iron were found to date, thus having the tendency to deform quite a bit when hitting steel armor. And when modern studies show that even steel bodkins will fail against a flatter and softer plate than historically employed it can be concluded that the historic description of platearmored knights in Flanders walking calmly through a storm of arrows is rather accurate.

Anyway, I also understand practical tests suggest scale, with its smooth surface and (at least) double-layered armour elements, resists arrows and similar pointy things somewhat better than mail all other things being equal - mail always had some issues with points due to the way they get into the individual rings.

I guess that one must include the ever present padding as well. Mail is a network of rings lying against an absorbing backing. A needle bodkin might find a way through one ring, but to go further he will to break both the ring and penetrate the padding. Padding offers as all clotharmor excellent protection against bodkin shaped threats. To inflict a significant wound the bodkinpoint must then break also the outer ring of mail formed by the other interlinking rings. So mail has a very refined way of stopping even so specialized designs from doing much harm...

(If the target is decked out in something like good lamellar or better, you may about as well try to start sniping at his face then.)

True. I want to add that a light quilted overcloth made of some layers of linen and over the armor is an great way to enhance the protection against armorpiercing weapons. And it is often hard to see if a rider wears a piece of armor underneath. So one wonders not that the drawing weights of the composite bows of the steppe archers required so long training and were able to propel arrows over so a long distances - and that armor was so sought after...

OA