Laminated Linen Armour Protected Alexander the Great

[ULTRAGOTHA]

My wife found this article and wanted to share it.


http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/l ... armor.html

A Kevlar-like armor might have helped Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.) conquer nearly the entirety of the known world in little more than two decades, according to new reconstructive archaeology research.

Presented at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Anaheim, Calif., the study suggests that Alexander and his soldiers protected themselves with linothorax, a type of body armor made by laminating together layers of linen.

Click link to read rest of article.

Enjoy!

ULTRAGOTHA

[Dan Howard]

The test is a wasted opportunity. Greek linen armour was made like all other layered textile armour. It was quilted, not glued. If the resources for the above test were spent on quilted linen, it could have made a valuable contribution.

Another point: very few of the 27 citations mentioned in that article are relevant. Virtually all of them are not Greek in context, but are describing linen armour in more eastern regions. Even Alexander's linen armour was looted from a Persian battlefield. Surprisingly, most of the evidence for Greek non-metallic armour during the time in question points to leather, not linen. IIRC the only direct reference to Greek linen armour is in the Iliad and that can't be used to support anything worn in Alexander's time.

[Russ Mitchell]

Dan, while I generally am with you here (though not a classicist), I think it's important to point out that quilting and gluing are not incompatible. A sewn and quilted armor can be soaked in a thin glue slurry, sufficiently thin that it penetrates through the layers of cloth.

I am not aware of sources which would support the assertion that they were quilted-not-glued period. It's certainly possible. Layered-leather shields could have been either or both (but almost certainly had at least some stitching).

[Dan Howard]

There is only one surviving fragment of Greek linen armour (recently found at Patras) and that is quilted (about 10-15 layers). There are plenty of examples of layered textile armours from all over the world and they are all quilted too. I'd welcome an example of glued laminated armour from any culture. I've been looking for a long time and doubt they ever existed.

[talaananthes]

I've had some long discussions with this guy via email about this subject, and he seems to have a mental stone wall up about a number of aspects of his pet project. From what I can see, his tests are specifically designed to marginalize quilted armour, he believes that the ancient world possessed a mythical super glue that's waterproof and pretty much everything proof, and refuses to consider evidence regarding the physical properties of surviving medieval linen armour as relevant.

[talaananthes]

Oh, and fwiw, here's the list of ancient references for cloth armour he sent me:

Homer Iliad. 2.529
Homer Iliad. 2.830
Strabo Geography 13.1.10
Strabo Geography 3.3.6
Palatine Anthology 14.73.6
Herodotus 2.182
Herodotus 3.47
Chronicle of Lindos 29, lines 36-39
Pliny the Elder Natural History 19.2
Pausanias 6.19.7
Pausanias 1.21.7
Xenophon Anabasis 4.7.15-16
Xenophon Anabasis 7.89
Alcaeus 2.19
Sophocles Epigonoi fragment P. Oxy. Vol. 71, no. 4807
Plato Epistle 7.363A
Cornelius Nepos, Iphicrates 1.3-4
Aeneas Tacticus, On Siegecraft 29.4
Plutarch, Alexander 32
Xenophon Cyropaedia 6.4.2
Quintus Curtius Rufus 9.3.21
Cassius Dio 78.7.1-2
Livy 4.20.1-7
Silius Italicus Punica 4.223
Livy 9.40.3;10.38.5-13 (questionable)
Leonidas of Tarentum, Greek Anthology 6.129
Suetonius, Galba 19.1
Arrian Tactica 4.1
Silius Italicus Punica, 9.586-598

I haven't had a chance to track any of these down yet, but he has told me that a number of the descriptions of armour in these are generally mistranslated to refer to mail or other more familiar armour. I can't verify that.

[Russ Mitchell]

Resins like pitch could be used for the job... but... doesn't seem likely. And whereas the german crossbowmakers figured out how to waterproof hide glue, there's no evidence or suggestion the ancient world had figured that one out.

[lordfulmine]

I'd welcome an example of glued laminated armour from any culture. I've been looking for a long time and doubt they ever existed.

H.R. Robinson wrote about laminated paper armour in "Oriental Armour". It was used by the Chinese, and if I remember correctly made of up to 14 layers of paper glued together and cut into scales. Then sewn to a cloth backing. Not laminated cloth, but definately laminated.

[Dan Howard]

All you need to do is look at modern kendo armour to see how rigid quilted armour can be. It all depends on how the stitching is done.

[Dan Howard]

I'd welcome an example of glued laminated armour from any culture. I've been looking for a long time and doubt they ever existed.

H.R. Robinson wrote about laminated paper armour in "Oriental Armour". It was used by the Chinese, and if I remember correctly made of up to 14 layers of paper glued together and cut into scales. Then sewn to a cloth backing. Not laminated cloth, but definately laminated.

p152 says that 10-15 layers of paper (actually barkcloth) were sewn together. No mention of glue.

[Dan Howard]

Oh, and fwiw, here's the list of ancient references for cloth armour he sent me:

None of which mention glue and the vast majority of them are oriental in context, not Greek.

[lordfulmine]

p152 says that 10-15 layers of paper (actually barkcloth) were sewn together. No mention of glue.

Yup, my mistake. Just dug my copy out of storage, sure enough, sewn not glued.

[talaananthes]

Oh, and fwiw, here's the list of ancient references for cloth armour he sent me:

None of which mention glue and the vast majority of them are oriental in context, not Greek.

I agree with you. Those are just the sources he cited to me, unedited from how he sent them. I think he's full of shit, and that impression has been nothing but deepened by my conversations with him.

[Alric of Drentha]

For curiosity (to see if references to glue were really being ignored by translators like he claimed) I read one of his Latin sources. Livy lists one of the spoils of war being paraded into Rome in 4.20 as 'thorace linteo,' ie a 'linen breastplate'. No reference to glue, though I see how our ideas of breastplates (Latin 'thorax') as being hard like metal might lead him to read his conclusion back into the text. The word 'thorax' (according to Lewis and Short) originally meant simply 'breast' or 'chest,' however - there's no sense in the word to imply that this armor had to have been glued, only that it's armor that goes on the chest.

Which is to say yeah, he seems to be full of it.

[Matthew Amt]

The entire concept of glued linen seems to have started with Peter Connolly. No offense intended to the man, I love his work and EVERYone should get his books! Thirty years ago it was a great idea and seemed to fit the facts, but better and closer examination of the evidence since then has shown that the idea of glued linen Greek armor has absolutely no basis in reality.

On the Roman Army Talk board we've got a 13-page discussion on this very topic, in which all the relevant facts are laid out and picked apart at great length and depth. To date, no one has come up with any hint of glue in the historical evidence. It just ain't there. "Practical" arguments, "what ifs", and Chinese papier mache are not *evidence*. Round about page 5 of that thread is where I converted! It was hard, because I made a glued linen cuirass years ago! But here, read:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewto ... 19&t=25938

Khairete!

Matthew

[zachos]

I'm pretty sure that the Myth that linen armour was ineffective has been fully debunked by now. What was the purpose in using lots of research money doing tests that were done ages ago?

[Gerhard von Liebau]

I'm pretty sure that the Myth that linen armour was ineffective has been fully debunked by now. What was the purpose in using lots of research money doing tests that were done ages ago?

Well, that's not entirely true of this particular project - there haven't been any big published tests for the effectiveness of the classic glued "linothorax." Tests of Medieval style sewn linen armor have proven that it is a very effective form of protection, but I want to say this guy was out to get his money's worth by testing this particular style of armor and throwing out the whole "Alexander the Great" deal to capture some attention. I mean, hell... The guy got his stuff posted on the Discovery website!

-Gerhard

[Peikko]

I'm pretty sure that the Myth that linen armour was ineffective has been fully debunked by now. What was the purpose in using lots of research money doing tests that were done ages ago?

Well, that's not entirely true of this particular project - there haven't been any big published tests for the effectiveness of the classic glued "linothorax." Tests of Medieval style sewn linen armor have proven that it is a very effective form of protection, but I want to say this guy was out to get his money's worth by testing this particular style of armor and throwing out the whole "Alexander the Great" deal to capture some attention. I mean, hell... The guy got his stuff posted on the Discovery website!

-Gerhard

it may be academia...but its still business.

Bottom line, this is evidence to support a theory...that's all. You aren't required to agree with his findings.

[Matthew Amt]

Bottom line, this is evidence to support a theory...that's all.

But it is not *historical* evidence. It's more like rationalization and hype to support ego. The long list of sources help build his reputation as Someone Who Knows What He Is Talking About, but he ignores the actual context and meaning of all these sources. (And never mind that mere amateurs *have* analyzed them, and found his theory to be completely unfounded...) The deliberate comparisons to Kevlar vests are simply there to get people to watch a show that teaches untruths about history. All to support the career of a "historian"? Some kind of business, academia...

You aren't required to agree with his findings.

You would be if you were taking his course... And now those of us with a passion for the nuts and bolts of history get to spend another 20 years arguing with people who have seen this show and swallowed it whole (understandably!). Granted, it's not as bad as the damage from "300", but still...

Valete,

Matthew

[Peikko]

Bottom line, this is evidence to support a theory...that's all.

But it is not *historical* evidence. It's more like rationalization and hype to support ego. The long list of sources help build his reputation as Someone Who Knows What He Is Talking About, but he ignores the actual context and meaning of all these sources. (And never mind that mere amateurs *have* analyzed them, and found his theory to be completely unfounded...) The deliberate comparisons to Kevlar vests are simply there to get people to watch a show that teaches untruths about history. All to support the career of a "historian"? Some kind of business, academia...

No, you are right it's not "historical" evidence...it's his test results and yes it supports his theory that glued linen makes a viable armour...which it does. However, I agree with you that there isn't a shred of evidence supporting the use of armour such as he proposes.

This is how it works...theories get proposed, tested, and debated. Many careers have been built and destroyed over this sort of thing. I agree that he is wrong, and if I wasn't working on other things at the moment I'd be tempted to take a stab at rebutting his theory.

If this theory bugs us, then what we have to do is prove it wrong. A theory is just a prevailing idea until better evidence/test results disprove them in favour of a new theory. So the gauntlet has been dropped. Fine, pick it up and disprove his theory, and don't forget to get published...that's the key.

Anyone feeling up to a challenge?

[RandallMoffett]

Matt,

I think you are painting with a broad brush here. Having been in the academic field the last decade or so I can say only the bad teachers make you take there side on an issue. Good ones present their info, analysis and conclusion and let you decide. I studied with Dr. Anne Curry around the time her new Agincourt book had come out. Dr. Curry and I have had loads of discussion on the numbers of the English and French at Agincourt, and indeed my view of how many of them were really there has changed some, but only because she did an awesome job of presenting evidence and analysis on it. That said I still think there may have been a bit more French than she figures but she never once made a big deal about the fact I had a different opinion about it. Only people with ego or confidence issues have to force a position on another person. I have had some not so great teachers over the years and know what you are saying but I find this just as much, maybe more so, among reenactors and arm chair historians. People who have preconceived ideas or limited information about something that will not budge no matter how much info you toss in their lap to the contrary of their concept.

I agree that this person seems to be reading a great deal between the lines. I do not think he is doing anything besides displaying his current theory to this armour and as Johann said there is nothing wrong with that. So go and write something or get someone you think would do a better job to do it. I am not really an Ancient period or Greek historian but there have to be a few out there that are into this that would do it. Posting here is not going to promote any debate that will make him defend his points though, so one would need to get it published in a journal, magazine or presented at a conference of some type. If you write a good enough counterpoint and get it in the right circulation you can at least get another point of view displayed.

RPM

[Gerhard von Liebau]

I also feel as though this particular issue is not really a threat, as Randall described. Good professors will present their theories (even if they ardently believe them) and allow students to postulate for themselves what may be right or wrong. In any case, I can hardly imagine this guy is teaching any courses where he actually takes time to detail the construction methods of a glued linothorax. That is an issue beyond the normal realm of collegiate academia, and would not fall easily into almost any class subject.

In any case, he presents a good argument from a practical perspective for a relatively old theory (as mentioned, originating with Connolly in the early '70s). His research seems to be top-notch, citing a plethora of sources from the classical world, and his reconstruction proved formidable against weapon contact. I respect the amount of work he put into realizing the practical aspects of this old reconstructive model.

This reminds me of the conversations that were floating around on the classic arms and armor forums several years ago - some loony guy had a website (which I believe is still up) where he tried to disprove the use of layered linen armor in the reconstructive model of Greek cuirasses. His suggestion? Leather! I remember several different conversations where we all suggested the guy was quite crazy, and that Connolly's model was sound. Now who's laughing..? Most of the community has made a 180 regarding the subject and now thinks layered linen is out and leather is in! Spolas instead of linothorax! It's all theory, and some of it has better historical basis than other bits... But I can't blame anyone for trying as hard as these fellows. They've actually done primary research, crafted models to reflect their theoretical positions and even tested their durability in weapons testing. Props to them!

-Gregory

[Matthew Amt]

No, you are right it's not "historical" evidence...it's his test results and yes it supports his theory that glued linen makes a viable armour...which it does.

Agreed! Well, I mean I haven't gone and had someone stab me while wearing my own nice glued linothorax, but I've heard stories!

This is how it works...theories get proposed, tested, and debated.

Oh, I know, I think my frustration level was just up. Compared to some of the stuff we hear, this is admittedly pretty mild! "So close and yet so far", sigh...

I think you are painting with a broad brush here.

Yes, sorry, didn't mean for it to sound like that! Some of my biggest heroes are academics. (Ha, though I suspect even they will admit to some weirdness in their world!) Much as I would love to publish on any number of subjects, I simply don't have the database, facilities, or time to do a proper job of it.

In any case, I can hardly imagine this guy is teaching any courses where he actually takes time to detail the construction methods of a glued linothorax.

No, he's gone and put it on international TV, where it has reached millions!

His research seems to be top-notch, citing a plethora of sources from the classical world

But as we've noted, citing sources is not the same as using them correctly. He did not, and that's sloppy.

This reminds me of the conversations that were floating around on the classic arms and armor forums several years ago - some loony guy had a website (which I believe is still up) where he tried to disprove the use of layered linen armor in the reconstructive model of Greek cuirasses. His suggestion? Leather! I remember several different conversations where we all suggested the guy was quite crazy, and that Connolly's model was sound. Now who's laughing..? Most of the community has made a 180 regarding the subject and now thinks layered linen is out and leather is in! Spolas instead of linothorax!

Oh, yes, I remember the debates! And yes, many of us in the Glued Linen camp have deserted to the Leather Spolas. But as I recall, that particular idea was that "linothorax" meant leather covered with linen, which is still not a supportable conclusion. Sure, he may have been closer, but be careful: *quilted* linen is absolutely correct for the Hellenistic era, and for *non-Greek* areas in the Classical era. (Probably for Mycenaeans, too!) What we're conceding is that the "tube and yoke" cuirass seen in *Classical* Greek artwork is most likely a leather "spolas".

In our defense, we're mostly amateurs who are at the mercy of the secondary sources! It takes years to learn how to be cautious about things like that, especially when they make persuasive arguments and cite ancient sources. Since I have the luxury of being able to change my websites whenever I want to, I can still say that I love discovering things that prove us all wrong! My career and ego aren't wrapped up in a theory or preconception.

Well, I'm rambling again! Thanks, all,

Matthew

[Peikko]

Well, I'm rambling again! Thanks, all,

Matthew

Perhaps.... , but at least we're all on the same side.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

But as we've noted, citing sources is not the same as using them correctly. He did not, and that's sloppy.

I'm not entirely sure you can say that about his methodology. He collected a body of primary evidence citing the use of linen armor as well as artwork showing what appears to be armor made from fabric. This information obviously told him very little about the actual method of construction that was involved in this armor's crafting, so he carried out his research using an already well-founded theory and tested its functional properties. This is nothing out of the ordinary for scholarly work...

And regarding how widespread the issue is - sure, he put it online where it's available to millions of readers, but there probably aren't a ton more people than those chatting on these forums who really give a hoot about what he's got to say. I see no one criticizing Peter Connolly for providing the glued linothorax model in the first place... Although his conclusions were obviously based on a similar amount of conjecture coming from rather vague evidence such as that freshly provided by Dr. Gregory Aldrete and his colleagues.

Regarding the actual content of the article on the Discovery site, there are no claims made that laminated linen was definitely the way it was done - only that it is a theory that was tested on grounds of practicality and based on a loose assemblage of contemporary sources indicating linen armor as being used. The entire point of the article, from what I can tell, is merely to suggest that linen armor was actually used by classical Greek armies, and not so much about pushing the actual method of construction.

-Gerhard

[Dan Howard]

The entire point of the article, from what I can tell, is merely to suggest that linen armor was actually used by classical Greek armies

Unfortunately none of the sources he lists does this except tangentially - a couple of cites say that linen armour was by looted by Greeks from oriental sources. Most were taken as offerings to temples but Alexander apparently wore his in battle.

I agree with Matt. The sources have been misused to fit a preconceived theory.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

I agree with Matt. The sources have been misused to fit a preconceived theory.

But Dan, that's what most historians do for a living... How else shall we eat!?

-Gerhard

[Peikko]

I agree with Matt. The sources have been misused to fit a preconceived theory.

But Dan, that's what most historians do for a living... How else shall we eat!?

-Gerhard

yup, and not just historians either.

hmmm....someone ought to write some sort of rebuttal to this misuse of sources....if only there was a way

[Matthew Amt]

I'm not entirely sure you can say that about his methodology. He collected a body of primary evidence citing the use of linen armor as well as artwork showing what appears to be armor made from fabric. This information obviously told him very little about the actual method of construction that was involved in this armor's crafting, so he carried out his research using an already well-founded theory and tested its functional properties.

Ah, but the theory is only "well-founded" by virtue of being a good 30 years old and being parroted by everyone! Why did he never notice that none of his sources mentioned glue?

And regarding how widespread the issue is - sure, he put it online where it's available to millions of readers, but there probably aren't a ton more people than those chatting on these forums who really give a hoot about what he's got to say.

Careful, you are skirting with Hollywood's dogma, "The public is ignorant so we have to keep lying to them!" If the masses don't care, then presumably this article is aimed at folks like us, who don't want the Kevlar hype and are more likely to know quite a bit on the subject already. He could have gone to any number of websites or fora--where his supposed target audience lives--and found that the glue theory was debunked.

I see no one criticizing Peter Connolly for providing the glued linothorax model in the first place...

Well, there *have* been laments in various places about "Connollyisms", not just this particular debate but also things like Greek shield construction, etc. Plus, we realize that Connolly's work is 30 years old, so it's bound to become outdated as more information and better research turns up. Heck, one of the Osprey books directly attacks Connolly's conclusions on Samnite shield shapes, and shows good evidence. Another historian once dismissed Connolly as "just a graphic artist", though I suspect that might have been sour grapes! It's one thing to have a popular but outdated old book still in press, but quite another to burst upon the scene with something "new and exciting" that turns out to be bunk.

Regarding the actual content of the article on the Discovery site, there are no claims made that laminated linen was definitely the way it was done

You're kidding, right? "A Kevlar-like armor might have helped Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.) conquer nearly the entirety of the known world in little more than two decades", and "The other key ingredient was glue..." You KNOW that 95 percent of all readers are going to swallow that as Gospel. There's even a comment below the article asking why the Romans didn't use this stuff instead of metal since it was obviously so much better and cheaper!

You can throw stuff like this out on Armour Archive or RAT, and be picked apart ad nauseum by any number of well-informed people--as has already been done in that thread I linked to above! You can present it to a college class and expect a few of them to look at it critically and objectively. But having Discovery splash it across TV and the Net in such a shallow and narrow way is simply not good scholarship. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, I realize it's all about money and funding and "publish or perish" and all that. But somehow in my hopelessly romantic idealism I still think that professional historians ought to be held to a slightly higher standard than Spike TV. Otherwise, why the heck do we have to pay so much money to have them teach us and our kids?

Valete,

Matthew

PS: Besides, you're just defending him cuz his name is Gregory, bwa ha ha!

[Gerhard von Liebau]

Nah, I just don't see anything really irregular with his methods. I'm taking a class on historical research and thesis writing just now, and it seems to me that pulling stuff out of one's ass to create arguments is a typical trend in the profession. I'm only playing devil's advocate because you guys very knowledgeable, and I enjoy getting into conversations like this!

What you're saying makes perfect sense, Matt. I don't agree with the guy a lick regarding his reconstruction, and if he'd properly used the sources I think he could have came to another conclusion, or at least would have wound up not so ridiculously opposed to other methods besides the glued linen. I still believe that if you read in between the lines of this particular article, though, the general theme is leaning towards merely exposing the use of fabric armor among the Greeks, and not necessarily this method of construction. The description of how Dr. Aldrete made his own reconstruction is clearly described, yes, but there are no direct quotes being made to suggest that they are satisfied with this reconstructive method as being any sort of definite answer to the question that arises regarding construction. In fact, the final quote of the article from one of Aldrete's colleagues makes it apparent that this is not a definitive bit of research. If I were to use this article as a secondary source for any sort of research, this would be a major point to consider. I could even use it to support a theory for quilted linen armor if I correctly cite the thing! Not regarding the construction, mind you, but merely as a general source regarding modern research supporting fabric armor's various appearances in classical sources, which I think it does a most excellent job telling and is what should be appreciated by those of us "in the know."

-Gerhard

[Alric of Drentha]

Remember that Aldrete didn't write this article - he wrote a paper which he presented at a conference (for critique by academic peers), in which he presumably discussed his assumptions and sources at much greater length. This article appears to have been written by a reporter who thought his paper was cool and newsworthy.