Although it is still not clear, there is possibility that some sort of linen armour has been excavated in pompeii. Let's see if in the future it will be confirmed as being a real piece of linothorax or any other cloth armour!
(part of the information is just in Italian in the first link)
http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/2010/06/d...tente.html
http://rogueclassicism.com/2010/06/09/linothorax-from-pompeii/
Great Find!! thanks for the links.
| S. Jansone wrote: |
| Although it is still not clear, there is possibility that some sort of linen armour has been excavated in pompeii. Let's see if in the future it will be confirmed as being a real piece of linothorax or any other cloth armour!
(part of the information is just in Italian in the first link) http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/2010/06/d...tente.html |
So they found some linen. What has this got to do with armour? It directly contradicts the second link that reckons that linen armour was glued since it specifically states that the linen they found was "soft and durable" whatever that means. If it came from a glued linothorax it would have been as hard as a board. Assuming they found more than one layer it is far far more likely to have come from a sheet of folded cloth rather than some sort of artificial construct. No way can you conclude that it is an armour fragment without there being quilting or some sort of edging present or a large enough piece that the shape can be discerned.
The second link about the glued linothorax has been discussed and dismissed on an earlier thread.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18622
I liked the statement "soft and durable enough to be comparable to modern flak jackets"
I assume this means "comparable" i the same way that a 35 year old Ford escort is luxurious enough to be comparable to a mint porshe 911, the comparison being " a wholel lot less"
I assume this means "comparable" i the same way that a 35 year old Ford escort is luxurious enough to be comparable to a mint porshe 911, the comparison being " a wholel lot less"
| Dan Howard wrote: |
|
So they found some linen. What has this got to do with armour? It directly contradicts the second link that reckons that linen armour was glued since it specifically states that the linen they found was "soft and durable" whatever that means. If it came from a glued linothorax it would have been as hard as a board. Assuming they found more than one layer it is far far more likely to have come from a sheet of folded cloth rather than some sort of artificial construct. No way can you conclude that it is an armour fragment without there being quilting or some sort of edging present or a large enough piece that the shape can be discerned. The second link about the glued linothorax has been discussed and dismissed on an earlier thread. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18622 |
Well, yes. But this is not my assumption, but those of others, who has seen this piece. That's why I wrote "possibility".
| S. Jansone wrote: |
| Well, yes. But this is not my assumption, but those of others, who has seen this piece. That's why I wrote "possibility". |
If it was found with a helmet and greaves it is more likely to have been armour. Does anyone have more detail about this find?
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
So they found some linen. What has this got to do with armour? It directly contradicts the second link that reckons that linen armour was glued since it specifically states that the linen they found was "soft and durable" whatever that means. If it came from a glued linothorax it would have been as hard as a board. Assuming they found more than one layer it is far far more likely to have come from a sheet of folded cloth rather than some sort of artificial construct. No way can you conclude that it is an armour fragment without there being quilting or some sort of edging present or a large enough piece that the shape can be discerned. The second link about the glued linothorax has been discussed and dismissed on an earlier thread. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18622 |
http://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corriere.it/nap...6178.shtml
The article in italian states that the fabric was "as resistant as that of a modern flak jacket".
Fabric is stated to be not linen but ginestra (cytisus scoparius or broom plant) , thread was thin but ductile, so as that the fabric could resist a boar charge (de gustibus ...) according to ancient sources.
| Bruno Giordan wrote: |
| Fabric is stated to be not linen but ginestra (cytisus scoparius or broom plant) , thread was thin but ductile, so as that the fabric could resist a boar charge (de gustibus ...) according to ancient sources. |
What is the cite for this passage? Pausanias talks about linen armour being better able to resist animal teeth than iron weapons.
It looks to me like the article and much of the subsequent commentary is a mish-mash of bits of citations of Roman literature along with some slightly stretched comparisons and leaps in logic by several current writers. The quote from Pliny is just about the strength of one particular fiber, with no inherent relation to anything defensive. The archeologists are making the armor assumption, and comparing to Kevlar vests as an eye-catching modern equivalent. But they aren't exactly saying that Pliny is saying the same thing, nor have they really confirmed that what they've found is what Pliny is discussing (I don't *think*!). And I don't think they mean to imply that Romans were making bullet-proof armor! I'm guessing they cited Pliny because he actually mentions the strength of linen, and is discussing a product from the general area of Pompeii itself, rather than find a historical reference to linen armor in particular.
So we have a bunch of only vaguely relevant fragments of cloth and writing, blowing about in a brisk wind of speculation! Yes, a tad more solid data would be very helpful.
Valete,
Matthew
So we have a bunch of only vaguely relevant fragments of cloth and writing, blowing about in a brisk wind of speculation! Yes, a tad more solid data would be very helpful.
Valete,
Matthew
| Matthew Amt wrote: |
| It looks to me like the article and much of the subsequent commentary is a mish-mash of bits of citations of Roman literature along with some slightly stretched comparisons and leaps in logic by several current writers. The quote from Pliny is just about the strength of one particular fiber, with no inherent relation to anything defensive. The archeologists are making the armor assumption, and comparing to Kevlar vests as an eye-catching modern equivalent. But they aren't exactly saying that Pliny is saying the same thing, nor have they really confirmed that what they've found is what Pliny is discussing (I don't *think*!). And I don't think they mean to imply that Romans were making bullet-proof armor! I'm guessing they cited Pliny because he actually mentions the strength of linen, and is discussing a product from the general area of Pompeii itself, rather than find a historical reference to linen armor in particular.
So we have a bunch of only vaguely relevant fragments of cloth and writing, blowing about in a brisk wind of speculation! Yes, a tad more solid data would be very helpful. Valete, Matthew |
the comparison to modern soft body armor is a valid one. the way all textile armors, from linothorax to modern ballistic vests, work is the same...the fibers of the cloth transmit the energy of a blow to the layers beneath it and also outword along the fibers. with each successive layer, more of the energy is dissipated. vietnam era flak vests used layers of nylon as the ballistic filler. modern kevlar is simply the brand name of a strong aramid fiber (5x the strength of steel at a similar weight). though many are not aware of it, kevlar armor (and other similar aramids) also provide protection against knives and cutting attacks
| Marcos Cantu wrote: |
|
the comparison to modern soft body armor is a valid one. |
You are piling speculation on top of speculation. The comparison is irrelevant unless someone demonstrates that what was found at Pompei was actually intended to be used as armour.
There are plenty of examples of layered textile armour in many cultures and time periods. What has this to do with the fragment found at Pompei?
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
You are piling speculation on top of speculation. The comparison is irrelevant unless someone demonstrates that what was found at Pompei was actually intended to be used as armour. There are plenty of examples of layered textile armour in many cultures and time periods. What has this to do with the fragment found at Pompei? |
oh sorry, i wasnt talking specifically about the Pompei find; just textile armor in general...
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum