Its really nice to finally come across a professor/presentation/discussion that isn't completely polarized by the idea of glued linen body armor. With out physical evidence of ether type of armor mentioned (linen or leather) we cant be sure of any conclusion, and is nice to finally see middle of the road response. Peter Connolly gets knocked around a bit by the reenactment community for his theory, and its never sat right with me to say he was wrong or false just because there are some gray areas with his argument. In an investigation it its best to explore all the possibilities before coming to a final conclusion. Excellent presentation!
If they used boiled linseed oil as the glue it would have waterproofed the material. They were still making oil cloth after 1800 as a waterproof material.
44:37 They forgot one very important aspect of ht upsides! Painting!! Linen is easier to paint elaborately, make it look nicer, more distinctive, more imposing! Bronze could be added onto it for added classy effect, so it's even great in that aspect! Don't forget: humans are vain, think status markers are important and like fashion & pretty things - I don't see why they weren't any different.
12:50 That there is New Zealand Flax, a totally unrelated plant (closer to grass and lillies than to flax). It did have tough fibers that the Maori used for ropes and coarse fabric, hence it's name, but it's not the true Flax grown in Eurasia that Linen was made from.
I began playing around with trying to make this stuff around 4 years ago. Around 2 years ago a even did a few videos showing what I'd come up with. I used cotton canvas (painters tarp) and flour water mostly. I knew it likely wouldn't be nearly as effective. But linen costs so much more by the yard that I went with it. For not being the right materials it actually performed surprisingly well I thought. I wasn't aware of this experimental archeology or the book at the time (despite having tried to find all the information I could on my own). So I am really happy to have happened upon this video. This video alone has answered a lot of questions I still had. Like the efficacy of cross hatching layers. Or how thick should/can it be. I've ordered to book to aid me in future adventures with making linothorax. This has lit a fire under my ass about getting back to playing around with this (I say playing around because my experiments are to their experiments; What alchemy is to chemistry). I've ordered some new materials and already my head is swimming with things I want to have a look at with it. Thanks for this.
*+TheHelleri* Sure, you may [perhaps even rightly] compare your experimental efforts to alchemy an theirs to chemistry.. but you did it alone[!], they had a team, an actual budget, they had historical sources crafted hypothesis on all of that. Give yourself a break, great creative effort, and sounds like you had a lot of fun during that self-taught effort. Have you repeated similar things since seeing this video?
On the arrow testing part: Yeah that level of protection is quite good for the times they were made, as Archers weren't as common as they were later on. Slingers and Javelin-throwers were quite common themselves at this time, and if this armor protects from an arrow then its safe to say that it will protect from a slinger's stone. But i am far more skeptical about it defending from a skirmisher's Javelin, given that they are heavier and carry a bit more force despite its shorter range. Did you ever test that? Im curious as to how it would hold up.
This is very cool. I have been working on a book with a medieval country with little metal armor who wears largely cloth and leather and this taught me a lot.
Wow, this is such a great presentation & piece of experimental archaeology, I'm surprised more haven't commented here. The rigid -memory-flexing shown in the historical illustrations seems to argue against leather, as leather would form to the worn shape(e.g. the shoulder yoke bands would retain most of their curved, as worn, shape), rather than springing back to its flat origional shape. The textile historian/experts commnts on the production of linen retaining even more natural waxes/pectins is interesting. Also worn/used in North Africa by the Carthaginians & Libyans.
Given the test with the modern high carbon arrow, I wonder if the disappearance of this kind of armor coincides with the introduction of carbonised iron/steel.
A very big misconception was that you can’t put a “razor” sharp edge on Bronze or old fashioned steel. That’s totally wrong! So, the big question is: are the edges on the reconstructed arrowheads really sharp? I thing you can only use the data from sharp points. If your reconstructed ones where not sharp, they are not historical accurate.
If you get it sharp enough, it becomes brittle. Most swords back then weren't really that sharp and repetitive hits made them blunt, almost like clubs.
Bronze, and iron with a low carbon content are never brittle, the thinning of the material causes it to be less strong, and makes the edge more likely to be blunted, rolled, or cut into. Bronze actually can hold a finer edge than iron can, being that good, work hardened bronze is a good deal tougher than mild steel. And instead of having microserrations along the edge like iron or steel, bronze edges are usually smoother under a microscope. Also, swords we're kept very sharp, as sharp as they could be kept. If you want a metal club, you could have a much cheaper axe, or, maybe even ...a club. Swords were hard to make out of bronze, and very hard to make out of iron at the time, of course they were used as swords, bashing someone with something heavy and dull didn't need to be so expensive and difficult to produce. Also, if your sword was likely to dull from bashing hard surfaces with it, you would probably avoid bashing hard surfaces with it, and spend your time aiming at the softer bits, like a neck, or a face, or a leg, or an arm, or anywhere unarmoured that wouldn't fuck up your edge quite as much. bronze isn't brittle, iron isn't brittle, good steel can be brittle if poorly tempered. Swords we're swords, not clubs.
LeafyIsn'tHere Did you actually do your research on this topic at all? Roman soldiers were covered almost head to toe in armor during the good years and during them Middle Ages, lots of soldiers had armor almost as good if not better. You have men covered head to toe in riveted chain mail, plate, and helmets they can barely see out of. On top of that, you can't piece the armor with arrows or stab into it, it's to thick. Which more or less means you have to batter them into submission and then peal the armor off to kill them. Why do you think halberds and great-swords became a thing?
You sort the bloom. Hammering it flat, harden it in Water and break it in pieces. You use the kind of break to sort it. Than you weld together what you want. You can add C or get it out by controlling the fire during welding and forging. Brittleness could also be from P and Si but in the old times they don’t know it and sort on the behaviour not the chemical composition.
Concern about the sharpness debate; What about flint or stone arrowheads? I'm no expert on the Classical Period but surely some tribes used stone arrowheads at least occasionally. I know stone tools were used around the viking age. Stone arrows can be sharpened to surgical tool level.
very good work but you always forget one thing important: it's not just roman and greek , we found descriptions , statues, engraving linothorax from celt population in France,germany,roumania,bulgaria... during hallsatt and La Tène Period. thx
Its really nice to finally come across a professor/presentation/discussion that isn't completely polarized by the idea of glued linen body armor. With out physical evidence of ether type of armor mentioned (linen or leather) we cant be sure of any conclusion, and is nice to finally see middle of the road response. Peter Connolly gets knocked around a bit by the reenactment community for his theory, and its never sat right with me to say he was wrong or false just because there are some gray areas with his argument. In an investigation it its best to explore all the possibilities before coming to a final conclusion. Excellent presentation!
If they used boiled linseed oil as the glue it would have waterproofed the material. They were still making oil cloth after 1800 as a waterproof material.
Oil cloth is still made with boiled linseed oil to this day
44:37 They forgot one very important aspect of ht upsides!
Painting!! Linen is easier to paint elaborately, make it look nicer, more distinctive, more imposing! Bronze could be added onto it for added classy effect, so it's even great in that aspect! Don't forget: humans are vain, think status markers are important and like fashion & pretty things - I don't see why they weren't any different.
Carthaginians should have been included in the list of Hellenistic period users.
12:50 That there is New Zealand Flax, a totally unrelated plant (closer to grass and lillies than to flax). It did have tough fibers that the Maori used for ropes and coarse fabric, hence it's name, but it's not the true Flax grown in Eurasia that Linen was made from.
I began playing around with trying to make this stuff around 4 years ago. Around 2 years ago a even did a few videos showing what I'd come up with. I used cotton canvas (painters tarp) and flour water mostly. I knew it likely wouldn't be nearly as effective. But linen costs so much more by the yard that I went with it. For not being the right materials it actually performed surprisingly well I thought.
I wasn't aware of this experimental archeology or the book at the time (despite having tried to find all the information I could on my own). So I am really happy to have happened upon this video. This video alone has answered a lot of questions I still had. Like the efficacy of cross hatching layers. Or how thick should/can it be. I've ordered to book to aid me in future adventures with making linothorax.
This has lit a fire under my ass about getting back to playing around with this (I say playing around because my experiments are to their experiments; What alchemy is to chemistry). I've ordered some new materials and already my head is swimming with things I want to have a look at with it. Thanks for this.
*+TheHelleri* Sure, you may [perhaps even rightly] compare your experimental efforts to alchemy an theirs to chemistry.. but you did it alone[!], they had a team, an actual budget, they had historical sources crafted hypothesis on all of that. Give yourself a break, great creative effort, and sounds like you had a lot of fun during that self-taught effort. Have you repeated similar things since seeing this video?
This is one of the most valuable hours I spent on youtube. Thank you !
On the arrow testing part: Yeah that level of protection is quite good for the times they were made, as Archers weren't as common as they were later on. Slingers and Javelin-throwers were quite common themselves at this time, and if this armor protects from an arrow then its safe to say that it will protect from a slinger's stone. But i am far more skeptical about it defending from a skirmisher's Javelin, given that they are heavier and carry a bit more force despite its shorter range.
Did you ever test that? Im curious as to how it would hold up.
One question that comes to mind is how this technology could be used to make better armor than "accurate" linothorax.
This is very cool. I have been working on a book with a medieval country with little metal armor who wears largely cloth and leather and this taught me a lot.
Why does the screen keep going black during interesting parts
Wow, this is such a great presentation & piece of experimental archaeology, I'm surprised more haven't commented here. The rigid -memory-flexing shown in the historical illustrations seems to argue against leather, as leather would form to the worn shape(e.g. the shoulder yoke bands would retain most of their curved, as worn, shape), rather than springing back to its flat origional shape. The textile historian/experts commnts on the production of linen retaining even more natural waxes/pectins is interesting. Also worn/used in North Africa by the Carthaginians & Libyans.
Great work - have cited you in my aspis vlog!
Given the test with the modern high carbon arrow, I wonder if the disappearance of this kind of armor coincides with the introduction of carbonised iron/steel.
My apologies, I see that you answered that question in the Q&A part of the lecture.
Great video! A very fascinating subject.
you can get thick leather from just about any part of the animal. You can buy front shoulders at a 1/4 in thick all day long.
A very big misconception was that you can’t put a “razor” sharp edge on Bronze or old fashioned steel. That’s totally wrong!
So, the big question is: are the edges on the reconstructed arrowheads really sharp?
I thing you can only use the data from sharp points.
If your reconstructed ones where not sharp, they are not historical accurate.
If you get it sharp enough, it becomes brittle.
Most swords back then weren't really that sharp and repetitive hits made them blunt, almost like clubs.
Bronze, and iron with a low carbon content are never brittle, the thinning of the material causes it to be less strong, and makes the edge more likely to be blunted, rolled, or cut into. Bronze actually can hold a finer edge than iron can, being that good, work hardened bronze is a good deal tougher than mild steel. And instead of having microserrations along the edge like iron or steel, bronze edges are usually smoother under a microscope.
Also, swords we're kept very sharp, as sharp as they could be kept. If you want a metal club, you could have a much cheaper axe, or, maybe even ...a club. Swords were hard to make out of bronze, and very hard to make out of iron at the time, of course they were used as swords, bashing someone with something heavy and dull didn't need to be so expensive and difficult to produce. Also, if your sword was likely to dull from bashing hard surfaces with it, you would probably avoid bashing hard surfaces with it, and spend your time aiming at the softer bits, like a neck, or a face, or a leg, or an arm, or anywhere unarmoured that wouldn't fuck up your edge quite as much.
bronze isn't brittle, iron isn't brittle, good steel can be brittle if poorly tempered.
Swords we're swords, not clubs.
LeafyIsn'tHere
Did you actually do your research on this topic at all?
Roman soldiers were covered almost head to toe in armor during the good years and during them Middle Ages, lots of soldiers had armor almost as good if not better.
You have men covered head to toe in riveted chain mail, plate, and helmets they can barely see out of.
On top of that, you can't piece the armor with arrows or stab into it, it's to thick.
Which more or less means you have to batter them into submission and then peal the armor off to kill them.
Why do you think halberds and great-swords became a thing?
Tevo77777 I don’t understand you text.
Leafylsn’tHere don’t state anything about the amount of armour used.
You sort the bloom.
Hammering it flat, harden it in Water and break it in pieces. You use the kind of break to sort it. Than you weld together what you want. You can add C or get it out by controlling the fire during welding and forging. Brittleness could also be from P and Si but in the old times they don’t know it and sort on the behaviour not the chemical composition.
Concern about the sharpness debate; What about flint or stone arrowheads? I'm no expert on the Classical Period but surely some tribes used stone arrowheads at least occasionally. I know stone tools were used around the viking age. Stone arrows can be sharpened to surgical tool level.
very good work but you always forget one thing important: it's not just roman and greek , we found descriptions , statues, engraving linothorax from celt population in France,germany,roumania,bulgaria... during hallsatt and La Tène Period.
thx