Alexander's army used laminated linen armor

[Michael]

I didn't know this, although apparently the information is mentioned in various ancient sources. Alexander the Great and his soldiers used laminated linen which was an ancient world approximation of modern Kevlar.

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.

"While we know quite a lot about ancient armor made from metal, linothorax remains something of a mystery since no examples have survived, due to the perishable nature of the material," Gregory Aldrete, professor of history and humanistic studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, told Discovery News.

"Nevertheless, we have managed to show that this linen armor thrived as a form of body protection for nearly 1,000 years, and was used by a wide variety of ancient Mediterranean civilizations," Aldrete said.

You can read the full article here.

There must have been disadvantages which caused ancient armies to leave this kind of armor behind. For example, the Romans used leather and metal armor at various times in their history. Perhaps only ignorance of the techniques or lack of access to the proper resources forced the Romans to use different types of armor.

I know that Chinese soldiers used layers of fabric in their armor, and I believe other oriental cultures used fabric-based armor as well.

Chain-mail could not simply be draped over one's body -- it required a strong fabric underpadding. At least, that was what was used in medieval Europe but I believe that classical chain-mail also was worn over fabric.

I'll need to check some references for further details. I just find this article to be so fascinating.

[Radrook]

What ever possessed the Persians to send armies to fight Hoplites with wicker shields?

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Radrook

What ever possessed the Persians to send armies to fight Hoplites with wicker shields?

Past successes.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Past successes.

Yes I know that they beat back ten thousand Spartans on a previous occasion. But I think that WAS BECAUSE OF SUPERIORITY OF CAVALRY.
If their success depended on cavalry, then why give battle on detrimental ground? Also, an upgrade on archers was never instituted. I read somewhere that if they had used better bows that the Spartan armor could have been pierced. I also don't understand why a super power of that kind with such vast riches at its disposal couldn't give itself at least equality in armor. You may say that it wasn't needed. But after several defeats the better part of valor would have demanded a reevaluation.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Radrook

Yes I know that they beat back ten thousand Spartans on a previous occasion. But I think that WAS BECAUSE OF SUPERIORITY OF CAVALRY.
If their success depended on cavalry, then why give battle on detrimental ground? Also, an upgrade on archers was never instituted. I read somewhere that if they had used better bows that the Spartan armor could have been pierced. I also don't understand why a super power of that kind with such vast riches at its disposal couldn't give itself at least equality in armor. You may say that it wasn't needed. But after several defeats the better part of valor would have demanded a reevaluation.

Doesn’t matter. Unless there’s another military goal to be achieved, invading armies do not invade believing that their weapons, armor, tactics, logistics and training will lose. If they did, they wouldn’t have marched. Of course, this has been the detriment to many generals, great and small, and this case is no different.

So the answer remains the same no matter what hindsight questions you ask. Delving into those questions can be rather interesting, but the driving force behind the expedition was belief in success, and all the accouterments that go along with that victory.

[Michael]

The Persians invaded Greece because the Greek city-states were encroaching upon Persian frontiers by supporting rebellions among former Greek cities in Asia Minor that had been conquered by Persia.

The Greco-Persian wars were essentially a clash of two cultures, much like the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage.

[august]

Which wasn't really the question though, was it? I think the question was why one power would go up against another with vastly inferior armor, not "what's an acceptable answer on a 9th grade Western Civ test about why Persia invaded Greece?"

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by august

Which wasn't really the question though, was it? I think the question was why one power would go up against another with vastly inferior armor, not "what's an acceptable answer on a 9th grade Western Civ test about why Persia invaded Greece?"

Sorry, I’m not seeing how Michael’s answer doesn’t address the question. My response was more fundamental and, whereas Michael’s delved into some specific details of those actual events, his answer is no less responsive. In this case, the Persians said to themselves, “Those uppity Greeks are at it again, stirring trouble and causing us headaches. Let’s go invade them and teach them a lesson!” But the idea is the same: an invading army invades because its generals believe it will win.

Radrook’s question, in this regard, is rendered moot.

We look back at the history of that decision and we laugh because it was so foolish. Wicker shields? Will they throw chaise lounges and table sets as well? But here’s the thing, it’s not like they pulled the tops of wicker clothes baskets and went to war. Wicker is light and sturdy and when woven closely together, as it would have been for the Persian taka (shields). The taka itself was not just wicker, but was a tightly woven wicker base with leather hide stretched over it, likely boiled to provide further resistance. It affords good protection with minimal loss of maneuverability. And the Persian sparabara and takabara were all about maneuverability. The takabara were more lightly armored, carrying only the taka (hence the name) and wearing thick linen, while the sparabara wore a kind of scale mail coats and linen combination, making them a slightly heavier force.

Both groups used the same tactics, creating a shield wall and then thrusting with spears at their opponents. The sparabara were the core of the Persian army, and were quite effective at doing what they did, marching out, forming a shield wall and killing the other side. While the sparabara were engaged in this, the takabara would be sent against the flanks in a charge and would effectively disrupt the enemy’s shield wall. Once a shield wall is broken, it’s confusion, chaos and death for the other side.

The problem with the Battle of Thermopylae was that they faced the very heavily armored Greek hoplites, who had picked their terrain very well, rendering the numbers of the Persians moot, and giving no ground for any flanking maneuvers, which the lighter takabara could have taken advantage of to disrupt the Greek battle line. So all of the strengths of the Persian army were taken away, and their weaknesses completely and utterly exploited. Classic Art of War.

Except when the strategy failed, because, and let’s remember, the Greeks lost at Thermopylae. The Persians found a way to go around the strongly held pass and outflank the Greeks. Leonides responded by releasing/ordering/allowing the majority of his command to retreat, while he and about 1,500 stayed as a rearguard to keep the Persian cavalry from mounting a charge that likely would have killed all of the Greek allies present. The Persians crushed the remaining Greeks and marched on their happy way having won, just as they “knew” they were going to.

[august]

Which is much more of what was being asked, i.e. the weaponry

My guess is that there were also a number of fallacies involved there, like:

- "well with all these tens/hundreds of thousands of soldiers, we don't need no stinkin' armor"

- "holy logistics, Batman - with all these tens/hundreds of thousands of soldiers we can't afford to put all of them in heavy armor, especially not the ones who are basically cannon-fodder" (hoplite-fodder, I guess?)

- "we've got a living god as our commander, so we don't need no stinkin' armor"

- "I'm a living god, so my troops don't need no stinkin' armor"

- "these Greeks are girly-men, we'll walts right over them"

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by august

Which is much more of what was being asked, i.e. the weaponry

Huh? I didn’t really go into the weaponry in my post. I mentioned the spears that the sparabara carried only because it was part and parcel with discussing the tactics that employed the taka. Not certain what you’re referencing here.

My guess is that there were also a number of fallacies involved there, like:

- "well with all these tens/hundreds of thousands of soldiers, we don't need no stinkin' armor"

- "holy logistics, Batman - with all these tens/hundreds of thousands of soldiers we can't afford to put all of them in heavy armor, especially not the ones who are basically cannon-fodder" (hoplite-fodder, I guess?)

Probably not either of these. The linen armor the takabara and the sparabara wore was (somewhat) standard issue. It had proved effective in the past. What was ineffective were the Persian tactics. Xerxes had a rather efficient navy that kept his army supplied up until Salamis. True, the sparabara and takabara couldn’t stand up to the Greek hoplites, but the Persian archers and cavalry were more than a match. So it’s not like the Persian didn’t have a strategy for defeating the Greeks, the Greeks just picked their battles and battlegrounds so as to reduce the Persian advantages.

"we've got a living god as our commander, so we don't need no stinkin' armor"

- "I'm a living god, so my troops don't need no stinkin' armor"

Perhaps this might have played some part. Certainly, with the numbers that Xerxes was touting it must seem that no one could stand before him, and he was pre-ordained to succeed.

"these Greeks are girly-men, we'll walts right over them"

This is almost certainly a major factor in the military blunders the Persians made, especially the aforementioned Salamis. As the Persian army marched, cities were forced to capitulate or face destruction. This happened with all of those Boeotian,Thessalian, Locrian, Phocian, etc. cities in the path of the Persians. The Persian fleet, which was integral to the success of the land-based army, was lured into battle not once but twice, ultimately with devastating outcomes. First, indecisively at Artemisium (while the land army conquered), and then, decisively, at Salamis. Artemisium was significant for the Greeks because it showed they could stand against the Persian navy, they gained experience for their navy, and learned techniques on Persian naval tactics. Salamis strongly suggests that the Persians were eager to end the war and over-confident in their abilities and strength of numbers to do so. Indeed, if they had defeated the Greeks at Salamis, the outcome of the war might have been vastly different.

[Michael]

Persian arms and armor reflected the environment in which they were most often employed. Modern armies have made similar transenvironmental transitions with disastrous effects. Even the U.S. Army has on occasion sent troops into combat with the "wrong" equipment.

Prior to the first Persian Gulf War many American units were sent to Saudi Arabia with boots that were designed for the jungles of southeast Asia (steel-soled boots that would resist being punctured by punji stakes, for example).

And we also sent some troops into Afghanistan with minimal high altitude training (relying at first on specialized units that were already acclimated to that kind of warfare).

All armies have to adapt to the conditions of new and foreign battlefields and tactics. Today's US forces in the Middle East rely extensively upon Mine Resistant Armor Protected vehicles (MRAPs). In the next war, such vehicles may be deemed a liability.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Michael

Persian arms and armor reflected the environment in which they were most often employed. Modern armies have made similar transenvironmental transitions with disastrous effects. Even the U.S. Army has on occasion sent troops into combat with the "wrong" equipment.

Prior to the first Persian Gulf War many American units were sent to Saudi Arabia with boots that were designed for the jungles of southeast Asia (steel-soled boots that would resist being punctured by punji stakes, for example).

And we also sent some troops into Afghanistan with minimal high altitude training (relying at first on specialized units that were already acclimated to that kind of warfare).

All armies have to adapt to the conditions of new and foreign battlefields and tactics. Today's US forces in the Middle East rely extensively upon Mine Resistant Armor Protected vehicles (MRAPs). In the next war, such vehicles may be deemed a liability.

Exactly. So the short answer is, as I gave above: past successes.

But an interesting question to delve into, anyhow, so I enjoyed the discussion.