Quote:@hoplite14gr

My Cavalryman is "super heavy" for the Achaemenid period due to the left arm ring armor, the leg protection and the breast armor of the horse. These are details which are still deemed impossible for most people.

Quote:As said it is mainly modeled on two seals and the Immortals on the Alexander sarcophagus/mosaic.

Quote:The neck guard is based partly on those seals and on a bust an Iranic warrior from an unknown period (but with Karbysia), but it could be the explanation for not using a helmet.

Quote:You've depicted the shoulder pieces on the cavalryman's cuirass as being separate, but on the sarcophagus and another seal depicting an almost identically-equipped cavalryman they are clearly shown as being an extension continuous with the rest of the cuirass.

Quote:I don't really see much, if any, of the high collar protecting the back of the neck which is so prominent on both of the above sources.

Quote:Only the laminated arm armour is doubtful (for the same reasons mentioned in the previous thread); the other two seem quite certain.

Quote:Which figures on the Alexander sarcophagus are Immortals and how have they been identified as such?

Quote:You never elucidated your mention of that bust in the last thread. Where was it found? Do you have any references for it?

Quote:@MeinPanzer

Good questions.

Quote:Could you please show me that seal? The reason why they are separate is because it would be unlikely that they would deform that much during the attack as displayed on the sarcophagus. If it is connected to the cuirass then the connecting method would have to be flexible. But I agree, it would also be possible that they are connected, but it’s unfortunately not visible for be to reconstruct it.

There are two others, actually, both of which display the same armour with the same sort of collar. The only sources I know which illustrate them are Duncan Head's Achaemenid Persian Montvert title (Fig. 24a) and the article "A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Can" by Nurten Sevinc, Reyhan Korpe, Musa Tombul, Charles Brian Rose, Donna Strahan, Henrike Kiesewetter, and John Wallrodt in Studia Troica 11, 2001, pp. 383-420.

Quote:I think the reason why the armor of the cavalrymen of sarcophagus looks so strange is because the color is washed away and that he wears a short, wide shirt.

Actually, much of the paint still remains on his cuirass. It was painted red with a thick white belt separating the body of the cuirass from the pteruges and a white waistband running around the body halfway between the belt and the arms. The upper row of pteruges are all white, while the lower row alternate from red to white.

Quote:Well I wanted it to be somewhat light weight and it’s due to the low resolution of the copy posted here. Maybe the seal could give me a new impression so that I would correct it in some future project.

You wanted the cuirass to be light weight? But I thought these were supposed to be the heaviest of the heavy elite troops? The two seals mentioned above both show collars of the same size and shape as shown on the sarcophagus.

Quote:Well this was also my opinion before I saw the iron spangenhelmet found around Sardis. That’s why I came to the conclusion that it was in use to some extend during the Achaemenid period. I chose it for the left-arm protection.

The spangenhelm is an anomaly, and perhaps even an anachronistic intrusion. I would not take it as any indication of the widespread use of iron. Even so, making a helmet out of iron is one thing, but making the full laminated armour for the arm would require much more skill and would be much more expensive.

Quote:Well I will post a seal here in which the Persian cavalrymen (one of those based in the western part of the empire) use his left arm for the attack, which is very rare. There something is visible, which is together with the sources very likely an arm ring/laminated armor.

He's probably depicted using his left arm because this was a seal which would have been flipped when an impression was made, so that he would be using his right arm in the final image. I don't think those lines indicate any kind of armour - they're almost certainly just folds in the sleeve, like those visible on the pantleg.

Quote:Well there is only one Persian on the Sarcophagus who carries a cuirass and I think only the Persian heavy infantry wore cuirasses. Nearly the same one are displayed at Issus, protecting the king. That’s why I'm very confident that in both cases the Immortals are displayed.

Why do you think A) that only heavy infantry wore cuirasses and B) that the Immortals could be the only heavy infantry to wear cuirasses? All the Alexander mosaic shows us is that the guards accompanying the king in his chariot wore cuirasses and that some cavalry did as well. It gives us no indication of whether the Immortals wore such cuirasses or not, since no Persian infantry are depicted wearing armour on the mosaic. The figure on the Alexander sarcophagus is "nearly the same" as the figures on the Alexander mosaic insofar as they both wear tube-and-yoke cuirasses and are dressed like Persians, but how else would you expect a Persian wearing a cuirass to appear?

Quote:Ok I said I will post it when I open this thread, I just hope no one fells offended because of copyright reasons.

Quote:There are two others, actually, both of which display the
same armor with the same sort of collar. The only sources I know which illustrate
them are Duncan Head's Achaemenid Persian Montvert title (Fig. 24a) and the article "A New
Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Can" by Nurten Sevinc, Reyhan Korpe, Musa Tombul, Charles
Brian Rose, Donna Strahan, Henrike Kiesewetter,
and John Wallrodt in Studia Troica 11, 2001, pp. 383-420.

Quote:Actually, much of the paint still remains on his cuirass. It was painted red with
a thick white belt separating the body of the cuirass from the pteruges and a white waistband
running around the body halfway between the belt and the arms. The upper row of pteruges
are all white, while the lower row alternate from red to white.

Quote:You wanted the cuirass to be light weight? But I thought these were supposed to be the
heaviest of the heavy elite troops? The two seals mentioned above both show collars of the same
size and shape as shown on the sarcophagus.

Quote:The spangenhelm is an anomaly, and perhaps even an anachronistic intrusion. I would
not take it as any indication of the widespread use of iron. Even so, making a helmet out of iron
is one thing, but making the full laminated armour for the arm would require much more skill and
would be much more expensive.

Quote:He's probably depicted using his left arm because this was a seal which
would have been flipped when an impression was made, so that he would be
using his right arm in the final image. I don't think those lines indicate any kind of armour -
they're almost certainly just folds in the sleeve, like those visible on the pantleg.

Quote:All the Alexander mosaic shows us is that the guards accompanying the king in his
chariot wore cuirasses and that some cavalry did as well. It gives us no indication
of whether the Immortals wore such cuirasses or not, since no Persian infantry are
depicted wearing armour on the mosaic.

Quote:The figure on the Alexander sarcophagus is "nearly the same" as the figures on the Alexander
mosaic insofar as they both wear tube-and-yoke cuirasses and are dressed like Persians, but how else
would you expect a Persian wearing a cuirass to appear?

Quote:I thought this might have been what you were referring to. This is a head from the monumental sculptures found during
excavations in the Kushan palace at Khalchayan dating to the 1st c. AD and either depicts a late Saka cataphract or a Yuezhi
cataphract, depending on how you interpret the scene. It is several centuries removed from the time of the Achaemenid Persians.

Quote:On top of this, it also shows a type of cataphract armour that was adapted by nomadic tribes from Chinese sources and
transferred to Central Asia in the 3rd c. BC, where it was changes slightly into the form seen here, and so has no connection
whatsoever to Iranian armour types - contemporary depictions of Parthian cataphracts do not show them wearing cuirasses with
high collars. Also, he is not wearing a kyrbasia but a segmented helmet, which also happens to be of Chinese origin.

Quote:Interesting, a red cuirass is also carried by the heavy infantry on the Alexander mosaic.

Quote:No, I wanted the high collar to be rather light-weight. And if there are two seals displaying this type of
Cavalrymen beside the sarcophagus,
things become even more interesting for me.

Quote:Yes but even if it is flipped the perspective is unusual in Persian art which seems to favor the perspective
as on the sarqophagus. The folds of the arm are radial while those of the legs are vertical, that’s why it doesn’t,
seems like folds for the legs (these would also have to be radial/horizontal). Whether its folds for the arm or armor,
remains open, I went, with some other reasons in mind, for the armor interpretation.

Quote:Because at least for the Persian wars period the Persian army was a cavalry force with only one
standing/professional heavy infantry unit. The
infantry army was mainly made up by bowman with the immortals being the only large heavy infantry unit.
I also should have better said
heavy scale metal armor cuirasses since light cuirasses could have been used by some light-infantry units.

Quote:Well as I see it there is infantry behind the royal chariot and one wearing a red and heavy cuirass. These
infantrymen were among the bodyguards of the king and therefore almost certainly at least a detachment
of the Immortals. But it seems you think its cavalrymen behind the king.

Quote:There is a fundamental difference in the way I think the Persian army was made of I think. There
is no proof that there was any standing Iranic heavy infantry unit in the Persian army pre-~400BC beside the
Immortals which were among the kings bodyguards. So if this was the case and if its infantry displayed in the
Alexander mosaic, the Persian of the Alexander sarcophagus should be an Immortal as his tight trousers were typical
for the original Persian heavy infantry. But it’s possible that he is from one of the new formed infantry unit/s from the
late Achaemenid period. However the Immortals, the kings bodyguards, the most prestigious Iranic infantry unit, is much more
Likely to be displayed on such a sarcophagus than those of the late period. They fight with the Sagaris and wear heavy cuirasses,
but it’s those cuirasses which makes them unlikely to be some light infantry/bowman unit.

Quote:Interesting, the source at which I found it said it was Parthian iirc. It was the Kyrbisia looking headwear which made me connecting it
with the Achaemenids. However the seal in which Persians in ceremonial cloths fighting Sakas/Scytians also seems to show some a neck-guard,
you may know which seal I mean.

Quote:Well it would be really interesting if you could go somewhat in deep with this Chinese connection, at the moment the collars seem
to be from Iranic sources given the Sarcophagus and its early period. They first appear in Asia Minor and later in Transoxania which would be
a westward move. But I have to admit that my knowledge about Chinese armor is very poor. It seems to me that the concept of such large
collars, first appeared among Iranics and was further used by isolated Iranic people such as the Saka. It would also to some degree explain why the Persians seem to have deemed the helmet less important than other items.

Quote:Is there any chance you could tell and show me some material about Chinese armor and its impact on steppe peoples and that helmet which
appeared to me like a Kyrbisia?

Quote:I always thought that that figure was a dismounted cavalryman and that his mount's head can be seen in front of him, but now when I look at it it seems that that horse may be one of the four drawing the chariot and that its head has simply been very awkwardly rendered. I think you may very well be right that he is an infantryman, in which case I would agree that this is evidence for the equipment of the Immortals.

Quote:Ruben wrote:

Quote:I always thought that that figure was a dismounted cavalryman and that his mount's head can be seen in front of him, but now when I look at it it seems that that horse may be one of the four drawing the chariot and that its head has simply been very awkwardly rendered. I think you may very well be right that he is an infantryman, in which case I would agree that this is evidence for the equipment of the Immortals.

...A close examination of a large reproduction shows that the figure clapping his hand to his head to the right of Darius' chariot, and wearing a red Tube-and-Yoke corselet trimmed in white is neither a 'dismounted' cavalryman, nor an infantryman. All four (black) horses drawing the chariot are clearly visible with their heads pointed to the right. Immediately to the left of the figure in question is visible a brown horses head, pointing left, which the figure in question is clearly riding. He is therefore a mounted cavalryman.
A fallen Persian who just might be an infantryman ( since there is no associated horse) is visible beneath the horses hooves of Darius' chariot. He is only partially intact, but wears a kyrbisia, no armour, wears a grey tunic with an intricate pattern, and appears to be holding a bow....

Quote:I fear this may be slightly off topic, but have any of you noticed that the shields carried by the front rank spearmen on some of the Persepolis reliefs seem to be Boeotians? or at least have a very similar profile? And what does that mean?

And Happy Nowruz to all...

Quote:I fear this may be slightly off topic, but have any of you noticed that the shields carried by the front rank spearmen on some of the Persepolis reliefs seem to be Boeotians? or at least have a very similar profile? And what does that mean?

Quote:The two collar types are totally different. The Persian collars appear fairly late (circa the turn of the 4th c. BC, as far as I know) and seem to be found on organic cuirasses. They are high and flat, protecting only the back of the neck.

The Chinese collars first appear on charioteer armour in the 5th c. BC on cuirasses made of lacquered leather. Their collars are square-shaped with the front side, where the face is, missing, so that they cover the back and sides of the neck, and they are the same height the whole way round. In addition, this type of heavy leacquered leather cuirass is associated with a type of helmet likewise made of laquered leather plates of various shapes and sizes sewn together. We find a figurine from northwestern China of a figurine wearing a similar cuirass with a high collar and a similar helmet which seems to depict a barbarian dating to the 5th-3rd c. BC. Then we find a 4th-2nd c. BC bronze figurine almost identically equipped from Talas-tal northwest of the Tarim basin, and around the same time period a depiction of such armour being worn on an artefact from southern Siberia. After this we find many different examples well into the first centuries AD.

The collars on the Persian cuirasses, as I speculated in the last thread, seem to be exaggerated neck-protectors like we see on Greek tube-and-yoke cuirasses, and so I think the general form derives from Greek examples.