11-22-2007, 12:57 PM
You can never talk to much about a subject. :wink:
I believe that many or all depictions of naked warriors fell in the category of heroic and/or erotic nudity but I have a problem with "heroic naked feet" on a guy with chiton, cuirass and helmet. In Roman art the absence of shoes (if not painted in and just faded) may be a sign of divinity. But this is hardly true for Greek art, given the number of barefoot warriors in 5th and 4th c. depictions. And we have pictures of Greek warriors with and without shoes and it would be a problem to decide why one is shown barefoot, the other not.
The problem with the sharp material on the battlefield is a reasonable argument but may be a bit exaggerated, arrows and javelins for example would normally stick in the ground or lie flat. Shaka Zulu in the 19th c. urged his warriors to stay away from their sandals and fight barefoot (because you can move faster and safer in this way), and he was not a fool I think, so it may be possible to run barefoot over a battlefield.
The feeling "I would/could not do it, because it is impractical or impossible from my experience or thoughts, so they did not do it" is often a good correction for interpretations or sometimes the only way to solve problems, but in this case I think Johnnys/Pauls different interpretation is probable and convincing.
I believe that many or all depictions of naked warriors fell in the category of heroic and/or erotic nudity but I have a problem with "heroic naked feet" on a guy with chiton, cuirass and helmet. In Roman art the absence of shoes (if not painted in and just faded) may be a sign of divinity. But this is hardly true for Greek art, given the number of barefoot warriors in 5th and 4th c. depictions. And we have pictures of Greek warriors with and without shoes and it would be a problem to decide why one is shown barefoot, the other not.
The problem with the sharp material on the battlefield is a reasonable argument but may be a bit exaggerated, arrows and javelins for example would normally stick in the ground or lie flat. Shaka Zulu in the 19th c. urged his warriors to stay away from their sandals and fight barefoot (because you can move faster and safer in this way), and he was not a fool I think, so it may be possible to run barefoot over a battlefield.
The feeling "I would/could not do it, because it is impractical or impossible from my experience or thoughts, so they did not do it" is often a good correction for interpretations or sometimes the only way to solve problems, but in this case I think Johnnys/Pauls different interpretation is probable and convincing.
Wolfgang Zeiler
