07-21-2008, 05:48 AM
I would agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate lengths from even an intended 'life-size' artistic rendition,(but depictions are all we have to go on) hence my use of "about" and the rather approximate figures.....
If you take something even cruder, such as the cartoon-like figures in the Panticapaeum 'graffito' I think you are referring to, it becomes even more difficult, and your example illustrates why, quite well ( see below)....even assuming the artist was conscious of such things as the ratio of Lance length to height, and didn't just draw 'a long lance' !!
At first glance the Lance/kontos looks huge, but that is because the horse is depicted way too small, and the overall impression is deceptive.....
In fact, the Lance is less than 3 times the length of the rider, in a ratio of 6-2.5. Furthermore, that is the length of the seated rider who is anyway well out of proper proportion. If we adjust to arrive at the proper length of the standing rider, the 2.5 becomes roughly 3.3, and hence the Lance-to-full standing height ratio is 6 to 3.3.
Applying this hypothetical figure to your equally hypothetical 167 cm, we get 167 x1.8, a fraction over 3 m (9.75 ft). If we decrease the 'figure height' to take out the helmet height and hanging toes, the ratio becomes 6-2 (roughly) for the seated figure; adjusted for standing height, we get 6-2.6 ratio, x 167 cm =3.85 m( 12.5 ft) !!
Nowhere near 5 metres.......
We can't use the second, broken Lance, since the rear is 'out of picture'...
All very rough, given the nature of the depiction.... perhaps we should settle for "quite long",(roughly 3.5 m-4 m) but not "extremely long" (roughly over 5m) :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:
If you take something even cruder, such as the cartoon-like figures in the Panticapaeum 'graffito' I think you are referring to, it becomes even more difficult, and your example illustrates why, quite well ( see below)....even assuming the artist was conscious of such things as the ratio of Lance length to height, and didn't just draw 'a long lance' !!
At first glance the Lance/kontos looks huge, but that is because the horse is depicted way too small, and the overall impression is deceptive.....
In fact, the Lance is less than 3 times the length of the rider, in a ratio of 6-2.5. Furthermore, that is the length of the seated rider who is anyway well out of proper proportion. If we adjust to arrive at the proper length of the standing rider, the 2.5 becomes roughly 3.3, and hence the Lance-to-full standing height ratio is 6 to 3.3.
Applying this hypothetical figure to your equally hypothetical 167 cm, we get 167 x1.8, a fraction over 3 m (9.75 ft). If we decrease the 'figure height' to take out the helmet height and hanging toes, the ratio becomes 6-2 (roughly) for the seated figure; adjusted for standing height, we get 6-2.6 ratio, x 167 cm =3.85 m( 12.5 ft) !!
Nowhere near 5 metres.......
We can't use the second, broken Lance, since the rear is 'out of picture'...
All very rough, given the nature of the depiction.... perhaps we should settle for "quite long",(roughly 3.5 m-4 m) but not "extremely long" (roughly over 5m) :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
