01-15-2010, 04:37 AM
Quote: The Persian King on the other hand was the arch enemy, and wearing his despoiled armour ( or that of a Royal relative) would not only be 'honourable', but a vivid reminder to the whole Macedonian Army of what had occurred the last time they met 'The Great King'.
Absolutely. It also indicates - again accepting the historicity of the passage - the efficacy of the armour. Clearly the Macedonian conqueror was not about to deport himself in inferior armour; just as clearly he was not about to adopt the arms of a lesser mortal or, as you say, "traitor".
One wonders whether he continued to wear it: it might well have been lighter and more comfortable that the Greek (leather or whatever) versions. Whilst literary attestations of the Macedonians' proclivity for a (not so) quiet couple of kraters abound, I find no survivng trace of their anticipating the Finns in their love of the suana. The armour in the so-called "Philip II" tomb must have been oppressive in any summer heat; in India it must have been sauna-like. Coupled with the Vulgate's notice of the replacement and burning of armour, one wonders whether the replacement equipment was Asian manufactered rather than from Kleon's Athenian tannery?
Paralus|Michael Park
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους
Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους
Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!
Academia.edu
