02-01-2012, 10:44 PM
Hi Sean,
1. On shoes/bare feet, I have no evidence other than a conspicuous lack of evidence, one that makes stronger my case just like hoplite nudity. I do not place aside the possibility of fighters entering bare-foot in battle. For archers and light troops this could be even beneficial. For heavily armed troops especially those fighting in close combat pushing matches the advantages of bare-feet over a for-the-purpose made sole are less clear. Hoplites did not run or jump around but needed to stick their feet into the ground to push. See, at the end of the day one needs to just make the experiment - that is our job as re-enactors. All I am saying here is that there is thin chances that the % of naked feet (is it 80% or 90%?) in representations is representative of the actual % of footware among hoplites. Front ranks particularly should be particularly sensitive to this issue actually more than the protectiveness of their own armors as losing once balance meant certain death and endangering of his side.
2. On hoplite nudity, yes in Europe and Africa "provincial cultures" went around in what we would call "ritualistic military nudity". I ignore if this was ever the case in Greece other than the artistic ritualistic/fashion representation. Why this? Foremost for the single reference of Olympic nudity as an exception rather than the rule - nothing to do with prudishness and such, Greeks loved the human body, but certainly would not go around naked. Had this been common place (we are not discussing any stand-alone exceptions), I do sincerely find it very weird for ancient writers to had gone into the effort to explain why athlets competed nude and give the event that kickstarted that tradition. They would simply take it for granted that since warriors may fight nude, athlets too go compete nude (athletics started as part of military excercise afterall). Suppoting that hoplites commonly went on nude is identical to supporting that ancient Greek women occasionally went out nude on the basis of the numerous nude female depictions. Or that ancient Greek tribes were people with long straight noses starting from the forehead, a very rare human trait found only partially (as the majority has the Middle Eastern type one) in the region east of Caucasus on the Asiatic side and among tribes related to Middle East who do not look at all Mediterranean and one that is not at all found in any place today that ancient Greeks lived (from Greece to Minor Asia, Cyprus and Lebanon, to South Italy, South France, Eastern Spain - note too that these are the only places in the Mediterranean were populations are described as "Mediterranean" (contrasted to Basques, Portuguese, Magrebins, Egyptians, Albanians and Croatians who are not described as such).
Art is art and if it is to be taken literally we have to put everything in context. I did not see many expecting Italians to be like those depictions in the Renaissance paintings.
Art is art and cannot be taken literaly unless we put things into context.
3. On the size of ancient Greeks I cannot argue on surveys I did not read - apparently these researchers searched it more thoroughly to conclude to a more normal 1,70m average so I may accept it as it is. But then I do tend to get my ideas from things like the anatomical greaves which indicate the upper and lower part of feet and on them we may take an idea of the bearer. And on average these point at lower heights - let alone leg deformations (apparently due to carrying weights and training since childhood), nothing close to the nice shiny and flashy pictures we see in pottery.
4. On the tight vs. loose fitting, I do not know how do we establish that metal (with its inner lining) was worn directly over skin/civilian-like cloth. The armors both bell and muscle were tied on the sides and thus they could theoretically take a distance as much as the bearer wished - not suggesting that any great distance would be good either. However having either naked skin or a simple civilian-like garment in contact with the armor and its inner lining looks quite uncomfortable for a foot soldier (maybe works work for cavalry but not for infantry). You do not need any medieval thick gambeson but some layers of linen inbetween would greatly aid both comfort and above all agility and overall protection. It is a complete theoretic suggestion but it is not out of space to propose that the linothorax (an age-old invention not necessarily of Greeks) was developed out of the need to combine the metal part and the padding part in a convenient single piece.
Note also the example of another army, the Roman. The nice chain mail suits they were wearing and the lorica segmentatas were not always worn in the nice neaty flashy fashion shown on artwork. Chain mail was worn in a pot-belly fashion to losen up the chain above the leather under-layer and protect better rather than the perfect straight appearence we see most often on art. And then some of the lorica segmentata pieces found were ultra-thin (this taking into account the aging of the material) that the only reasonable explanation is the fact that these (at least these particular ones) were actually worn as additional protection over padding or leather-chain mail. Later Eastern Roman armour moved along that line afterall.
Of course this does not mean that "because it seems more logical and others did it" archaic-classical-hellenistic Greeks did it that way too but then not having clues for the one or the other direction (and artwork is certainly no clue) we pick our best and test it. For example, when I built my body-shield, people naturally gave positive and negative comments on it and among the latter was the increased weight (11kg). My guess was that if Roman oval shields were 8 to 10 kg, a body-shield would not weight less. If it weighted less, protection would be less (for same material) so what is the point of having it body-fashion and strap it on yourself? Well, we made it, and on my first trial I carried it around in a quasi-continuous manner for 3 hours and I could continue easily for at another. And I am not any trained bronze age warrior, not even train in any sport. Case solved. Body-shields were definitely heavier than later big archaic shields. Their size and presence of strap meant they were not meant to be played around Brad-Pitt-style but rather protect either the lance thrower or the chariot driver etc.
In that way, if it works we have a case. For me, tight does not work on the basis of lower protection (and here I set momentarily aside comfort and even agility which is a personalised experience depending on whether the armor is tailored or not). An armor firmly tied over some underneath non-civilian cloth layers seems to work should I be subject to wear and move around with it for 3-4 hours. Linothorax seems to combine to an extend both.
1. On shoes/bare feet, I have no evidence other than a conspicuous lack of evidence, one that makes stronger my case just like hoplite nudity. I do not place aside the possibility of fighters entering bare-foot in battle. For archers and light troops this could be even beneficial. For heavily armed troops especially those fighting in close combat pushing matches the advantages of bare-feet over a for-the-purpose made sole are less clear. Hoplites did not run or jump around but needed to stick their feet into the ground to push. See, at the end of the day one needs to just make the experiment - that is our job as re-enactors. All I am saying here is that there is thin chances that the % of naked feet (is it 80% or 90%?) in representations is representative of the actual % of footware among hoplites. Front ranks particularly should be particularly sensitive to this issue actually more than the protectiveness of their own armors as losing once balance meant certain death and endangering of his side.
2. On hoplite nudity, yes in Europe and Africa "provincial cultures" went around in what we would call "ritualistic military nudity". I ignore if this was ever the case in Greece other than the artistic ritualistic/fashion representation. Why this? Foremost for the single reference of Olympic nudity as an exception rather than the rule - nothing to do with prudishness and such, Greeks loved the human body, but certainly would not go around naked. Had this been common place (we are not discussing any stand-alone exceptions), I do sincerely find it very weird for ancient writers to had gone into the effort to explain why athlets competed nude and give the event that kickstarted that tradition. They would simply take it for granted that since warriors may fight nude, athlets too go compete nude (athletics started as part of military excercise afterall). Suppoting that hoplites commonly went on nude is identical to supporting that ancient Greek women occasionally went out nude on the basis of the numerous nude female depictions. Or that ancient Greek tribes were people with long straight noses starting from the forehead, a very rare human trait found only partially (as the majority has the Middle Eastern type one) in the region east of Caucasus on the Asiatic side and among tribes related to Middle East who do not look at all Mediterranean and one that is not at all found in any place today that ancient Greeks lived (from Greece to Minor Asia, Cyprus and Lebanon, to South Italy, South France, Eastern Spain - note too that these are the only places in the Mediterranean were populations are described as "Mediterranean" (contrasted to Basques, Portuguese, Magrebins, Egyptians, Albanians and Croatians who are not described as such).
Art is art and if it is to be taken literally we have to put everything in context. I did not see many expecting Italians to be like those depictions in the Renaissance paintings.
Art is art and cannot be taken literaly unless we put things into context.
3. On the size of ancient Greeks I cannot argue on surveys I did not read - apparently these researchers searched it more thoroughly to conclude to a more normal 1,70m average so I may accept it as it is. But then I do tend to get my ideas from things like the anatomical greaves which indicate the upper and lower part of feet and on them we may take an idea of the bearer. And on average these point at lower heights - let alone leg deformations (apparently due to carrying weights and training since childhood), nothing close to the nice shiny and flashy pictures we see in pottery.
4. On the tight vs. loose fitting, I do not know how do we establish that metal (with its inner lining) was worn directly over skin/civilian-like cloth. The armors both bell and muscle were tied on the sides and thus they could theoretically take a distance as much as the bearer wished - not suggesting that any great distance would be good either. However having either naked skin or a simple civilian-like garment in contact with the armor and its inner lining looks quite uncomfortable for a foot soldier (maybe works work for cavalry but not for infantry). You do not need any medieval thick gambeson but some layers of linen inbetween would greatly aid both comfort and above all agility and overall protection. It is a complete theoretic suggestion but it is not out of space to propose that the linothorax (an age-old invention not necessarily of Greeks) was developed out of the need to combine the metal part and the padding part in a convenient single piece.
Note also the example of another army, the Roman. The nice chain mail suits they were wearing and the lorica segmentatas were not always worn in the nice neaty flashy fashion shown on artwork. Chain mail was worn in a pot-belly fashion to losen up the chain above the leather under-layer and protect better rather than the perfect straight appearence we see most often on art. And then some of the lorica segmentata pieces found were ultra-thin (this taking into account the aging of the material) that the only reasonable explanation is the fact that these (at least these particular ones) were actually worn as additional protection over padding or leather-chain mail. Later Eastern Roman armour moved along that line afterall.
Of course this does not mean that "because it seems more logical and others did it" archaic-classical-hellenistic Greeks did it that way too but then not having clues for the one or the other direction (and artwork is certainly no clue) we pick our best and test it. For example, when I built my body-shield, people naturally gave positive and negative comments on it and among the latter was the increased weight (11kg). My guess was that if Roman oval shields were 8 to 10 kg, a body-shield would not weight less. If it weighted less, protection would be less (for same material) so what is the point of having it body-fashion and strap it on yourself? Well, we made it, and on my first trial I carried it around in a quasi-continuous manner for 3 hours and I could continue easily for at another. And I am not any trained bronze age warrior, not even train in any sport. Case solved. Body-shields were definitely heavier than later big archaic shields. Their size and presence of strap meant they were not meant to be played around Brad-Pitt-style but rather protect either the lance thrower or the chariot driver etc.
In that way, if it works we have a case. For me, tight does not work on the basis of lower protection (and here I set momentarily aside comfort and even agility which is a personalised experience depending on whether the armor is tailored or not). An armor firmly tied over some underneath non-civilian cloth layers seems to work should I be subject to wear and move around with it for 3-4 hours. Linothorax seems to combine to an extend both.
