Question about reenactors

[Lýsandros]

So what other idea do you have about the material of crest boxes? Judging by how often are the crests depicted on all forms of ancient greek art,they were very common. If they were bronze, there would be loads lying around, most likely accompanying the various helmets found around the mediterranean area.

Proffessional soldiers? To my knowledge, such a term is very uncommon in the classical era. Not considering the Spartan army, which truly was proffessional, the rest of the city states relied on their citizens to fight in battles. For example in Athens, they all received basic training when they reached certain age and were able to pay for advanced lessons in hoplomachia themselves, but in their lives, they had trades and occupations. Only a small franction of people hired to serve as the city, gate and wall guards could be considered as proffessional soldiers.

[Olaf]

Well if you look at the Denda helmet:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Cori ... n_4330.jpg
or at many helmets in the Guttmann collection displayed in the auction catalogues on edited by moderator due to violation of forum rule #4 you will see that the "professional" soldier will very likely only have worn a quite plain helmet.
And the ordinary soldier is what most reenactors strife to display.

Though I agree that these guys are very impressive in their panolpy:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=9935&start=760#p247120">viewtopic.php?f=63&t=9935&start=760#p247120<!-- l

Actually we have the same problem in gladiatorial reenactment.
Our helmets and greaves are construction wise very close to the items found in Pompeji .
But to have them highly embossed and decorated like some examples from the finds would not only cost a lot but it would also be very difficult to find an artist capable of such work.
Ad to that the high probability of damaging the helmet during combat and you see why we prefere to copy the more plain items form the archeological record.

[Polinik]

So what other idea do you have about the material of crest boxes? Judging by how often are the crests depicted on all forms of ancient greek art,they were very common. If they were bronze, there would be loads lying around, most likely accompanying the various helmets found around the mediterranean area.

Proffessional soldiers? To my knowledge, such a term is very uncommon in the classical era. Not considering the Spartan army, which truly was proffessional, the rest of the city states relied on their citizens to fight in battles. For example in Athens, they all received basic training when they reached certain age and were able to pay for advanced lessons in hoplomachia themselves, but in their lives, they had trades and occupations. Only a small franction of people hired to serve as the city, gate and wall guards could be considered as proffessional soldiers.

Agree,but I am in fact talking about Spartans,you can see that all of my post in "Greek section" refer only to them.

I do not have an answer to first question which I can backup. But not being found does not mean they did not exist. How many % of helmets are found/survived at all,and how many of them have holes for crest. We can speculate now.
Best argument that you could use against my theory I think is weight,would bronze holder make helmet unbalanced?

@ Olaf Plain is not bad,there are simply things that are/were not decorated...But problem is with those things that were decorated.As crest holder,or shield eyc
I absolutely agree with rest of your post.

All best

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hey hey.
Some more research please.
My current corinthian helmet (can see it in the apropriate thread) has a metal cover for its wooden crestbox.This is not bases in any find or depiction. In fact,i'm thinking of painting it,leaving only partially the metal to be visible.Yes,this is an expensive piece that today would cost around 1300 euros. And i'm about to paint it. Actually,since i'm waiting for my other order from manning imperial,i'd consider painting also part of the helmet itself. And that would be with a checker or scale design in bright colours of red,white,blue or black. And i'm not crazy (ok,debatable) and i usually portray a Spartan hoplite. I would indeed like the crest to be lighter,but it isn't unstable. You can feel the difference on your neck if you take the crest away,however.
Now,there IS evidence for wooden crests. Part of a high wodden crest box was found stuck on its bronze crest holder. And this was a higly decorated archaic corinthian helmet. No cover for the wood. No paint was preserved either,but this mean not that it wasn't painted enough.
Metal crest boxes have survived from the geometric era. It would be highly unlikely that none would have survived from a later date.
And Polinik,our research is not restricted only in pottery. Wall paintings (usually from italian graves) show often painted attic,chalkidean and corinthian helmets. With bright colours. In art,the "scaled" helmets are very frequent. Yet,no such helmet has been found,nor has survived in sculpture. However,statues from the temple of Aphaia in Aegina have partial paint preserved. One of the warriors' helmet was brightly painted in a scale pattern with various colours.
Same applies for shields. We don't have only once source,the vases. In fact for shields we ave plenty of literal evidence for various colours used. And there are even coloured vases to justify it,together with the paintyed sculpture and wall paintings of cource.
Warriours back then were not influenced by Batman yet. Colours were not for the poor but for the wealthy. The same with shiny bronze. And it was expected to be very bright and shiny. Spartans were expected to polish their shields well,as Xenophon says.
And i will say it one more time. No ancient source says that Spartans looked different. No equipment,vases,statues and statuettes from Sparta shows any difference for archaic Spartans than in say,Attik art of the same time.

As has been said,in your original post with the two photos you compare apples with pears.
And though you are right in some of your points about illustrations and bad quality re-enactor stuff,your impression of what a normal hoplite looked like should be revised.

As has been said,decoration amount and style changed over time. There is no group,to my knowlege, that re-enacts greeks of the period that would have worn the helmets on your second photo. Why? Because its before the popular persian wars, and it's a time when hoplites were fewer,wealthier,wore the bronze(expensive) bell cuirass, much more armour, and they didn't represent the famous classical ideal that we see in the early classical temples and sculpture.

So,to sum up,you are right in some points but they largely apply to re-enacting shortage and lack of interest in accuracy by tv programs and children book illustrators. But even the non-perfect re-enactor stuff is often closer to reality than you imagine,and is getting better and better, but not in the --fictionary-- direction that you would like.
Khaire
Giannis

[Polinik]

Thank you Giannis for this answer and effort. I am open to revising my impressions. But as it seems there are some things will never agree on.

To think for a second,and forget pottery and walls,which I think trapped us as much as they helped...art is not photography.
Image of horror does not change no matter what age it is. By image of horror I mean Spartans,Huns,Samurai,Teutonic knights,SAS...etc..(they were all depicted as horror in texts). And it has nothing to do with Batman by the way :wink:
Look how they presented themselves.That grim look serves a purpose - to scare the living soul out of you.And make way to superior skill. Although you may think you got it all right by recreating exactly what ancient artist painted,I think you missed it by a lot,mainly because you missed the brutal and grim essence,and mind concept of those men which would never allow them to look like you think they did.

I realize I am greatly outnumbered here so I will rest my case now.I thank all who took part in this.

Giannis please see this as simple discussion, If I insulted you,it was not my intention.We don't agree on this and that is all

All best

PS:Lets say the some 1000y.o. text says these guys below had blue and yellow shields.
We recreate it ---picture at the bottom.
And the truth was far away --- picture on top.
My whole point.See it? Now transfer it to Sparta.That is how far away we are from ancient. As long as you realize its okay.

[hoplite14gr]

Alexander, for the films and books claiming to be historical while they are not there are appropriate threads.
The "gods in colour" projects of the German Museums showed us a wealth of colour.
Many re-enactors lack information but then they find them go to pain and expence to modify their appearence accordingly.

But you made a good commemt of expressing your reservation for what might actually happening 2500 years ago.
Example: though we have surviving commands we still experiment about their execution and thereare at least two differnt opinions how a command was executed. We reach the most logical conclusion through trial and error but still we propbaly re-enact how they might have done it rather than how they did it.
Archeolgists and historian usually dont do it re'anctors are doing it. (Though we have reanctor scholars in this forum who put expence and effort researching their science.)
Ancient sources talk about official emblems and yet people repeat the "each one had his own emblem" mandra.
Archeolgists and historians are like the miners who dig and give a piece of gold. You have to melt and hammer this item to make usable jewelry (metaphorically speaking)

Yes there are flawed books and documentatries but we are in the 21st century and at least thinking individuals have the guts to ask what they do not know.
Others have the guts to think outside the box and put "established orthodoxy" to the test and some time they are proven right and other times wrong.
For instance only lately some universcity professors approached us and asked about the details of the phalanx. This would have been unheard of some years ago.

Grim esence: See Neoptolemos crushing Astyanax's scull on pottery images and you will se the ancient ilustrators were no so sqieamish as you think

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Polinik,no ofence taken by any of the posts.
Hmm,i see...hollywood syndrom. What you need my friend is a bit of dramatization.
Take a look at these. All of them with re-enactors many of them in this list. By and large the same people that re-enact greek,often with the same matterials,paints and attitude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llaVPWtF ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoackqA3 ... onse_watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHNJT95Q ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DzVZ_utZWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0puhDMwUwC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZILuOi8r ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raPvoVIc ... re=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGa68DLu ... re=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=591JRJGg ... annel_page
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd-5NnzS ... re=channel

I suggest watching all of them,you might find them great fun! And remember,no thicknesses of make up on men and armour there,nor Hollywood sophisticated lighting and all,just amateur filming and some editting!
Khaire
Giannis

[Polinik]

No no no...You got me wrong. But I blame myself,maybe I just can not express myself good enough.I do not have syndrome,especially not Hollywood.Adding smoke or trembling camera is not the point.

Point of pictures was how differently two shields can look even explained in same way using exact same words BLUE and YELLOW. And that is often as much as you have from ancient text.

I can not say my theory is right, we can not know that,nor can you.It is now only left for every man himself to decide which look more real. I just had to present other option, that has no reason to be inaccurate.

Look only at red color of various tunics in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzV87pflcII , forget about that movie or context, or even bad weather,all of that...that color is for me "Spartan red".. And why would I be wrong if I said that?? Same is with all other color.

@ Stefanos
Thank you.I understand you.And agree also.

Trying to think outside box is what I am trying here.Maybe I prove wrong,but maybe I prove right.

Neoptolemos crushing Astyanax's scull --- exactly my point, and that image is nothing compared to same scene in real life.So recreating what we see in painting does not necessarily mean we got it right.Knowing the brain of an artist you could be more wrong than right..Logic and experience must come as well.

All best

One more thing, crest holder could as well be wooden..and painted. In that case I am certain, paint pattern would be 1000x more complicated with much more lines and symbols (see any Greek art of that time) than simply 10+10 checkered pattern,of five triangles.I believe it would be a painted piece of art by itself. This checkered,two color,two line,plain simple stuff is modern,absolutely modern.

[hoplite14gr]

In my opinion one can afford liniency on films (The object is spectacular fun) but can be very strict with documentaries (They are supposed to be educational).
Identification "friend from foe" was and is an issue. There was always a need to be identifiable. Absolute uniformity is not atchieved in modern armies and becomes worse as they go in action.
A city states army could have various chiton colours or shades of one colour (Remember red was for the god of war and chosen by those who could afford it)
The crests could have been made from different materials but had similar shapes. In Bronze Age only Greeks seem to had boar tusk helpmets as they do not appear in other contemporary cultures art. Uniformity is a "general visual" not "absolute conformity " to minute details.

You are right that crests and crest holders could be made of various available materials.
Theres is only the possibility of state armories at Bronze Age palace culture and at Philip II time.
That means that in every other time indivudalization of equipment was high.
A reenactor chooses his appearence base on specific art items.
Probalbly only computer animations can give a clearer view of past armies because of the costs involved.

Kind regards

[Polinik]

Probalbly only computer animations can give a clearer view of past armies because of the costs involved.

Kind regards

AND FINALLY you said what I was trying to say the whole time...

Reenactors are people who do their best to bring past to life, it does cost too much, it will get better for you I hope,and you all have my support and enormous respect....artist and tv directors do not.
I agree with the rest.Good points there.

As I will be away for quite some time(compulsory military service ?

For the end,in my "nagging"style..Samples of red color,think about it

[hoplite14gr]

computers cannot re-enact people fear in battle!

As I will be away for quite some time(compulsory military service ?

Try to sleep as much as you can. In that way you serve less time. (I tried it and it worked for me)
When your sergant barks at when you do formation drill you might get some idea of a "taxis" or "maniple".
Dont complain, soldiers do everything in rows
People did that 2000 years before you.
You will see that despite millenia few things changed in the army.

Kind regards and a good honorable discharge.

[Kineas]

Polinik,
I think that you raise an important an excellent question--I'll leave aside your views on crest boxes for the more general problem that Osprey and their ilk often replace solid research with a catering to perceived wisdom and media driven views of history--and sometimes to mere "war porn."

Reenactors should never take themselves so seriously that they lose track of what HISTORY is. Yet--historians should never lose track of what reconstruction can teach--even if only negatively.

To be honest, as a recreator of the 1770's first and Classical Greece second, I can say (and I hope I cause no offense) that we really don't KNOW ANYTHING about the 5th C. BCE. Compared to the detail of our knowledge about the British Army in America in 1777 (and there's lots of room there for arguments) it's almost absurd to even TRY...

Yet--it is also important to try. If we don't, many questions won't even be asked.

[Polinik]

computers cannot re-enact people fear in battle!

As I will be away for quite some time(compulsory military service ?

Try to sleep as much as you can. In that way you serve less time. (I tried it and it worked for me)
When your sergant barks at when you do formation drill you might get some idea of a "taxis" or "maniple".
Dont complain, soldiers do everything in rows
People did that 2000 years before you.
You will see that despite millenia few things changed in the army.

Kind regards and a good honorable discharge.

Thank you very much..! I am home for weekend.Too bad our army is starting to be professionalized,so this kind of service will cease to exist by the spring.It can be seen right now,this is not the army our fathers served in.
You are right about that last one.

@Kineas
NOthing to add there.Thank you.We can indeed learn much from reenactment, and I learned a lot of things from reenactors here.My points were about details,which are seemingly not important,and are probably overlooked by many,but at the end really matter.

All best

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Greece is stopping national service? I didn't know that.
:o

[hoplite14gr]

Greece is stopping national service? I didn't know that.
:o

Serbia might have the luxury to do it.

Greece not likely - (reason beyond the scope of this forum).
Last law just said that national service will be done only in Land Army with the Navy and Air-Force being completely professional.