Miltary clothing in Sparta

[Ghostmojo]

One should never look to the cinema for any kind of historical realism. Both films are rubbish in that respect and I could pick holes in them all night - but what is the point?

On the issue of the cloaks is is easy to see why they get included in modern interpretations. It looks good and it looks distinctive. The Spartan cloak was famous as symbolic of their simple dress but it didn't necessarily (or probably) apply to warfare situations, so much as to general everyday dress. I can't quite remember where it is mentioned but I am certain it is - that they removed their cloaks before battle (as you might expect).

As for the stupid bloody things in 300 - well you would be tripping over them all the time. I don't know which would hurt more - continually falling on your arse or the bruises on your arm from your metal bin-lid shield!!! :lol:

[Old Husker]

I doubt that anyone on this site would advocate taking historical cues from the movies, though I would give Rudolph Mate some credit for at least trying to work some more factual historical influnences into "300 Spartans" despite needing to adapt them quite a bit to fit both budget and dramatic requirements. Frank Miller and company, on the other hand, were creating a fantasy film and generally didn't bother giving so much as lip service to anything historical. As such, "300" manages to fall short on that front to even Jacques Tourneur's "Giant of Marathon" with its Persian chariots and catapults led by Darius himself against pike-bearing Greeks (whose city of Athens is rescued at the last minute by Spartan cavalry).

I certainly don't go to the movies seeking historial enlightenment. All the same, I appreciate film makers attempting at least a modest effort in that direction. Ridley Scott is an example of this, with films like "Gladiator" and "Kingdom of Heaven" that have plenty of historical 'howlers,' yet still offer a good deal of reasonably accurate detail as well). And, while we better-educated types don't take movie history seriously, there are certainly a lot of folks in the general public that do. That includes a fair number of my own aquaintances, who've asked me many a question about Thermopylae over the years based on having seen and enjoyed "300." Actually, I find this to be a good thing. That's because no matter how 'out there' some of the stuff in films can be at times, it at least gets people thinking/talking about classical Greek combat. And that opens markets for those of us writing on that subject. I guess that this is the ancient warfare version of the old Hollywood maxim that there is no such thing as 'bad' publicity. - Fred

[Lyceum]

1) Worth mentioning that ancient Greek colour semantics were considerably different from what we tend to associate tones like red, purple etc with. So there's quite a large difference between something like phyrros which would be used for eyes, hair and certain minerals and erythr- with is closer to what we have.

2) I'm always surprised at how little I see greaves on re-enactors. This really helps focus the historical reality for me. Just thought I'd mention that.

3) The thing is re movies and Classics, whenever there's a big film (Gladiator, 300) then admissions to Classics degrees seem to reflect that for a few years. More people suddenly take Greek and Latin more seriously and even apply to uni for it. Which is great, frankly. Though the overall statistics are still pretty dire.

[Gulan]

Well I certainly wouldn't say you should not look at movies for ANY historical realism. Costumes are one example.

To be honest, PROPER costumes (which are product of proper research and the use of right materials and techniques) from big budget movies,and professional artists and costume designers are unmatched even by reenactors (who despite having superior knowledge even to many who write books fail miserably in the field of costume design..mostly due to money,skill,availability of equipment or all of that..not rarely lack of artistic sense as well).

For example fabrics made for the movie Troy, are ethic fabrics, made from ethic materials,dyed naturally,from natural colors and pigments...in one word clothes made in a same way as in ancient history. Something not typical,if present at all among those who attempt reconstructions today.

This is an interview with costume designer for Troy.To quote him:

"I got catalogues from every museum around the world that had anything," says Ringwood, "and then spent several days in the British Museum really studying everything and seeing how the clothes and armor were made and what they were made of. I looked a lot at the bas-relief sculptures, which are thousands of tiny figures - I kept setting off the alarms in the museum by getting too close - but if you make the effort to study them, there're actually quite accurate depictions. I was able to base the court clothes on them, which are the most historically accurate costumes in the film."

"I think one of the most important things about making an ethnic historical film is that you use ethnic fabrics and ethnic peoples to make it,"

"If you try and make them with modern fabrics in modern factories they just look modern, and so we bought all the fabrics from all over the world and they were often fabrics that have been made the same way for 3,000 years. I had about a hundred and fifty people working for me and then we outsourced all over the world, to Iraq, Turkey, India, Sri Lanka, China."

And they do today, even among very informed reenactors.And modern looking armor is as unhistorical to me as Achilles' armor from Troy.Sorry...but both bring false picture.

For example, modern reconstructions almost never take into account so called weathering effects(designers or those who paint miniatures will know what this is), worn out effects, the fact that used items are in dramatically different condition to brand new ones.

For example, I often see light brown spear shafts among reenactors, flawless clothes, tidy equipment, spotless shield designs,almost digital,no sign of usage whatsoever. While my grandfathers' wooden equipment is so dark brown,worn out wood,even if a year old.His clothes are ripped,although not as on a beggar,and his leather shoes or gloves show severe signs of usage.

This miniature is showing good weathering effects,rough techniques of sewing,worn out materials etc...even burned chainmail on hauberk and coif..modern reconstructions lack all of those.



Ancient or medieval societies were not consumer societies as we today are.

I will take Hollywood as an example of the movie industry -cinema...Yes,they lack historical value in terms of facts, they are almost always anachronistic and not rarely pure fantasy, they always sacrifice history for spectacle, and their research is not rarely superficial.

And the worst thing is that even though there are very useful stuff to be found there, as costumes, we will simply deny it as Hollywood bs...

And costume design is probably the best part of Hollywood.

Would anyone of you care to say are there better Persian costume reconstructions than these:







These are all namely reds,oranges,greens,etc..but much more realistic.

Would anyone of you care to say what is so unreal and fantastic about these pieces of armor FROM MOVIES.








Or about these CLOTHES,TUNICS. Their material,color,decoration etc…Why would we deny them if they are far more real and better than any of us is able to make. Just because they are part of some big budget fantasy movie loosely based on Trojan war? Screenplay in written by one man, movie is directed by another, and costumes are made by entirely different person…So if some guy from this forum went to Hollywood to be their advisor, we should deny him because it is just a movie?
And some of these, like robe of Agamemnon remind me very much of decorated clothes from Greek pottery, especially Ajax and Achilles playing board game…or those beautiful Laconian Black figure pieces.





Look at these chitons for example…


These costumes from the movie The Warlords for example show high quality materials and reconstruction as well.It is an art.Not something anyone can do,or knows how to.





@Lyceum

I will reinforce your point number 1)
I don't think many are aware of this little issue that actually makes a huge difference.

Also Kingdom of Heaven has great details as well.



I appologize for the multitude of pictures in my post.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The pictures are great.
I have said many times that Alexander was a great movies in that respect, not only clothes and armour but also buildings sceneries and random equipment.
I have tried many times to find suppliers of such kinds of fabrics, but the problem is that they are usually custom made orders for the movies. Another problem is how authentic the materials are.

I disagree that we should make worn clothes and armour, but i do think we should wear and use them enough to wear them literally. Nor should all clothing and armour look worn.
Anyway, i will also agree that most reenactors don't pay enough attention to their clothing design and material, and it is explained by the way our modern scociety works...none is obliged to be a clothes designer. But through reenacting this is a skill to one should develop...
Khairete
Giannis

[Old Husker]

The act of giving equipment a 'worn' look has been abused on at least one occasion in the movies. The costume crew for Mate's "300 Spartans" went to some lengths to outfit the Spartans in that film with 'distressed' gear, providing tarnished and dented helmets, shields, and so on. This contrasted with the other Greeks shown, apparently toward highlighting the Spartans' relatively greater combat experience. Given that this kind of equipment in real life was probably a hoplite's most valued possssion and often a legacy from his father, grandfather, etc., he actually would have kept it in as emaculate a condition as he could. Indeed, bronze was treasured in part precisely because it tarnished so slowly and polished with relative ease to a high gloss resembling shinning gold. Thus, the Spartan helmets, shields, and other metal armor at Thermopylae much more likely gleamed in the sun rather than presenting the dull, 'beat-up' appearance seen in the film (more in line with modern combat gear after heavy use).

As for "Troy," having watched a documentary on its making, there seems to have been a good deal of research done by the film-makers, who took pains to make much of the production reflect ancient reality (at least when it didn't get in the way of presenting a good 'Hollywood' production). Sometimes this was even a bit obtuse, as in the first fixed battle where a phalanx action (clearly inspired by researching classical Greek battle, though anachronistic for a combat as old as the one at Troy - someting Homer ignored as well) is briefly shown complete with othismos. This opening battle was also depicted as turning on missile fire from elevated defenses, something that did actually happen to a few overly aggressive phalanxes in classical Greece. Perhaps most notable is that the film-makers took deliberate care to restrain their actors from too much use of swords (always a theatrical favorite), making them hang onto and use their spears in deference to the historical fact of those being the primary ancient Greek weapon. - Fred

[Gulan]

Giannis, that is an unfortunate thing, the availability of those fabrics and materials to those who need it arguably more than entertainment industry. It would certainly be better if more people who are into reenacting are actually aware of it,and have as much knowledge as yourself.

Graphic design is close to my field of work, so I am aware of the people who do costumes for movies, they are artists in the first place, and the accuracy of costume depends mostly on the research they do in fairly short time,so it figures why most of them make great looking costumes than rarely have a true base in history.

I myself usually fall into a trap of praising a movie or series (Spartacus for example) just because of the looks of clothing and armor...And it took me several episodes to realize the show is 300 cgi, soft porn with fantasy-history thematics,and anachronistic armor - for starters.

As for worn out, maybe we don't understand each other due to the language barrier. Worn out or weathering effect is not matter of agreeing but the matter laws of chemistry,physics etc..

Anything used for some time, especially outdoors,not to mention field work or military training as especially aggressive activities, will show signs of usage,will change its state,fabrics will blossom - I don't have an English word,they will fade,the sun will have dramatic effects on it as well,stains,repeated washing,friction...Wood will darken,show sings of usage,get smoother,but accumulate dirt,moisture etc...Leather will crack,fold,darken,accumulate residue in parts you can not get them out from even with washing (though I can not imagine anyone washing linothorax) Etc...no matter how well you maintain it is the passage of time simply.

It is not the laughable dents, bullet holes(arrow holes that is) and sword scrapes seen in 300.

So I am not talking about battle scars or actual damage from battle, that would render the armor or clothes unusable, or a state of poor maintenance...But normal state of things which are used for some time..And that was especially emphasized in ancient times,before our modern, flawless, Nike generations and consumer societies.

I always return to village,and the state of tools,and clothes among our grandfathers. Leather gloves used for less then a two years,look rather ancient, same as leather jacket and all axes and shovels. And the worst they've seen was cutting wood, and picking it up. My grandfathers' leather shoes are another story,they are a bit older and seen not more than low to medium pace walking around the estate (he has boots and rubber shoes for field work),and they are in an awful state - compared to brand new store shoes that is.

So imagine linothorax,after decades of usage...Even with the best maintenance and less frequent use (which can hurt it's state more than actual use).

I agree though that artificial effects can never be as good as new ones. It would be great if you could actually use the armor or fabrics enough for it to show real signs of usage.But for that you will live the life of ancient people, which is very hard if possible to do today

The part of the above is the answer to Old Husker as well.

I also doubt you would be able to keep any item,bronze,iron,leather or wool..in it's original state for any serious amount of time. And as for high gloss resembling shinning gold, I think it deserves a topic on its own. And every reasonably smooth metal surface shines in the sun,never being dull as you said,and being ferocious as ancient sources imply (not because shine is ferocious,but because metal shine means metal armor,and metal armor means harder to kill and easier to get killed...seeing an entire formation shine in that fashion means you are against some tough,and rich - thereby better trained hoplites. So is the shine actually high gloss,as parade armor today,or simply metal shining in the sun doesn't matter really..And if you look at the sources,you will not be able to define the matter more closely on either side. It is not the shine itself that stikes fear but the meaning of shine.So was the shine from golden yellow, silver white, or ''dull'' iron would not matter,as long as it was metal armor you were facing)

Also, this sentence ''at least when it didn't get in the way of presenting a good 'Hollywood' production'' is the diagnosis of historical movies today. Nicely said.

While we are on Troy and spears, how good is the choreographed battle between Hector and Achilles...I doubt all of those moves could be used in battle, but it looks like a fair depiction of hoplomachy.

[Old Husker]

Some great observations on the realities of worn gear and clothing! I would add in a 'smell' factor, having experience with the sour sweat odor of old hockey equipment that no amount of washing can ever completely remove. As for 'gleaming' bronze, I have a helmet that is now approaching a quarter century old and it still 'shines' in the best sense of that word. I would describe its surface as 'mirrored' and its easy to see a flatter surface of this type being used as a mirror or heliograph device for shield signals such those seen at Marathon. With regard to Spartacus, the latest issue of "The Classical World" has an article that includes isotopic analysis of gladiator bones from Epheus that concludes that those men were "fat" from a vegetarian diet strong in barley and beans, with drinks of charred wood or bone ash providing supplimental calcium. The fatty layer provided protection from cut wounds, shielding blood vessels and nerves, while allowing a man to bleed rather harmlessly toward providing the spectators a good show. Not much like the highly toned actors on "Spartacus!" - Fred

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

On shiny armour, not only the sources insist that it was shiny (and armour was not the only metal used in antiquity) but good paintings and mosaics support the golden-mirror like apearence. Armour is bright yellow with white shine in art, and in more than one occasions a shield mirrors other things. In the Alexander mosaic a Persian soldier is falling under his horse while a greek bronze shield is falling over him, his back is turned towards the viewer, but his whole face and front body is clearly visible on the shield!

Armour was 'really' shiny. Not only that of kings.

Khaire
Giannis

[hoplite14gr]

Xenophon (eyewitness) is the main source for troops shiny armor.
Yet art shoes painted metallic armor so both types existed.

Kind regards