greek armours

[Vincula]

Let's avoid Homer, if poss. It's supposed to sound heroic, not realistic. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Heinrich Schliemann was told that he was a wally by all his contempoaries. So glad he had the belief in himself. <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

I don't think anyone disputes the existence of Troy. But whether Homer's <em>Iliad</em> is an accurate description of warfare there is another matter.<br>
The historical accounts (Thucydides, Xenophon, then Diodoros, Plutarchos, Arrianus) have a greater claim to accuracy. That's all I meant. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Having armor is better than no armor.<br>
Carefull blows and the shock of impact during a well executed charge could penetrate.<br>
But most blows in a fight seldom can be accurate timed or precise. You are afraid to die just like the guy opposite to you, cold blooded killers are the exception not the rule! Armor would deflect or resist the majority of the "incorrect" or "careless" blows.<br>
if you had armor an the guy opssoite you did his thing under ideal conditions well..."immortality is yours!!!"<br>
Kind regrds <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I don't think it matters what material armour is made out of; it has rarely in history been proof against the attacks you don't see coming and are unable to defend against. I've heard of some 17th century armour that has been tested and found bullet-proof (against the weapons it was designed for). We also have bullet-proof "vests" today and Philip 11's pseudo-linothorax, with its 5mm- (Yep! HALF A CENTIMETRE) thick plates must have been spear-proof (someone has suggested it might have been effective against catapult bolts!) but these are usually reserved for special situations - the infantry soldier who has to carry all the weight himself in normal battle conditions makes do with lighter armour which will "cover up" any mistakes he makes in his combat technique and make it difficult for his enemy to inflict the wounds that are the usual first step to getting killed, but won't save him if he gets sloppy or flanked or once he's so wounded as to be unable to continue his defence by other means. I agree that different armours would give different levels of protection, but metal armour will only be better than linen-and-leather once it's of a given thickness and weight. The quotes I've read seem to indicate clearly that Epaminondas was struck through a metal cuirass (isn't the word "betrayed" used?) and I believe that this was possible because, since he was fighting as a footsoldier alongside his men, he was equipped with armour of a "practical" thickness and weight. There must also have been another element; a mistake by his immediate supporters, a trip, a fault in his equipment, that made the attack fatal by exposing his armour to the supreme test - he may even have been targeted by a group of warriors whose mission was to ignore all others (at the risk of their own lives) in order to eliminate the enemy leader - but, once this happened, the armour would not be sufficient defence in itself.<br>
Paul <p></p><i></i>

[Dan Howard]

I've been going through the Iliad in detail lately and can find very few instances in which Homer specifically states that armour was penetrated. On most occasions he says that a particular body part was injured but not whether it was covered by armour. There are a few instances but they are in the minority. Most attacks are to the shoulders, lower torso, and limbs which are not covered by a cuirass.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Vincula, that we can't trust Homer on this. According to him, most of the named heroes at Troy were capable of hurling rocks it would have taken five men of homer's own time to lift, or other such superhuman stuff. Their ability to pierce armour doesn't imply that ordinary mortals could do it.

I suspect that people like Epaminondas were wounded before being killed and the historians only record the killing blow or the death itself. In my experience of fighting in Viking shieldwalls, you need to avoid the shield, rather than go through it and this is done either by feinting; relying on someone else to draw the shield out; or by wounding the opponent so that he loses control of his shield.

Perhaps we need to look at the thickness of actual metal cuirasses and consider how much protection they were likely to give. I really don't think they can have been very thick when they were to be worn by infantry all day in Mediterranean heat. I was in Crete in 1987 when people all over Greece were dying in the heat in ordinary clothes. I believe one of the chief benefits of metal armour was its ability to "turn" and "slip" blows, rather than the metal's ability to resist penetration directly, hence the popularity of war hammers in an age of complete armour; you don't cut with them, you "peck". And that is also the most effective way of using a spear, when it is carried overhand - you strike downwards in a stabbing motion like a heron spearing fish. (Getting all Shao-Lin, now!)

[hoplite14gr]

jhhoffman\\n[quote]ÈÙÑÃÂÂ

[Dan Howard]

Perhaps we need to look at the thickness of actual metal cuirasses and consider how much protection they were likely to give. I really don't think they can have been very thick when they were to be worn by infantry all day in Mediterranean heat.

It is pretty clear from the sources that armour was NOT worn all day. Hoplites left it to the last minute to don their armour and it was rare for one of these battles to last an hour.

[Dan Howard]

I agree with Vincula, that we can't trust Homer on this. According to him, most of the named heroes at Troy were capable of hurling rocks it would have taken five men of homer's own time to lift, or other such superhuman stuff. Their ability to pierce armour doesn't imply that ordinary mortals could do it.

Sounds like you are exaggerating even more than Homer does. Perhaps you could supply some citations. Yes there are examples of rocks being thrown. How many of them are specifically described as being too large for a normal person to lift?

[Anonymous]

Perhaps I do exaggerate - it's a VERY long time since I read the text. I do seem to recall, however, a number of instances of Homer saying that warriors at Troy were made of sterner stuff thsan those of his own day. In my memory it seems as frequent as mentions of wine-dark sea and long-haired Achaeans. Be that as it may, you clearly accept that Homer exaggerates, and that is the point I was making.

[Anonymous]

Indeed, there are mentions of hoplites donning armour at the last minute but, even doing this, there were certainly occasions when this would have meant wearing the armour for some considerable time, such as at Plataea. Do we know for how long armies stood to arms before those hour-long battles? But rather than speculate on the basis of the written record, perhaps someone can enlighten us as to the thickness of armour finds, and any conclusions that may have been drawn about the original thickness of the armour from such evidence. As I said, I don't think the Vergina panoply, at 5mm, can be representative.

[hoplite14gr]

Homer perhaps exaggerates trying to describe "heroic strength".
Homer talks also about late geometric-archaic age where only the very wealthy would have armor after the colapse of the "palace cultures"
A great number of this age fighters weere wearing only the "perizoma".
a metal reinforced very wide leather belt. hence the term EVZONI.

Philip´s armor thickness was usualy reserved for the more wealthy.
A guide in the Argos meuseum told me that the Dendra panoply from bronze is arround 4mm. Again this is a wealthy persons panoply.

I think it must have been a compromise of what you can curry, what you want and what you can afford. Metal was more expensive at that time.

Paul 1987 in Greece was an unusally hot year.
Heat can be a problem and a source of discomfort but in 1991 I was "encased" from 9:30 till 12:30 in an APC with 14mm of steel arround me in August. None of my company suffered a sun stroke. After that we had to negotiate difficult terrain on foot for an hour curring 20 kgr each (Aproximate weight for hoplites!) So I doubt carrying armor in heat would be a serious hindrance especially if you had it to protect your life and you adrenaline was pumping through your veins.
Kind regards
Stefanos

[Dan Howard]

It is impossible to get any meaningful data regarding plate thickness or metallurgical composition from the Vergina cuirass because it had completely mineralised by the time it was found.

Regarding heat stress I would think that the helmet would be the greatest problem in this regard.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the insights, both of you. I agree, the helmet is going to be the biggest problem, in terms of overheating. How much closer are we to a reasonable estimate of armour thickness? Would you say that the measurement Stefanos gives for the Dendra panoply is also invalid, due to the effects of time?

I'm most interested in armours from the Classical period. The information I've found is from Peter Connolly's and Nick Sekunda's work. That's where I got the 5mm measurement from. There is also a measurement given for the bronze facing of shields, "less than half a millimetre thick" according to Sekunda (p.10, "Greek Hoplite" Osprey Warrior series - in case you were wondering); how far do you think we can trust that (and why)?

Everson ("Warfare in Ancient Greece", Sutton) also quotes the 5mm figure for the Vergina panoply, but states that the find has not been fully published, " yet" (2004). Perhaps that's why he makes no mention of crystallization. Even so, I wonder why the figure of 5mm was released ( as, presumably, it must have been) without reference to the condition of the find. Just to confuse chaps like Tim and me, I suppose. Where did you get your information, Dan?