11-01-2007, 02:30 AM
"Archaising" artwork is certainly acknowledged as a characteristic of Byzantine art, particularly so as you get closer to the City. However, I think we need to be rather careful ascribing motives to our forebears (well, three of them, anyway 
). What you postulate about the mindset behind "archaised" armour may well be true, but there is no way of knowing for sure if it really was the case. And anyway, the motives are unimportant - it's the fact that's important.
Certainly the other points you raised in support of your thesis - the apparent contradiction between on the one hand what is found in contemporary descriptions of Byzantine armour and equipment and in the archaeological record, and on the other hand what is shown in the pictorial sources, has to make us cautious about accepting contemporary illustrations as gospel.
One such I do believe to be pretty close to the truth, even in the matter of helmets, is the Skylitzes Chronicle of Madrid. Some academics claim to be able to see the hands of something like half a dozen different artists in this. To my chagrin, I can see only three styles different enough for me to say - "yes, that's a different bloke".
The one I am fairly willing to trust is the one you refer to above, who did the pics of the guys with the (face-covering?) (mail curtains?). Why? I dunno. Perhaps the level of detail, perhaps the amount of variation between the individual figures in his pictures (for example, he shows at least four different kinds of helmet in a single scene), perhaps he just impresses me as an artist. Not a very rational basis for a decision, I grant you, but there you are.
Unfortunately we have very little to work with, and out theories regarding some of the more esoteric bits of equipment will always remain just that - theories (assuming, of course some archaeologist doesn't stumble tomorrow upon a huge 11th century Byzantine arsenal - sigh).
BTW, one other source I regard as probably being pretty damned close to the truth (because it was well away from the acknowledged archaising influence of Constantinople) is the rock paintings of the Go"reme Valley in Kappadokia. I don't know if you've already seen it, but you might be interested in the frescoes of the so-called "Dovecote" church at Cavus,in.No helmets, though.
). What you postulate about the mindset behind "archaised" armour may well be true, but there is no way of knowing for sure if it really was the case. And anyway, the motives are unimportant - it's the fact that's important. Certainly the other points you raised in support of your thesis - the apparent contradiction between on the one hand what is found in contemporary descriptions of Byzantine armour and equipment and in the archaeological record, and on the other hand what is shown in the pictorial sources, has to make us cautious about accepting contemporary illustrations as gospel.
One such I do believe to be pretty close to the truth, even in the matter of helmets, is the Skylitzes Chronicle of Madrid. Some academics claim to be able to see the hands of something like half a dozen different artists in this. To my chagrin, I can see only three styles different enough for me to say - "yes, that's a different bloke".
The one I am fairly willing to trust is the one you refer to above, who did the pics of the guys with the (face-covering?) (mail curtains?). Why? I dunno. Perhaps the level of detail, perhaps the amount of variation between the individual figures in his pictures (for example, he shows at least four different kinds of helmet in a single scene), perhaps he just impresses me as an artist. Not a very rational basis for a decision, I grant you, but there you are.
Unfortunately we have very little to work with, and out theories regarding some of the more esoteric bits of equipment will always remain just that - theories (assuming, of course some archaeologist doesn't stumble tomorrow upon a huge 11th century Byzantine arsenal - sigh).
BTW, one other source I regard as probably being pretty damned close to the truth (because it was well away from the acknowledged archaising influence of Constantinople) is the rock paintings of the Go"reme Valley in Kappadokia. I don't know if you've already seen it, but you might be interested in the frescoes of the so-called "Dovecote" church at Cavus,in.No helmets, though.
"It is safer and more advantageous to overcome the enemy by planning and generalship than by sheer force"
The Strategikon of Emperor Maurice
Steven Lowe
Australia
The Strategikon of Emperor Maurice
Steven Lowe
Australia
