View Full Version : Small question: What armour is this?
Hello.
I'll start off my first post with a quick question. As in the title, what type of armour is this? Apparently, I can't post URLs on my first post, so it will be in my next post.
While I'm waiting for the ability to post agian, for those of you who are intimately familiar with the game, I'm talking about the armour that Cretan Archers wear. It's a type of quilted armour, brownish in colour, worn over a white tunic.
Here we go:
https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/1786/whatarmouraj0.th.jpg (https://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=whatarmouraj0.jpg)
I've seen it around, but I haven't been able to get a name for it. I'm thinking it might be a spolas, but I don't know for sure.
Watchman
05-23-2007, 01:58
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/koinon-hellenon/kh_cretan_archers.gif
This ? Looks mostly like quilted armour to me. Could have an outer layer of leather too, going by the colour.
Not necessarily, linen can assume that colour naturally. The white cuirasses you see on the greeks were often bleached to get that effect.
Watchman
05-23-2007, 02:40
...or covered with a bleached layer, I know. I was just hypothesizing based on the somewhat uniform shade of brown that reminds me a lot of many shoes I've seen.
Speaking of which, is there any reason you couldn't use leather for the outermost layer anyway ?
I guess it is possible. But I've only heard of armour made like that during the middle ages in Iberia where they'd essentially have a leather bag in the form of a long shirt with padded linen inside. Good for low intensity warfare and arrows.
Then again I'm no expert in Hellenic matters, though curious on all forms of warfare.
I would be very interested to get a source for that form of armour!
It is a hot discussion wether the Greeks used leather armour. For me the result of the discussion ist clearly "yes" but some may disagree. At least some examples of the spolas were made from leather. Another question would be wether the leather spolas were the normal tube-and-yoke armours so often depicted in the pictural sources or wether this form of armour was exclusively/mostly made from layered linen.
And now we come to the armour of the EB Cretan archers. I never saw something like this in the sources but I think it would be a good and simple form for a padded leather or layered linen armour (btw: how would it be donned and closed? just get into it like a pullover?). To be honest when I first heard about the spolas I imagined something like that stuff. So a pictural evidence would be very valuable.
The colour of the armour is a bit to dark for natural linen which is mostly light grey, seldom light brown-grey. But the same for leather; normally leather would be brighter, but that depends on the animal and the process of leather-making.
Shifty_GMH
05-23-2007, 13:46
Your question made me a little curious too. Don't know how accurate this is, but it was interesting. It talks about Cretan Archers in Roman Service.
Cretan Archers in Roman Service (http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=64) courtesy of www.romanarmy.com
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2007, 17:56
Our Hellenistic boys have said several times that Linthorax (linen armour) was often covered with a layer of leather. This would also increase weather resistance.
text
It's not a spolas though. The spolas was weaved, not qulted...looked like this:
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Hellenes/Ekdromos_in_spolas.jpg
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Hellenes/Ekdromoi__Peltasts.jpg
MeinPanzer
05-23-2007, 21:36
Our Hellenistic boys have said several times that Linthorax (linen armour) was often covered with a layer of leather. This would also increase weather resistance.
There's absolutely no primary evidence for this.
That, and other quilted armours like it, are not based on any primary Hellenistic evidence, and is purely conjectural.
Watchman
05-23-2007, 21:56
I wonder about the decisive primary evidence against though.
Didn't this guy leave already? :inquisitive:
Problem here is he uses deductive logic only when it suits his views.
MeinPanzer
05-23-2007, 22:09
I wonder about the decisive primary evidence against though.
None. But then again, there's no decisive primary evidence against any other kind of armour being worn, so if you use that as criteria, you can reconstruct just about anything you like.
Its cos he loves you so much, he can't stay away, be fun to see this one develop :)
Watchman
05-23-2007, 22:17
None. But then again, there's no decisive primary evidence against any other kind of armour being worn, so if you use that as criteria, you can reconstruct just about anything you like.Given the dearth of primary evidence around these things in general, your vendetta against conjecture has always slightly puzzled me.
MP, hello, haven't seen you for a bit.
Let me get things straight:
First, what are the objectionable items? I'd like to be sure what this discussion is actually about first.
Is it leather at all? Leather over a lino-thorax? Leather combined with padded or quilted linen? Padded or quilted linen at all? I'd like to know your position, MP, before giving a response, though I hope Urnamma will be available to reply, since he works on Hellenistic armor.
MeinPanzer
05-23-2007, 22:39
Given the dearth of primary evidence around these things in general, your vendetta against conjecture has always slightly puzzled me.
I don't have a vendetta against conjecture; for a mod like this, conjecture is necessary. However, I am against baseless conjecture.
MP, hello, haven't seen you for a bit.
Let me get things straight:
First, what are the objectionable items? I'd like to be sure what this discussion is actually about first.
Is it leather at all? Leather over a lino-thorax? Leather combined with padded or quilted linen? Padded or quilted linen at all? I'd like to know your position, MP, before giving a response, though I hope Urnamma will be available to reply, since he works on Hellenistic armor.
Hi paullus, hope everything is well with the mod.
The objection is to quilted textile armour like this:
https://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=whatarmouraj0.jpg
I have no idea what kind of textile that is intended to be, but I object to the fact that a quilted jerkin has been reconstructed here unlike anything which can be found in iconographic evidence from the Hellenistic period. I object, in this case, merely to the form of the armour, and not whatever material it may have been constructed from.
P.S. You mentioned before an image from Nick Sekunda's "Hellenistic Infantry Reforms" book showing a thureophoros wearing greaves. I never did get the specific image you were referring to.
O'ETAIPOS
05-23-2007, 23:03
I've seen such cross pattern at least on one of vases, cant post photo as you can't make them in Polish museums. Vase was displayed in Wilanów.
MeinPanzer
05-23-2007, 23:06
I've seen such cross pattern at least on one of vases, cant post photo as you can't make them in Polish museums. Vase was displayed in Wilanów.
When did this vase date to? Did that kind of armour have pteruges?
sent an email to ya, MP, sorry I'd forgotten about that image.
MeinPanzer
05-23-2007, 23:57
sent an email to ya, MP, sorry I'd forgotten about that image.
Were you referring to this one?
https://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trophysq8.jpg
is that not the image i emailed to you?
So...I guess this type of armour doesn't even have a name? Like...quiltothorax...:inquisitive:
pockettank
05-25-2007, 21:50
well i dont know but judging by the little bit i know and from other games id have to say its linen
MeinPanzer
05-25-2007, 22:28
So...I guess this type of armour doesn't even have a name? Like...quiltothorax...:inquisitive:
No, it doesn't have a name, and there's no way to tell what it was made of. The only evidence for any sort of quilted armour, almost entirely from red figure vases, stopped appearing around the middle of the 4th C. BC. This evidence consists of iconographic representations of armour with criss-cross patterns on it. These could be attempts to represent scales, quilting, or some sort of stitched-on design, or they could be something else entirely that we're just not aware of. Even these, though, are otherwise exactly like the tube-and-yoke cuirass in form, having pteruges and shoulder yokes, and nothing like the jerkin represented here on the Cretan archers.
This was written by Urnamma in the internal forums. Sorry this took so long to get out to you.
Both leather and linen are acceptable coverings for the linothorax.
Fragments of quilted armor have been found on Rhodes ~350 B.C. (many layers of cloth stitched together in a warrior grave)
A much more substantial find is mycanaean in origin, from Crete. There are also Ptolemaic stelae and terra cotta figures showing quilted linen. Furthermore, As MP seemed to point out, there are red figure vases with quilted patterns.
The agora in Athens provides us another scrap, this one more closely Hellenistic, of layered linen, though very small.
This same sort of armor appears in the Greek east, on Parthians, and especially in Graeco-Bactria and India, in several representations on several pieces.
Also, it appears that the quilted armor seen on the Cretans was also used by the Persian military.
I hope this answers your question, Dwin.
pockettank
05-27-2007, 04:26
its obiviosly a secret elven cloak known only to cretans duh lol =p
It's not a spolas though. The spolas was weaved, not qulted...looked like this:
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Hellenes/Ekdromos_in_spolas.jpg
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Hellenes/Ekdromoi__Peltasts.jpg
1. Do you have a source that the depicted garment is a spolas and that it is quilted? Or is it an interpretation based on other pictures which show something similar worn just around the waist (so a defensive function is presumable)? It could also be just a heavy woolen chiton.
Unlike this it is said that (at least a kind of) spolas was made of leather (Pollux, Onomasticon: I learned this recently on RAT myself:beam: ).
2. My question is: could that spolas be the tube-and-yoke armour depicted on the vases? I don't feel comfortable with this. So, was it just a (leather or linen) jerkin without the shoulder flaps, like the armour of the Cretan archers? I would like to interprete a spolas as a loose jerkin, worn by some warriors on vases (i'm not at home and cannot post it - one example of a Greek archer with it is depicted in Conolly's Greece and Rome at War).
The material is not so important, may it be leather, linen or both. It is the form of the armour which is important, as meinPanzer said (some posts following his post are rather strange...:shame: ).
So again, is there a pictural source (the picture posted by meinPanzer I can not interpret) or not? If not, that is not a problem, but if a source exists, I would make a garment like that of the archers for myself.
3. Never heard of the Rhodes find of quilted linen ~ 350 BC. That would be very important! Another evidence for linen armour in the classical period is not known to me and ~350 BC is quite near classical times. Is it published? And is it "sure" that it belongs to an armour? How many layers of linen were used? How was the stitching made?
1. Do you have a source that the depicted garment is a spolas and that it is quilted? Or is it an interpretation based on other pictures which show something similar worn just around the waist (so a defensive function is presumable)? It could also be just a heavy woolen chiton.
Um, I don't know, the few sources I've read say that it's just basically a thick, weaved tunic, used as body armour.
O'ETAIPOS
05-28-2007, 11:00
No, it doesn't have a name, and there's no way to tell what it was made of. The only evidence for any sort of quilted armour, almost entirely from red figure vases, stopped appearing around the middle of the 4th C. BC. This evidence consists of iconographic representations of armour with criss-cross patterns on it.
MP, I think you know that during 4th century red figure vases started to disappear, with some of very bad style, and others super good, but with mithological/banquete scenes and extremaly rare.
Armour of any kind is extremely difficult to be found on vases from mid 4th century - this the reason why this type disappear also.
MeinPanzer
05-28-2007, 21:48
It's not a spolas though. The spolas was weaved, not qulted...looked like this:
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Hellenes/Ekdromos_in_spolas.jpg
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Hellenes/Ekdromoi__Peltasts.jpg
I missed this before, but no, I think Sekunda is wrong in identifying those clearly woven garments as being spolades. Pollux, in his Onomasticon, says this (VII.70):
The spolas is a thorax of leather, from
the shoulders attached, so that Xenophon says "and the spolas
instead of the thorax." Sophocles calls it Libyssan: "Libyssan spolas, a spotted hide."
Those could be dyed leather garments, I guess, but that seems unlikely. There is a good chance that the tube-and-yoke cuirass traditionally identified as the linothorax was actually the spolas.
Both leather and linen are acceptable coverings for the linothorax.
Fragments of quilted armor have been found on Rhodes ~350 B.C. (many layers of cloth stitched together in a warrior grave)
I've never heard of this before, but I'd be very curious how much cloth it was, how it was stitched together, and in what context it was uncovered in the grave. I think here we have to make a clear distinction between stitched textile armour and quilted stitched textile armour, which generally had some sort of padding inside the separate "compartments" (maybe some sewers could provide some better terminology) to allow for absorption of blows. It seems extremely likely that linothorakes/spolades were stitched together, but they weren't quilted, so unless this example clearly shows a quilting pattern, it's not evidence for quilted amour.
A much more substantial find is mycanaean in origin, from Crete.
The agora in Athens provides us another scrap, this one more closely Hellenistic, of layered linen, though very small.
I know of the couple of Mycenaean examples (the bit of a "greave" for instance, from Mycenae), including the fairly recently uncovered Theban example which apparently had edge binding. These were, however, simply layered linen, and not quilted. The same goes for the Athenian scrap- if it doesn't show any quilting pattern, it was probably just a scrap from a standard linothorax.
There are also Ptolemaic stelae and terra cotta figures showing quilted linen.
I'd be very curious what Ptolemaic stelae are being referred to here. And there is one terracotta figure which wears armour that could be some sort of quilted armour but could also be mail.
This same sort of armor appears in the Greek east, on Parthians, and especially in Graeco-Bactria and India, in several representations on several pieces.
From a later date, c. 1st C. AD and later.
MP, I think you know that during 4th century red figure vases started to disappear, with some of very bad style, and others super good, but with mithological/banquete scenes and extremaly rare.
Armour of any kind is extremely difficult to be found on vases from mid 4th century - this the reason why this type disappear also.
That's true, but we also have other iconographic sources from the 4th C. BC showing quilted armour being worn- Etruscan stuff, mainly.
Teleklos Archelaou
05-28-2007, 22:15
I don't know much about them, but I know I can easily see examples of exactly this type of armor multiple times in the Persian armies Osprey. 5th and 4th centuries, and the same except for the pattern of stitches and color used by Egyptians in that same one. Acting like this is totally made up by EB or only from a millenia later or so sure seems like there are other motives at work here.
MeinPanzer
05-28-2007, 22:37
I don't know much about them, but I know I can easily see examples of exactly this type of armor multiple times in the Persian armies Osprey. 5th and 4th centuries, and the same except for the pattern of stitches and color used by Egyptians in that same one. Acting like this is totally made up by EB or only from a millenia later or so sure seems like there are other motives at work here.
Yes, and notice that those are from the 5th and 4th centuries BC, not the 3rd or later- this is what we are discussing here, not whether such armour was worn at all in ancient times. And even those earlier examples are different from the kind of armour EB has shown here, which has no pteruges or shoulder yokes.
Watchman
05-29-2007, 01:35
I think here we have to make a clear distinction between stitched textile armour and quilted stitched textile armour, which generally had some sort of padding inside the separate "compartments" (maybe some sewers could provide some better terminology) to allow for absorption of blows.I'm not entirely certain, but I think your description of the "quilted" structure is a little odd here. AFAIK that could generally consist of virtually any sort of stuffing, be it proper sheets of cloth, rags, hay, paper, whatever, between an inner and outer layer of (usually) textile, which was then stitched to into the "compartement" pattern to keep the contents from moving around, and also the limit the loss of stuffing whenever a part of the item was cut (as only the contents of the individual "pockets" damaged could spill out).
Not that different from some of the methods still used to make winter clothes really, AFAIK.
Your description sounds like you're saying the individual "pockets" were filled separately, which doesn't really sound very sensible - if nothing else it'd leave the space between them protected by nothing more than the inner and outer layer plus the stitching, which hardly sounds like it would really stop arrows and suchlike all that well now does it ?
Side note: don't both the Pantodapoi/Machimoi Phalangitai and some types of light cavalry (Hippakontistai, maybe the Thracians) also wear quilted "vests" quite similar to that of the Cretans ? Some older Osprey books had pre-Alexandrian Persian cavalry wearing very similar protective articles IIRC, and I've seen it mentioned in passing somewhere that Alexander himself at some point took to using some type of "soft" cuirass of a Persian pattern...
MeinPanzer
05-29-2007, 04:11
I'm not entirely certain, but I think your description of the "quilted" structure is a little odd here. AFAIK that could generally consist of virtually any sort of stuffing, be it proper sheets of cloth, rags, hay, paper, whatever, between an inner and outer layer of (usually) textile, which was then stitched to into the "compartement" pattern to keep the contents from moving around, and also the limit the loss of stuffing whenever a part of the item was cut (as only the contents of the individual "pockets" damaged could spill out).
Not that different from some of the methods still used to make winter clothes really, AFAIK.
Your description sounds like you're saying the individual "pockets" were filled separately, which doesn't really sound very sensible - if nothing else it'd leave the space between them protected by nothing more than the inner and outer layer plus the stitching, which hardly sounds like it would really stop arrows and suchlike all that well now does it ?
Sorry, I described it poorly, but that's what I meant. What I'm trying to get across is that these examples of textile armour, if they actually are armour, would need to show some sign of a repeating geometric design stitched into it in order for it to qualify as quilted. Just having stitching on the seams, for instance, wouldn't be enough.
Side note: don't both the Pantodapoi/Machimoi Phalangitai and some types of light cavalry (Hippakontistai, maybe the Thracians) also wear quilted "vests" quite similar to that of the Cretans ? Some older Osprey books had pre-Alexandrian Persian cavalry wearing very similar protective articles IIRC, and I've seen it mentioned in passing somewhere that Alexander himself at some point took to using some type of "soft" cuirass of a Persian pattern...
Yes, there is plenty of evidence for the Achaemenid Persians employing at least some kind of quilted armour. However, this evidence disappears after the 4th C. BC. As for Alexander wearing a "soft" Persian cuirass, is that from a literary mention? Do you have a citation?
Watchman
05-29-2007, 07:48
Sorry, I described it poorly, but that's what I meant. What I'm trying to get across is that these examples of textile armour, if they actually are armour, would need to show some sign of a repeating geometric design stitched into it in order for it to qualify as quilted. Just having stitching on the seams, for instance, wouldn't be enough.Depends a bit on what you mean by "geometric", but overall more or less yeah.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence for the Achaemenid Persians employing at least some kind of quilted armour. However, this evidence disappears after the 4th C. BC. As for Alexander wearing a "soft" Persian cuirass, is that from a literary mention? Do you have a citation?Footnote in Sidnell's Warhorse. Lemme quote it in full. "Alexander himself seems to have swapped his composite linen and metal cuirass, depicted in the Issus Mosaic, for a thickly quilted Persian one captured at Issus. Plutarch, Alexander, translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert (London, 1973), c. 32."
Make what you will out of that, can't say I've read Plutarch myself.
1. I don't think that a "quilted armour" has to consist of two sheets and a filling. "Quilting" (if I get it right in English) is a technique to stabilize different layers of material together. So a gambeson padded with some soft stuff which is fixed by stitching can be quilted, as well as a gambeson consisting of different layers of linen stitched together.
2. I cannot imagine that the frequently depicted tube-and-yoke armour shall be the spolas. Xenophons mentioning of thorakes and spolades, given to the horsemen and the slingers, must then be interpreted in that way that the spolades were given to the slingers. Of course this is possible. But it would be strange that slingers should wear the same armour so often worn by hoplites. The shoulder flaps could also be a hindrance for a slinger (that could be tested). I think the spolas was a plain leather or linen or leather/linen jerkin, used under the armour or sometimes alone.
The composite armour spread in use in the 6th c. BC if we can thrust the vase paintings. It has the normal tube-and-yoke form. Alkaios clearly speaks of "thorrakes neo lino". Writing this early in the 6th c. that is a good coincidence and a hint to the linen nature of the tube-and-yoke armour.
Watchman
05-29-2007, 11:29
1. I don't think that a "quilted armour" has to consist of two sheets and a filling. "Quilting" (if I get it right in English) is a technique to stabilize different layers of material together. So a gambeson padded with some soft stuff which is fixed by stitching can be quilted, as well as a gambeson consisting of different layers of linen stitched together.Yeah, well, just to nitpick, but the examples you give still have something that can (and, when you think about it, must) be defined as the "innermost" and "outermost" layers. Whatever's between them is somewhat irrelevant in this regard, although the specifics may affect the item's actual performance as armour considerably.
I'm pretty sure "quilt" normally means a padded garment that has applied stitching above and beyond the seams and similar structural necessities, usually in order to keep the fillings (whatever they now are) in place.
MeinPanzer
05-29-2007, 20:46
Depends a bit on what you mean by "geometric", but overall more or less yeah.
I've only ever seen examples of armour quilted in geometric patterns in the past, but I guess they could just be repeating patterns.
Footnote in Sidnell's Warhorse. Lemme quote it in full. "Alexander himself seems to have swapped his composite linen and metal cuirass, depicted in the Issus Mosaic, for a thickly quilted Persian one captured at Issus. Plutarch, Alexander, translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert (London, 1973), c. 32."
Make what you will out of that, can't say I've read Plutarch myself.
Plutarch, Alexander 32.5:
"After sending this message to Parmenio, he put on his helmet, but the rest of his armour he had on as he came from his tent, namely, a vest of Sicilian make girt about him, and over this a breastplate of two-ply linen from the spoils taken at Issus."
So, no, there is no mention of quilting here, just a linothorax. I'm afraid Phil was mistaken with that quote.
1. I don't think that a "quilted armour" has to consist of two sheets and a filling. "Quilting" (if I get it right in English) is a technique to stabilize different layers of material together. So a gambeson padded with some soft stuff which is fixed by stitching can be quilted, as well as a gambeson consisting of different layers of linen stitched together.
I think there are a couple of definitions of quilting, ranging from very specialized to more general in meaning, but what I mean by quilting is this, taken from dictionary.com's definition:
5. To stitch together (two pieces of cloth and a soft interlining), usually in an ornamental pattern.
At any rate, let's not let this devolve into a debate over semantics. What I object to here is the recreation of a type of armour in use in the Hellenistic period which has a repeating stitched pattern over the majority of the body.
2. I cannot imagine that the frequently depicted tube-and-yoke armour shall be the spolas. Xenophons mentioning of thorakes and spolades, given to the horsemen and the slingers, must then be interpreted in that way that the spolades were given to the slingers. Of course this is possible. But it would be strange that slingers should wear the same armour so often worn by hoplites. The shoulder flaps could also be a hindrance for a slinger (that could be tested). I think the spolas was a plain leather or linen or leather/linen jerkin, used under the armour or sometimes alone.
I don't see why it would be impossible for slingers to wear cuirasses- the tube-and-yoke cuirass was, if we look at iconographic sources, apparently very flexible and the light armour par excellence in the Classical period. It's also obvious from the need that Thucydides felt to mention it that that occurrence was somewhat extraordinary.
The composite armour spread in use in the 6th c. BC if we can thrust the vase paintings. It has the normal tube-and-yoke form. Alkaios clearly speaks of "thorrakes neo lino". Writing this early in the 6th c. that is a good coincidence and a hint to the linen nature of the tube-and-yoke armour.
Yes, there is a period in the beginning of the T&Y (I'm just going to call it that from now on, instead of tube-and-yoke) that linen armour is also mentioned in literary sources. However, during the T&Y's heyday in Classical and Hellenistic iconographic sources, we hear almost nothing of linen armour, which is exactly the opposite of what one would expect, especially from those writers who were very familiar with their contemporary militaries, such as Thucydides and Polybius.
Damn, I lost track of what this is all about.
What is the tube-and-yolk you're talking about? You mean like a linothorax type armour, with shoulder pads and such?
MeinPanzer
05-29-2007, 22:46
Damn, I lost track of what this is all about.
What is the tube-and-yolk you're talking about? You mean like a linothorax type armour, with shoulder pads and such?
The kind of armour seen in Greek art which has a "tube" torso which extends in the back into two "yokes" which can then be drawn down over the shoulders and secured. It is generally referred to (perhaps erroneously) as a linothorax.
Watchman
05-29-2007, 23:03
I've only ever seen examples of armour quilted in geometric patterns in the past, but I guess they could just be repeating patterns.The Byzantines at one point favoured a pattern mostly resembling a kind of slate roof for example.
Plutarch, Alexander 32.5:
"After sending this message to Parmenio, he put on his helmet, but the rest of his armour he had on as he came from his tent, namely, a vest of Sicilian make girt about him, and over this a breastplate of two-ply linen from the spoils taken at Issus."
So, no, there is no mention of quilting here, just a linothorax. I'm afraid Phil was mistaken with that quote.You may well have a point there, but... does "two-ply linen" automatically mean good ole 'lino, though ? Linen was, if I've understood correctly, the main material used in both forms of textile-based armour, and I don't think it would take too terrible a stretch of imagination to interpret the wording as referring to the inner- and outermost layer of a "soft" cuirass as easily as "lino"...?
Side note: didn't the Persians prefer to make their scale armour on a soft base whereas the Greeks favoured adding the metal bits to the relatively stiff linothorax ? Just checking.
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 00:02
You may well have a point there, but... does "two-ply linen" automatically mean good ole 'lino, though ? Linen was, if I've understood correctly, the main material used in both forms of textile-based armour, and I don't think it would take too terrible a stretch of imagination to interpret the wording as referring to the inner- and outermost layer of a "soft" cuirass as easily as "lino"...?
All that matters is that that passage does not, in fact, say that Alexander wears a "a thickly quilted Persian cuirass." It's a two-ply linen cuirass, and that's all we can take from that. The problem with interpreting it being two-ply with it being a quilted cuirass is that we simply don't necessarily know how many layers was average for a linothorax. Some have postulated that the T&Y cuirasses with a seam at either side of the front of the abdomen are made of a single layer of linen which was wrapped around the body twice, which would provide good protection but which would also afford the best flexibility. Now, this is purely conjecture, but it could mean that linothorakes were 2-ply.
Side note: didn't the Persians prefer to make their scale armour on a soft base whereas the Greeks favoured adding the metal bits to the relatively stiff linothorax ? Just checking.
I've never heard this from a primary source. I've heard a ton of conjecture about composition of linothorakes/composite cuirasses/entirely scale cuirasses, and almost all of it is speculative (such as that whole idea that some linothorakes were lined with metal plates on the inside; it could have been done, but there's no evidence for it). Maybe if someone knows, they could cite the original source?
Teleklos Archelaou
05-30-2007, 01:34
After we explained our reasons for using the armor the way it is depicted, whether or not that explanation is one meeting your personal approval, why do you, currently an RTR developer and historian (though that is not mentioned publicly here yet I think), continue to pester us on our forum about the depiction of the material (specifically using terms like "baseless conjecture" (your emphasis, not mine) to describe our use of the material)?
We are content to use quilted armor in a very limited manner for Greeks (on Machimoi Egyptian Phalangites and one texture variant of the Cretan archer unit) because of the reasons stated above in this thread. Other team members attempted to handle this matter by PM but it continues here on our public thread at your prompting.
Well, we sure know that the Greeks put the scale onto the linothorax. Here's a nice vase painting to illustrate their use:
https://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6646/sosiaskylixtendingwoundkf6.jpg
There are several things to note about the man on the left:
1) The detached shoulder piece. It may just be the coloring options given to Sosias, but we have an interesting color for the material on the underside of this armor--leather perhaps? The color of the hardened inside of the linothorax, before having the outside layer bleached? Whatever it is, we know that there are scales implanted on the outside of it.
2) The stomach is also covered in scales, and, based on the patterning above and below the scales, would seem to be a linothorax base. We can't say for certain. It could just as easily be leather, or a simpler cloth used mainly as a base for the scale. But it looks like a linothorax base. However, we can say that the underside of the connector piece for the shoulder (see other shoulder piece for reference) is a different color than the underside of the main piece, which is a lighter color. Leather vs. linen? Hardened linen vs. linen?
3) Note that below the second set of designs we see scale pteryges. There are two interpretations I can think of: a) it is a separate piece attached around the waist, b) the scale we see on the stomach continues here, it is more like a corselet attached to the chest, bound by the design we see around the waist, which is a belt, and not the bottom of the linothorax. Now, even with option a) its still probably attached to the thorax itself, but its unclear whether the base for these scales would be linen or leather, both were used in pteryges, so either is possible.
4) the chest section. we can see where it ends, how it extents to the base of the shoulder, at which point it relies on the shoulder pieces to manage the transition from front to back. We can see a separate border, or hem, going around the edge, with some sort of light (even filmy) garment underneath. This chest section itself may feature some form of "quilting," or rather, brick-patterned stitchwork, which I find more likely--considering the depiction--than merely designs drawn on the linothorax: if designs they do not fit with the theme of the things on the cuirass which are clearly just designs, and are considerably more crowded than anything else of which I am aware.
You'll also notice the exclusively scale construction of the other thorax, I'm not really sure what all is going on there, mainly because the perspective is a little problematic.
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 03:29
After we explained our reasons for using the armor the way it is depicted, whether or not that explanation is one meeting your personal approval, why do you, currently an RTR developer and historian (though that is not mentioned publicly here yet I think), continue to pester us on our forum about the depiction of the material (specifically using terms like "baseless conjecture" (your emphasis, not mine) to describe our use of the material)?
First of all, I was answering the questions and speculation of the OP and some other posters in this thread, not asking a question of the EB team.
Secondly, why does it matter if I'm an RTR developer? I appreciate both RTR and EB, and I'd like to contribute to the discussion of the historical accuracy of both. I'm terribly sorry that discussing a matter like this on a public forum which invites historical discussion causes you so much distress.
We are content to use quilted armor in a very limited manner for Greeks (on Machimoi Egyptian Phalangites and one texture variant of the Cretan archer unit) because of the reasons stated above in this thread. Other team members attempted to handle this matter by PM but it continues here on our public thread at your prompting.
Paullus sent me a very congenial email to discuss this matter, but that doesn't mean that we can't continue to discuss this matter here, which has in the mean time branched off into a bit of a different zone of discussion. Why do you feel the need to stifle such discussion?
And your use of this style of armour is not exactly "very limited." In a brief scan of the main Greek faction units, I found 6 units wearing such armour, some with studded quilted armour, others simply quilted armour (Iudaioi Taxeis, Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Thureophoroi, Toxotai Kretikoi, Thrakiois Hippeis, Machimoi Phalangitai).
There are several things to note about the man on the left:
1) The detached shoulder piece. It may just be the coloring options given to Sosias, but we have an interesting color for the material on the underside of this armor--leather perhaps? The color of the hardened inside of the linothorax, before having the outside layer bleached? Whatever it is, we know that there are scales implanted on the outside of it.
It's unlikely that the inside would be hardened, considering that the shoulder pieces would have to be flexible.
2) The stomach is also covered in scales, and, based on the patterning above and below the scales, would seem to be a linothorax base. We can't say for certain. It could just as easily be leather, or a simpler cloth used mainly as a base for the scale. But it looks like a linothorax base. However, we can say that the underside of the connector piece for the shoulder (see other shoulder piece for reference) is a different color than the underside of the main piece, which is a lighter color. Leather vs. linen? Hardened linen vs. linen?
3) Note that below the second set of designs we see scale pteryges. There are two interpretations I can think of: a) it is a separate piece attached around the waist, b) the scale we see on the stomach continues here, it is more like a corselet attached to the chest, bound by the design we see around the waist, which is a belt, and not the bottom of the linothorax. Now, even with option a) its still probably attached to the thorax itself, but its unclear whether the base for these scales would be linen or leather, both were used in pteryges, so either is possible.
It's clear that with other depictions of these earlier-style T&Y cuirasses that the pteruges were cut directly from the linen at the base of the tube, so my vote would be with B).
4) the chest section. we can see where it ends, how it extents to the base of the shoulder, at which point it relies on the shoulder pieces to manage the transition from front to back. We can see a separate border, or hem, going around the edge, with some sort of light (even filmy) garment underneath. This chest section itself may feature some form of "quilting," or rather, brick-patterned stitchwork, which I find more likely--considering the depiction--than merely designs drawn on the linothorax: if designs they do not fit with the theme of the things on the cuirass which are clearly just designs, and are considerably more crowded than anything else of which I am aware.
I can't even make out what sort of texture is on the top portion, but it seems it could even be finer scales. It looks much too fine to be quilted to me, but with a better image we could probably get a better idea.
You'll also notice the exclusively scale construction of the other thorax, I'm not really sure what all is going on there, mainly because the perspective is a little problematic.
I agree with almost everything you've brought up here, but I'm kind of confused as to why you've brought it up. I don't doubt that scale was worn on the outside of T&Y cuirasses in Classical times, and I also don't doubt that such cuirasses were made of several layers of linen/leather. What I meant by "conjecture about composition of linothorakes/composite cuirasses/entirely scale cuirasses" was more how the cuirasses were constructed, and what we often can't see from iconographic sources, which is the inside, rather than the actual composition of the external materials. What I am referring to is, for instance, the use of metal plates or scales to line the inside of a cuirass, or how many layers of material were used to construct it, or whether different kinds of materials were used within the same piece of armour.
True, the main reason I brought it up was for the two clearly different types of material underneath the shoulder flap. The darker material would seem to be the more rigid, but both are rigid enough that the shoulder piece springs up in the air, rather than just flopping down after the connector (to the main part of the cuirass) had been untied.
EDIT: and I'd say that, for the chest piece of the left soldier, the sections in the picture are a) too small for scale, and b) rectangular, and so unfitting with most representations of scale armor. I agree that the extent of the stitching--if that is what it is--is remarkable, but these seem to be relatively wealthy soldiers, so we might expect they could go a few steps farther to increase the viability of types of armor. Increased stitching would surely increase the effectiveness of padded/quilted armor, by making shorter (and so less vulnerable) seams and an overall tighter construction.
We are content to use quilted armor in a very limited manner for Greeks (on Machimoi Egyptian Phalangites and one texture variant of the Cretan archer unit) because of the reasons stated above in this thread.
And your use of this style of armour is not exactly "very limited." In a brief scan of the main Greek faction units, I found 6 units wearing such armour, some with studded quilted armour, others simply quilted armour (Iudaioi Taxeis, Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Thureophoroi, Toxotai Kretikoi, Thrakiois Hippeis, Machimoi Phalangitai).
I counted the total number of skins used by our Greek and strongly Greek-influenced by units and got 190 (remember, this is in our internal build with lots of new units). Of those, only 14 skins used some sort of quilted armor. That's just 7%. Also, I am certain that I accidentally left out several rebel skins (maybe 5-15) when I counted. I happen to know that those do not use padded armor, so I'd guess that the percentage of Greek units using padded armor is probably around 5-6%. I'd say that, for the purposes of the game, that is pretty limited.
Teleklos Archelaou
05-30-2007, 04:32
I see that one of the textures of the Pantadapoi Phalangitai also uses them, and that one of the textures of the Thracian Hippeis uses them too. Indeed I did not count those in my earlier naming of two units, but I am not referring to studded armor here, just the type that was asked about originally. I don't see the Thureophoroi that you say has it, but it might be one of the approximately 8 or 10 variants of that unit that I haven't found yet in custom battles.
I will also say that from conversations inside the mod team, that there is absolutely no desire expressed in changing them now either. You can make sure RTR doesn't use them though if you are so opposed to their inclusion and so certain no one is using them in these regions in our time period.
As for stifling discussion, there are hundreds and hundreds of threads here. It's a very active place and has lots of things going on all the time. The only ones that I have a problem with seem to be the ones you alone insist on "discussing" (i.e., complaining about - I don't recall seeing any from you talking about how something is good or agreeing with anything we have) EB units in. The one good thing that is sort of evident from all of this is that I don't think this makes any EB members have hard feelings towards RTR at all - it's more like sympathy than anything else, genuinely.
I don't understand exactly the backgrounds of the recent discussion but I am not very amused about it. I don't know RTR and am not interested in it. The discussion was about a form of armour not normally seen in the sources in the case of Greeks. It is a form which is very logical, giving a simple and functional armour. I believe that this form of armour existed. It is okay to use it in a game where you are happy to have diversity. But it is also okay to question the armour and ask for the evidence.
Geoffrey S
05-30-2007, 15:30
It is okay to use it in a game where you are happy to have diversity. But it is also okay to question the armour and ask for the evidence.
People on both sides of the debate would do well to think on this. Neither the EB representation or MeinPanzer's view are definitely correct or wrong, but both are perfectly possible. Presenting the options as absolutes helps no-one.
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 17:30
True, the main reason I brought it up was for the two clearly different types of material underneath the shoulder flap. The darker material would seem to be the more rigid, but both are rigid enough that the shoulder piece springs up in the air, rather than just flopping down after the connector (to the main part of the cuirass) had been untied.
Yes, I see what you mean there. Some have suggested that if the T&Y cuirass is the spolas, and thus made of leather, that the shoulder yokes would have to be made of some other material because leather doesn't "spring" like the yokes are often shown doing in art. Considering that the actual "bridge" of the yoke is white, it could suggest linen, which would be able to provide that spring.
EDIT: and I'd say that, for the chest piece of the left soldier, the sections in the picture are a) too small for scale, and b) rectangular, and so unfitting with most representations of scale armor. I agree that the extent of the stitching--if that is what it is--is remarkable, but these seem to be relatively wealthy soldiers, so we might expect they could go a few steps farther to increase the viability of types of armor. Increased stitching would surely increase the effectiveness of padded/quilted armor, by making shorter (and so less vulnerable) seams and an overall tighter construction.
Based on that picture I can't even tell if the sections are rectangular, to be honest, so I'd need to see a better picture in order to judge.
I counted the total number of skins used by our Greek and strongly Greek-influenced by units and got 190 (remember, this is in our internal build with lots of new units). Of those, only 14 skins used some sort of quilted armor. That's just 7%. Also, I am certain that I accidentally left out several rebel skins (maybe 5-15) when I counted. I happen to know that those do not use padded armor, so I'd guess that the percentage of Greek units using padded armor is probably around 5-6%. I'd say that, for the purposes of the game, that is pretty limited.
It doesn't matter how limited the use of such armour is proportional to the overall amount, it's whether you have the evidence to support using it for those units.
I see that one of the textures of the Pantadapoi Phalangitai also uses them, and that one of the textures of the Thracian Hippeis uses them too. Indeed I did not count those in my earlier naming of two units, but I am not referring to studded armor here, just the type that was asked about originally. I don't see the Thureophoroi that you say has it, but it might be one of the approximately 8 or 10 variants of that unit that I haven't found yet in custom battles.
I am including that kind of studded armour in this, because it is clearly quilted armour with studs in it. For example, this thureophoros:
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/arche-seleukeia/seleukid_thureophoroi.gif
I will also say that from conversations inside the mod team, that there is absolutely no desire expressed in changing them now either. You can make sure RTR doesn't use them though if you are so opposed to their inclusion and so certain no one is using them in these regions in our time period.
But, obviously, if the paullus can find the Hellenistic evidence for quilted armour, aren't you going to change it to accommodate that?
As for stifling discussion, there are hundreds and hundreds of threads here. It's a very active place and has lots of things going on all the time. The only ones that I have a problem with seem to be the ones you alone insist on "discussing" (i.e., complaining about - I don't recall seeing any from you talking about how something is good or agreeing with anything we have) EB units in.
So, in other words, the only discussions you have a problem with are the ones you don't like. I like many units in EB, and because I think they are well done, I feel the need not to discuss them. If you don't want "negative" discussion, why don't you just put a ban on it in the FAQ and be done with it?
I see now that you've surreptitiously excised the portion of the FAQ which read "However, we are always willing to reexamine our work if someone presents us with information that contradicts what we believe to be true" after the last time I was here.
The one good thing that is sort of evident from all of this is that I don't think this makes any EB members have hard feelings towards RTR at all - it's more like sympathy than anything else, genuinely.
Why do you suppose I harbour hard feelings toward EB? As before, you seem to confuse criticism with animosity.
Why do you suppose I harbour hard feelings toward EB? As before, you seem to confuse criticism with animosity.
Because of the way you conduct your discussions.
I'm no historian, my efforts for Hayasdan and EB are purely as part of a hobby, but your manner suggests to me, and no doubt to many other members, a lack of receptivity and a lack of respect for EB historians. We offer to you evidence in support of our own theories, yet you disregard them with such certainty that it is as if we were throwing paper at a wall. Your manner is not conducive to discussion. Your standards are appreciable, but they are only your standards, and they are not the only standards by which to judge historical evidence. Nor does the fact that our standards are not as strict as yours make ours inferior (wow! that was a bad sentence). You do not have to agree with our conclusions, but your continued persistence on this matter in the face of the evidence we have produced suggests a sincere lack of respect for our standards of interpretation and our suitability as historians.
If you wish discuss standards of interpretation then sure we would be more than happy to, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This topic was started and continued by an inquiry into a type of armour and the historical evidence for it inclusion on certain units within our timeframe. We have given our evidence and our reasons for our interpretation of said evidence, and we gladly include this armour within our game with a clear conscience as historians that we are following our standards and not being mislead by personal desire or a lack of objectivity.
Unless you can argue well enough that our standards of judgement and interpretation show an unhistorical trend, or that our objectivity as historians has been compromised then you must accept our standards of interpretation and argue accordingly. Currently its like a Christian criticising Nietzsche's philosophy on the grounds of Christian metaphysical truths, whilst Nietzsche himself has already rejected them. It is up to you to meet us on our ground, or make a powerful case that our ground is in the wrong. You have done neither. The discussion necessarily meets an impasse.
Foot
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 19:26
Because of the way you conduct your discussions.
I'm no historian, my efforts for Hayasdan and EB are purely as part of a hobby, but your manner suggests to me, and no doubt to many other members, a lack of receptivity and a lack of respect for EB historians. We offer to you evidence in support of our own theories, yet you disregard them with such certainty that it is as if we were throwing paper at a wall.
Here, again, you characterize my disagreement with the EB interpretations as being "disrespectful." Why can't you accept that criticism can be directed at you without malice? This is exactly how the whole hubbub got started in the first place when I criticized your choices; the team took it as an affront to their efforts, when you had originally welcomed such discussion. I should note here that paullus and I can discuss such matters just fine and in a civil manner without cries of pestering, offence, or disrespect in private, so why can't that go on here?
Your manner is not conducive to discussion. Your standards are appreciable, but they are only your standards, and they are not the only standards by which to judge historical evidence. Nor does the fact that our standards are not as strict as yours make ours inferior (wow! that was a bad sentence). You do not have to agree with our conclusions, but your continued persistence on this matter in the face of the evidence we have produced suggests a sincere lack of respect for our standards of interpretation and our suitability as historians.
Let me be clear here: Your standards are far from historical, but I understand why. You are reconstructing units, and the evidence is almost always incomplete, forcing you to bridge gaps. Within the void of those gaps, it is very tempting to side more with artistry than the evidence, and that provides benefits of its own. However, it is the EB team's willingness to bridge gaps of hundreds of years and hundreds, even thousands, of kilometres in applying evidence to reconstructions that is so disconcerting. As in here, we have established that, yes, evidence for diamondwork quilted armour exists, but from limited regions and almost entirely ending in the mid-4th C. BC. Yet you have reconstructed such armour on units from at least a hundred years later and from locations where no trace of such armour has been found, such as Crete. That is not historical, and so the claim to historicity is false.
If you wish discuss standards of interpretation then sure we would be more than happy to, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This topic was started and continued by an inquiry into a type of armour and the historical evidence for it inclusion on certain units within our timeframe. We have given our evidence and our reasons for our interpretation of said evidence, and we gladly include this armour within our game with a clear conscience as historians that we are following our standards and not being mislead by personal desire or a lack of objectivity.
Before this derail was started, and I was accused of "pestering" the EB team (in the first discussion I have contributed to in several months), we were discussing the topic at hand. Once again, this wasn't an inquiry into EB's choice of armour, just a discussion of the actual evidence for it.
Unless you can argue well enough that our standards of judgement and interpretation show an unhistorical trend, or that our objectivity as historians has been compromised then you must accept our standards of interpretation and argue accordingly. Currently its like a Christian criticising Nietzsche's philosophy on the grounds of Christian metaphysical truths, whilst Nietzsche himself has already rejected them. It is up to you to meet us on our ground, or make a powerful case that our ground is in the wrong. You have done neither. The discussion necessarily meets an impasse.
Funny that you compare me to a Christian criticizing Nietzsche, when like the Christian you are the one who has no qualms about creating colourful constructions within gaps in the evidence and then holding them up as fact, and yet like Nietzsche I am the one who is calling for an observance of the actual evidence. And much like many Christians, you try to colour the debate my shifting the responsibility for providing evidence. The onus is on you, who has diverged from the evidence, to explain that divergence, and not the other way around.
Let me be clear here: Your standards are far from historical...
~:rolleyes:
Teleklos Archelaou
05-30-2007, 20:03
As in here, we have established that, yes, evidence for diamondwork quilted armour exists, but from limited regions and almost entirely ending in the mid-4th C. BC. Yet you have reconstructed such armour on units from at least a hundred years later and from locations where no trace of such armour has been found, such as Crete. That is not historical, and so the claim to historicity is false.If Urnamma says that quilted linen armor is found on third century Rhodes, the same type that existed from India through Mesopotamia to Scythia and Anatolia and down to Egypt for two centuries prior, then by god we will use it for some light armed units also. Whether you like it or not. "Limited regions" my ass. You play loose with the details when it suits you just as much as you accuse us and our mod team of doing so.
We don't have evidence that Pontic generals used the older Persian cheires or neck guards either, but we feel more than fine about using them in our reconstruction of the unit. Because we have no quilted armor on Crete in the third century doesn't mean that we aren't going to keep from using it on *one* unit recruited there.
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 20:34
If Urnamma says that quilted linen armor is found on third century Rhodes, the same type that existed from India through Mesopotamia to Scythia and Anatolia and down to Egypt for two centuries prior, then by god we will use it for some light armed units also. Whether you like it or not. "Limited regions" my ass. You play loose with the details when it suits you just as much as you accuse us and our mod team of doing so.
Once again, "linen armour" does not mean quilted armour, which is what we are discussing here. And no, I won't take evidence from an entirely different geographic and chronological location and apply it to something else without a very good reason to do so supported by solid evidence (not just "because they could have worn it"), so I'm not "loose with the details" quite like that.
We don't have evidence that Pontic generals used the older Persian cheires or neck guards either, but we feel more than fine about using them in our reconstruction of the unit.
...Something else I disagree with, especially the bizarre single-cheir unit.
Because we have no quilted armor on Crete in the third century doesn't mean that we aren't going to keep from using it on *one* unit recruited there.
And this makes perfectly clear what I said about your claims of historicity being false. Were this an academic reconstruction, such logic wouldn't fly. There is evidence of other kinds of armour being worn on 3rd century BC Crete, but instead you choose to reconstruct a unit using a type of armour which has not been found in evidence from Crete in this time.
Considering this is your opening for this discussion, you might see why people have a problem with your attitude:
There's absolutely no primary evidence for this.
The problem is that you don't articulate your words to fit a scientific debate taking place in this arena, meaning in a place where people can't see your expressions. In most of your posts it seems as if you don't even consider about being wrong or changing your own perspective, you only focus on proving others wrong.
You do seem to know a lot about the subjects you comment on and I believe you do. But remember that in an internet forum no-one knows if you're some kid who knows how to google, or a university professor. English is a language in which every word can be insulting, it's just a matter of the delivery. The EB team is very easily insulted, because the pressure and past experiences has put them on the defensive. Still, I'd like to see everyone keep their cool.
Teleklos Archelaou
05-30-2007, 20:55
Your standards are your standards. When the hell did you become the arbiter of all that is "historical" or not? Again, might I remind you that you are not on the EB team and you do not determine what is in the mod or not? An "academic reconstruction" would not ever have to attempt to create as many units as we have, and as many variations of as many units as we have - to aid in providing that variation (and indeed, there was a lot of it in antiquity and there is a lot of it in EB but in ways that the engine can depict; i.e., in different units, not within individual variations of soldiers within a single unit), we will sometimes use a texture or a piece of equipment that was not as common or some element from an adjacent or influential neighbor to add to the realism - not to detract from it. That's what is happening here. Is it realistic to insist that every unit wear the same thing or have only the type of weapon or cuirass or helmet that is the most common type for that province and that unit found inside that province? Hardly. Using a common light armor (yes, common), one that is highly degradable in comparison to other types and that in artistic depictions can be confused with scale or patterened designs on cloth, on a few of our variants of a few of our units is not some egregious error. Just a few images in files on my cpu here depicting this type of armor, for those who have read along but haven't seen much in the way of these images:
https://img70.imageshack.us/img70/6177/quiltedia5.th.jpg (https://img70.imageshack.us/my.php?image=quiltedia5.jpg)
You already have said you think we are far from historical, so leave it at that and just leave. We will not be changing every unit you think has problems to fit your personal opinion about what is truely accurate and what is not. You have control over another mod now - impose your standards upon them if you like. We knew very well what your participation would result in and I feel sorry for anyone who feels like they must accede to your every demand and opinion when it comes to Hellenistic arms.
-------------
Thaatu - "past experiences" that include many from this same user - most of those 186 posts probably also if anyone looked into it. This really hasn't happened a lot otherwise. A handful of other times when there was something serious that needed changing that I am aware of. Probably a number of other times when the answer was easily provided and the people thanked us and the matter was closed.
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 20:58
Considering this is your opening for this discussion, you might see why people have a problem with your attitude:
The problem is that you don't articulate your words to fit a scientific debate taking place in this arena, meaning in a place where people can't see your expressions. In most of your posts it seems as if you don't even consider about being wrong or changing your own perspective, you only focus on proving others wrong.
You do seem to know a lot about the subjects you comment on and I believe you do. But remember that in an internet forum no-one knows if you're some kid who knows how to google, or a university professor. English is a language in which every word can be insulting, it's just a matter of the delivery. The EB team is very easily insulted, because the pressure and past experiences has put them on the defensive. Still, I'd like to see everyone keep their cool.
I understand what you mean. The reason I automatically took a negative stance in this debate is because it was being held up as being historically accurate without actually citing any evidence (not by the EB team, but by other posters). As I have told paullus, I do consider my own position, and I have changed my opinion on many subjects in the past based on careful consideration (case in point: The extensive RAT forum discussion on linen vs. leather armour in the Greek world). However, this is one issue, along with a handful of others, which without any further evidence to consider (and it seems there may be, but it needs to be found first) is fairly clear. It's also ironic that I am told that I am not budging on an issue or considering the evidence when that's exactly the case with the EB team, who seem to defend their decisions no matter what.
It is not just that, Thaatu. I've found many of MP's arguments to be poor to say the least. Seriously, just look at this thread about Seleukid Hetairoi lacking shields. Not only is it like arguing with a wall, but his evidence is completely worthless.
He shows us coins from a region in Anatolia from the 2nd C. BC - a century without any Seleukid control after 190 BC. Then he shows us a cup from Syria with a Hellenistic cavalryman lacking a helmet, which is not very hetairos in character at all. Then, after all that he tries arguing in favor of using Livy as a source when all Livy is good at is telling you that something happened, but worthless for details - something which seems to be a universal judgment in academic circles. And then finally, to top it all off, he ignores the problem of carrying the two-handed xyston and a shield at the same time.
Of course, he never managed to put forth any worthwhile argument insisting that the cavalrymen in the depictions he posted were Hetairoi, let alone Hetairoi of the Seleukids. We agreed that cavalry with shields and a lance most certainly existed and we will have them in the next public release - the Loncophoroi. But then, that couldn't possibly be true. In fact, it must be baseless conjecture!
I understand what you mean. The reason I automatically took a negative stance in this debate is because it was being held up as being historically accurate without actually citing any evidence (not by the EB team, but by other posters). As I have told paullus, I do consider my own position, and I have changed my opinion on many subjects in the past based on careful consideration (case in point: The extensive RAT forum discussion on linen vs. leather armour in the Greek world). However, this is one issue, along with a handful of others, which without any further evidence to consider (and it seems there may be, but it needs to be found first) is fairly clear. It's also ironic that I am told that I am not budging on an issue or considering the evidence when that's exactly the case with the EB team, who seem to defend their decisions no matter what.
That's why we didn't change either the Iberian or German roster, because we never budge in our decisions.
MP, what sort of armor do we have from Krete, from the 3rd century? Just wondering...I'm not sure I can think of any examples from the 3rd century at all, but that would be perplexing considering the amount of warfare on that island.
Now, evidence for some form of quilting (stitched layers of fabric, as opposed to stuffing between layers, seems to be more likely based on actual finds, but there may have been several ways to do it) comes to us from several Hellenistic sources:
1) Egyptian terracottas - apparently there is a machimos infantryman with what appears to be quilted armor, but I haven't seen it myself, so I'm not giving it incredible weight, save for that we know quilted armor has a VERY long tradition in Egypt, so it wouldn't surprise me.
- you and I both know of the cavalryman with diamond shaped armor. You keep insisting its mail (and then saying there's no proof from the Hellenistic med) when its far, far more likely to be either quilting or scale, simply based on the pattern. your unwillingness to budge on an issue like that, and your willingness to utterly ignore it is the thing that causes me the most annoyance, to be honest, even though most would consider it a small thing.
2) Rhodian find, Seleukid find - both Hellenistic, both very likely representations of quilted armor. Have I seen either yet? No. I'm hoping they'll be in Snodgrass' later edition, which I've ordered and should have soon. But frankly, I trust the testimony of a respected scholar like Snodgrass, and those two finds pretty much end the doubt for me, though I'm still eager to see the book itself and check its sources.
Now, neither of these three sources are definitive. Sure. I grant that. The terracotta could be scale armor, the finds from Rhodos and Judaea may actually be some other form of linen use, even if it strongly resembles quilting. Those are possibilities. But is it at least as possible, if not more so, that they are, for the Hellenistic period, precisely the things from the Classical period which they resemble.
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 22:03
MP, what sort of armor do we have from Krete, from the 3rd century? Just wondering...I'm not sure I can think of any examples from the 3rd century at all, but that would be perplexing considering the amount of warfare on that island.
I know of at least the stele from the eastern part, can't remember the name of the city, which Sekunda illustrates in his Hellenistic Infantry Reforms book, and which dates to the late 3rd/early 2nd C. BC and shows a soldier wearing a T&Y cuirass.
Now, evidence for some form of quilting (stitched layers of fabric, as opposed to stuffing between layers, seems to be more likely based on actual finds, but there may have been several ways to do it) comes to us from several Hellenistic sources:
1) Egyptian terracottas - apparently there is a machimos infantryman with what appears to be quilted armor, but I haven't seen it myself, so I'm not giving it incredible weight, save for that we know quilted armor has a VERY long tradition in Egypt, so it wouldn't surprise me.
Is this figure wearing the same kind of armour as the cavalryman? Could you provide a citation for it, please?
- you and I both know of the cavalryman with diamond shaped armor. You keep insisting its mail (and then saying there's no proof from the Hellenistic med) when its far, far more likely to be either quilting or scale, simply based on the pattern. your unwillingness to budge on an issue like that, and your willingness to utterly ignore it is the thing that causes me the most annoyance, to be honest, even though most would consider it a small thing.
This:
https://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3159/africanme5.th.jpg (https://img112.imageshack.us/my.php?image=africanme5.jpg)
Is not diamond shaped at all. It's just a cuirass with dimples in it, which could represent some kind of padded cuirass, or mail, but definitely not a diamondwork quilted cuirass.
2) Rhodian find, Seleukid find - both Hellenistic, both very likely representations of quilted armor. Have I seen either yet? No. I'm hoping they'll be in Snodgrass' later edition, which I've ordered and should have soon. But frankly, I trust the testimony of a respected scholar like Snodgrass, and those two finds pretty much end the doubt for me, though I'm still eager to see the book itself and check its sources.
If these do end up being, in fact, examples of quilted textile armour, and not just scraps of multi-layered linen, then I'd change my stance. However, so far, at least with the Rhodian find, everything seems to point to it just being scraps of linen, which in itself is very interesting, but if it wasn't quilted, it proves nothing in this debate.
Now, neither of these three sources are definitive. Sure. I grant that. The terracotta could be scale armor, the finds from Rhodos and Judaea may actually be some other form of linen use, even if it strongly resembles quilting. Those are possibilities. But is it at least as possible, if not more so, that they are, for the Hellenistic period, precisely the things from the Classical period which they resemble.
Please, can you tell me how those two textile finds strongly resemble quilting? What have you heard about them? All I've heard so far about the Rhodian example is that it was many layers of linen found in a warrior burial.
blacksnail
05-30-2007, 22:09
It's also ironic that I am told that I am not budging on an issue or considering the evidence when that's exactly the case with the EB team, who seem to defend their decisions no matter what.
No. As I mentioned four months ago, you seem to be unable to communicate here without coming across as aggressive, bull-headed, and arguing in bad faith. When you did not get an immediate or near-immediate response you had a tendency to claim victory on an undefended point. You selectively ignored responses to suit your arguments and then accused people of arguing in bad faith if their answers did not suit your expectations.
Because you have a history of poor communication here, you have a reputation of causing problems. Before you were a poster with a lot of time on your hands. Now you are posting in the EB forums as a member of the RTR team, a mod which has a somewhat complicated history with EB. There is some suspicion that you may be attempting to start something on the EB forums to draw both teams into a completely lame Internet turf war, as others with personal or academic grudges have attempted in the past. I myself don't think this is the case - I think you just like to be proven right in one of your areas of interest - but your posting history and your online personality isn't helping anything here.
This is the root of the problem. Unless your interaction changes in some way (which so far it has not between February and now), I highly doubt the EB team's interaction will change.
Geoffrey S
05-30-2007, 22:11
These debates do make me look forward to EB2, where individual troops within units can represent the most likely option with a healthy mix of less common types thrown in the mix. As is, representing all troops in EB with the most common type of armour would also distory reality in completely neglicting minority alternatives; using less common armour types for regional/factional variations is a necessary abstraction at the moment, in my opinion, as long as they don't dominate. That they don't has already been pointed out.
keravnos
05-30-2007, 22:15
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/dancingindoscythianssr0.jpg
Buddhist relief from Swat, Gandhara
On the bottom scene, the hunting scene a Saka is depicted about to deliver the killing blow to his prey. He wears a quilted DIAMOND SHAPED cuirass, much like those depicted in Teleklos' post.
If you want a bigger version of the above, so that you can see in detail what we talk about here it is,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/DancingIndoScythians.jpg
What I see there is the same old quilted armor of yore that shouldn't exist in our period. Why is it an armor? Well, considering the first pic (the saka dancing with sleeves pulled up), the one below deffinitely has some armor on top of that. This would be the quilted cuirass with pteryges below, again much like what Teleklos showed in his post pic.
The timeline of IndoScythian kings (or Saka) is the following, in Gandhara (and all of Northern India) where this frieze was found,
Maues (90 - 60 BC)
Vonones (75 - 65 BC)
Spalahores (75 - 65 BC)
Spalirises (60 - 57 BC)
Spalagadames
Azes I (57 - 35 BC)
Azilises (57 - 35 BC)
Azes II (35 - 12 BC)
Zeionises (10 BC - 10 AD)
Kharahostes (10 BC - 10 AD)
Hajatria
Liaka Kusuluka
Kusulaka Patika
Thus it stands to reason that quilted cuirass was worn way after 3rd century BCE as was claimed.
If you want to watch another discussion about quilted cuirass, (this one in much earlier bronze age) go to the following link. As Urnamma said, Both Egyptians and Mycenaeans used quilted cloth cuirass
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Center/index.php?showtopic=773
Isn't the Kretan stele you're referring to very likely Roman era? I don't have the book at hand to check the details, but I remember that being my impression, though I think Sekunda wanted to argue for the soldier as being a Romanized infantryman.
And I believe I stated that, as regards my other points, I haven't seen most of the evidence myself, but hope to find proper documentation for it in Snodgrass, from whom we received the testimony that several of these finds to represent quilted armor. That's fine if you're unsatisfied until you see it, I'm not entirely satisfied myself, but it surely doesn't reflect too well on you when you say things are entirely without basis, wholly concocted, etc--your tone in those sort of statements doesn't strike me as that of an academic, which I believe the RTR "meet the team" bit gave the impression you were.
Watchman
05-30-2007, 22:23
And something that's both light, cheap, convenient, easy to make and works, tends not fall out of use without very good reasons.
Indeed, it was still used side-by-side with brigandine style armour well into the 15th century...
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 22:41
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/dancingindoscythianssr0.jpg
Buddhist relief from Swat, Gandhara
On the bottom scene, the hunting scene a Saka is depicted about to deliver the killing blow to his prey. He wears a quilted DIAMOND SHAPED cuirass, much like those depicted in Teleklos' post.
If you want a bigger version of the above, so that you can see in detail what we talk about here it is,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/DancingIndoScythians.jpg
What I see there is the same old quilted armor of yore that shouldn't exist in our period. Why is it an armor? Well, considering the first pic (the saka dancing with sleeves pulled up), the one below deffinitely has some armor on top of that. This would be the quilted cuirass with pteryges below, again much like what Teleklos showed in his post pic.
The timeline of IndoScythian kings (or Saka) is the following, in Gandhara (and all of Northern India) where this frieze was found,
Thus it stands to reason that quilted cuirass was worn way after 3rd century BCE as was claimed.
If you want to watch another discussion about quilted cuirass, (this one in much earlier bronze age) go to the following link. As Urnamma said, Both Egyptians and Mycenaeans used quilted cloth cuirass
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Center/index.php?showtopic=773
When does this date to? There are other even clearer examples of diamondwork quilted cuirasses being worn by Indo-Greeks/Kushans from the 1st C. AD, so it doesnt surprise me to see a depiction of such armour from the late 1st C. BC/1st C. AD. However, that is at the end of the EB timeline, around the same time as the lorica segmentata came into use, and is thus not relevant to EB.
Isn't the Kretan stele you're referring to very likely Roman era? I don't have the book at hand to check the details, but I remember that being my impression, though I think Sekunda wanted to argue for the soldier as being a Romanized infantryman.
The soldier wears a Thracian helmet, so it's definitely not Roman.
And I believe I stated that, as regards my other points, I haven't seen most of the evidence myself, but hope to find proper documentation for it in Snodgrass, from whom we received the testimony that several of these finds to represent quilted armor. That's fine if you're unsatisfied until you see it, I'm not entirely satisfied myself, but it surely doesn't reflect too well on you when you say things are entirely without basis, wholly concocted, etc--your tone in those sort of statements doesn't strike me as that of an academic, which I believe the RTR "meet the team" bit gave the impression you were.
Perhaps not, but the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support it.
Pharnakes
05-30-2007, 23:17
So let me get this right, your saying that quilted linen was used pre Eb times and post eb times, but you refuse to admit it was used during eb times?
keravnos
05-30-2007, 23:21
So let me get this right, your saying that quilted linen was used pre Eb times and post eb times, but you refuse to admit it was used during eb times?
:logic:
MeinPanzer
05-30-2007, 23:41
So let me get this right, your saying that quilted linen was used pre Eb times and post eb times, but you refuse to admit it was used during eb times?
That is absolutely no proof of anything because types of weaponry and armour can, and did, fall in and out of style and use. Take, for instance, the disappearance of the use of shields by cavalry in the Greek world from the 5th C. BC or so until the 3rd C. BC.
Watchman
05-30-2007, 23:45
I don't really see where the somewhat peculiar considerations of cavalry war-gear can be regarded as directly comparable to the use of cheap-and-cheerful quilted/padded "soft" body armour by light troops (well, heavy in the case of the levy pikes...).
MeinPanzer
05-31-2007, 00:10
I don't really see where the somewhat peculiar considerations of cavalry war-gear can be regarded as directly comparable to the use of cheap-and-cheerful quilted/padded "soft" body armour by light troops (well, heavy in the case of the levy pikes...).
Because it shows that at certain times and in certain areas, certain kinds of defensive equipment can drop out of favour or use. It appears that Hellenistic light troops would have had light, cheap, and "soft" body armour available in the form of the linothorax and/or the spolas.
Was the linothorax even cheap or soft armor?
Pharnakes
05-31-2007, 00:34
Yeah, my understanding has always been that linothorax was relitevly hard, due to being treated with that gluey mixture the ancients use to bind it all together, and it surely be considerably more expensive than a plain, quilted linnen tube and yoke?
That extra cost could well be prohibitive to men such as the Kretikoi Toxotai, who were often little more than brigands IIRC.
MeinPanzer
05-31-2007, 00:35
Was the linothorax even cheap or soft armor?
The simple answer is that we don't know on either count, and no comparison can really be made between the cheapness and effectiveness of, say, a T&Y linothorax versus a quilted T&Y, for instance. However, it was (obviously) cheaper and more flexible than metal armour.
MeinPanzer
05-31-2007, 00:37
Yeah, my understanding has always been that linothorax was relitevly hard, due to being treated with that gluey mixture the ancients use to bind it all together, and it surely be considerably more expensive than a plain, quilted linnen tube and yoke?
That extra cost could well be prohibitive to men such as the Kretikoi Toxotai, who were often little more than brigands IIRC.
We don't even know if the linothorax was glued or stitched together. If it was stitched, and only made of two or three layers of linen, it could be incredibly flexible and probably cheap as well while still providing ample defense.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-31-2007, 00:54
Ample is a relative term, I would submit that any armour which replaced bronze plate would need to provide a very significant level of protection.
As regards the issue of armour in the achaeological record it is important to remember the historical mirage. An excellant example of which is the relatively high incidence of iron Imperial Gallic helms which have been found vs those of bronze.
The difference is that bronze helms are more often lost while iron helms are often found on rubbish tips. Further the bronze helms are often less decorated and have fewer of the non-functional rivits found on cheek-pieces which may indicate rank/seniority.
By contrast many iron helms show evidence of being stripped of bronze fittings as well as their coating of tin/silver.
All this suggests that bronze helms may actually have been more common than iron helms even though the latter make up the majoriety of finds by a considerable margin.
The simple answer is that we don't know on either count, and no comparison can really be made between the cheapness and effectiveness of, say, a T&Y linothorax versus a quilted T&Y, for instance. However, it was (obviously) cheaper and more flexible than metal armour.
My God, sir! Admit that you and the EB team have a serious disagreement at a very fundamental level. The team that I work with are no conjurers and they do not tend to conjecture unless they are reliably certain of their basic facts. That you do not hold the same opinion does not make us unhistorical, unless you can raise suitable criticisms of our technique. Your exacting standards would ruin most historians working in this period and would reduce the writings on this era to a few pages of solid facts - you are Hume in a library with a torch, burning our history and our thought.
We feel reliable with introducing a quilted/padded armour on a small minority of our units in the east, as we see a continuation between pre- and post-period padded armour both in textual form and in archaelogical evidence. We have given evidence to this effect. You judge our interpretation unhistorical, yet, given your certainty, you offer no evidence, except your certainty, that our process is wrong. You are, in my opinion, a blight on honest discussion and on the historical process, and I would suggest that your time would be better spent on projects that you have some say over rather than continuing your belligerent campaign against us.
That is not to say that your discussions and posts have not been informative, but there comes a point where your criticisms, as here, no longer are directed against the evidence but are drawn against the very basis of our project, and the very historians who support. You may call it unhistoric, but I shall tell you that all the historians on the EB team I hold in the deepest respect for their knowledge and for their integrity.
Lastly, your understanding, it seems to me, of Nietzsche is primitive at best. You do realise that Nietzsche never claimed to be a portrayer of truth, he asked for a critical ontology, the question was not "what is true?", but rather "what will help us to live?" Furthermore, you took my comparison between the Christian and Nietzsche far further than it was designed to go, distorting my original intent without, ironically, meeting my particular criticism of you. Ironic because my example was an example of someone answering another by not responding to their criticism but rather bypassing it and in doing so attempting to give the impression of refutation without actually refuting the opposing argument. I refered of course to the work of F. Copleston, Friedrich Nietzsche: Philosopher of Culture, which is quite the most intellectually dishonest book I have ever read, if anyone cares to inquire into its contents.
Foot
The Persian Cataphract
05-31-2007, 01:16
That is absolutely no proof of anything because types of weaponry and armour can, and did, fall in and out of style and use. Take, for instance, the disappearance of the use of shields by cavalry in the Greek world from the 5th C. BC or so until the 3rd C. BC.
It may not be absolute proof, however we can not dismiss Iranian influences on particularly Eastern Hellenic gear. Quilted armour, as can be seen clearly on the mosaic of Pompeii (More famous as the Alexander Mosaic) on the Achaemenid troops. Consensus puts the dating estimations to 200 BCE. That's more than a century past the battle of Issus. This form of armour can be seen from some early alabastra and vases meant to depict scenes from the Persian Wars, usually takabara or sparabara. This was not merely a trend jump; We see that silk was used as a form of defense against archery on Hatrene (Parthian) heavy cavalry, and reconstructions logically conclude that the covers on helmets and the jackets may actually have been quilted. Now we speak of terms of between 1st and 2nd century AD. The Hatrene were clearly influenced by Parthian fashions, so what can we derive from all this?
Well, again we can discuss decline and surges in the matter of trends. It's foolish to presume that quilting, a given knowledge was entirely lost, and it is foolish to assume that the knowledge on how efficient it was against archery disappeared due to Hellenic incursions in Iran proper. Decline does not necessarily indicate complete loss; Quilted armour was never a lost art. Now past a century of the battle of Issus, we see a nearly flawless replica of a quilted cuirass on an Achaemenid charioteer on the mosaic of Pompeii. A few centuries prior, quilted cuirasses were almost a norm among Persian archer regiments, and a few centuries after the date given to the mosaic, we see that Parthians seemed to pass their influences to the western frontiers, with a strong prevalence in silk industry.
What does all of this say to us? Common sense tells us one thing; To assume that things were lost, is foolish. I'm not saying that anyone has claimed this, but without the need to resort to esoterica, I think the whole issue may be dismissed. In societies where each man brought his own equipment, it rather bolsters this viewpoint. I'm not speaking of Hellenic cultures, I speak merely in general. We can at the very least, and we're not that low by a long shot, never rule it out.
MeinPanzer
05-31-2007, 03:24
Ample is a relative term, I would submit that any armour which replaced bronze plate would need to provide a very significant level of protection.
Around this time period, body armour's main purpose was often mainly to deflect missiles. Modern tests of textile armours of various sorts have shown that they did quite well in that regard in comparison to their metal counterparts while being proportionally cheaper and more flexible. The real disadvantage would be in close combat, in which such textile armour provided significantly less benefit.
As regards the issue of armour in the achaeological record it is important to remember the historical mirage. An excellant example of which is the relatively high incidence of iron Imperial Gallic helms which have been found vs those of bronze.
The difference is that bronze helms are more often lost while iron helms are often found on rubbish tips. Further the bronze helms are often less decorated and have fewer of the non-functional rivits found on cheek-pieces which may indicate rank/seniority.
By contrast many iron helms show evidence of being stripped of bronze fittings as well as their coating of tin/silver.
All this suggests that bronze helms may actually have been more common than iron helms even though the latter make up the majoriety of finds by a considerable margin.
Would that we had so much evidence to work with in an issue such as the one at hand.
My God, sir! Admit that you and the EB team have a serious disagreement at a very fundamental level. The team that I work with are no conjurers and they do not tend to conjecture unless they are reliably certain of their basic facts. That you do not hold the same opinion does not make us unhistorical, unless you can raise suitable criticisms of our technique. Your exacting standards would ruin most historians working in this period and would reduce the writings on this era to a few pages of solid facts - you are Hume in a library with a torch, burning our history and our thought.
I admit it- we obviously have unreconcilable differences in our methodology. However, I don't think my standards are too stringent at all, and I think in cases like this conservatism is the best route; evidently the EB team does not agree.
We feel reliable with introducing a quilted/padded armour on a small minority of our units in the east, as we see a continuation between pre- and post-period padded armour both in textual form and in archaelogical evidence. We have given evidence to this effect. You judge our interpretation unhistorical, yet, given your certainty, you offer no evidence, except your certainty, that our process is wrong. You are, in my opinion, a blight on honest discussion and on the historical process, and I would suggest that your time would be better spent on projects that you have some say over rather than continuing your belligerent campaign against us.
It is clear, as you say, that the difference is fundamental. I guess it's fruitless to continue this, so I'll take your advice.
That is not to say that your discussions and posts have not been informative, but there comes a point where your criticisms, as here, no longer are directed against the evidence but are drawn against the very basis of our project, and the very historians who support. You may call it unhistoric, but I shall tell you that all the historians on the EB team I hold in the deepest respect for their knowledge and for their integrity.
Lastly, your understanding, it seems to me, of Nietzsche is primitive at best. You do realise that Nietzsche never claimed to be a portrayer of truth, he asked for a critical ontology, the question was not "what is true?", but rather "what will help us to live?" Furthermore, you took my comparison between the Christian and Nietzsche far further than it was designed to go, distorting my original intent without, ironically, meeting my particular criticism of you. Ironic because my example was an example of someone answering another by not responding to their criticism but rather bypassing it and in doing so attempting to give the impression of refutation without actually refuting the opposing argument. I refered of course to the work of F. Copleston, Friedrich Nietzsche: Philosopher of Culture, which is quite the most intellectually dishonest book I have ever read, if anyone cares to inquire into its contents.
No, I am not a scholar of Nietzsche in the least. I've only read one of his works, so I can't claim any knowledge in that department. However, I am only "bypassing" your criticism insofar as I feel that the problem lies with the basic decision of how far to set the boundaries of acceptable reconstruction and not necessarily the argument at hand- in this case it is merely an example. But, again, this is an impasse in this debate.
It may not be absolute proof, however we can not dismiss Iranian influences on particularly Eastern Hellenic gear. Quilted armour, as can be seen clearly on the mosaic of Pompeii (More famous as the Alexander Mosaic) on the Achaemenid troops. Consensus puts the dating estimations to 200 BCE. That's more than a century past the battle of Issus.
The mosaic itself dates to 200 BC, but the image, and all of its corresponding details, is thought (by consensus) to be copied from an original 4th century BC painting, which would account for many of the details seen in the image which disappeared after the latter half of that century (such as the long-sleeved "Persian" cavalry tunic and a more archaic form of helmet worn by one soldier).
This form of armour can be seen from some early alabastra and vases meant to depict scenes from the Persian Wars, usually takabara or sparabara. This was not merely a trend jump; We see that silk was used as a form of defense against archery on Hatrene (Parthian) heavy cavalry, and reconstructions logically conclude that the covers on helmets and the jackets may actually have been quilted. Now we speak of terms of between 1st and 2nd century AD. The Hatrene were clearly influenced by Parthian fashions, so what can we derive from all this?
What is the citation for the use of silk by the Hatrenes?
Well, again we can discuss decline and surges in the matter of trends. It's foolish to presume that quilting, a given knowledge was entirely lost, and it is foolish to assume that the knowledge on how efficient it was against archery disappeared due to Hellenic incursions in Iran proper. Decline does not necessarily indicate complete loss; Quilted armour was never a lost art.
No, but perhaps the linothorax was more effective against archery or perhaps cheaper, which would account for its prevalence and the disappearance of quilting. If a non-quilted, two-ply linothorax is as effective as a quilted two-ply linothorax, and also required less work to make (sewing only the seams and not the entire pattern), the former would obviously be taken over the latter.
Now past a century of the battle of Issus, we see a nearly flawless replica of a quilted cuirass on an Achaemenid charioteer on the mosaic of Pompeii. A few centuries prior, quilted cuirasses were almost a norm among Persian archer regiments, and a few centuries after the date given to the mosaic, we see that Parthians seemed to pass their influences to the western frontiers, with a strong prevalence in silk industry.
Once again, the details of the Issus mosaic itself date to the late 4th century, along with the other latest examples of quilted armour (mostly from the Etruscans). And one can easily argue as you have here about many topics. Depictions of Macedonian cavalrymen from the 5th century BC show them carrying aspides; a few centuries later we see Macedonian heavy cavalrymen commonly carrying shields on 3rd century stelai. We don't see depictions of cavalry carrying shields in between, or have literary mentions of such a practice. Are we to assume that they did? Obviously, the use of such shields was not forgotten in these armies. One can fill in such gaps as one pleases.
What does all of this say to us? Common sense tells us one thing; To assume that things were lost, is foolish. I'm not saying that anyone has claimed this, but without the need to resort to esoterica, I think the whole issue may be dismissed. In societies where each man brought his own equipment, it rather bolsters this viewpoint. I'm not speaking of Hellenic cultures, I speak merely in general. We can at the very least, and we're not that low by a long shot, never rule it out.
I'd never rule out anything that is within reason when it comes to issues like this, and I'd absolutely love to see evidence to prove me wrong, but the fact of the matter is that what little evidence we have is either highly ambiguous or anachronistic.
This debate can't be solved by an archeologist or a historian. What this needs is a philosopher.
Lowenklee
05-31-2007, 06:53
Personally I am somewhat confused by the hostile turn within this thread,
the EB team is under no obligation to change any aspect of the modification to suite MeinPanzer's views.
Although I understand the desire to personalize such conversations when an emotional investment has been made in it's outcome, the conversation has thus far struck me as being relatively civil and so benefits us "lurkers" if it is allowed to reach it's natural conclusion undistracted by indignation.
Granted, there have been strong assertions made which might be taken as insulting...but a thicker skin is always the best recourse when the conversation topic proves such an academically contentious one. It has certainly been a more informative thread than combative or?
I apologize if my above observations seem presumptuous, please disregard them if so.
If I may ask a quick question, the photo of the vase painting depicting the two greek warriors...is there a publication someone might recommend where I may find similar high quality photos of greek pottery covering the mycenaean period through the 3rd century b.c.e.?
Prologue: if you are those whom are too lazy to read, you only need to read the bolded words. Or not. Suit yourselves.
Hi...um, I usually lurk in the corner of this virtual hall yet today I was stirred to voiced out my opinions.
I myself am no historian, not by academic standard anyway. And as to EB I merely am one of the (many?) thousands of players whom were swept away by the depth of research and volunteered effort, you know, merely a game, yet something the team has transformed into a magnum opus that held great wealth of knowledge (and plenty of respect, I might add)
Of course this is perhaps also the reason why some of us are empassioned about the fine details of such projects; and in many times argue heatedly too.
Yet, it should be clear why ad hominem is a logical fallacy. An argument is an attempt to elicit our consent to the truth of a proposition by appealing to other propositions we accept--not by appealing to force, flattery, or personality. If you disagree with a claim, logic demands that you inspect the reasons put forward to support it.
Ad hominem is obviously fallacious. Why do people continue to commit it and be persuaded by it? Maybe because there's something satisfying, emotionally, about putting down someone you disagree with. It's irritating to admit that someone you dislike has made a valid point. Also when you identify with a view, an attack on it seems like an attack on you, so it's natural to counter with a personal challenge of your own.
While some more learned (or better-read) members of EB might try to point out some of our very own points of arguments are filled with fallacies. Yet I might add by trying to identify these fallacies and defend your charges you should be led to a deeper understanding of the argumentative interaction in adversary contexts. If you treat the charge of fallacy as in incantation with which to strike down the person you criticize and end debate, you reveal yourself as a name-caller who is hostile to the rationality of argumentation.
I really would like to say that, in all arguments, it requires some detachment from your beliefs--the Socratic ideal of pursuing the truth, wherever the path to it may lead.
Postscript:Do you understand now, Mr. MP why am I stirred to type these jibberish for, what reason? I am simply dumbfounded by your dogged attitude of ego-centrism, good sir. Thus I have now jumped my own gun to give you a friendly (perhaps not too friendly) prod at your side.
The Persian Cataphract
05-31-2007, 12:38
The mosaic itself dates to 200 BC, but the image, and all of its corresponding details, is thought (by consensus) to be copied from an original 4th century BC painting, which would account for many of the details seen in the image which disappeared after the latter half of that century (such as the long-sleeved "Persian" cavalry tunic and a more archaic form of helmet worn by one soldier).
Well my good sir, you beat me there. To be honest, I actually forgot that it was a copy of a painting... But it would have made a hell of an argument, non ~:joker:
What is the citation for the use of silk by the Hatrenes?
Our "citation" is not found in written sources, but archaeologically from what has been found in Hatra; King Uthal himself has been subject to reconstructions. In fact, King Uthal is the template behind the Hatrene clibanarius of David Nicolle's "The desert frontier" on the series of Roman enemies, as is the second resconstruction published on Montvert's "Sassanian armies". His helmet, of Parthian bashlyk design, is clearly covered with a cloth-piece, quoted by authorities as a very Persian practice, and underneath his coat, we find quilted cloth.
It is henceforth very natural to propose that silk could have been used to such purposes as well; It is known that silk is tough. Being a royalty, I doubt that King Uthal would have chosen any "lesser" textile. Again, the discussion is not about whether the Hatrene cavalry used silk, but to build a continuum on declining equipment. That Hatra actually does have quite a few statues featuring felt caps of Parthian model or helmets featuring quilted covers, as well as tunics of the same model, of clearly Iranian fashions is almost common knowledge. Parthian heavy cavalry has always and foremostly been equipped to withstand horse-archery. When cataphracts got heavier, they deviated from this purpose to attain a shock role. Implications are many, after all there is still a mention of Cardaces between Persis and Carmania in Strabo's geography,and these implications my friend, are vital in our discussion on trends. It is true that trends come and go, but we are clearly not speaking of decay.
Depictions of Macedonian cavalrymen from the 5th century BC show them carrying aspides; a few centuries later we see Macedonian heavy cavalrymen commonly carrying shields on 3rd century stelai. We don't see depictions of cavalry carrying shields in between, or have literary mentions of such a practice. Are we to assume that they did? Obviously, the use of such shields was not forgotten in these armies. One can fill in such gaps as one pleases.
Why should the continuum ever be disregarded? Especially in feudal societies where each man provided his own equipment, we'd still emphasize gradual change, not abrupt halts and sudden surges of different equipment. The Kyrbasia existed from Imperial Medean times and remained popular even among the local rulers of the Bâzrangid sub-kingdom of Persis as evident in mints. If we then see Parthian dress in Hatra dated between 1st and 2nd century CE, then why exclude quilted technology completely?
King Uthal sends his regards:
http://www.artehistoria.jcyl.es/arte/jpg/CDR14220.jpg
MeinPanzer
05-31-2007, 17:38
Our "citation" is not found in written sources, but archaeologically from what has been found in Hatra; King Uthal himself has been subject to reconstructions. In fact, King Uthal is the template behind the Hatrene clibanarius of David Nicolle's "The desert frontier" on the series of Roman enemies, as is the second resconstruction published on Montvert's "Sassanian armies". His helmet, of Parthian bashlyk design, is clearly covered with a cloth-piece, quoted by authorities as a very Persian practice, and underneath his coat, we find quilted cloth.
See, this is what I thought. You are presenting conjecture here as fact. When you state something like "[t]his was not merely a trend jump; We see that silk was used as a form of defense against archery on Hatrene (Parthian) heavy cavalry" offhand, you make it sound like a fact. In fact, what you have here is just about the epitome of speculation. First of all, that looks like a ceremonial piece of headgear; we have no way of knowing if it is covering a helmet.
It is henceforth very natural to propose that silk could have been used to such purposes as well; It is known that silk is tough. Being a royalty, I doubt that King Uthal would have chosen any "lesser" textile.
And once again, this is pure speculation. I have no problem with speculation, but you need to present it as such when using it to support an argument like this. We have no idea if what is depicted on this statue is meant to represent armour at all and not just riding clothes or royal costume. We have no idea what this kind of clothing could be made of, and saying that it was made of silk is conjecture, through and through.
Again, the discussion is not about whether the Hatrene cavalry used silk, but to build a continuum on declining equipment. That Hatra actually does have quite a few statues featuring felt caps of Parthian model or helmets featuring quilted covers, as well as tunics of the same model, of clearly Iranian fashions is almost common knowledge.
Yes, we see quilted caps and tunics being worn, but these are not implements of armour. And I'd like for you to present me a clear image of a cap that clearly shows a helmet underneath.
Parthian heavy cavalry has always and foremostly been equipped to withstand horse-archery. When cataphracts got heavier, they deviated from this purpose to attain a shock role.
Cataphracts always fulfilled the role of shock troops.
Implications are many, after all there is still a mention of Cardaces between Persis and Carmania in Strabo's geography,and these implications my friend, are vital in our discussion on trends. It is true that trends come and go, but we are clearly not speaking of decay.
What do Cardaces have to do with the discussion at hand? You're just meandering and presenting conjecture here.
Why should the continuum ever be disregarded? Especially in feudal societies where each man provided his own equipment, we'd still emphasize gradual change, not abrupt halts and sudden surges of different equipment.
Because cultural interactions and inventions provided new and improved or more favoured forms of weaponry and equipment. If a nation were existing within a vacuum, we would expect to observe a gradual development punctuated by brief periods of innovation. However, cultural interactions throw in wrench in those gears and mean that oftentimes changes occur sporadically.
The Kyrbasia existed from Imperial Medean times and remained popular even among the local rulers of the Bâzrangid sub-kingdom of Persis as evident in mints. If we then see Parthian dress in Hatra dated between 1st and 2nd century CE, then why exclude quilted technology completely?
I accept that quilting itself was not lost, and I never suspected such a thing. It is evident that quilting was used for civilian clothing in the east during the Hellenistic period. However, that does not naturally extend to military equipment.
And something that's both light, cheap, convenient, easy to make and works, tends not fall out of use without very good reasons.
It's still used today. Just look at the layers of a kevlar vest, again diamond shaped quilting. It was used throughout most of history, why would it have suddenly disapeared from crete for a few centuries?
blacksnail
05-31-2007, 21:45
Sir, that is baseless conjecture.
Watchman
05-31-2007, 22:20
It does occur to me in passing that even if "lino" became fashionable during that period, it is extremely unlikely the tried-and-true quilt woud have entirely disappeared - it would just have been used by those who couldn't afford the more fashionable lino, or just preferred the old stuff. Sort of like how not everyone can afford, or wants to use, brand-name sneakers. And naturally if lino was the more-or-less dominant form of body armour, and the choice of about all soldiers of some means, it follows that it would have very much stolen the limelight in most pictorial sources.
antiochus epiphanes
06-01-2007, 00:43
See, this is what I thought. You are presenting conjecture here as fact. epitome of speculation. First of all, that looks like a ceremonial piece of headgear; we have no way of knowing if it is covering a helmet.
pure speculation.speculation, . is conjecture, through and through.
meandering conjecture
.
your just being a troll now. :thumbsdown:
good way to win an argument, make personal attacks....
I think we all agree that we will never agree on anything of significance on this matter (or anything else, including our integrity, as it seems), so I'm gonna ask for a mod to just lock this thread, and you meinpanzer to drop the discussion and leave the *this* forum as you've said you would in the past.
You're welcome to come back when we can clearly see that you have changed in attitude (even if you don't perceive your current one as bad), until then let's agree for once, that it's better to be in different rooms. Think of it as beta fish.
:book:
That is not a nice result of a "small question".:no: I have reread the entire thread and the personal comments were started and used much more from some of the EB side. Perhaps the result of bad experience but not that convincing.
I can understand that some questions from the one side are painful for the EB team because there is a certain lack of evidence and the interpretation of the given evidence is highly subjective. meinPanzers fault seems to be in my opinion to dismiss that the interpretaion of the EB team is as "scientific" as his. EB has arguments to use that form of armour. There are arguments against it; and btw it is very interesting and educative to get presented the sharp questions in the form meinPanzer used.
If I have to judge it it is acceptable to use this armour; I'm convinced despite first doubts (not that that would be important). The fault of some EB team members seems to be not to point at the interpretational character enough but to complain about the remaining questions. You don't have to convince everybody. Let the public judge the arguments.:2thumbsup:
keravnos
06-01-2007, 14:01
That is not a nice result of a "small question".:no: I have reread the entire thread and the personal comments were started and used much more from some of the EB side. Perhaps the result of bad experience but not that convincing.
I can understand that some questions from the one side are painful for the EB team because there is a certain lack of evidence and the interpretation of the given evidence is highly subjective. meinPanzers fault seems to be in my opinion to dismiss that the interpretaion of the EB team is as "scientific" as his. EB has arguments to use that form of armour. There are arguments against it; and btw it is very interesting and educative to get presented the sharp questions in the form meinPanzer used.
If I have to judge it it is acceptable to use this armour; I'm convinced despite first doubts (not that that would be important). The fault of some EB team members seems to be not to point at the interpretational character enough but to complain about the remaining questions. You don't have to convince everybody. Let the public judge the arguments.:2thumbsup:
Well, let me state what happened from my end. I have shown a pic, this one,
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o276/keravnos/dancingindoscythianssr0.jpg
showing an Indo-saka in quilted "diamond" cuirass. Now, when I posted that sometime ago, MP said that he had in fact seen better looking friezes, and that they were out of our timeframe (since Indosaka only enter the region where this frieze was found in about 80 BCE).
At this point I stopped caring, as I could obviously answer MP with the obvious..."So, what cuirass did they use back on the steppe, when they had no-body to make a frieze depicting them, linothorax? ", and he would probably answer that we have no pictorial or otherwise depiction of them in the steppe wearing quilted armor, etc.
We answer the questions we are asked to the best of our ability, yet the answer is never enough, (when it should) or the question changes.
This continuous denial doesn't feel like a constructive discussion to me. In a discussion both sides must be prepared to change their views if proven wrong. I have many times done so in the past, and probably also in the future. None of us is 100% right, as we are all Human (Bartix Family members excluded). Thus, we must allow for our mistakes, or to be proven wrong.
That is not a nice result of a "small question".:no: I have reread the entire thread and the personal comments were started and used much more from some of the EB side. Perhaps the result of bad experience but not that convincing.
I can understand that some questions from the one side are painful for the EB team because there is a certain lack of evidence and the interpretation of the given evidence is highly subjective. meinPanzers fault seems to be in my opinion to dismiss that the interpretaion of the EB team is as "scientific" as his. EB has arguments to use that form of armour. There are arguments against it; and btw it is very interesting and educative to get presented the sharp questions in the form meinPanzer used.
If I have to judge it it is acceptable to use this armour; I'm convinced despite first doubts (not that that would be important). The fault of some EB team members seems to be not to point at the interpretational character enough but to complain about the remaining questions. You don't have to convince everybody. Let the public judge the arguments.:2thumbsup:
Heh.
MeinPanzer didn't start the personal attacks, but looking at his first comment, I believe he was asking for it.
It really depends on what you consider a personal attack. I consider a personal attack having my research being called baseless conjecture, as do most most members. Especially when some of these guys do this stuff for a living, and have been working on the mod for years now, with no personal gain.
Calling us unwilling to make changes is just plain lying. Iberia has become the Lusitani, the Sweboz have had changes to the entire roster twice, some Hellenic units have been completely reskinned , the Yuehzi have been dropped in favour of the Saka and the list goes on...
And it's not like this is the first thread where this has happened. Wether you think of it as a personal attack is irrelevant, we do, and at a danger of sounding like an ass, that's all that matters.
antiochus epiphanes
06-02-2007, 04:24
help! help! im being repressed!!:laugh4:
help! help! im being repressed!!:laugh4:
Don't worry. We don't blame you for the death of the Yuezhi. We don't... *Sharpening the knife*
russia almighty
06-02-2007, 09:19
Sometimes I wish the pimp my ride of game modding could come along and help EB . What could you dudes do with an extra 20 people to help you with modelling , scripting and such .
Sometimes I wish the pimp my ride of game modding could come along and help EB .
You do realize that would mean the return of pink Parthians. Maybe Casse would get a little more bling, Sweboz might be more gothic and Yuezhi would return with their crazy kung fu. That would be a great mini-mod though... :wacko:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.