Nakhararakan Tiknapah (Armenian Noble Infantry). Are they related to the Kentronakan guard?
Mardig Sooseramartik (Armenian Medium Infantry): How are they armed exactly (long or short swords, javelins or pila?) and when did they start being used?
Were most of their cataphracts armed with both bow and lance? Or the cataphract archers were rather a small group of special units introduced from parthians?
:smash::clown:
11-06-2008, 13:52
AqD
Re: History background of Armenian units?
ohhh 110+ views but nobody could answer me.... :wall::wall::dizzy2::surrender:
11-06-2008, 14:38
Foot
Re: History background of Armenian units?
We cannot talk in specificities with Armenia during this time-period. We can only make rough guesses based on outside commentry. We know that the Armenians were predominantly influenced by Iranian, and particularly Medean dress customs. We also know that in Georgia the highland folk were heavily influenced by steppe dress customs. We know that culturally and militarily they were heavily influenced by Iranian traditions and, later, Parthian traditions. There was also some hellenic influence from the Black Sea, and the Galatians had spread the Thureos throughout Anatolia and the east. In EBII we will better be able to represent these influences for each unit with both eastern and western military equipment being shown in each unit (where suitable).
1. Based on Thureophoroi + Peltastai traditions, these are also heavily influenced by Steppe culture.
2. These were probably based upon both the Greek Hoplite influences as well as the Achaemenid military traditions.
3. Again these represent the confluence of both Thureophoroi and Peltastai traditions as well as Iranian military traditions.
4. Its difficult to say. Early cavalry would have been heavily influenced by late Achaemenid cavalry, but there would have also been some steppe influence. It should be noted that most cataphracts would have been armed with a bow, a lance and a sword, axe or mace. As we cannot have units with three weapons we had to split them into two. The late Armenian cataphracts would have likely followed the Parthians in this tradition. A mix of both Cataphract archers and plain Cataphracts is the best way of representing this.
Note that during and after the collapse of Tigranes II's Empire he reformed the military to be better equipped for light and fast ambush tactics instead of meeting full-scale battles. How long this lasted is not said.
Foot
11-06-2008, 19:23
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
I understand the evidence for thureophoroi infantry, but I am curious what the reasoning was behind having a specific swordsmen thureophoros unit, and whether that unit will be included in EBII.
11-06-2008, 20:14
paullus
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Not sure, as they long preceded my tenure and I've not worked on Armenia (ie, I'm not really the guy to answer this), but I've the impression they're meant to form a sort of parallel to Roman legionaries, showing a type of unit with simple shortswords derived from Hellenic and Persian equipment and combat traditions. I know you've done work in this area MP, so you may well know the frequency of sword finds in the Caucasus.
An additional note:
There will very likely be an additional and exciting thureos-equipped unit for late-game Hayasdan. MP, you can probably guess it, but I'd rather you didn't spoil the surprise.
11-06-2008, 20:40
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
Not sure, as they long preceded my tenure and I've not worked on Armenia (ie, I'm not really the guy to answer this), but I've the impression they're meant to form a sort of parallel to Roman legionaries, showing a type of unit with simple shortswords derived from Hellenic and Persian equipment and combat traditions. I know you've done work in this area MP, so you may well know the frequency of sword finds in the Caucasus.
Swords aren't all that unusual in finds in an around Georgia (for which we have fairly plentiful information, compared to the unfortunately sparse finds from Armenia), but they have a fairly peculiar chronological and geographical distribution. The akinakes is found down until around the early 4th c. BC all along the Caucasus mountains (owing to the steppe influence from the north). From the 4th-3rd c. BC, the only swords found are the usually larger "Sindo-Maeotian" style, which is very simple in shape (no guard, straight-edged blade, very simple pommel) and which is found only in the northwest (i.e. modern Abkhazia, in the richer coastal cities of Colchis). Very rich burials also include kopides, but these disappear by the beginning of the EB timeframe, while a later, 1st c. BC short sword found in the palace at Dedoplis Gora is of a vague form that I am unable to identify with any parallels.
The one thing that is desperately lacking form all Armenian and Caucasian units right now are axes. It's evident from finds throughout Colchis, Iberia, Albania, and Armenia that the panoply par excellence was spear or javelins and axe, most likely with a thureos. I think you would be well served to replace the Georgian Swordsmen unit with an axemen unit of some kind.
Quote:
An additional note:
There will very likely be an additional and exciting thureos-equipped unit for late-game Hayasdan. MP, you can probably guess it, but I'd rather you didn't spoil the surprise.
I'm sure it will be a popular addition to the roster and should look great in EBII.
11-06-2008, 21:09
Foot
Re: History background of Armenian units?
The reason the georgian unit had a sword was because of model sharing. Personally I would have preferred a longer sword and/or axe for both units, but I had only just joined when the armenian version was concepted. You can expect far more variety in EBII.
Foot
11-06-2008, 21:13
Celtic_Punk
Re: History background of Armenian units?
that is why I am buying M2TW for the sole purpose of playing EBII :)
11-06-2008, 21:16
Sarcasm
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
There will very likely be an additional and exciting thureos-equipped unit for late-game Hayasdan. MP, you can probably guess it, but I'd rather you didn't spoil the surprise.
Dude, what? I don't know that one ~:mecry:
11-07-2008, 02:17
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
There was also the native influence from the Urartian kingdom of Armenia.
The Urartian kingdom predates the EB timeframe by well over three centuries, and so any equipment from that time period is irrelevant to reconstructions during the EB timeframe.
11-07-2008, 12:08
Sarkiss
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
The Urartian kingdom predates the EB timeframe by well over three centuries, and so any equipment from that time period is irrelevant to reconstructions during the EB timeframe.
it is, nevertheless, likely to influence later Armenians.
with arrival of new tribes circa VI BC Urartians did not just perish, but most, if not all, remained within their original inhabit and contributed over the centuries to fusion of new and old tradition into one.
according to Gabriel Soultanian's "The Pre-History of the Armenians" the Urartian enclave encircled on all sides by proto-Armenians had their language fading away in line with their identity.
Quote:
the eclipse of Urartian language was the reason for Urartu, as a separate ethnic unit, to die a natural death; but even that death could not negate the legacy with which Urartu had endowed the hybrid nation of the Armenians, who are while physiognomically of Caucasian type, yet speak an Indo-European dialect.
11-07-2008, 20:09
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
The Urartian kingdom predates the EB timeframe by well over three centuries, and so any equipment from that time period is irrelevant to reconstructions during the EB timeframe.
You are correct that the time period predates the EB timeframe by well over three centuries, but the traditions did continue. For example one of the most characteristic symbol of the Armenian military in the time frame of EB ( and even into the middle ages) would be the conical helmet. This type of helmet has been around since the time of the Urartu kingdom or even before. The other images of the scale armor, and the large round shield are also found in Armenia during EB's timeframe. The tradition of cavalry in Armenia, even though influenced by the Parthians in EB's timeframe, has an older tradition found in the kingdom of Urartu.
11-07-2008, 20:30
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkiss
it is, nevertheless, likely to influence later Armenians.
with arrival of new tribes circa VI BC Urartians did not just perish, but most, if not all, remained within their original inhabit and contributed over the centuries to fusion of new and old tradition into one.
according to Gabriel Soultanian's "The Pre-History of the Armenians" the Urartian enclave encircled on all sides by proto-Armenians had their language fading away in line with their identity.
Cultural heritage does not necessarily reflect military equipment. The equipment of the Caucasus and Armenia changed, like in most other areas of the old world, from the Urartian era to the EB timeframe quite drastically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
You are correct that the time period predates the EB timeframe by well over three centuries, but the traditions did continue. For example one of the most characteristic symbol of the Armenian military in the time frame of EB ( and even into the middle ages) would be the conical helmet. This type of helmet has been around since the time of the Urartu kingdom or even before. The other images of the scale armor, and the large round shield are also found in Armenia during EB's timeframe.
Could you provide some evidence for conical helmets and round shields of the Urartian type being used in Armenia during this time period?
Stating that Urartian military equipment can be used to recreate units from the EB timeframe is like stating that Archaic Greek equipment can be used to recreate Greek units. Later types may have derived from this, but they changed quite drastically.
Quote:
The tradition of cavalry in Armenia, even though influenced by the Parthians in EB's timeframe, has an older tradition found in the kingdom of Urartu.
That may be, but that is no reason to use Urartian-era arms and armour as evidence for the EB timeframe.
11-07-2008, 20:52
Foot
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Don't worry, that is certainly not where we will be drawing our evidence from. The Armenian Plateau had seen both the spread of Iranian and Hellenic culture since that time, so any influence from Urartu would need to be seen through those eyes. As it is I really don't see any place for Urartean artifacts in the conception of Caucasian units.
This is the helmet I am talking about. This type of helmet is found in Armenia during EB's timeframe. Infact there are units in the game which have this helmet. (aznvakan tiknapah, and Aznvakan Aspet)
I think we are misunderstanding eachother. I do not mean to say that the Military gear of the Urartian period should be the military gear in EB's timeframe. I am merely saying that there were some traditions that did carry over such as the above helmet, and the use of scale armor.
11-07-2008, 22:42
Sarkiss
Re: History background of Armenian units?
i agree with Artavazd, we should not link Urartian gear with later Armenian directly, but merely see it as an original that along with other sources and trends influenced the development of Armenian gear. it would be illogical to dismiss these Urartian artifacts all together for there is an evidence for strong influence of Urartian civilization and institutions over Armenia.
Urartian gear along with that of steppes, Hellenic, and Medo-Iranian should be taken into consideration when one is attempting such a hard task as reconstructing third century's Armenian weapons and armor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Note that during and after the collapse of Tigranes II's Empire he reformed the military to be better equipped for light and fast ambush tactics instead of meeting full-scale battles. How long this lasted is not said.
Foot
could you please point me in the right direction regarding this reform? all i could find so far is a reform that Mithridates helped with, as mentioned by Appian, reforming heavy infantry to Roman fashion after defeat at Tigranokert.
This is the helmet I am talking about. This type of helmet is found in Armenia during EB's timeframe. Infact there are units in the game which have this helmet. (aznvakan tiknapah, and Aznvakan Aspet)
I think we are misunderstanding eachother. I do not mean to say that the Military gear of the Urartian period should be the military gear in EB's timeframe. I am merely saying that there were some traditions that did carry over such as the above helmet, and the use of scale armor.
Those helmets are both Urartian in date. Please provide me with a specific example of such a helmet which has been dated to the EB timeframe, not merely the claim that "this type of helmet is found in Armenia during EB's timeframe." I mean a specific archaeological find.
11-08-2008, 00:26
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
Those helmets are both Urartian in date. Please provide me with a specific example of such a helmet which has been dated to the EB timeframe, not merely the claim that "this type of helmet is found in Armenia during EB's timeframe." I mean a specific archaeological find.
I dont know any specific archeological finds from EB's timeframe, but there are a few examples from even later times which depicts Armenians with those helmets.
Here is an image from Osprey's which shows an Armenian cataphract dating from I think the 3rd century Ad with the same helmet.
the Armenians are on the right side facing the elephants.
Even though these two images are after EB's timeframe, we can see that the helmets are of the same design as the helmets of the Urartu period of Armenian history.
11-08-2008, 00:28
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
Those helmets are both Urartian in date. Please provide me with a specific example of such a helmet which has been dated to the EB timeframe, not merely the claim that "this type of helmet is found in Armenia during EB's timeframe." I mean a specific archaeological find.
I dont know any specific archeological finds from EB's timeframe, but there are a few examples from even later times which depicts Armenians with those helmets.
Here is an image from Osprey's which shows an Armenian cataphract dating from I think the 3rd century Ad with the same helmet.
Even though these two images are after EB's timeframe, we can see that the helmets are of the same design as the helmets of the Urartu period of Armenian history.
11-08-2008, 00:49
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
For archeological evidence, I am sure that in the Erebuni museum in Yerevan, Armenia one can see helmets of this kind dating from EB's timeframe.
11-08-2008, 01:49
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
I dont know any specific archeological finds from EB's timeframe, but there are a few examples from even later times which depicts Armenians with those helmets.
Here is an image from Osprey's which shows an Armenian cataphract dating from I think the 3rd century Ad with the same helmet.
Even though these two images are after EB's timeframe, we can see that the helmets are of the same design as the helmets of the Urartu period of Armenian history.
These are examples of Spangenhelms, a type of helmet which emerged from the Steppe and spread all over the Near East and Europe beginning around the 1st c. AD, and other Medieval types; these are unrelated from the Urartian examples posted, which predate these examples by a half at least a half a millennium. These pictures are not proof of continuity from earlier helmet types.
Quote:
For archeological evidence, I am sure that in the Erebuni museum in Yerevan, Armenia one can see helmets of this kind dating from EB's timeframe.
Please, post some examples or cite some sources. Saying "I'm sure that you can find this" is nothing more than conjecture.
11-08-2008, 01:59
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
some of the helmets from the manuscript do look like conical helmets which resemble those from the urartian times. Also in Osprey's image he notes in the back of the book, that the cataphracts helmets is of the design of the conicle helmets of urartu's time period.
Ofcourse the same design will not go on for centuries, but the helmets of Eb's time frame that the Armenians used do have a tradition in the older Urartuian designs (not the mention the greek and iranian influences)
Now if you want to see a direct proof, youll have to go to Armenia to the Erebuni Museum.
11-08-2008, 02:25
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
some of the helmets from the manuscript do look like conical helmets which resemble those from the urartian times.
They look conical. The resemblance ends there, and is not indicative of any sort of continuity.
Quote:
Also in Osprey's image he notes in the back of the book, that the cataphracts helmets is of the design of the conicle helmets of urartu's time period.
Where? The description of figure C2 doesn't mention anything about the helmet. Besides, that's largely accepted as one of the poorest Osprey books on the ancient world. Case in point: the author based the figure's mail coat, which is supposed to be 3rd c. AD, on an 11th century AD relief!
Quote:
Ofcourse the same design will not go on for centuries, but the helmets of Eb's time frame that the Armenians used do have a tradition in the older Urartuian designs (not the mention the greek and iranian influences)
Now if you want to see a direct proof, youll have to go to Armenia to the Erebuni Museum.
Again, you have yet to post any actual evidence. Please post some pictures or reference some actual sources.
11-08-2008, 17:17
Sarkiss
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
These are examples of Spangenhelms, a type of helmet which emerged from the Steppe and spread all over the Near East and Europe beginning around the 1st c. AD, and other Medieval types; these are unrelated from the Urartian examples posted, which predate these examples by a half at least a half a millennium.
out of curiosity, how can we say with any degree of certainty that this type of conical helmet is in fact comes from the steppes and not the famous Assyrian (Urartian) type?
11-08-2008, 18:12
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
MeinPanzer, I can not find SPECIFIC evidence online of Armenian military helmets dating from EB's timeframe. Now Like I said in the Erebuni Museum in Armenia there is much evidence. I would also like to point out, that there is some general description of Tigran's army by Roman sources. Now TPC, would be a more knowledgeable person on this matter. Also much of the work done on the Armenians was by Sharukin.
Now If during the 9th-6th century BC there is evidence of Conicle helmets, and during the 5th century Ad we see conicle style helmets featured in manuscripts we can safely say that conicle/spangenhelm style helmets were vastly used in Armenia from the 9th century BC to the early Middle ages. Therefore during EB's timeframe it is safe to say similar helmets were used. Again I would like TPC's, and foot's comments on this issue. They are more knowledgable on this issue than I
Once again Erebuni Museum in Armenia holds the answer to these questions. Unfortunatly I couldnt find any sources from the internet.
11-08-2008, 18:13
Barry Soteiro
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
MeinPanzer, I can not find SPECIFIC evidence online of Armenian military helmets dating from EB's timeframe. Now Like I said in the Erebuni Museum in Armenia there is much evidence. I would also like to point out, that there is some general description of Tigran's army by Roman sources. Now TPC, would be a more knowledgeable person on this matter. Also much of the work done on the Armenians was by Sharukin.
Now If during the 9th-6th century BC there is evidence of Conicle helmets, and during the 5th century Ad we see conicle style helmets featured in manuscripts we can safely say that conicle/spangenhelm style helmets were vastly used in Armenia from the 9th century BC to the early Middle ages. Therefore during EB's timeframe it is safe to say similar helmets were used. Again I would like TPC's, and foot's comments on this issue. They are more knowledgable on this issue than I
Once again Erebuni Museum in Armenia holds the answer to these questions. Unfortunatly I couldnt find any sources from the internet.
I think you get PWNED by Mein Panzer lol ! :beam:
11-08-2008, 19:46
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastapopoulos
I think you get PWNED by Mein Panzer lol ! :beam:
And I think you should sod off. If you cannot be mature enough to recognize the beneficial qualities of proper discourse where one may at least derive a factor of learning, then you really should hold your tongue.
To bring some conclusion to the subject, MeinPanzer is correct in the observation of that Urartian findings are not proper to any form of implementation to EB's Armenian units; however at the same time, there is a continuity of a native tradition in crafting armour; in particular the tradition of using single-piece Assyrian-styled helmetry is undeniably profound throughout the entirety of the Achaemenid era, and therefore finds itself used by armoured infantry and cavalry. With the factor of using an Assyrian-style helmet, the matter of evidence becomes needlessly tedious in a situation where it must have been a self-evident element in the native militaria. The other logical candidate scattered throughout the Near East was the Phrygian-styled helmet, and again, we can delve into the esoterics, but the fact is that there is not a terrible lot of findings that are traced to the Orontid era. Therefore, we are driven to these geo-cultural derivations and abstractions. In other words, fill-in-the-blanks work.
As such, the simple helmetry brandished by the Armenian medium horsemen and the Armenian foot-guard is hardly offensive to any sensibilities. In fact the only unit in the entire standardized roster of the Armenian faction which sports a more elaborate helmet is ironically the Persian hoplite-imitation, the Cardaces, and at that it is well-attested through late-Achaemenid and Cilician satrapal coinage. Overall, the range of helmetry is modest at best and could make use of other helmet-types prevalent in the Anatolian parts of the Achaemenid worldly order, which would have included elaborate Hellenic-inspired helmets. I think the problem in this thread is rooted in basic miscommunication. We're not using Urartu-originated equipment, even though there is a resemblance between their style to that of the sommonwealth Assyrian design scattered throughout the Near East.
At the same time, when we see the colossal Armenian Tîghr/Apollon/Hercules sculpture at Nemrut Dagh...
...One can but not help to think that the specifically concave shape of the Urartian specimen, was indeed continued by later Armenian kingdoms. The "Shishak" design of helmetry is an indisputable military element throughout the Near East, and even though modifications of it existed as far as middle-Ottoman times, at its purest form, at heart it was a scull-cap with a slightly pointy apex. And that's all that there is to it.
For a simple reference for what I'm talking about:
1. Elam, 14th cent. B.C.E.
2. Luristan.
3. Marlik.
4-8. Hasanlu.
9. Safidrud.
10. K¨úorvin.
11-12. Luristan. (Nos. 2-12 dated to the first third of the first millennum B.C.E.)
13. Achaemenid helmet, from Egypt.
14. Achaemenid helmet, from Olympia.
15. Oxus Treasure (British Museum).
16-17. Helmets represented on seals.
18. Achaemenid helmet, from Azerbaijan.
19. Achaemenid helmet depicted on a 5th-cent. B.C.E. Greek vase.
20. Achaemenid helmet represented on a rock relief, Lycia.
21. Achaemenid helmet (Glasgow Museum).
22. Scythian helmet, from the Kuban, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
23-24. Scythian helmets, Checheno-Ingushetia, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
25. Scythian helmet, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
26. Scythian helmet (Greek helmet of the Thracian type, refashioned by Scythians), Nymphai, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
27. Saka helmet from the Altai region, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
28. Saka helmet from the Talas valley, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
29. Saka helmet in the museum of Samarkand.
30-31. Saka helmet, from the Talas valley, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 32-35 and 37-38. Helmets represented on coins of the Greco-Bactrian kings
32. Eucratides I;
33. Amyntas)
Specimen 13 is especially interesting.
11-08-2008, 19:48
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
I really hate working with .GIF-images.
Addendum: The origins of the chart and its glossary is from an essay written by Litvinsky, concerning Khûd, or the Iranic range of helmetry in antiquity. You may refer to it here.
11-08-2008, 19:56
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastapopoulos
I think you get PWNED by Mein Panzer lol ! :beam:
Uhhh... what are you talking about?? I gave him a logical explanation. Now most of Historic Armenia lies in eastern turkey today, and I dont think there are any archeological work going on in Historic Armenian lands (Turkish government politics) so you and Mein Panzer can write a letter to the turkish government telling them that you want archeological excavations to unearth Armenian military gear from EB's time frame ok??
What evidence there is, like I said it is found in Erebuni Museum in Armenia. Unfortunatly there are no images of those artifacts on line.
PS Mein Panzer what is the point of your aggresive posts?? I gave you a logical explanation, and you just seem to say the same thing over and over again. is there SPECIFIC EVIDENCE for all of the units presented in EB??
11-08-2008, 20:01
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Thank you TPC for your informative post:2thumbsup:
11-08-2008, 20:44
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkiss
out of curiosity, how can we say with any degree of certainty that this type of conical helmet is in fact comes from the steppes and not the famous Assyrian (Urartian) type?
Well, that's all contingent on whether we have intermediary forms of a conical helmet, which I have yet to see evidence for.
Quote:
Now If during the 9th-6th century BC there is evidence of Conicle helmets, and during the 5th century Ad we see conicle style helmets featured in manuscripts we can safely say that conicle/spangenhelm style helmets were vastly used in Armenia from the 9th century BC to the early Middle ages. Therefore during EB's timeframe it is safe to say similar helmets were used. Again I would like TPC's, and foot's comments on this issue. They are more knowledgable on this issue than I
Your logic in this case is flawed. We have evidence for conical bronze helmets from Iron Age Armenia until around the 6th c. BC. After this point, I have yet to find evidence for conical helmets (and I have researched Armenian archaeology during the latter first millennium BC quite a bit). Conical helmets then reappear in the first centuries AD in and around Armenia. Were this an isolated emergence, it would seem to be evidence of an indigenous tradition of conical helmets, but at the same time that this type of helmet appears in the Near East and the Caucasus, it appears in many other places also due to steppe influence. Therefore, the emergence later of this type of helmet is not indicative of any continuity.
Quote:
MeinPanzer, I can not find SPECIFIC evidence online of Armenian military helmets dating from EB's timeframe. Now Like I said in the Erebuni Museum in Armenia there is much evidence. I would also like to point out, that there is some general description of Tigran's army by Roman sources. Now TPC, would be a more knowledgeable person on this matter. Also much of the work done on the Armenians was by Sharukin.
Once again Erebuni Museum in Armenia holds the answer to these questions. Unfortunatly I couldnt find any sources from the internet.
Your argument that there must be helmets of this type dating from the EB period is just baseless conjecture. The descriptions of Tigranes' forces from Plutarch don't tell us anything about the form of helmets worn.
Quote:
Uhhh... what are you talking about?? I gave him a logical explanation. Now most of Historic Armenia lies in eastern turkey today, and I dont think there are any archeological work going on in Historic Armenian lands (Turkish government politics) so you and Mein Panzer can write a letter to the turkish government telling them that you want archeological excavations to unearth Armenian military gear from EB's time frame ok??
There are, and have been for decades, plenty of archaeological excavations going on in "historic Armenian lands" within modern Armenia.
Quote:
PS Mein Panzer what is the point of your aggresive posts?? I gave you a logical explanation, and you just seem to say the same thing over and over again. is there SPECIFIC EVIDENCE for all of the units presented in EB??
You insist that there must be evidence for such helmets being used in this timeframe, and I am just countering your argument. If there is not specific evidence for a certain type of equipment being used in EB, there is a good reason for choosing it, and your argument is not a good reason.
Quote:
At the same time, when we see the colossal Armenian Tîghr/Apollon/Hercules sculpture at Nemrut Dagh...
...One can but not help to think that the specifically concave shape of the Urartian specimen, was indeed continued by later Armenian kingdoms. The "Shishak" design of helmetry is an indisputable military element throughout the Near East, and even though modifications of it existed as far as middle-Ottoman times, at its purest form, at heart it was a scull-cap with a slightly pointy apex. And that's all that there is to it.
And, I know I've discussed this with the EB historians before concerning Hatrene sculpture, but that's a cap. A cap is not necessarily reflective of helmet design, especially considering that we don't have depictions of contemporary helmets in this shape (later helmets in this shape are arguably derived from this form).
Quote:
For a simple reference for what I'm talking about:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
1. Elam, 14th cent. B.C.E.
2. Luristan.
3. Marlik.
4-8. Hasanlu.
9. Safidrud.
10. K¨úorvin.
11-12. Luristan. (Nos. 2-12 dated to the first third of the first millennum B.C.E.)
13. Achaemenid helmet, from Egypt.
14. Achaemenid helmet, from Olympia.
15. Oxus Treasure (British Museum).
16-17. Helmets represented on seals.
18. Achaemenid helmet, from Azerbaijan.
19. Achaemenid helmet depicted on a 5th-cent. B.C.E. Greek vase.
20. Achaemenid helmet represented on a rock relief, Lycia.
21. Achaemenid helmet (Glasgow Museum).
22. Scythian helmet, from the Kuban, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
23-24. Scythian helmets, Checheno-Ingushetia, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
25. Scythian helmet, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
26. Scythian helmet (Greek helmet of the Thracian type, refashioned by Scythians), Nymphai, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
27. Saka helmet from the Altai region, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
28. Saka helmet from the Talas valley, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E.
29. Saka helmet in the museum of Samarkand.
30-31. Saka helmet, from the Talas valley, 7th-6th cent. B.C.E. 32-35 and 37-38. Helmets represented on coins of the Greco-Bactrian kings
32. Eucratides I;
33. Amyntas)
Specimen 13 is especially interesting.
I really hate working with .GIF-images.
Addendum: The origins of the chart and its glossary is from an essay written by Litvinsky, concerning Khûd, or the Iranic range of helmetry in antiquity. You may refer to it here.
I wouldn't cite CAIS for anything, considering their notoriety for errors. In this particular case, those illustrations are from M. V. Gorelik, Oruzie Drevnego Vostoka, Moskva “NAUKA” 1993, and several images are wrongly captioned. This ties into my next point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
To bring some conclusion to the subject, MeinPanzer is correct in the observation of that Urartian findings are not proper to any form of implementation to EB's Armenian units; however at the same time, there is a continuity of a native tradition in crafting armour; in particular the tradition of using single-piece Assyrian-styled helmetry is undeniably profound throughout the entirety of the Achaemenid era, and therefore finds itself used by armoured infantry and cavalry. With the factor of using an Assyrian-style helmet, the matter of evidence becomes needlessly tedious in a situation where it must have been a self-evident element in the native militaria. The other logical candidate scattered throughout the Near East was the Phrygian-styled helmet, and again, we can delve into the esoterics, but the fact is that there is not a terrible lot of findings that are traced to the Orontid era. Therefore, we are driven to these geo-cultural derivations and abstractions. In other words, fill-in-the-blanks work.
As such, the simple helmetry brandished by the Armenian medium horsemen and the Armenian foot-guard is hardly offensive to any sensibilities. In fact the only unit in the entire standardized roster of the Armenian faction which sports a more elaborate helmet is ironically the Persian hoplite-imitation, the Cardaces, and at that it is well-attested through late-Achaemenid and Cilician satrapal coinage. Overall, the range of helmetry is modest at best and could make use of other helmet-types prevalent in the Anatolian parts of the Achaemenid worldly order, which would have included elaborate Hellenic-inspired helmets. I think the problem in this thread is rooted in basic miscommunication. We're not using Urartu-originated equipment, even though there is a resemblance between their style to that of the sommonwealth Assyrian design scattered throughout the Near East.
...I understand reconstructing a simple one-piece helmet for these units, but I object to reconstructing an Assyrian-style helmet. All our examples of this style of helmet date to well before the end of the Achaemenid empire - number 13 above, from Thebes in Egypt, is 6th c. BC. The example most likely from Marathon, number 14, is 5th c. BC. 18, from Azerbaijan, is 6th-5th c. BC. After the 5th c. BC, we don't find any representations or examples of this kind of helmet. And yet we have depictions of other kinds - take the skull caps depicted as being worn by heavily armoured infantrymen and cavalrymen (as in the cavalryman from the Canakkale sarcophagus). Or, if we are looking for other possible helmet types, look at Transcaucasia, where Greek style helmets were the norm at the beginning of the EB timeframe. I understand that you are just filling in the blanks, but my point is that looking at the actual evidence, the Assyrian style of helmet disappears after the 5th c. BC, while we find different helmet types - flat, presumably solid bronze skullcaps and Greek-style helmets - becoming the norm in all the surrounding regions up to and including the beginning of the EB timeframe.
11-08-2008, 23:58
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
I wouldn't cite CAIS for anything, considering their notoriety for errors. In this particular case, those illustrations are from M. V. Gorelik, Oruzie Drevnego Vostoka, Moskva “NAUKA” 1993, and several images are wrongly captioned. This ties into my next point...
I did not cite CAIS; I cited the article of of Litvinsky, which indeed makes use of the popular drawed reconstructions by Gorelik (This is cited by Litvinsky). They are also used in M. V. Gorelik, "Zashchitnoe vooruzhenie persov i mid-yan achemenidskogo vremeni" (Persian and Median armor in the Achaemenid period), VDI, 1982, 3, pp. 90-106. That it is hosted in CAIS is just a matter of convenience. It also hosts the publications of eminent scholars such as Shapur Shahbazi, Ahmad Tafazzoli, Richard Nelson Frye and Mansour Shaki. The Jona Lendering-type rationale falls short here. I do not cite CAIS for a political agenda. I cite it only as a news source middle-outlet from CHN and as a collection of articles with convenient access. And that's where it ends.
Quote:
And, I know I've discussed this with the EB historians before concerning Hatrene sculpture, but that's a cap. A cap is not necessarily reflective of helmet design, especially considering that we don't have depictions of contemporary helmets in this shape (later helmets in this shape are arguably derived from this form).
There is a possibility that this indeed might be a cap, but it is not at all as conclusive as the case with the Parthian-style Hatrene helmet covers from noblemen and kings depicted in the funerary statues. The rigid nature of this adornment does not feature any folds or creases and as with the concave "Shishak" feature it would just collapse had it been cloth, and therefore opinions fluctuate. The articles of which the iamges have been taken both refer to this certain divine representation to actually wear a helmet Some would even believe that the Parthian-style helmet existed since Achaemenid times, based on a nude figurine from the Oxus Treasure.
In any case, it lends credulousness to the argument of inspiration and a traditional continuity. It is certainly not conclusive evidence, and should not be treated as such. There are factors that must be accounted for, not least the stylistic factor.
Quote:
...I understand reconstructing a simple one-piece helmet for these units, but I object to reconstructing an Assyrian-style helmet. All our examples of this style of helmet date to well before the end of the Achaemenid empire - number 13 above, from Thebes in Egypt, is 6th c. BC.
Actually, some have expressed caution as far as the dating is concerned; instead of ascribing it to the early Achaemenid era during Cambyses' Egyptian campaign others have ascribed it to the reconquista of the Egyptian territory during Pharnabazus' campaign. A Chaldaean document also serves to enumerate the equipment of an Achaemenid in no uncertain terms: a horse along with its girdle (?) and bridle, a helmet, a cuirass of iron, a bronze shield, 120 arrows, a mace of iron, and two iron spears (Shahbazi, Achaemenid Imperial Army; E. Ebeling, “Die Rüstung eines babylonischen Panzerreiters nach einem Vertrage aus der Zeit Darius II,” ZA, N.F. 16, 1952 pp. 204-13, esp. p. 210). This pivotal document of course is corroborated by Duncan Head's reconstruction of a Babylonian auxiliary cavalryman, using these exact sources.
Furthermore, there is very little opposition against late Achaemenid Hûvakâ/Kinsmen cavalry using an Assyrian-styled helmet. I don't mean to parrot, but even Gorelik reconstructed such extra-heavy cavalry with an Assyrian-style helmet. Another source is the Yeneskoy relief at Daskylion (Yeneskoy and Payavah, cf. Bernhard: Une pieces d’armure Perse, p.197-199) of which I only have a drawing of (From the days where I was searching for parameridia/parapleuridia):
You should know what I am referring to, this type of cavalry, after all this is all mentioned in "Oruzie Drevnego Vostoka" of Gorelik, where he reconstructs a late Achaemenid extra-heavy cavalry with the Thebes helmet and a gorget from Derveni. Furthermore, the "Thebes" helmet has one significant detail which differentiates it from the Marathon example; holes situated on opposite sides and the fact that it is taller, and may therefore have been the apparel of horsemen. It is then no wonder why the dating is a disputed matter.
There are as you correctly point out many other types of helmets, in particular Hellenic types scattered across Anatolia, and in particular from steles in Lycia, as well as one-piece skullcaps of Sacae inspiration, but the argument of erasing the Assyrian-style helmet from practical usage by the 5th century BCE is not enough for me to discard it altogether. Not particularly bothered by it either; there isn't much to be done about EB1.
11-09-2008, 00:29
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
I did not cite CAIS; I cited the article of of Litvinsky, which indeed makes use of the popular drawed reconstructions by Gorelik (This is cited by Litvinsky). They are also used in M. V. Gorelik, "Zashchitnoe vooruzhenie persov i mid-yan achemenidskogo vremeni" (Persian and Median armor in the Achaemenid period), VDI, 1982, 3, pp. 90-106. That it is hosted in CAIS is just a matter of convenience. It also hosts the publications of eminent scholars such as Shapur Shahbazi, Ahmad Tafazzoli, Richard Nelson Frye and Mansour Shaki. The Jona Lendering-type rationale falls short here. I do not cite CAIS for a political agenda. I cite it only as a news source middle-outlet from CHN and as a collection of articles with convenient access. And that's where it ends.
Fair enough. My point is that the article reproduces the plates rather poorly and sometimes erroneously and without proper captioning.
Quote:
There is a possibility that this indeed might be a cap, but it is not at all as conclusive as the case with the Parthian-style Hatrene helmet covers from noblemen and kings depicted in the funerary statues.
I'm not convinced on the Hatrene figures wearing "helmet covers" and not just caps, either.
Quote:
The rigid nature of this adornment does not feature any folds or creases and as with the concave "Shishak" feature it would just collapse had it been cloth, and therefore opinions fluctuate. The articles of which the iamges have been taken both refer to this certain divine representation to actually wear a helmet Some would even believe that the Parthian-style helmet existed since Achaemenid times, based on a nude figurine from the Oxus Treasure.
The fact that no folds are visible is hardly an argument against it being a cap; there are a variety of stiffening agents that can be used to hold up caps and keep them rigid.
Quote:
Actually, some have expressed caution as far as the dating is concerned; instead of ascribing it to the early Achaemenid era during Cambyses' Egyptian campaign others have ascribed it to the reconquista of the Egyptian territory during Pharnabazus' campaign. A Chaldaean document also serves to enumerate the equipment of an Achaemenid in no uncertain terms: a horse along with its girdle (?) and bridle, a helmet, a cuirass of iron, a bronze shield, 120 arrows, a mace of iron, and two iron spears (Shahbazi, Achaemenid Imperial Army; E. Ebeling, “Die Rüstung eines babylonischen Panzerreiters nach einem Vertrage aus der Zeit Darius II,” ZA, N.F. 16, 1952 pp. 204-13, esp. p. 210). This pivotal document of course is corroborated by Duncan Head's reconstruction of a Babylonian auxiliary cavalryman, using these exact sources.
Furthermore, there is very little opposition against late Achaemenid Hûvakâ/Kinsmen cavalry using an Assyrian-styled helmet. I don't mean to parrot, but even Gorelik reconstructed such extra-heavy cavalry with an Assyrian-style helmet. Another source is the Yeneskoy relief at Daskylion (Yeneskoy and Payavah, cf. Bernhard: Une pieces d’armure Perse, p.197-199) of which I only have a drawing of (From the days where I was searching for parameridia/parapleuridia):
Regardless of the dating of the Thebes helmet in the 6th or 5th century BC, or whether it was a cavalryman's helmet or an infantryman's, my point still stands. Rather than looking at the reconstructions of scholars, why not consult the evidence directly: this type of helmet all but disappears from our sources after the 5th century BC, with the Yeniceköy relief (which I'd forgotten - thanks for bringing it up) being the a notable 4th century source, while other, different forms appear several times.
Quote:
You should know what I am referring to, this type of cavalry, after all this is all mentioned in "Oruzie Drevnego Vostoka" of Gorelik, where he reconstructs a late Achaemenid extra-heavy cavalry with the Thebes helmet and a gorget from Derveni. Furthermore, the "Thebes" helmet has one significant detail which differentiates it from the Marathon example; holes situated on opposite sides and the fact that it is taller, and may therefore have been the apparel of horsemen. It is then no wonder why the dating is a disputed matter.
I also disagree with some of Gorelik's reconstructions, as in this case his late Achaemenid heavy cavalryman. I would like to think that were he to reconstruct a late Achaemenid heavy cavalryman today, he would turn to the Canakkale sarcophagus and reconstruct the man with a skullcap-style helmet instead.
Quote:
There are as you correctly point out many other types of helmets, in particular Hellenic types scattered across Anatolia, and in particular from steles in Lycia, as well as one-piece skullcaps of Sacae inspiration, but the argument of erasing the Assyrian-style helmet from practical usage by the 5th century BCE is not enough for me to discard it altogether. Not particularly bothered by it either; there isn't much to be done about EB1.
I'm arguing rather for a change in the units in EBII, and not for EBI, which I understand is a "finished product."
But, again, I think that if you look at the evidence, however limited it may be, it points to the disuse and disappearance of this style of helmet in favour of a skullcap style. Assyrian style helmets were probably in limited use still in the 4th century, but it seems likely that they disappeared in favour of this new, more dominant style of protective headgear.
11-09-2008, 16:29
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Unfortunately, all I have from the Canakkale sarcophagus is a low-resolution photography from a sacral episode as featured in Beazley's archives (I believe there are two sarcophagi in the local museum, but they appear to apply policies with restricted access); there are many other sources which would much rather propose the skull-cap Sacae-type helmet, including an actual finding (Which I reckon is in Glasgow Museum), and the fact that Achaemenid cavalry in general began to adopt more influences from their Sacae enemy. It's nothing elaborate, though it features a brow-guard inherently by its shape, but it is a suitable candidate and from the descriptions available from the Canakkale sarcophagus, appears to be corroborated quite strongly; Some intellectual admission must be made, I was not made aware of the sarcophagus until recently, and for long, I believed the helmet in Glasgow was more hallmarking towards Bactria and Chorasmia in general, however in the face of outlines provided from the Yeneskoy relief and complementary Babylonian curriculum for horsemen, again, I would much rather see a mix. In the case of Armenia however the issue is not as simple.
Notwithstanding the dispute between caps/helmet covers/helmets in the Hatrene sculptures and the colossal relics of Nemrut Dagh, another factor accounts for the longevity of the Assyrian-styled helmet, though it is undeniably later; the Fîrûzâbâd bas-reliefs depicting a mounted wrestling scene between late Parthian and early Sassanian cavalry. Iranology reached a consensus that the relief was complementary to the legend of Ardashîr, in that part of the Sassanian success against the Arsacids relied upon equipment of newer technology; the Parthian is clearly depicted with a helmet with the Shishak feature and though it is plumed, and bears an aventail no signs indicate that the design was of spangenhelm-construction.
11-09-2008, 20:00
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
Unfortunately, all I have from the Canakkale sarcophagus is a low-resolution photography from a sacral episode as featured in Beazley's archives (I believe there are two sarcophagi in the local museum, but they appear to apply policies with restricted access); there are many other sources which would much rather propose the skull-cap Sacae-type helmet, including an actual finding (Which I reckon is in Glasgow Museum), and the fact that Achaemenid cavalry in general began to adopt more influences from their Sacae enemy. It's nothing elaborate, though it features a brow-guard inherently by its shape, but it is a suitable candidate and from the descriptions available from the Canakkale sarcophagus, appears to be corroborated quite strongly; Some intellectual admission must be made, I was not made aware of the sarcophagus until recently, and for long, I believed the helmet in Glasgow was more hallmarking towards Bactria and Chorasmia in general, however in the face of outlines provided from the Yeneskoy relief and complementary Babylonian curriculum for horsemen, again, I would much rather see a mix. In the case of Armenia however the issue is not as simple.
Of course, there are quite a number of other sources, such as all those seals depicting men on foot and on horseback wearing this kind of helmet. The Canakkale sarcophagus is notable simply because it is leaps and bounds ahead of those other examples in detail. All the details can be made out - cuirass with two rows of pteruges (upper row white, lower row alternating white and red); Greek-style greaves; akinakes; helmet; even the prometopidion of the horse, which reaches beneath the eyes. Here's an image of the rider's helmet:
Which is slightly different from other depictions in that it is flat on top. The helmet is red, like the cuirass.
I was not aware that an actual helmet of this type had been found. Was it found recently?
How can the evidence from Babylon support a certain style of helmet, when the sources only mention helmets and don't show them?
Quote:
Notwithstanding the dispute between caps/helmet covers/helmets in the Hatrene sculptures and the colossal relics of Nemrut Dagh, another factor accounts for the longevity of the Assyrian-styled helmet, though it is undeniably later; the Fîrûzâbâd bas-reliefs depicting a mounted wrestling scene between late Parthian and early Sassanian cavalry. Iranology reached a consensus that the relief was complementary to the legend of Ardashîr, in that part of the Sassanian success against the Arsacids relied upon equipment of newer technology; the Parthian is clearly depicted with a helmet with the Shishak feature and though it is plumed, and bears an aventail no signs indicate that the design was of spangenhelm-construction.
Even so, if we take this helmet as a continuation of the form, we still have a gap stretching from the early fourth century BC to the third century AD. A gap that massive must be accounted for.
11-10-2008, 00:32
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
:bow:
That is a lovely, detailed picture. Thank you. Here I must humbly admit defeat. The "helmet" (I'll get to that later) is flat-topped in shape a significant detail which I did not previously discover (I recknoed this was familiar, but none of my seals fit the descriptions; I scoured through my archive, and I do ironically possess an image of this detail, though only as a black-and-white low-res print from one of Heidemarie Koch's books, which gave a generic description and it's about as general as it gets, probably based from http://www.uc.edu/news/sarco5.jpg, another scene from the sarcophagus can be seen http://www.uc.edu/news/sarco4.jpg). The specimen found in Glasgow museum is of the rather typical Sacae-type which later brandishes simple metallic crests and ridges. That one is pretty old news, and was in fact used by Gorelik as he reconstructed a sagaris-bearing Achaemenid heavy-infantry with a spara-type pavise. It's mentioned in all of Gorelik's mentioned reports, and subsequently that of Litvinsky. Now in retrospect, these types can not be compared to each other; one of them is flat-topped, and the other is of clearly Sacae inspiration.
The sarcophagus certainly has a redeeming value to it as far as identification of units are concerned; a certain passage of the battle of Cunaxa in Xenophon (Cross-referenced to "Life of Artaxerxes" by Plutarch for clarification of uniforms; this by itself was recensioned from Ctesias who was the opposite witness to Xenophon) records that the kinsmen of Tissaphernes (Loyalist of Artaxerxes) wore "white" armour (Most likely a white tunic on top of the cuirass), while the kinsmen of Cyrus The Younger were red-clads. With the Greek-inspired troops in the background (?), it is not completely unreasonable to suggest that it may be a depiction of a certain episode of the conflict.
With this sort of visual clarity, I must cast some doubt about this flat-topped head-gear being a proper helmet. Of course, it actually reminds me of a reconstruction of Massistius which personally to my sensibilities looked over-romanticized and stylistically exaggerated, with a masked bucket-like helmet... But at least now I understand where it comes from.
On the horse-harness, with the elaborated chamfrôn, it's not very surprising at all; we have depictions of an armoured horse as early dated as the Medean period, with the so-called Iranian horse-vases encountered in Susa (Dated 7th century BCE):
Of course, if there is a "crease" between the actual foot-covering and the ankle-level, it is possible that it might be knemides; if that would turn out to be the case, then we might very well be sitting upon some valuable clues on Achaemenid heavy cavalry from western Asia Minor (Mysia - Hellespontine Phrygia), besides the often Lycian-attributed characteristics à la Daskylion stele. We have other depictions of a Persian cavalry with knemides, but it differs from the specimen in the Canakkale-sarcophagus:
(I hope you could help me with that one; I have no data whatsoever available on this figurine)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzaer
How can the evidence from Babylon support a certain style of helmet, when the sources only mention helmets and don't show them?
It doesn't. The reason why it is associated to the Assyrian-type is merely that of assumption based upon cultural associations. It might refer to a skullcap (Sacae-style), a Pylos/Crested Pylos (Bozkir relief), a Lycian-style or another Hellenic-inspired design (Misc. cavalry in formation on Daskylion stele)... Or it might refer to the type seen on the Yeneskoy monument. Either of these are equally valid, even though one might want to account for conjectural probability; "unfortunately" with the observations made upon late Achaemenian equestrian paraphernalia, there is a strong concentration of findings in western Anatolia, excepting the Sacae-style Achaemenid helmet now in the Glasgow Museum.
One cannot but help to look at the geographical divisions during the Achaemenid civil war between Artaxerxes II and Cyrus The Younger; upon this rationale and the description given on horsemen's panoply, at least within the Babylonian sphere of power, the Assyrian-style head-gear is right at home; additionally upon a closer look of the Yeneskoy-relief, what does the scene in its entirety depict? Perhaps another episode from the civil-war...? Its post-war dating seems to imply that it might have commemorated a victory, but that is just hypothetical.
Quote:
Even so, if we take this helmet as a continuation of the form, we still have a gap stretching from the early fourth century BC to the third century AD. A gap that massive must be accounted for.
At the same time the gap has been lessened than previously in the discussion, and the suggestion that the design may have been in usage during the interlude is no longer irrational; but then again we are not suggesting any uniform usage of the Assyrian helmet. Far from it. In the case of Armenia however, the deal-breaker seems to be leaning heavier towards a more Grecian-influenced appeal. A certain helmet-type which has seen relatively little usage is the Pylos or crested Pylos type, in the same vein as the "lost relief" of Bozkir (Museum of Konya).
If at the same time the colossal head of Tîghr/Hercules at Nemrut depicts a helmet, the gap is even lessened; this is admittedly conjecture, but not entirely without support.
11-10-2008, 15:58
Dutchhoplite
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Interesting :yes:
About the horse-vases: You're sure this is armour and not "just" cloth??
11-10-2008, 16:42
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
It can not be stated definitely for the chamfrôn (Some have argued that these are just bridles drawn out a bit funny, but others such as myself believe that in context with other details featured on the vase, it is a head-piece), but look closely at the poitrel/chest-plate, and you'll see that beneath the thigh-pieces of cloth, there is a checkered pattern that may depict scales.
11-10-2008, 17:56
Ibrahim
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Is it possible that its depicting cloth that has a checkered pattern?
11-10-2008, 18:06
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
It is possible, but it is depicted as layered underneath the blankets secured to the thighs of the horse. Look at the hems with the scalloped edges; this is the prime argument for the chest-piece in question being scale-armour.
11-10-2008, 19:43
Ibrahim
Re: History background of Armenian units?
ah, I see now.:book:
11-10-2008, 21:16
HFox
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Firstly
Thanks for this...following these discussions is nearly as good as the game :)
Regarding the Maku figurine...the horses head looks like it is wearing a set of blinkers...and what looks like a pattern that makes me think of scales. The crest of the blinkers (if they are) looks like it has a holder for a crest.
11-10-2008, 21:38
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Is it safe to assume that the Armenians of EB's timeframe had gear resembling the phrygians? Heredotus stated that the Armenians and Phrygians wore similar costumes. Unfortunatly his statement comes a couple of hundred years before EB's time frame.
That is a lovely, detailed picture. Thank you. Here I must humbly admit defeat. The "helmet" (I'll get to that later) is flat-topped in shape a significant detail which I did not previously discover (I recknoed this was familiar, but none of my seals fit the descriptions; I scoured through my archive, and I do ironically possess an image of this detail, though only as a black-and-white low-res print from one of Heidemarie Koch's books, which gave a generic description and it's about as general as it gets, probably based from http://www.uc.edu/news/sarco5.jpg, another scene from the sarcophagus can be seen http://www.uc.edu/news/sarco4.jpg). The specimen found in Glasgow museum is of the rather typical Sacae-type which later brandishes simple metallic crests and ridges. That one is pretty old news, and was in fact used by Gorelik as he reconstructed a sagaris-bearing Achaemenid heavy-infantry with a spara-type pavise. It's mentioned in all of Gorelik's mentioned reports, and subsequently that of Litvinsky. Now in retrospect, these types can not be compared to each other; one of them is flat-topped, and the other is of clearly Sacae inspiration.
Oh, I think I know which helmet you're referring to. What is its provenance? It's not the Samarkand helmet, is it?
Quote:
The sarcophagus certainly has a redeeming value to it as far as identification of units are concerned; a certain passage of the battle of Cunaxa in Xenophon (Cross-referenced to "Life of Artaxerxes" by Plutarch for clarification of uniforms; this by itself was recensioned from Ctesias who was the opposite witness to Xenophon) records that the kinsmen of Tissaphernes (Loyalist of Artaxerxes) wore "white" armour (Most likely a white tunic on top of the cuirass), while the kinsmen of Cyrus The Younger were red-clads. With the Greek-inspired troops in the background (?), it is not completely unreasonable to suggest that it may be a depiction of a certain episode of the conflict.
This could be. The grave was made some time in the first quarter of the 4th c. BC according to the archaeological report, and the bones of the interred man show him to have been between the ages of 22 and 28 when he died. An examination of the skeletal remains shows that the man probably fell from his horse some time before death and suffered some broken bones on the left side of his body, perhaps in battle. A comparison of the central figure in the battle scene and hunting scene and contemporary Lycian coinage shows similarity, suggesting that this man may well have been a satrap of Lycia or some other high official of the satrapy of Lycia.
Quote:
Back to the flat-topped helmet, it actually reminds me of this:
Of course, if there is a "crease" between the actual foot-covering and the ankle-level, it is possible that it might be knemides; if that would turn out to be the case, then we might very well be sitting upon some valuable clues on Achaemenid heavy cavalry from western Asia Minor (Mysia - Hellespontine Phrygia), besides the often Lycian-attributed characteristics à la Daskylion stele.
You may be right that he's not wearing a helmet, but it seems a bit peculiar to me that this man (and his horse) would be so heavily armoured and yet he keeps an unprotected head. The knemides are much more certain, though. You can see that in this picture:
Also note the wide white band running along the horse's breast - it could possible be a poitrel, though it would be strange that it was not carved in, like so many other minute details.
Quote:
We have other depictions of a Persian cavalry with knemides, but it differs from the specimen in the Canakkale-sarcophagus:
(I hope you could help me with that one; I have no data whatsoever available on this figurine)
We clearly got this image from the same source. This scan came from Dr. Phil Greenough, the old editor of Montvert Publications, who provided it to Duncan Head for inclusion in his book on the Achaemenid Persian Army, who then sent it to me some time ago. It's from "Arms and Armour Through the Ages" by Helmut Nickel, 1969, London, a rather simplistic survey of arms and armour for general readership. It is only labeled as "Persian Horseman," and no sources are cited. I've surveyed many books on Hellenistic terracotta figurines, but I've yet to find this figurine or any similar types.
However, do you really think he is wearing knemides? I can't make that out at all. I just see a man wearing trousers tucked into short boots.
Quote:
At the same time the gap has been lessened than previously in the discussion, and the suggestion that the design may have been in usage during the interlude is no longer irrational; but then again we are not suggesting any uniform usage of the Assyrian helmet. Far from it. In the case of Armenia however, the deal-breaker seems to be leaning heavier towards a more Grecian-influenced appeal. A certain helmet-type which has seen relatively little usage is the Pylos or crested Pylos type, in the same vein as the "lost relief" of Bozkir (Museum of Konya).
If at the same time the colossal head of Tîghr/Hercules at Nemrut depicts a helmet, the gap is even lessened; this is admittedly conjecture, but not entirely without support.
Armenia is, again, difficult when it comes to this matter. There was a strong Persian influence in art and material culture which perpetuated after the fall of the empire, and yet Caucasian forms of arms and armour seem to have predominated. At the same, Armenia did not have the direct contact with Greeks that Colchis did, and Greek helmets are uncommon in Iberia, which did not have that same contact with trade routes on the Black Sea.
11-10-2008, 21:54
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
Is it safe to assume that the Armenians of EB's timeframe had gear resembling the phrygians? Heredotus stated that the Armenians and Phrygians wore similar costumes. Unfortunatly his statement comes a couple of hundred years before EB's time frame.
Strabo states that Median and Armenia costume were quite similar (11.3.4). Figural representations from around the 5th c. BC (a silver Rhyton) and the 1st c. BC (the representations of king Antiochus I of Commagene and a scene inscribed on a bone plaque from the palace at Dedoplis Gora) show fairly standard Iranian riding garb, with long-sleeved tunics and long, flowing trousers.
11-10-2008, 22:06
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Mein Panzer from your studies what would be the best description of Armenian military gear from EB's timeframe?
11-12-2008, 00:52
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
no replys? Well I think EB has got it fairly accurate. With EB2 it will be further polished.
11-12-2008, 02:37
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
Mein Panzer from your studies what would be the best description of Armenian military gear from EB's timeframe?
Well, as I stated earlier, there simply isn't a whole lot of evidence for Armenia during the EB timeframe. A few general comments:
For infantry, thureophoroi armed with spears and axes as sidearms. These are well represented in the Caucasian spearmen, but just need an axe.
For Armenian Medium Cavalrymen, I would drop the shield and make them light cataphracts. Based on a plaque from Dedoplis Gora, I would also change the scale cuirasses of all units wearing such armour to the style currently worn by the Armenian Noble infantrymen, with short sleeves instead of Greek-style shoulder yokes, only without pteruges.
For all units, the primary sidearm should be an axe, with only some richer units having long swords. Cavalrymen of all sorts should also have a multi-lobed dagger strapped to their right thigh.
I would change helmets to Greek types or those seen in Parthian sources during this time period. The spangenhelm of the Armenian Late Bodyguards especially should be dropped, but I have issue with almost all depictions of spangenhelme during the EB timeframe. No coifs, either.
11-12-2008, 03:05
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
The dagger is a big part of the entire Caucasus. I dont know exactly how old this tradition is, but even the traditional dress of diffrent people in the Caucasus have a dagger as a display.
when you say the helmets should be more hellenic, exactly which type of hellenic helmet was widely used in Armenia? will it the pilos?
11-12-2008, 05:45
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
The dagger is a big part of the entire Caucasus. I dont know exactly how old this tradition is, but even the traditional dress of diffrent people in the Caucasus have a dagger as a display.
Towards the end of the EB timeline the use of the dagger can be attributed to Iranian influence. Wearing a dagger strapped to the thigh can be seen in depictions of cavalrymen all over the Iranian-influenced world, from the Crimea to Bactria to the eastern Arabian peninsula.
Quote:
when you say the helmets should be more hellenic, exactly which type of hellenic helmet was widely used in Armenia? will it the pilos?
As I've stated before, I am unaware of any examples of helmets being found in Armenia dating to the last centuries BC. In Georgia, however, many Greek helmets have been found, almost all of them Attic. The Attic helmet seems to have been particularly popular with the early Sarmatians in the Kuban region and Colchian cavalrymen. I know of over 25 individual examples of helmets found in various states of fragmentation from the Kuban region, Ciscaucasia, and Transcaucasia, a little under half of them from Georgia. The thing is, though, that this type of helmet disappears after the 3rd c. BC, at which point we simply don't find helmets in Transcaucasia any more. We have the occasional Hellenistic helmet from Ciscaucasia, but these seem to have been finds from the fringes of the Sarmatian controlled regions to the north of the Caucasus, and helmets pretty much disappear from burials in the regions where helmets were often found previously south of the range (mostly in Colchis).
11-12-2008, 08:08
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Attic helmet? that is interesting. In a portrait of Vartan Mamikonian (5th century AD general) he is portrait with a helmet similar to the attic helmet. Now obviously 5th century ad is a long way from EB's timeframe, but I just find it interesting after you mentioned that. Maybe because of the many findings of attic helmets from the Caucaus region, the artist who did the portrait of Vartan Mamikonian decided to portray him with that sort of helmet.
Attic helmet? that is interesting. In a portrait of Vartan Mamikonian (5th century AD general) he is portrait with a helmet similar to the attic helmet. Now obviously 5th century ad is a long way from EB's timeframe, but I just find it interesting after you mentioned that. Maybe because of the many findings of attic helmets from the Caucaus region, the artist who did the portrait of Vartan Mamikonian decided to portray him with that sort of helmet.
It seems possible, but the Attic helmets found look quite different from those helmets. It seems more likely to me that those are just fantasy helmets of quasi-historical Graeco-Roman inspiration, which are seen all over the place in Renaissance and later depictions of all variety of ancient figures.
11-12-2008, 09:19
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
It seems possible, but the Attic helmets found look quite different from those helmets. It seems more likely to me that those are just fantasy helmets of quasi-historical Graeco-Roman inspiration, which are seen all over the place in Renaissance and later depictions of all variety of ancient figures.
Yeah, your probebly right. Its more of an artistic imagination based on Graeco-Roman inspiration. Are there by any chance images of the Attic helmets found in the Caucasus, or images of Attic helmets which resemble the ones found in the Caucasus?
11-12-2008, 20:37
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
Yeah, your probebly right. Its more of an artistic imagination based on Graeco-Roman inspiration. Are there by any chance images of the Attic helmets found in the Caucasus, or images of Attic helmets which resemble the ones found in the Caucasus?
Sure, here are two from the graves of rich Colchian cavalrymen. These are from Suchumi, Achul-Abaa grave 4 and 5, respectively.
The helmets found look much closer to that shown in the picture of the Scythian. The Attic helmets found in the east look a bit different in general from that shown in the first image: as you've noted, they have longer nasals, the cheek pieces have rounded protrusions in front instead of sharp points, and the transition from the earhole to the neckguard is smooth instead of pointed.
11-14-2008, 00:05
artavazd
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
The helmets found look much closer to that shown in the picture of the Scythian. The Attic helmets found in the east look a bit different in general from that shown in the first image: as you've noted, they have longer nasals, the cheek pieces have rounded protrusions in front instead of sharp points, and the transition from the earhole to the neckguard is smooth instead of pointed.
Very interesting. Seems like the Attic helmets found in the east would offer better protection. It kind of "envelops" the head and face more thoroughly.
I never knew that Greek style helmets were popular in Armenia. (especialy during EB's timeframe) I had always thought that the Urartian design just modified itself throughout the ages.
A lot of the Parthian units in EB are also using spangenhelm style helmets. Are the Parthians in EB depicted incorrectly as well?
11-14-2008, 07:53
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
I never knew that Greek style helmets were popular in Armenia. (especialy during EB's timeframe) I had always thought that the Urartian design just modified itself throughout the ages.
As I said before, I don't know if this kind of helmet was worn in Armenia or not. All I am suggesting is that since we don't actually have any finds of helmets from Armenia, these finds from nearby in Georgia could be used to fill in the blanks. Again, though, that's a big guess.
Quote:
A lot of the Parthian units in EB are also using spangenhelm style helmets. Are the Parthians in EB depicted incorrectly as well?
I've yet to see proper evidence for such helmets being used in the EB timeframe with the possible exception of a vaguely-modelled head of a terracotta figurine found at Kitab in Uzbekistan dating to the 2nd-1st c. BC. It is something I've always been curious about as far as the EB reconstructions go, and I'd be very curious to hear what evidence the team has used in this regard.
11-14-2008, 11:23
O'ETAIPOS
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
Those are both Chalcidian helmets. Attic helmets have hinged cheek pieces, while Chalcidian helmets have fixed cheek pieces.
If this could be that easy :wall:.
This is one of the typologies (Gamber's). In my opinion it's strange, as it uses element of secondary or tertiary importance as main point of difference. Feugere assumes both types as one and divides them in 5 subtypes. Connolly, on the other hand claims that types should be divided on the basis of existence or lack of nasal.
I like classification made by Dintsis, who defines attic as helmet without nasal and with extruded forehead element ending in volutes. Chalcidian on the other hand have nasal and characteristic shape of upper part of helmet.
11-27-2008, 14:00
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
*makes mental note*
I need to resume this sometime soon.
11-27-2008, 17:25
Sarkiss
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
*makes mental note*
I need to resume this sometime soon.
will keep an eye on it...:thumbsup:
12-27-2008, 00:05
The Persian Cataphract
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Finally, some time to resume this.
The Assyrian-style helmet may find additional support in the bas-reliefs at Tang-i Sarvak, generally dated between 1st and 3rd centuries CE; a mounted cavalry in Block II depicting a hunt shows a crude scene with a skull-cap resembling a shorter Medean-cap, however featuring a pointy apex with a shallow concave feature; the Shishak-profile. Its dating is not yet established, however because the most distinguishable feature of Block II is a standing man before an altar, usually accorded to Orodes I of the Elymaean Kamnaskirid (?), or the later "Arsacid" dynasty (Ernie Haerinck, Encyclopaedia Iranica, January 6, 2005, Block II, Inscription 6), the dating may possibly be as early as the 1st century CE. Though it is crude, simple, and severely damaged, it differs substantially from other comparable depictions, of what may appear to be a lightly armoured horseman (Interestingly, Flandin and Coste reconstructed the relief like this).
If memory serves me correctly, there is also Roman "auxilia" helmet dated to the 2nd century CE, ascribed to "Syrian auxiliaries" and found to corroborate with the description of Syrian helmets being "tall"; this exhibit is located in the Archaeological Museum of Zagreb, in Croatia. It features a Shishak-profile (D. Nicolle, 1991), which was used to reconstruct a Palmyrene guardsman of the 3rd century CE. Unfortunately, I have no more records of this particular exhibit, and apart from an acquired catalogue of various Coolus and Gallic types in that collection, there is only one accredited to "Equestrian sports". That is pretty much it. If true, this is indeed a strong indication of a continuity of usage as far as the "Assyrian model" is concerned.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Trivia: The bust of what appears to be Kushan nobleman, encountered in Dalverzin Tepe, shows what appears to be a headgear of a particularly tall Shishak-style. It continued to become a staple clothing style in Soghdiana until Medieval times.
Equally, a throwback to the reliefs at Tang-i Sarvak, we find Block II also with inscriptions 2, and 3, reconstructed in this manner:
Is the central, reclining figure wearing a helmet with what appears to be a plume-holder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
I've yet to see proper evidence for such helmets being used in the EB timeframe with the possible exception of a vaguely-modelled head of a terracotta figurine found at Kitab in Uzbekistan dating to the 2nd-1st c. BC. It is something I've always been curious about as far as the EB reconstructions go, and I'd be very curious to hear what evidence the team has used in this regard.
I was about to mention this very funny terracotta...
This is about as ambiguous as far as "evidence" may go and may be a crude presentation of a peasant wearing a cap. It is difficult to extract any meaningful detail out of it, save for its conical design that may or may not be indicative to the "Parthian style". It might as well as be a continuation of the conical cap as worn by Skunkha of the Sacae in the Behistun relief.
The only "Spangenhelms" (In the sense of helmetry being composed of several pieces making up the protective body) we have dedicated to the Arsacid units are the late elite cataphracts (Late Clibanarius), and the Late Parthian Bodyguards which were meant to be part of an imperial reform. Largely hypothetical devices. Other Iranic cavalry use the aforementioned Assyrian style, Pylos, thimble-types as encountered in both an undated Parthian terracotta in the British Museum, and in Roman propaganda as featured in Augustus' coinage depicting Parthians. Other types are thoroughly Hellenistic (Such as the Attic helmet-type as seen on a bust excavated from Old Nisa), and in special cases (Such as Cardaces) based upon types seen in Lycian stelai, and that of Pharnabazus' satrapal coinage (As well as that of Megabyzus, and certain unique numismatic examples from late Achaemenid Cilicia). Parthian-Hellenic infantry use a helmet-type which has been encountered as late as the Trajanic era through selected coinage, and occasional Seleucid-inspired light infantry use Phrygian types.
I would personally interject with a very important detail that I feel has been overlooked in this discussion: A critical part in using this expansive breadth of different technologies and models, across an area several times larger than Scandinavia is dispelling the illusion of using uniforms or uniform gear beyond the reasonable criteria of organized armies. Therefore, I'd rather use sporadic evidence taken from as far as India, China, the Crimean area, and the stretches of Assyria than to nail myself arbitrarily to a certain Attic style and the thimble style and make a false suggestion of such conventions being used for centuries from Nisa, to the fortress-frontiers of Gedrosia, and the Euphrates, from the earliest nomadic traces to the middle-imperial era in a uniform manner. It doesn't work that way, and does not conform at all to a "confederate" empire famous in history for hosting a multitude of lesser kingdoms.
Quote:
Oh, I think I know which helmet you're referring to. What is its provenance? It's not the Samarkand helmet, is it?
No, if memory serves me correctly, the Samarkand helmet has a peculiar wavy ridge/metallic crest, and appears more advanced than this example I'm referring to. Please refer to B. A. Litvinsky, Xûd (Helmet), Fig. 21. Very similar to previous "Elamite" findings as exhibited in the Reza Abbasi Museum, dated 13th century BCE.
Provenance, as with so many other objects typically found in Central Asia, remains a problematic matter. In fact, I do not have any more information on this particular piece, except for that both Litvinsky and Gorelik cite "Glasgow Museum" (Which doesn't say a lot at all).
Quote:
You may be right that he's not wearing a helmet, but it seems a bit peculiar to me that this man (and his horse) would be so heavily armoured and yet he keeps an unprotected head. The knemides are much more certain, though. You can see that in this picture:
Again, absolutely brilliant footage :2thumbsup:
With that said, I have a problem trying to figure out the construction of this headgear, should it be a helmet. Upon closer inspection of certain details in the Canakkale sarcophagus, it seems that the artist made a few trivial mistakes: The horse does for instance not feature a bit, and instead the bridles appear to be connected to the chamfrôn; for heavy horse, substantial bits would have become a necessity.
The way the headgear wraps around the cheeks and chin of the exhibited material in the sarcophagus rather indicates a softer material. The fact that you mentioned that the sarcophagus may belong to the satrap to whom this work was dedicated by depiction, finds many parallels in other previous instances of Iranic art, and indeed, later Iranian works; a substantial portion of encountered Indo-Scythian coinage show other commemorative depictions of rulers clad in armour and with heads at most clad with caps.
Quote:
Also note the wide white band running along the horse's breast - it could possible be a poitrel, though it would be strange that it was not carved in, like so many other minute details.
Agreed. We do already have a number of other exhibits with parapleuridia/parameridia and written instances in the classics and fragmentary texts of chest-pieces, and thus the issue of late Achaemenid and early Hellenistic horse-armour doesn't become as problematic; the white "band" may simply have been fading... Or unfinished; the saddle-cloth doesn't appear to be suspended to anything.
Quote:
However, do you really think he is wearing knemides? I can't make that out at all. I just see a man wearing trousers tucked into short boots.
I might be wrong, but it appears there is a crease at the ankle-level; Iranian riding-boots as portrayed in Persepolitan reliefs are depicted differently. It is possible that these might be gaiters of the rân-bân type, however these came into more widespread usage during middle-late Sassanian times, several centuries from what appears to be an early Hellenistic sculpture resembling post-Achaemenid Cypriotic works.
12-27-2008, 12:14
MeinPanzer
Re: History background of Armenian units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
Finally, some time to resume this.
The Assyrian-style helmet may find additional support in the bas-reliefs at Tang-i Sarvak, generally dated between 1st and 3rd centuries CE; a mounted cavalry in Block II depicting a hunt shows a crude scene with a skull-cap resembling a shorter Medean-cap, however featuring a pointy apex with a shallow concave feature; the Shishak-profile. Its dating is not yet established, however because the most distinguishable feature of Block II is a standing man before an altar, usually accorded to Orodes I of the Elymaean Kamnaskirid (?), or the later "Arsacid" dynasty (Ernie Haerinck, Encyclopaedia Iranica, January 6, 2005, Block II, Inscription 6), the dating may possibly be as early as the 1st century CE. Though it is crude, simple, and severely damaged, it differs substantially from other comparable depictions, of what may appear to be a lightly armoured horseman (Interestingly, Flandin and Coste reconstructed the relief like this).
The Tang-i Sarvak depiction is so badly worn that it can tell us nothing of what it was meant to originally depict. Even if it wasn't meant to show a cap, it very well could be meant to depict a Spangenhelm and not an Assyrian-style helmet.
Quote:
If memory serves me correctly, there is also Roman "auxilia" helmet dated to the 2nd century CE, ascribed to "Syrian auxiliaries" and found to corroborate with the description of Syrian helmets being "tall"; this exhibit is located in the Archaeological Museum of Zagreb, in Croatia. It features a Shishak-profile (D. Nicolle, 1991), which was used to reconstruct a Palmyrene guardsman of the 3rd century CE. Unfortunately, I have no more records of this particular exhibit, and apart from an acquired catalogue of various Coolus and Gallic types in that collection, there is only one accredited to "Equestrian sports". That is pretty much it. If true, this is indeed a strong indication of a continuity of usage as far as the "Assyrian model" is concerned.
This is no evidence at all for the continuity of the "Assyrian model," as this is a Spangenhelm, which derives from a totally different (Siberian) source.
Quote:
Equally, a throwback to the reliefs at Tang-i Sarvak, we find Block II also with inscriptions 2, and 3, reconstructed in this manner:
This is about as ambiguous as far as "evidence" may go and may be a crude presentation of a peasant wearing a cap. It is difficult to extract any meaningful detail out of it, save for its conical design that may or may not be indicative to the "Parthian style". It might as well as be a continuation of the conical cap as worn by Skunkha of the Sacae in the Behistun relief.
Then we're in agreement that this almost certainly shows a cap.
Quote:
The only "Spangenhelms" (In the sense of helmetry being composed of several pieces making up the protective body) we have dedicated to the Arsacid units are the late elite cataphracts (Late Clibanarius), and the Late Parthian Bodyguards which were meant to be part of an imperial reform. Largely hypothetical devices.
And yet, through our debates you have yet to present any evidence that would suggest that such helmets were in use even during the last few decades of the EB timeframe. Don't you think they are inappropriate, especially considering that we don't find the first helmets of this form in its "horizon" region until the first centuries AD?
Quote:
Other Iranic cavalry use the aforementioned Assyrian style, Pylos, thimble-types as encountered in both an undated Parthian terracotta in the British Museum, and in Roman propaganda as featured in Augustus' coinage depicting Parthians. Other types are thoroughly Hellenistic (Such as the Attic helmet-type as seen on a bust excavated from Old Nisa), and in special cases (Such as Cardaces) based upon types seen in Lycian stelai, and that of Pharnabazus' satrapal coinage (As well as that of Megabyzus, and certain unique numismatic examples from late Achaemenid Cilicia). Parthian-Hellenic infantry use a helmet-type which has been encountered as late as the Trajanic era through selected coinage, and occasional Seleucid-inspired light infantry use Phrygian types.
I would personally interject with a very important detail that I feel has been overlooked in this discussion: A critical part in using this expansive breadth of different technologies and models, across an area several times larger than Scandinavia is dispelling the illusion of using uniforms or uniform gear beyond the reasonable criteria of organized armies. Therefore, I'd rather use sporadic evidence taken from as far as India, China, the Crimean area, and the stretches of Assyria than to nail myself arbitrarily to a certain Attic style and the thimble style and make a false suggestion of such conventions being used for centuries from Nisa, to the fortress-frontiers of Gedrosia, and the Euphrates, from the earliest nomadic traces to the middle-imperial era in a uniform manner. It doesn't work that way, and does not conform at all to a "confederate" empire famous in history for hosting a multitude of lesser kingdoms.
While obviously the vagaries of time prevent us from getting a clear picture of usage in many different places from what we find, we should nonetheless take what is found and where into consideration.
Quote:
With that said, I have a problem trying to figure out the construction of this headgear, should it be a helmet. Upon closer inspection of certain details in the Canakkale sarcophagus, it seems that the artist made a few trivial mistakes: The horse does for instance not feature a bit, and instead the bridles appear to be connected to the chamfrôn; for heavy horse, substantial bits would have become a necessity.
Keep in mind that some of the finer bridle detail was probably painted on.
The way the headgear wraps around the cheeks and chin of the exhibited material in the sarcophagus rather indicates a softer material. The fact that you mentioned that the sarcophagus may belong to the satrap to whom this work was dedicated by depiction, finds many parallels in other previous instances of Iranic art, and indeed, later Iranian works; a substantial portion of encountered Indo-Scythian coinage show other commemorative depictions of rulers clad in armour and with heads at most clad with caps.
If you are referring to the representations of the Indo-Scythian kings on the issues of Maues, Vonones, Azes I & II, etc., then they are almost certainly wearing the closely-fitting helmets seen elsewhere on the figurine from Taraz and on the bracer from the collection of Peter I and not caps.
Quote:
I might be wrong, but it appears there is a crease at the ankle-level; Iranian riding-boots as portrayed in Persepolitan reliefs are depicted differently. It is possible that these might be gaiters of the rân-bân type, however these came into more widespread usage during middle-late Sassanian times, several centuries from what appears to be an early Hellenistic sculpture resembling post-Achaemenid Cypriotic works.
I think what you're seeing is just a scratch or a flaw on the surface; it certainly doesn't look to me like he's wearing greaves, and it would be extremely unusual for an otherwise unarmoured horseman to be equipped with such expensive armour.
