Printable View
Before you summon the lynch mob, and or impalement mob, I'm not asking about it being in EB II. My question is, was LS a one of a kind armor? Or has armor with large segments like it, been used in other time period, and other parts of the world? Before you say anything else, I do realize llamelar in some ways is like the stuff (especially those arm guards Parthian cataphracts have).
I dunno what you're asking exactly. The sort of overlapping pieces of small plate was done in the early middle ages in Europe because Metal Smithing wasn't able to create massive plates of the later periods. So things like the 'coat of plates' which was several pieces of small overlapping plates attached to the inside part of a jacket like thing were made.
@RA:
IIRC, someone on these forums said the Romans, being Romans, copied the eastern lamellar armour (such as those arm guards you mentioned), and made the LS out of that idea. :shrug:
Armour with large segments was definitely not unique to the lorica segmentata, as the Dendra Panoply shows: this does not mean that the Romans didn't come up with it on their own. They didn't even know about the Dendra suit, as it has been dated to 15th century BCE. Here are some pics
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/armour05.jpg http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/armour06.jpg
A possible clue is that 'segmentata' is not what the Romans called it at all: they may have called it lorica laminata, but it was latin-speaking scholars studying Trajans Column in the 16th century who named it 'segmentata'.
oudysseos, I always wonder how someone got into that tank.
Anyway, this has provided new insight for me about that particular Roman armor. Would a mod close this?
I am not sure if the Dendra Panoply is a good example. AFAIK this is the only armour of this type ever to be found, and nobody knows what it was used for (too heavy to make good infantry armour, and an outright danger on a wobbly chariot).Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
The helmet isn't all that particularly great. That thing is either ceremonial, art, or for some sort of chariot bourne infantry.
Actually, it is almost certain that such panoplies were borne by charioteers. What evidence do you have that Mycenaean chariots were "wobbly"? The Chinese employed a similarly heavy panoply on their charioteers for several centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Other smaller parts of this type of panoply have been found over the years, but a complete panoply like the famous Dendra example has never been found elsewhere.
The helmet is composed of boar tusks, which was the norm for Mycenaean helmets and seems to have been fairly effective for bronze age warfare. Fully metal helmets don't appear until the end of the bronze age.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
actually, IIRC, it was tested against bronze age weaponry, and it was surprisingly good (the history channel had one such experiment-though granted I don't trust them too much)Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Remember that when the helmet of bone is struck, it will shatter to pieces and break, rather than transfer the concussive force such as with solid metal helmets. The durability is shorter, but the energy from the blow will not have as powerful of an impact as would metal. Objects that shatter are good for dispersing energy. That is why some bullet-proof vests have a ceramic-base plate built in that breaks and shatters in the form of cracks, which allows the energy to disperse, rather than wear a completely solid and unbreaking plate that would transfer energy directly to the wearer, which causes more damage from the sheer force.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
And people who are stupid enough to enable someone to hit their head more than twice, full bronze helmet or not, shouldn't be too long lived on the battlefield anyway. :juggle2:
I don't know whether the Dendra Suit was useful or not, but I mentioned it because the OP asked if the mis-named Lorica Segmentata was the only amour made of large pieces, which it isn't. I don't think that there's any kind of explicit developmental link between them.
It's not too different from the Coat of Plates - an experiment from 13th Century Northern Europe.
Well, I always though lorica segmentata was the most refined and sophisticated mass-produced and relatively durable (yes, I know one of its major issues was coming apart) example of its kind. And that is not Roman fanboy-ism speaking in me. The Medieval armour Elmetiacos showed was attached to a base, and the Mycenaean charioteer armour was rather bulky and simplified.
Oh, and yes, those two are more like laminated armour, as oudysseos wisely noted.
That's what I said. Nice picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
I am pretty sure I read that it was unique and its function unclear, but I don't have the source with me. I'll get back to it in a couple of days. Mycenaean chariots are presumably no more wobbly than any solid-tire vehicle made for traversing unflattened ground. Still, keeping your balance on them would take some effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
The suit is unique and surprisingly intact for being in the ground since before the Greek Dark age.
However, it seems to have been well known enough to allegedly have ideograms of it from two sites:
Knossos
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/armour29.jpg
Pylos
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/armour30.jpg
So it was known during the period it was supposedly used but no one has any ideas of what its exact purpose was. So its kinda a LS type situation where it existed and there are representations and permutations of it but its still kinda a unicorn.
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm
Yes, as shown in the Linear B ideograms, such heavy panoplies were not uncommon, it is just that, as one so often finds elsewhere with armour, very little has survived. We are incredibly lucky to have a complete example of such a panoply.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Sure, it would take some effort, just like fighting on horseback without stirrups and with only a basic saddle in a heavy panoply. That doesn't mean it wasn't done, or wasn't commonplace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Any source stating that the nature or the purpose of this armour is unclear is not very informative. It's obvious from examining other parallels that such armour would be worn by a charioteer, who had the benefit of not having to run around on the battlefield; who would be rich enough to afford it; and who, not holding a shield, would need the benefit of a heavy panoply for maximum protection. Besides, I am curious to hear what these sources state could be other uses for such armour; heavy infantrymen? Or do they take the usual cop-out and declare it "ritual armour"?
I've always been partial to the built it->test it->refine technique->repeat method of testing. As much as people complain about lack of creativity there sure is a lot of it. Perhaps people need to be more creative in looking for their own uncreativity and mental hangups.
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
in other words he's a fan of experimental archeology. I think that's what he means anyhow.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
I mean more the "as much as people complain about lack of creativity there sure is a lot of it. Perhaps people need to be more creative in looking for their own uncreativity and mental hangups" part in relation to this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
oh, that...that really is confusing.:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
Segwayed into a rant about something totally OT. Sorry, I do that sometimes.
"Chariots" by Arthur Cotterell states the following (chapter 4, pages 112-113):Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
There is no further discussion of the Dendra armour's use. I thought I also saw a mention of it in Hans van Wees' "Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities", but I cannot find it in the index, and the book does not deal with warfare from before Homer's time.Quote:
Because the Dendra equipment is far too heavy and unwieldy for a foot soldier, some scholars believe its wearer would have stood in a chariot. But again the weight and cumbersomeness of the armour could not but have been a serious liability in a fast-moving chariot. Unlike the armoured medieval knight, the Dendra warrior was not seated on a high saddle with his legs gripping the sides of a horse, and his feet placed safely in stirrups: instead, if an archer never accompanied the charioteer, he was trying to maintain his balance while thrusting sideways with a two-handed spear.
The argument for the Dendra armour belonging to a chariot warrior is unconvincing. Apart from the weight problem, there are records of lighter corselets more suited to this purpose, similar to the protection Menelaus was lucky enough to be wearing at Troy. Most telling of all, however, is the narrative of the Iliad, for Pandarus [an Eastern bowman in Trojan service who became convinced of the uselessness of his bow, and joined Aeneas on his chariot] did not fight from Aeneas' chariot as a thrusting spearman. On the contrary, he threw a javelin at Diomedes, a weapon used in addition to the bow by the Egyptians in their chariots. Pandarus' sudden death after the failure of this throw may well have seemed just to Homes, since the javelin as well as the arrow harmed heroes at an unfair distance, especially when launched from a speeding chariot.
If he thinks that "the argument for the Dendra armour belonging to a chariot warrior is unconvincing," Cotterell's argument against it belonging to a chariot warrior is even less convincing. There are two major points against Cotterell's argument. The first is that this panoply clearly would have been extremely expensive, and I think we can rule out anyone other than the wealthiest individuals in Mycenaean society owning such armour; the question then arises why a wealthy individual would deign to fight on foot in a society which glorified chariot combat. The second is that clear parallels to this panoply, very similar in overall shape with a cuirass with a high-waisted skirt reaching to the knees and a high collar, a helmet, and also laminated arm protection, were employed for centuries in China by charioteers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
His argument, like so many relating to the capability of warriors to employ various configurations of arms and armour, derives from a modern and subjective rather than an objective viewpoint. Authors today often make claims about what ancient warriors would not have been able to do which are proven wrong by either practical tests or ancient evidence, or both. Case in point: many scholars have been propagating the notion that ancient cavalry who did not use stirrups and only employed basic saddles would not have been able to fight with couched lances, while both modern practical tests and some ancient evidence prove that ancient cavalrymen not only could but did employ such a method of fighting. How are we to say that with training a man could not learn to effectively employ such a panoply from the cab of a chariot?
In Cotterell's defence: 1) he explicitly states it isn't suitable for a foot soldier; and 2) he argues that the Chinese developed a better horse collar and could therefore use bigger and heavier chariots than other charioteering nations, so parallels with the Chinese should be made with caution. Still, I admit that the reasoning here isn't very convincing. Thank you for enlightening me.
I understand, but in a society that effectively fielded only two types of troops in war (cavalry may have emerged toward the very end of the Mycenaean period, but that is not certain), I wonder then who he thinks would have worn such armour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I notice that my web site related to the Greek bronze Age weaponry has been linked but it seems that the informations about the Dendra Armour and in general about the Achaean armours have not been carefully read.
Some high fidelity reconstructions have demonstrate how the Dendra panoply, despite the huge aspect, was enough flexible and comfortable to be used also during fights on foot and not, as sometimes argued, exclusively by warriors fighting from the chariots.
This experimental reconstruction led also to the conclusion that it allowed fighting with a sword and spear but not necessarily (because its large shoulder guard wings) with bow.
Fighting test conducted with a replica of this armour have in fact evidenced that the shoulder guards and their ancillary plates were designed to protect against circuitous attacks, that is, they were geared more towards defence against swords or daggers than spears.
The high neck guard on this armour is an especially interesting feature in light of the fact that the "favorite" killing stroke with the longer Type C and D swords used in that period
Indeed the only potentially lethal stroke, depicted in the iconographic record is precisely to this area of the body. Of course this not imply that armours were designed specifically to this end, but it certainly functioned to limit the range of attacks to which the long Achaean swords were suited in a battlefield context.
Evidence of this utilization is a metal ring, measuring 12 mm in diameter, attached to the middle of the right shoulder guard at its highest point probably meant to hold the strap for either a sword or a shield. Furthermore in the tomb near the armour pieces of wood with the remains of leather on reverse side had also been found, these elements could support the presence of a shield.
An interesting features of this armour is the difference in the width of the armhole: the larger right armhole ensured freedom of movement for the warrior, who surely preferred his right arm in battle. This is another evidence that the Dendra armour was actually designed for operative use and not only for parade or for chariot drivers .
The findings in Thebes, some pottery images and the linear B description attested as these kind of armours had a wide and uninterrupted use in Bronze Age Aegean world starting from the 15th century BC till the fall of the Achaean civilization. Furthermore since the first Dendra speciment, pratical improvements were applied to the Achaean armour towards simpler and smaller forms in order to increase their confortability, flexibility, and possibility to be accomodate in different variants depending from warriors' personal necessity.
On the "Chariots tablets" from Knossos the individual warrior's equipment given by the palace administration is indicated. The entity of this "palace supplied equipments" (two horses and two cuirasses) is much more evident considering the entire corpus of these tablets , indeed to each warriors only the elements necessary to complete his equipments were given. For instance only one cuirass or one horse if the warrior already had one in his personal equipment. This was probably valid also for what concern the armour components, we can thus suppose that in some cases only some o-pa-wo-ta (things hung or attached around), qe-ro2 (breast plate) or e-po-mi-jo (shoulder protections) were given in order to complete the two warrior defences.
From these elements is undubfull that the Achaean armour is connected to the hierarchically organized state with the palace at its center. The palatial authority, as the linear B tablets inform us, provided seleced persons with defences and equipments, presumably the members of a military elite, who paid back through their obedience and support to this centripetal system .
So this kind of armours were very common in the Mycenaean society (even if of course prerogative of the high or medium rank warriors) .
These warriors as well attested also from the Iliad used the chariot but they also fight on foot using the same kind of panoply.
There are no evidence and there is no valid reason to assert that the Dendra Armour was exclusively designed for chariot utilization. It simply was the typical armour of the “Elite” rank warriors and they used it both on chariot and for ground fighting .
Interesting, thanks for pointing it out.
Welcome to the .Org, and to Europa Barbarorum.
:bow:
lawagetas makes a good point but if you allow me to make a creative observation ...
that dendra armour seems perfect to fight in the labyrinth that where the micenian palaces such as knossos where a few warriors could stop an entire army in a street creating a botleneck effect, or then to chanel the enemie troops into specific killing zones from where less armoured men who would otherwise be butchered in a hand to hand combat could wipe them out with javelins
i mean it was what the greeks did in termophilae so why can´t we assume it was already a tactic used before that they adopted later again just as the phalanx had disapeared and later on the swiss brought it back
this would make them unvaluable in defensive manouring when the palace was attacked
note: i do not pretend that this was it´s true use or it´s true usefullness but just litle thinking outside the box and the original idea i got it from studying ants where some groups of ants develop special ants with enourmous heads who serve to block out the entrances and thus protect the entire colony
Cotterels arguments for me are on par with the once (?) common "cavalry without stirrups was crap and just for skirmishing". An armor is an armor. Medieval knights used theirs on horseback and on foot. When it is heavy you should train to sustain. It was the guys "job" and pleasure to wear such armor and kill people in it and they would have made many efforts to be good in it. However I think that the weight and the fact that the armor enables a warrior to fight without a shield without massive loss of protection points to a original use on the chariot. If the warriors wouldn't have had chariots on hand the armor would possibly have been constructed lighter from the beginning. When they constructed the armor they had of course also other common fighting situations (on foot in a siege for example) and the usual dangers in mind.
on topic: lamellar or large scale (with a backing) armor was indeed a very common form of protection in many different periods of time and many different regions of the earth. It combines some advantages of rigid and soft armor.
Yest we can't exclude that similar defensive weaponry (like for instance the huge body shields in shape of tower or eight could have been also used in such situations .Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
Indeed there are no evidences that these armours were specifically developped for these specific scenario.
In the Iliad the bronze massive armours sometime richelly decorated were prerogative of the Warlords or the medium rank palatial society (as also attested from the linear B tablets) and they were fighting on the battlefields both fron chariots and on ground.
The proto falange tactics with the warriors walking very closed one to the others were used by the low rank mass warriors which were equipped with a lighter defences .