Muscle Cuirasses

This is a question about the muscle shaped chest armour a lot of the greeks wear.

Up until I saw EB I had more or less assumed that this was just one of those 'hollywood' things that were attributed to ancient warriors to make them seem more muscular, tougher and more noble etcetc.

However, given EB's slavish devotion to absolute realism and their presence on many greek units I assume them to be historically accurate

My question therefore is what was the point? I'm unaware whether at that time they were able to 'cast' metal in moulds, or whether everything had to be hammered into shape in a blacksmiths, but either way it seems like a lot of work for no real added protection. My only hypothesis is that it was a psycological thing designed to intimidate the enemy, but it seems like a lot of extra work for very little benefit.

Enlighten me please

The muscled cuirass was definitely real; its purpose was for decoration. Over time the muscled cuirass became more elegant, but it was, as you can imagine, very costly to make. By the time period of our mod linen armor was much more popular among the Hellenistic forces, where the muscled cuirass was popular, but mostly reserved for officers or very wealthy warriors.

Armor with accoutrements or designs for the sake of decoration wasn't a new thing or an isolated practice. Nearly everyone used some form of decorations on their armor or equipment that had no immediate practical purpose or even much cultural significance, outside of an appreciation for things that looked artistic. A muscle cuirass is just an outgrowth that kind of cultural oddity, and it's one of many. Think of the numerous helmets with plumes, knobs, horns, etc. The most practical thing that could be said of them is that they allowed quick recognition of specific units or officers. However, there are other ways to do that. There was clearly artistic impetus behind them.

On the same subject, did people back then had the muscles to fill it?

Of the little I know, and I know very little, Greeks and Romans had some sort of body cult, but how did warriors became strong back then? Lifting marble column segments? Did people back then had any genetical advantage due to the simple fact strenght was quite a good survival trait to possess and there was plenty of manual labour around?

i read somewhere that Alexandros rearmed his forces with double cuirasses, but when they "routed" he replaced all of them with only teh front-plate.
is that true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

On the same subject, did people back then had the muscles to fill it?

Of the little I know, and I know very little, Greeks and Romans had some sort of body cult, but how did warriors became strong back then? Lifting marble column segments? Did people back then had any genetical advantage due to the simple fact strenght was quite a good survival trait to possess and there was plenty of manual labour around?

---

One thing the Roman army did when not on campaign was to participate and to help public works, such as building roads, etc.

And of course most members of the armed forces back then had lots of training.

Quote:

---

he muscled cuirass was definitely real; its purpose was for decoration. Over time the muscled cuirass became more elegant, but it was, as you can imagine, very costly to make. By the time period of our mod linen armor was much more popular among the Hellenistic forces, where the muscled cuirass was popular, but mostly reserved for officers or very wealthy warriors.

---

Khelvan

I’m not sure you can suggest decoration as the prime function of the muscled bronze cuirass. At least in the context of the Greek city-states (5th, 4th century and later) the wealthy and the officers would very much be expected to be in the forefront of battle, whatever the showy qualities of their armor I can’t see them neglecting functionality. It seems to me that to some extent the muscled cuirass by the very fact of being closely fitted to it’s were probably distributed its weight better than the relatively less fitted composite bronze-linen cuirass (which although lighter in the aggregate probably hung very heavily from the shoulders).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Khelvan

I’m not sure you can suggest decoration as the prime function of the muscled bronze cuirass. At least in the context of the Greek city-states (5th, 4th century and later) the wealthy and the officers would very much be expected to be in the forefront of battle, whatever the showy qualities of their armor I can’t see them neglecting functionality. It seems to me that to some extent the muscled cuirass by the very fact of being closely fitted to it’s were probably distributed its weight better than the relatively less fitted composite bronze-linen cuirass (which although lighter in the aggregate probably hung very heavily from the shoulders).

---

I think he surely meant that the purpose of the "muscling" of the cuirass was for decoration. The way he phrased it didn't make it clear, but he's got a little more sense than that. ~D

Wardo, people back then would have been incredibly fit. Even without severe training in the military, life back then would have been very active. Life today is so lazy in comparison. So they would have definately had the muscles to fill their armour. Plus the curves of the breast pieces would have probably helped deflect blows to a certain extent.

what about the shape as a status symbol?
every rich man wanted to look like an achilles in their armor. so the more decorating, and the muscular it looks, the better...the fact that it took very long to make one also adds up to teh price/status.

I didn't mean the armor itself was for decoration. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

I didn't mean the armor itself was for decoration. ~:handball:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

The muscled cuirass was definitely real; its purpose was for decoration.

---

oh yeah? you didn't say what?

I said, I didn't mean the armor was for decoration. The muscled cuirass was, or the "muscled" bit, but saying that because I said "muscled cuirass" meant I thought the armor was for decoration, would mean it had no protective value.

Do you think I'm that stupid?

Also the Greeks idolized the human body, which the romans did as well (COPY CATS)
Just take a look at the sculptures.
But soldiers wouldve been more "fatty" than muscular. By this I mean that they wouldve had a larger fat layer over their muscles. It was because they ate a lot of beens and high protein food. The purpose of this was to protect the soldiers. Whenever they suffer a blow from any weapon. A layer of fat would protect the muscle. But still i DONT mean they were like 5'6'' 400 lb beasts.

Concider also , humans are primitive critters , and tend to fight harder if they have fancy outfits that they feel make them look good .

That is why hairdressers were one of the most highly respected professions in the celtic world ~;p
Seriously though {though I do remember reading that Celtic hairdressers 2000 years ago got more respect than they do today} warriors fight better when they feel "pimp" :pimp:
"Ok you smelly persian , I'm wearing my armour with the man-boobies , my helmet has a rooster comb taller than my Aunt Gretas' beehive hairdoo , I have on my best skirt , my best ribbons , gold laced sandals and I'm wearing perfume F*@# with me B!%@# !" ~D

Actually Greeks made fun of some Persians for being too womanly, because of how much they cared for their personal hiegine, and some of their outfits. Which is just silly, considering some of the things that the Greeks were up to.
But many peoples wore their best to war. Iranians often wore bright kaftans and patterened pants, their hair well combed, with earings and the like. Some cavalry men wore "chaps" to protect their patterned pants.

All of this is why I think the Army needs to change its uniform. A bald guy in green and brown outfits are not nearly as funky as a long haired, earinged guy with bright kaftans and pants. :)

I have to agree that the persians were the funkiest dressed, most seriously pimpin' warriors around in their time. If they had wraparound sunglasses back then, they would've been mandatory.

That's one of the reasons I think this period is so much fun, who wants a bunch of dirty medieval peasants when you can have gauls and persians?

Speaking of gauls, nothing kicks ass like black and white check trousers

oh I think the Celtic fashion is just too kool, especialy those painted blue bands across their eyes, the beards, the long hair, the jewlery, the decorative armour and swords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

I said, I didn't mean the armor was for decoration. The muscled cuirass was, or the "muscled" bit, but saying that because I said "muscled cuirass" meant I thought the armor was for decoration, would mean it had no protective value.

Do you think I'm that stupid?

---

I'm just messing about...~;)

i already got 3 "watch your language" thingies in the forums in 2 days...i just couldn't resist...

i just found it funny you said "A"..and your next post was "I didn't say A"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biffy

Wardo, people back then would have been incredibly fit.

---

That's why population growth and births were so low. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_2_5.gif

http://www.gargalhadas.com/imagens/mulher_musculos.jpg





http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp...p=ZNxdm11965ES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

But many peoples wore their best to war.

---

In the 18th century Russian soldiers would put on fresh underwear before battle. 'Spose style isn't an internationally uniform thing~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biffy

oh I think the Celtic fashion is just too kool, especialy those painted blue bands across their eyes, the beards, the long hair, the jewlery, the decorative armour and swords.

---

Celts very rarely wore long or full beards by the middle La Tene. They were considered dirty, and they preferred easier to maintain mustaches, and sometimes thin beards. Few painted themselves in the late iron age outside of Britain, and even back when more painted themselves, blue paint was uncommon; preferred were various hues of red, green, white, and gray-black dyes; even then, few painted themselves across the eyes, the preference was given to various animal and religious symbols painted or tattooed on the torso, cheeks, arms, and legs. By the late iron age, the only Gauls still to paint themselves were the Lemovician-Pictones of western Gaul, who painted themselves with red dyes as an honor to the tribe's Teutatis (Teutatis wasn't so much a single god as he was a kind of 'family' god, with various incarnations depedent on region). Many also didn't wear long hair, but also others did. Lots of jewelry though, and lots of decoration on armor, cloaks, many-colored clothing, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardo

On the same subject, did people back then had the muscles to fill it?

Of the little I know, and I know very little, Greeks and Romans had some sort of body cult, but how did warriors became strong back then? Lifting marble column segments? Did people back then had any genetical advantage due to the simple fact strenght was quite a good survival trait to possess and there was plenty of manual labour around?

---

Genetical advantage -- I wouldn't say. We don't mutate that fast. Rather, it was the more physically demanding lifestyle of that age. Most people were farmers, herders, fishermen, etc. Most people today don't do nearly as much physical activities as people did during pre-modern times (much so in the RTW time frame) on a daily basis. This gave them stamina and muscle power. On top of this, army regulars worked and trained arduously every single day. We need only mention of the hardships of the Spartan agoge. The Roman legions after the Marian reforms were made to carry a heavy baggage on top of their Lorica Segmentata, giving them the nickname 'Marius' mules.' This gave them enormous stamina and muscle power. Army regulars were always kept busy doing something if they were not battling. Wether it was training or building roads, acqueducts, bridges, or fortifications, the army was always a viable source of voluntary and able manpower.

That which does not kill you makes you stronger.

Bah, the guys that wore those 'muscle suits' were likely puffy weaky noblemen raised among pillows and lilies. Below those decoys there were flaccid bellies and sunken breasts... ~;p

khelvan and Teleklos Archelaou

Sure, I see what your getting at, the style element was certainly important. But I still think both the potential qualities of bronze (in the right alloy with tin and iron, bronze can be extremely strong and hard) and the comparative weight distributing nature of the 4th century muscled cuirass are missed or ignored.

Dux Corvanus

Quote:

---

Bah, the guys that wore those 'muscle suits' were likely puffy weaky noblemen raised among pillows and lilies. Below those decoys there were flaccid bellies and sunken breasts...

---

HAHA, fun joke but it really does not make any sense. Again the muscled cuirass is recommended (and apparently worn by) by people like Xenophon, experienced professionals. Further, you are of course overlooking the cult of the gymnasium in Greece. The good and the beautiful were allowed certain privileges in a Greek city state, but at price, in particular being the well armed and armored guys in the front of the phalanx, who as a result of their wealth were both in top shape and form (i.e. they could afford fencing lessons and personal trainers, or did the city a favor if they were soft and got killed…)

Although I thing Steppe Merc is a bit wide of the mark in his post above, the Greeks did think the Persian were effeminate; not from excessive grooming or a shopping budget but because they were pale and had not be tanned by long hours of nude workout time at the gym (and or near nude work on the farm)…

greeks did think persians were pansies. when Alexandros started wearing persian stuff his army found it feminine. i guess even back then purple wasn't very manly in Greece ~;)

Does anyone know more about the physical construction of muscle cuirasses? I'm not so sure the interior of the cuirasse is actual shaped to the exterior. First off, Dux Corvanus' point is actually very valid. Most of the guys wearing these fancy pieces of armor would have been old, and wealthy. Another consideration about the physical labor theory is that constant hard work will indeed make someone muscular, but it is just as likely to make someone slender as well, not necessarily the "buff" kind of muscular. Muscle cuirasses also tended to emphasize very large chest muscles, which are usually caused by intentional exercise more than it is incidental to manual labor.

The fact that ancient Greeks and Romans idolized the human body is certainly an explanaition as to why the muscle cuirasse was desirable as a decoration, but it doesn't seem to me like proof that the muscles on the outside of pieces of armor were identical to the muscles underneath.

Quote:

---

First off, Dux Corvanus' point is actually very valid. Most of the guys wearing these fancy pieces of armor would have been old, and wealthy

---

No I really don’t think it’s a valid or given point, at least without evidence. Why old and wealthy. Was a linen cuirass with bronze or iron scales/plates any less expensive? The ideal of the hoplite presupposed the ability to equip oneself with a full kit, shield, cuirass greaves etc. As far as I can tell from the surviving stele and statues from the 4th century the guys wearing the bronze cuirass look to be in first class shape and in the prime of life.

For example

https://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?...zedude15fj.jpg

A statue would not be great proof, since it works idolized. But certainly I can imagine rich boys being given muscule armour - imagine Augustus and Agrippa off to the Parthian war. Can you imagine them being fat, lax and indolent? I think not.

I thought I'd point out that the curves & ridges in a muscled curiass would help stiffen what is otherwise a big possibly floppy bit of metal, much the same way that modern car bonnets have curves & ridges

A single piece breastplate wouldn't be "floppy", and breastplates were generally curved even when they didn't have muscle designs on them. I'm pretty sure that single piece breastplates were more expensive and difficult to make than scaled cuirasses. The very ornate muscle designs would have made a muscle cuirass that much more expensive.

Quote:

---

A single piece breastplate wouldn't be "floppy", and breastplates were generally curved even when they didn't have muscle designs on them.

---

Whether they would be floppy or not as a flat bit of metal is mostly a factor of the material & thickness used.
I don't happen to know what kind of thickness was typical but making armour as light as possible without sacrificing strength has always been an important part of arms.
The extra rigidity provided by ridging & complex curvature would provide either extra protection at the same weight or similar protection at a lower weight with the added bonus of looking pretty cool in the case of a muscled design.

Just something that I hadn't seen mentioned.

A single piece cuirass generally wouldn't be flat, it would have a slight curve. I'm not certain that the sculpted casting of the muscle cuirass would add rigidity. Generally the strongest way to cast anything metal is in a single solid piece. Once you start bending and sculpting you weaken the structure of the metal. Also, many muscle cuirasses only had the muscle designs on the outside, so they wouldn't be any lighter than a normal single-piece cuirass, while cuirass that were structurally shaped like the wearers' muscles would have a couple of disadvantages. The first is, as I already mentioned, that when you bend a piece of metal it can only get weaker (think of what happens when you twist a coat hanger too many times), the second is that if the armor is skin-tight to make it as light as possible, then any blow that does not penetrate can still cause serious bruising and concussion wounds. It seems to me that the big motivation for making muscle cuirasses was asthetic rather than military.

Would intimidation also be a factor? An enemy would be more reluctant to engage a warrior clad in armour reflecting an imposing physique than someone wearing shapeless equipment. Could be rather imposing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

greeks did think persians were pansies. when Alexandros started wearing persian stuff his army found it feminine. i guess even back then purple wasn't very manly in Greece ~;)

---

Yeah, but having a boy "apprentice" was fine. ~;)

As for muscled cuirasses, scale armor is far easier to mantain and make, which is why it and it's successor (lamelar armor) was favored by Easterners, particullarly nomads. It would be far more expensive and impressive for a Roman to use a muscled cuirass. And most Senators probably wouldn't be in the best of shape, either.

Another reason for eastern armies to prefer a composite chain or scale and cloth armor is that projectiles were often a big part of warfare. Because (change in velocity)/Time = Force, if you are wearing a more flexible armor (especially silk) arrows will strike with less impact. That's the same principle behind modern kevlar armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodidley

Another reason for eastern armies to prefer a composite chain or scale and cloth armor is that projectiles were often a big part of warfare. Because (change in velocity)/Time = Force, if you are wearing a more flexible armor (especially silk) arrows will strike with less impact. That's the same principle behind modern kevlar armor.

---

didn't silk cost slightly more than gold, per weight, in europe back in the day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodidley

Another reason for eastern armies to prefer a composite chain or scale and cloth armor is that projectiles were often a big part of warfare. Because (change in velocity)/Time = Force, if you are wearing a more flexible armor (especially silk) arrows will strike with less impact. That's the same principle behind modern kevlar armor.

---

that's correct. but there are more factors to it. if the armor is hard enough the arrow would still bounce off...that's teh difference bewteen an absorbing and a deflecting armor.

and i'll take it you mean compressed linnen in stead of silk....wich indeed was effective against projectiles. the are cases know were people walk out of a battlefield like a pincushion, 50 arrows stuck in their armor, yet they live..

Silk was used by the richest nomads, as well as the Mongols after they conquered China. I think it had to do with the fact that the silk wouldn't break, so it couldn't get ripped and infect the wound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

that's correct. but there are more factors to it. if the armor is hard enough the arrow would still bounce off...that's teh difference bewteen an absorbing and a deflecting armor.

and i'll take it you mean compressed linnen in stead of silk....wich indeed was effective against projectiles. the are cases know were people walk out of a battlefield like a pincushion, 50 arrows stuck in their armor, yet they live..

---

Even when the projectile doesn't penetrate the armor it can still cause a lot of damage though. In the Hundred Years War arrows from longbows and crossbows were known to kill knights with plate armor even though they were too far away to penetrate (no puns please~:eek: ). When a projectile dents armor with great force it can cause a nasty bruise. Under a hail of missles, one could get bruised to death or unhorsed despite having super strong armor. In a very similar way, a tank can get disabled by weapons almost incapable of penetrating its armor.

that's very generalising.
for an arrow to dent armor it shoudl fly pretty square onto it. if it impact at a greater angle it might as well glance off...

btw, killed by a bruise? inetresting to say the least...

Quote:

---

a tank can get disabled by weapons almost incapable of penetrating its armor.

---

ehm yes...almost incapable still means capable...so yes...

You're thinking of wimpy bruises. Take daisy cutters for expample. The bomb releases a cloud of aluminum dust and then ignites it. The explosion causes a powerful shockwave. You don't have to get hit by the blast or splintering projectiles to get killed, because the concussion from the shockwave will cause massive bruising. Often people killed by daisy cutters have no burns or external bleeding. A bruise is essentially internal bleeding, so yes, severe bruising will either cause you to A. bleed to death, or B. make your organs fail. O the wonderful world of warfare! Though the bodkin arrowhead was pointed, when fired in massed vollies into the air, the increased distance travelled made the arrows lose so much velocity that it wouldn't pierce plate armor at any kind of useful range. Even if it did penetrate the armor, it might only go a few millimeters before stopping. Yet, showers of arrows from longbows and crossbows killed many heavily armored knights by bruising them to death.

By essentially incapable I'm talking about a 5% chance of getting any penetration at all if it finds a weakspot (like the "armpit" or the ventillation). Denting in the armor can destroy sensitive equipment, even cause internal fires from friction, and of course, knocking out the tracks is a lot like felling a horseman's mount.

it's abotu muscle cuirasses..not tanks~;)

first your saying arrows can penetrate a single sheet of metal, and compressed cloth(silk, or linothorax) will absorb it better.

then your saying people in curiasses died of blunt trauma....i'm getting confused..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodidley

Even when the projectile doesn't penetrate the armor it can still cause a lot of damage though. In the Hundred Years War arrows from longbows and crossbows were known to kill knights with plate armor even though they were too far away to penetrate (no puns please~:eek: ). When a projectile dents armor with great force it can cause a nasty bruise. Under a hail of missles, one could get bruised to death or unhorsed despite having super strong armor. In a very similar way, a tank can get disabled by weapons almost incapable of penetrating its armor.

---

Longbows were succesful against mounted knights because the French didn't bard their horses. They don't have much more penetration power then regular bows, and not nearly as much as crossbows or composite bows I believe.

From what I know ancient Greeks didn't have much respect for archery because well, bows sucked in most of Europe. Not much a sucky bow can do against a mass of hoplons and bronze cuirasses.

I think I read of Alexander fighting the Scythians on one occasion (and defeating them of course ;))
So I'm curious...would a nomadic composite bow be able to punch through a bronze cuirass?

The reason the Greeks had such little regard for the bow was because their archers used a very weak type of grip on the string in order to pull (specifically, a thumb and forefinger pincer grip). This made pulling the bow more strenuous than it would have been with the supposed Scythian two-finger hook around the string, and meant that Greek archers never became very renowned. Also, the Greeks in general probably used the self bow, which was not nearly as powerful as the composite bow. he composite bow in general, when in the hands of a trained professional, would have had the power to penetrate a sheet of bronze like that which a muscle cuirass would be made out of.

Thanks for the reply. Could you perhaps enlighten me on how powerful archery will be compared to vanilla RTW? Archers were clearly overpowered, I've seen them decimate phalanx units head on. Seeing that hoplites and even phalangites carried fairly big shields along with cuirasses this totally baffled me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

I think I read of Alexander fighting the Scythians on one occasion (and defeating them of course ;))
So I'm curious...would a nomadic composite bow be able to punch through a bronze cuirass?

---

Alexander did defeat the some Scythians, though other Scythians also kicked some of his general's asses, as well as evantually taking the Selcecuid empire. ~;)

About armor penetrartion, later composite bows would be better. Unless the horseman was close (which could happen, they seldom sat very far away, rather running up close, trying to get them to chase them), it would be harder to go through a solid breastplate. But it could deffenitly kill a horse, maim a man, make a shield usless, and could penetrate a breastplate. The maim strength wasn't the power of one arrow, but the contiuning rain of horsmen dashing in front of you, and you not being able to do anything about it while your friends die and get arrows in their legs, arms, etc. And once the enemy tried to chase down the horse archers, the enemy was screwed.

Perplexed

Quote:

---

The reason the Greeks had such little regard for the bow was because their archers used a very weak type of grip on the string in order to pull (specifically, a thumb and forefinger pincer grip). This made pulling the bow more strenuous than it would have been with the supposed Scythian two-finger hook around the string, and meant that Greek archers never became very renowned. Also, the Greeks in general probably used the self bow, which was not nearly as powerful as the composite bow. he composite bow in general, when in the hands of a trained professional, would have had the power to penetrate a sheet of bronze like that which a muscle cuirass would be made out of.

---

The Greeks used composite bows. I have seen the same theory on a ‘weaker grip’ as well, but I don’t buy them. At Marathon and Plataea the Greeks were facing the Persians and other Asians who were using composite bows, with the supposedly superior draw, and who were presumable good and experienced archers (the force at Marathon was for example a picked force, not some off the cuff levy); yet the Greeks suffered negligible casualties. Second, the Athenian archers at Plataea were able to apparently match and out-dual the Persian’s who were pestering the Megarians. Finally even if Greek archery was weak, the Greeks did have access to slingers who apparently could out ranged archers (see Xenophon) and were more dangerous to armored foes yet still largely saw skirmishers as a secondary arm. Overall the Greeks de-emphasized archers for political reasons, not functional ones.

The Persian bows were not better than the Greek bows, both were primitive or less effective composite bows (even the Myceneans had composite bows). Effective range about 100 meters.

The difference lay in the use. The Greeks used archers as snipers. Each archer picking out a target and shooting at him, like hunting. Persians and most other easterners employed the area targeting.

The latter style forced the archers to keep close (so that the arrows would fall in a dense mass on a particular target), so close in fact that the Persian archers couldn't get away when the Greeks charged at Plataea, while the former was in general more open (so that each archer could pick his target without trouble). Thus if fairly equal units of the two styles would meet, the snipers would win due to their speedier rate of fire, better accuracy and bigger footprint. It would not be a good way to equate them though. We all know the dense volley fire was good against densely packed infantry, while individual targeting leaves a lot to be desired.

So why did the Persian archery not leave a massive impact? Well, it did actually. In the Ionian uprising the hoplites, both local and Athenians, suffered from Persian archery (though it was the Persian cavalry that truly won the day). It seems the Persians stayed outside the 'engagement threshold' of the hoplites, that meant the hoplites didn't really know how to respond. Eventually it was understood that speedy advacnes were better than absolute cohesion, as long as Persian cavalry wasn't around that is.

At Plataea the Greeks suffered a good deal until they finally charged in. Of particular note is that 'the most beautiful' Spartan died from arrows, complaining that he never got to grips with the enemy. In fact it was so bad that an allied contingent (of the Spartans, the Tegeans I believe) couldn't contain themselves anymore and charged out of order. Obviously they must have been seriously affected by archery.

So it is not that archery couldn't do anything, but it needed time, space and protection to work. When one or more of these lacked, it lost.

Oh, and the Greeks used the thumb-grip. While mentioned earlier it sounded confusing. The thumb-grip is to lock the string in the thumb's first joint and keep it there by using the indexfinger to keep the thumb bended. Painful and not as easy to use, though hardly that much worse than the twofinger-grip.

Btw, 'Greek archers never became very renowned'? What do you think of the famous Cretan Archers? They used both the same bows and grip as the normal Greek archers.

Kraxis

What is you basis for an effective range of only 100 meters.

During the siege of the Acropolis Persian archers were able to shoot regular war arrows converted to fire arrows (that is that were both heavier and had more drag) some 155 meters and the arrows still retained sufficient force to stick in the defenders wooden walls. It also worth noting the Persians were firing up, as the acropolis is some 30 meters higher than the Persian position. On a level battle field it seems to me arcing fire, with arrows unencumbered with hemp, could hardly be expected to have an effective range of less than 155m.

How do you mean primitive, who had an advanced composite recurved bow vs. the one used by the Greeks, Persians or Scythians? In the right situation Greek and Persian archers proved themselves to be quite capable. Everyone likes to note Demosthenes was eventual defeat by Aetolian peltasts in the Peloponnesian war, but what is often ignored is that is tiny force of 30 or so archers was able to hold the Aetolians effectively (event though they vastly outnumbered the Athenians) until their arrows were exhausted.

Quote:

---

At Plataea the Greeks suffered a good deal until they finally charged in. Of particular note is that 'the most beautiful' Spartan died from arrows, complaining that he never got to grips with the enemy. In fact it was so bad that an allied contingent (of the Spartans, the Tegeans I believe) couldn't contain themselves anymore and charged out of order. Obviously they must have been seriously affected by archery.

---

A noted casualty hardly amounts to withering archery. Yes the Tegans did in fact get aggravated and impatient with Spartan dithering, but after suffering the Persian arrow barrage while waiting for Pausanias to do something, anything and spearheading the charge into the enemy; the Tegans incurred only 16 dead out of 1500. That would be around one tenth of one percent, hardly a ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of archery vs. Greek armor. Even if you assume they suffered no close combat deaths (either in the first advance or at the camp), it's hardly a good show for the Persian bowmen

I admit ignorance and defeat. ~:rolleyes: Thanks for that clarification, Kraxis.

Hey PC, any more interest in doing EB units, since you've reappeared. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Hey PC, any more interest in doing EB units, since you've reappeared. ~:cheers:

---

Well, as I have shirked my responsibilities by being away for a long, long time, I guess I should have to pay some sort of pennance. Let me just gather my wits.

If you make something we'll call it even ~;).

Quote:

---

How do you mean primitive, who had an advanced composite recurved bow vs. the one used by the Greeks, Persians or Scythians?

---

Well, Persian bows and certaintly Greek bows were inferior to Scythian bows, and of course the later larger composite bows. But the main thing was that Scythians and to a lesser extent Persians specialized in archery. A hoplite did not need to know how to fire a bow to fight. A Scythian did.
The Greek archers did not have the same need and familiarity with the bow that a nomad had. I'm not saying the Cretans were bad archers, but not only were they totally different styles of archers from Scythians, but the bow was never the main weapon and tool for survival in any Greek culture, as far as I know.
And the issue of maximum range was less important for a horse archer at least, because you can get right up close to your enemy, fire, then move to safe distance instead of having to shoot from very far away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greek_fire19

This is a question about the muscle shaped chest armour a lot of the greeks wear.

Up until I saw EB I had more or less assumed that this was just one of those 'hollywood' things that were attributed to ancient warriors to make them seem more muscular, tougher and more noble etcetc.

My question therefore is what was the point? I'm unaware whether at that time they were able to 'cast' metal in moulds, or whether everything had to be hammered into shape in a blacksmiths, but either way it seems like a lot of work for no real added protection. My only hypothesis is that it was a psycological thing designed to intimidate the enemy, but it seems like a lot of extra work for very little benefit.

Enlighten me please

---

not sure about bronze, but with iron the combination of compound curves and the process of work hardening (which happens naturally when forming compound curves- something to do with smacking carbon into the iron) makes for tougher armour for the same thickness of metal.

Bz