Small question: What armour is this?

[MeinPanzer]

Considering this is your opening for this discussion, you might see why people have a problem with your attitude:

The problem is that you don't articulate your words to fit a scientific debate taking place in this arena, meaning in a place where people can't see your expressions. In most of your posts it seems as if you don't even consider about being wrong or changing your own perspective, you only focus on proving others wrong.

You do seem to know a lot about the subjects you comment on and I believe you do. But remember that in an internet forum no-one knows if you're some kid who knows how to google, or a university professor. English is a language in which every word can be insulting, it's just a matter of the delivery. The EB team is very easily insulted, because the pressure and past experiences has put them on the defensive. Still, I'd like to see everyone keep their cool.

I understand what you mean. The reason I automatically took a negative stance in this debate is because it was being held up as being historically accurate without actually citing any evidence (not by the EB team, but by other posters). As I have told paullus, I do consider my own position, and I have changed my opinion on many subjects in the past based on careful consideration (case in point: The extensive RAT forum discussion on linen vs. leather armour in the Greek world). However, this is one issue, along with a handful of others, which without any further evidence to consider (and it seems there may be, but it needs to be found first) is fairly clear. It's also ironic that I am told that I am not budging on an issue or considering the evidence when that's exactly the case with the EB team, who seem to defend their decisions no matter what.

[abou]

It is not just that, Thaatu. I've found many of MP's arguments to be poor to say the least. Seriously, just look at this thread about Seleukid Hetairoi lacking shields. Not only is it like arguing with a wall, but his evidence is completely worthless.

He shows us coins from a region in Anatolia from the 2nd C. BC - a century without any Seleukid control after 190 BC. Then he shows us a cup from Syria with a Hellenistic cavalryman lacking a helmet, which is not very hetairos in character at all. Then, after all that he tries arguing in favor of using Livy as a source when all Livy is good at is telling you that something happened, but worthless for details - something which seems to be a universal judgment in academic circles. And then finally, to top it all off, he ignores the problem of carrying the two-handed xyston and a shield at the same time.

Of course, he never managed to put forth any worthwhile argument insisting that the cavalrymen in the depictions he posted were Hetairoi, let alone Hetairoi of the Seleukids. We agreed that cavalry with shields and a lance most certainly existed and we will have them in the next public release - the Loncophoroi. But then, that couldn't possibly be true. In fact, it must be baseless conjecture!

[Sarcasm]

I understand what you mean. The reason I automatically took a negative stance in this debate is because it was being held up as being historically accurate without actually citing any evidence (not by the EB team, but by other posters). As I have told paullus, I do consider my own position, and I have changed my opinion on many subjects in the past based on careful consideration (case in point: The extensive RAT forum discussion on linen vs. leather armour in the Greek world). However, this is one issue, along with a handful of others, which without any further evidence to consider (and it seems there may be, but it needs to be found first) is fairly clear. It's also ironic that I am told that I am not budging on an issue or considering the evidence when that's exactly the case with the EB team, who seem to defend their decisions no matter what.

That's why we didn't change either the Iberian or German roster, because we never budge in our decisions.

[paullus]

MP, what sort of armor do we have from Krete, from the 3rd century? Just wondering...I'm not sure I can think of any examples from the 3rd century at all, but that would be perplexing considering the amount of warfare on that island.

Now, evidence for some form of quilting (stitched layers of fabric, as opposed to stuffing between layers, seems to be more likely based on actual finds, but there may have been several ways to do it) comes to us from several Hellenistic sources:

1) Egyptian terracottas - apparently there is a machimos infantryman with what appears to be quilted armor, but I haven't seen it myself, so I'm not giving it incredible weight, save for that we know quilted armor has a VERY long tradition in Egypt, so it wouldn't surprise me.
- you and I both know of the cavalryman with diamond shaped armor. You keep insisting its mail (and then saying there's no proof from the Hellenistic med) when its far, far more likely to be either quilting or scale, simply based on the pattern. your unwillingness to budge on an issue like that, and your willingness to utterly ignore it is the thing that causes me the most annoyance, to be honest, even though most would consider it a small thing.

2) Rhodian find, Seleukid find - both Hellenistic, both very likely representations of quilted armor. Have I seen either yet? No. I'm hoping they'll be in Snodgrass' later edition, which I've ordered and should have soon. But frankly, I trust the testimony of a respected scholar like Snodgrass, and those two finds pretty much end the doubt for me, though I'm still eager to see the book itself and check its sources.

Now, neither of these three sources are definitive. Sure. I grant that. The terracotta could be scale armor, the finds from Rhodos and Judaea may actually be some other form of linen use, even if it strongly resembles quilting. Those are possibilities. But is it at least as possible, if not more so, that they are, for the Hellenistic period, precisely the things from the Classical period which they resemble.

[MeinPanzer]

MP, what sort of armor do we have from Krete, from the 3rd century? Just wondering...I'm not sure I can think of any examples from the 3rd century at all, but that would be perplexing considering the amount of warfare on that island.

I know of at least the stele from the eastern part, can't remember the name of the city, which Sekunda illustrates in his Hellenistic Infantry Reforms book, and which dates to the late 3rd/early 2nd C. BC and shows a soldier wearing a T&Y cuirass.

Now, evidence for some form of quilting (stitched layers of fabric, as opposed to stuffing between layers, seems to be more likely based on actual finds, but there may have been several ways to do it) comes to us from several Hellenistic sources:

1) Egyptian terracottas - apparently there is a machimos infantryman with what appears to be quilted armor, but I haven't seen it myself, so I'm not giving it incredible weight, save for that we know quilted armor has a VERY long tradition in Egypt, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Is this figure wearing the same kind of armour as the cavalryman? Could you provide a citation for it, please?

- you and I both know of the cavalryman with diamond shaped armor. You keep insisting its mail (and then saying there's no proof from the Hellenistic med) when its far, far more likely to be either quilting or scale, simply based on the pattern. your unwillingness to budge on an issue like that, and your willingness to utterly ignore it is the thing that causes me the most annoyance, to be honest, even though most would consider it a small thing.

This:



Is not diamond shaped at all. It's just a cuirass with dimples in it, which could represent some kind of padded cuirass, or mail, but definitely not a diamondwork quilted cuirass.

2) Rhodian find, Seleukid find - both Hellenistic, both very likely representations of quilted armor. Have I seen either yet? No. I'm hoping they'll be in Snodgrass' later edition, which I've ordered and should have soon. But frankly, I trust the testimony of a respected scholar like Snodgrass, and those two finds pretty much end the doubt for me, though I'm still eager to see the book itself and check its sources.

If these do end up being, in fact, examples of quilted textile armour, and not just scraps of multi-layered linen, then I'd change my stance. However, so far, at least with the Rhodian find, everything seems to point to it just being scraps of linen, which in itself is very interesting, but if it wasn't quilted, it proves nothing in this debate.

Now, neither of these three sources are definitive. Sure. I grant that. The terracotta could be scale armor, the finds from Rhodos and Judaea may actually be some other form of linen use, even if it strongly resembles quilting. Those are possibilities. But is it at least as possible, if not more so, that they are, for the Hellenistic period, precisely the things from the Classical period which they resemble.

Please, can you tell me how those two textile finds strongly resemble quilting? What have you heard about them? All I've heard so far about the Rhodian example is that it was many layers of linen found in a warrior burial.

[blacksnail]

It's also ironic that I am told that I am not budging on an issue or considering the evidence when that's exactly the case with the EB team, who seem to defend their decisions no matter what.

No. As I mentioned four months ago, you seem to be unable to communicate here without coming across as aggressive, bull-headed, and arguing in bad faith. When you did not get an immediate or near-immediate response you had a tendency to claim victory on an undefended point. You selectively ignored responses to suit your arguments and then accused people of arguing in bad faith if their answers did not suit your expectations.

Because you have a history of poor communication here, you have a reputation of causing problems. Before you were a poster with a lot of time on your hands. Now you are posting in the EB forums as a member of the RTR team, a mod which has a somewhat complicated history with EB. There is some suspicion that you may be attempting to start something on the EB forums to draw both teams into a completely lame Internet turf war, as others with personal or academic grudges have attempted in the past. I myself don't think this is the case - I think you just like to be proven right in one of your areas of interest - but your posting history and your online personality isn't helping anything here.

This is the root of the problem. Unless your interaction changes in some way (which so far it has not between February and now), I highly doubt the EB team's interaction will change.

[Geoffrey S]

These debates do make me look forward to EB2, where individual troops within units can represent the most likely option with a healthy mix of less common types thrown in the mix. As is, representing all troops in EB with the most common type of armour would also distory reality in completely neglicting minority alternatives; using less common armour types for regional/factional variations is a necessary abstraction at the moment, in my opinion, as long as they don't dominate. That they don't has already been pointed out.

[keravnos]

Buddhist relief from Swat, Gandhara

On the bottom scene, the hunting scene a Saka is depicted about to deliver the killing blow to his prey. He wears a quilted DIAMOND SHAPED cuirass, much like those depicted in Teleklos' post.

If you want a bigger version of the above, so that you can see in detail what we talk about here it is,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...oScythians.jpg

What I see there is the same old quilted armor of yore that shouldn't exist in our period. Why is it an armor? Well, considering the first pic (the saka dancing with sleeves pulled up), the one below deffinitely has some armor on top of that. This would be the quilted cuirass with pteryges below, again much like what Teleklos showed in his post pic.

The timeline of IndoScythian kings (or Saka) is the following, in Gandhara (and all of Northern India) where this frieze was found,

Maues (90 - 60 BC)
Vonones (75 - 65 BC)
Spalahores (75 - 65 BC)
Spalirises (60 - 57 BC)
Spalagadames
Azes I (57 - 35 BC)
Azilises (57 - 35 BC)
Azes II (35 - 12 BC)
Zeionises (10 BC - 10 AD)
Kharahostes (10 BC - 10 AD)
Hajatria
Liaka Kusuluka
Kusulaka Patika

Thus it stands to reason that quilted cuirass was worn way after 3rd century BCE as was claimed.

If you want to watch another discussion about quilted cuirass, (this one in much earlier bronze age) go to the following link. As Urnamma said, Both Egyptians and Mycenaeans used quilted cloth cuirass
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Ag...?showtopic=773

[paullus]

Isn't the Kretan stele you're referring to very likely Roman era? I don't have the book at hand to check the details, but I remember that being my impression, though I think Sekunda wanted to argue for the soldier as being a Romanized infantryman.

And I believe I stated that, as regards my other points, I haven't seen most of the evidence myself, but hope to find proper documentation for it in Snodgrass, from whom we received the testimony that several of these finds to represent quilted armor. That's fine if you're unsatisfied until you see it, I'm not entirely satisfied myself, but it surely doesn't reflect too well on you when you say things are entirely without basis, wholly concocted, etc--your tone in those sort of statements doesn't strike me as that of an academic, which I believe the RTR "meet the team" bit gave the impression you were.

[Watchman]

And something that's both light, cheap, convenient, easy to make and works, tends not fall out of use without very good reasons.

[Sarcasm]

Indeed, it was still used side-by-side with brigandine style armour well into the 15th century...

[MeinPanzer]

Buddhist relief from Swat, Gandhara

On the bottom scene, the hunting scene a Saka is depicted about to deliver the killing blow to his prey. He wears a quilted DIAMOND SHAPED cuirass, much like those depicted in Teleklos' post.

If you want a bigger version of the above, so that you can see in detail what we talk about here it is,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...oScythians.jpg

What I see there is the same old quilted armor of yore that shouldn't exist in our period. Why is it an armor? Well, considering the first pic (the saka dancing with sleeves pulled up), the one below deffinitely has some armor on top of that. This would be the quilted cuirass with pteryges below, again much like what Teleklos showed in his post pic.

The timeline of IndoScythian kings (or Saka) is the following, in Gandhara (and all of Northern India) where this frieze was found,

Thus it stands to reason that quilted cuirass was worn way after 3rd century BCE as was claimed.

If you want to watch another discussion about quilted cuirass, (this one in much earlier bronze age) go to the following link. As Urnamma said, Both Egyptians and Mycenaeans used quilted cloth cuirass
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Ag...?showtopic=773

When does this date to? There are other even clearer examples of diamondwork quilted cuirasses being worn by Indo-Greeks/Kushans from the 1st C. AD, so it doesnt surprise me to see a depiction of such armour from the late 1st C. BC/1st C. AD. However, that is at the end of the EB timeline, around the same time as the lorica segmentata came into use, and is thus not relevant to EB.

Isn't the Kretan stele you're referring to very likely Roman era? I don't have the book at hand to check the details, but I remember that being my impression, though I think Sekunda wanted to argue for the soldier as being a Romanized infantryman.

The soldier wears a Thracian helmet, so it's definitely not Roman.

And I believe I stated that, as regards my other points, I haven't seen most of the evidence myself, but hope to find proper documentation for it in Snodgrass, from whom we received the testimony that several of these finds to represent quilted armor. That's fine if you're unsatisfied until you see it, I'm not entirely satisfied myself, but it surely doesn't reflect too well on you when you say things are entirely without basis, wholly concocted, etc--your tone in those sort of statements doesn't strike me as that of an academic, which I believe the RTR "meet the team" bit gave the impression you were.

Perhaps not, but the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support it.

[Pharnakes]

So let me get this right, your saying that quilted linen was used pre Eb times and post eb times, but you refuse to admit it was used during eb times?

[keravnos]

So let me get this right, your saying that quilted linen was used pre Eb times and post eb times, but you refuse to admit it was used during eb times?

[MeinPanzer]

So let me get this right, your saying that quilted linen was used pre Eb times and post eb times, but you refuse to admit it was used during eb times?

That is absolutely no proof of anything because types of weaponry and armour can, and did, fall in and out of style and use. Take, for instance, the disappearance of the use of shields by cavalry in the Greek world from the 5th C. BC or so until the 3rd C. BC.

[Watchman]

I don't really see where the somewhat peculiar considerations of cavalry war-gear can be regarded as directly comparable to the use of cheap-and-cheerful quilted/padded "soft" body armour by light troops (well, heavy in the case of the levy pikes...).

[MeinPanzer]

I don't really see where the somewhat peculiar considerations of cavalry war-gear can be regarded as directly comparable to the use of cheap-and-cheerful quilted/padded "soft" body armour by light troops (well, heavy in the case of the levy pikes...).

Because it shows that at certain times and in certain areas, certain kinds of defensive equipment can drop out of favour or use. It appears that Hellenistic light troops would have had light, cheap, and "soft" body armour available in the form of the linothorax and/or the spolas.

[Sarcasm]

Was the linothorax even cheap or soft armor?

[Pharnakes]

Yeah, my understanding has always been that linothorax was relitevly hard, due to being treated with that gluey mixture the ancients use to bind it all together, and it surely be considerably more expensive than a plain, quilted linnen tube and yoke?

That extra cost could well be prohibitive to men such as the Kretikoi Toxotai, who were often little more than brigands IIRC.

[MeinPanzer]

Was the linothorax even cheap or soft armor?

The simple answer is that we don't know on either count, and no comparison can really be made between the cheapness and effectiveness of, say, a T&Y linothorax versus a quilted T&Y, for instance. However, it was (obviously) cheaper and more flexible than metal armour.

[MeinPanzer]

Yeah, my understanding has always been that linothorax was relitevly hard, due to being treated with that gluey mixture the ancients use to bind it all together, and it surely be considerably more expensive than a plain, quilted linnen tube and yoke?

That extra cost could well be prohibitive to men such as the Kretikoi Toxotai, who were often little more than brigands IIRC.

We don't even know if the linothorax was glued or stitched together. If it was stitched, and only made of two or three layers of linen, it could be incredibly flexible and probably cheap as well while still providing ample defense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ample is a relative term, I would submit that any armour which replaced bronze plate would need to provide a very significant level of protection.

As regards the issue of armour in the achaeological record it is important to remember the historical mirage. An excellant example of which is the relatively high incidence of iron Imperial Gallic helms which have been found vs those of bronze.

The difference is that bronze helms are more often lost while iron helms are often found on rubbish tips. Further the bronze helms are often less decorated and have fewer of the non-functional rivits found on cheek-pieces which may indicate rank/seniority.

By contrast many iron helms show evidence of being stripped of bronze fittings as well as their coating of tin/silver.

All this suggests that bronze helms may actually have been more common than iron helms even though the latter make up the majoriety of finds by a considerable margin.

[Foot]

The simple answer is that we don't know on either count, and no comparison can really be made between the cheapness and effectiveness of, say, a T&Y linothorax versus a quilted T&Y, for instance. However, it was (obviously) cheaper and more flexible than metal armour.

My God, sir! Admit that you and the EB team have a serious disagreement at a very fundamental level. The team that I work with are no conjurers and they do not tend to conjecture unless they are reliably certain of their basic facts. That you do not hold the same opinion does not make us unhistorical, unless you can raise suitable criticisms of our technique. Your exacting standards would ruin most historians working in this period and would reduce the writings on this era to a few pages of solid facts - you are Hume in a library with a torch, burning our history and our thought.

We feel reliable with introducing a quilted/padded armour on a small minority of our units in the east, as we see a continuation between pre- and post-period padded armour both in textual form and in archaelogical evidence. We have given evidence to this effect. You judge our interpretation unhistorical, yet, given your certainty, you offer no evidence, except your certainty, that our process is wrong. You are, in my opinion, a blight on honest discussion and on the historical process, and I would suggest that your time would be better spent on projects that you have some say over rather than continuing your belligerent campaign against us.

That is not to say that your discussions and posts have not been informative, but there comes a point where your criticisms, as here, no longer are directed against the evidence but are drawn against the very basis of our project, and the very historians who support. You may call it unhistoric, but I shall tell you that all the historians on the EB team I hold in the deepest respect for their knowledge and for their integrity.

Lastly, your understanding, it seems to me, of Nietzsche is primitive at best. You do realise that Nietzsche never claimed to be a portrayer of truth, he asked for a critical ontology, the question was not "what is true?", but rather "what will help us to live?" Furthermore, you took my comparison between the Christian and Nietzsche far further than it was designed to go, distorting my original intent without, ironically, meeting my particular criticism of you. Ironic because my example was an example of someone answering another by not responding to their criticism but rather bypassing it and in doing so attempting to give the impression of refutation without actually refuting the opposing argument. I refered of course to the work of F. Copleston, Friedrich Nietzsche: Philosopher of Culture, which is quite the most intellectually dishonest book I have ever read, if anyone cares to inquire into its contents.

Foot

[The Persian Cataphract]

That is absolutely no proof of anything because types of weaponry and armour can, and did, fall in and out of style and use. Take, for instance, the disappearance of the use of shields by cavalry in the Greek world from the 5th C. BC or so until the 3rd C. BC.

It may not be absolute proof, however we can not dismiss Iranian influences on particularly Eastern Hellenic gear. Quilted armour, as can be seen clearly on the mosaic of Pompeii (More famous as the Alexander Mosaic) on the Achaemenid troops. Consensus puts the dating estimations to 200 BCE. That's more than a century past the battle of Issus. This form of armour can be seen from some early alabastra and vases meant to depict scenes from the Persian Wars, usually takabara or sparabara. This was not merely a trend jump; We see that silk was used as a form of defense against archery on Hatrene (Parthian) heavy cavalry, and reconstructions logically conclude that the covers on helmets and the jackets may actually have been quilted. Now we speak of terms of between 1st and 2nd century AD. The Hatrene were clearly influenced by Parthian fashions, so what can we derive from all this?

Well, again we can discuss decline and surges in the matter of trends. It's foolish to presume that quilting, a given knowledge was entirely lost, and it is foolish to assume that the knowledge on how efficient it was against archery disappeared due to Hellenic incursions in Iran proper. Decline does not necessarily indicate complete loss; Quilted armour was never a lost art. Now past a century of the battle of Issus, we see a nearly flawless replica of a quilted cuirass on an Achaemenid charioteer on the mosaic of Pompeii. A few centuries prior, quilted cuirasses were almost a norm among Persian archer regiments, and a few centuries after the date given to the mosaic, we see that Parthians seemed to pass their influences to the western frontiers, with a strong prevalence in silk industry.

What does all of this say to us? Common sense tells us one thing; To assume that things were lost, is foolish. I'm not saying that anyone has claimed this, but without the need to resort to esoterica, I think the whole issue may be dismissed. In societies where each man brought his own equipment, it rather bolsters this viewpoint. I'm not speaking of Hellenic cultures, I speak merely in general. We can at the very least, and we're not that low by a long shot, never rule it out.

[MeinPanzer]

Ample is a relative term, I would submit that any armour which replaced bronze plate would need to provide a very significant level of protection.

Around this time period, body armour's main purpose was often mainly to deflect missiles. Modern tests of textile armours of various sorts have shown that they did quite well in that regard in comparison to their metal counterparts while being proportionally cheaper and more flexible. The real disadvantage would be in close combat, in which such textile armour provided significantly less benefit.

As regards the issue of armour in the achaeological record it is important to remember the historical mirage. An excellant example of which is the relatively high incidence of iron Imperial Gallic helms which have been found vs those of bronze.

The difference is that bronze helms are more often lost while iron helms are often found on rubbish tips. Further the bronze helms are often less decorated and have fewer of the non-functional rivits found on cheek-pieces which may indicate rank/seniority.

By contrast many iron helms show evidence of being stripped of bronze fittings as well as their coating of tin/silver.

All this suggests that bronze helms may actually have been more common than iron helms even though the latter make up the majoriety of finds by a considerable margin.

Would that we had so much evidence to work with in an issue such as the one at hand.

My God, sir! Admit that you and the EB team have a serious disagreement at a very fundamental level. The team that I work with are no conjurers and they do not tend to conjecture unless they are reliably certain of their basic facts. That you do not hold the same opinion does not make us unhistorical, unless you can raise suitable criticisms of our technique. Your exacting standards would ruin most historians working in this period and would reduce the writings on this era to a few pages of solid facts - you are Hume in a library with a torch, burning our history and our thought.

I admit it- we obviously have unreconcilable differences in our methodology. However, I don't think my standards are too stringent at all, and I think in cases like this conservatism is the best route; evidently the EB team does not agree.

We feel reliable with introducing a quilted/padded armour on a small minority of our units in the east, as we see a continuation between pre- and post-period padded armour both in textual form and in archaelogical evidence. We have given evidence to this effect. You judge our interpretation unhistorical, yet, given your certainty, you offer no evidence, except your certainty, that our process is wrong. You are, in my opinion, a blight on honest discussion and on the historical process, and I would suggest that your time would be better spent on projects that you have some say over rather than continuing your belligerent campaign against us.

It is clear, as you say, that the difference is fundamental. I guess it's fruitless to continue this, so I'll take your advice.

That is not to say that your discussions and posts have not been informative, but there comes a point where your criticisms, as here, no longer are directed against the evidence but are drawn against the very basis of our project, and the very historians who support. You may call it unhistoric, but I shall tell you that all the historians on the EB team I hold in the deepest respect for their knowledge and for their integrity.

Lastly, your understanding, it seems to me, of Nietzsche is primitive at best. You do realise that Nietzsche never claimed to be a portrayer of truth, he asked for a critical ontology, the question was not "what is true?", but rather "what will help us to live?" Furthermore, you took my comparison between the Christian and Nietzsche far further than it was designed to go, distorting my original intent without, ironically, meeting my particular criticism of you. Ironic because my example was an example of someone answering another by not responding to their criticism but rather bypassing it and in doing so attempting to give the impression of refutation without actually refuting the opposing argument. I refered of course to the work of F. Copleston, Friedrich Nietzsche: Philosopher of Culture, which is quite the most intellectually dishonest book I have ever read, if anyone cares to inquire into its contents.

No, I am not a scholar of Nietzsche in the least. I've only read one of his works, so I can't claim any knowledge in that department. However, I am only "bypassing" your criticism insofar as I feel that the problem lies with the basic decision of how far to set the boundaries of acceptable reconstruction and not necessarily the argument at hand- in this case it is merely an example. But, again, this is an impasse in this debate.

It may not be absolute proof, however we can not dismiss Iranian influences on particularly Eastern Hellenic gear. Quilted armour, as can be seen clearly on the mosaic of Pompeii (More famous as the Alexander Mosaic) on the Achaemenid troops. Consensus puts the dating estimations to 200 BCE. That's more than a century past the battle of Issus.

The mosaic itself dates to 200 BC, but the image, and all of its corresponding details, is thought (by consensus) to be copied from an original 4th century BC painting, which would account for many of the details seen in the image which disappeared after the latter half of that century (such as the long-sleeved "Persian" cavalry tunic and a more archaic form of helmet worn by one soldier).

This form of armour can be seen from some early alabastra and vases meant to depict scenes from the Persian Wars, usually takabara or sparabara. This was not merely a trend jump; We see that silk was used as a form of defense against archery on Hatrene (Parthian) heavy cavalry, and reconstructions logically conclude that the covers on helmets and the jackets may actually have been quilted. Now we speak of terms of between 1st and 2nd century AD. The Hatrene were clearly influenced by Parthian fashions, so what can we derive from all this?

What is the citation for the use of silk by the Hatrenes?

Well, again we can discuss decline and surges in the matter of trends. It's foolish to presume that quilting, a given knowledge was entirely lost, and it is foolish to assume that the knowledge on how efficient it was against archery disappeared due to Hellenic incursions in Iran proper. Decline does not necessarily indicate complete loss; Quilted armour was never a lost art.

No, but perhaps the linothorax was more effective against archery or perhaps cheaper, which would account for its prevalence and the disappearance of quilting. If a non-quilted, two-ply linothorax is as effective as a quilted two-ply linothorax, and also required less work to make (sewing only the seams and not the entire pattern), the former would obviously be taken over the latter.

Now past a century of the battle of Issus, we see a nearly flawless replica of a quilted cuirass on an Achaemenid charioteer on the mosaic of Pompeii. A few centuries prior, quilted cuirasses were almost a norm among Persian archer regiments, and a few centuries after the date given to the mosaic, we see that Parthians seemed to pass their influences to the western frontiers, with a strong prevalence in silk industry.

Once again, the details of the Issus mosaic itself date to the late 4th century, along with the other latest examples of quilted armour (mostly from the Etruscans). And one can easily argue as you have here about many topics. Depictions of Macedonian cavalrymen from the 5th century BC show them carrying aspides; a few centuries later we see Macedonian heavy cavalrymen commonly carrying shields on 3rd century stelai. We don't see depictions of cavalry carrying shields in between, or have literary mentions of such a practice. Are we to assume that they did? Obviously, the use of such shields was not forgotten in these armies. One can fill in such gaps as one pleases.

What does all of this say to us? Common sense tells us one thing; To assume that things were lost, is foolish. I'm not saying that anyone has claimed this, but without the need to resort to esoterica, I think the whole issue may be dismissed. In societies where each man brought his own equipment, it rather bolsters this viewpoint. I'm not speaking of Hellenic cultures, I speak merely in general. We can at the very least, and we're not that low by a long shot, never rule it out.

I'd never rule out anything that is within reason when it comes to issues like this, and I'd absolutely love to see evidence to prove me wrong, but the fact of the matter is that what little evidence we have is either highly ambiguous or anachronistic.

[Thaatu]

This debate can't be solved by an archeologist or a historian. What this needs is a philosopher.

[Lowenklee]

Personally I am somewhat confused by the hostile turn within this thread,
the EB team is under no obligation to change any aspect of the modification to suite MeinPanzer's views.

Although I understand the desire to personalize such conversations when an emotional investment has been made in it's outcome, the conversation has thus far struck me as being relatively civil and so benefits us "lurkers" if it is allowed to reach it's natural conclusion undistracted by indignation.

Granted, there have been strong assertions made which might be taken as insulting...but a thicker skin is always the best recourse when the conversation topic proves such an academically contentious one. It has certainly been a more informative thread than combative or?

I apologize if my above observations seem presumptuous, please disregard them if so.

If I may ask a quick question, the photo of the vase painting depicting the two greek warriors...is there a publication someone might recommend where I may find similar high quality photos of greek pottery covering the mycenaean period through the 3rd century b.c.e.?

[dofod]

Prologue: if you are those whom are too lazy to read, you only need to read the bolded words. Or not. Suit yourselves.

Hi...um, I usually lurk in the corner of this virtual hall yet today I was stirred to voiced out my opinions.

I myself am no historian, not by academic standard anyway. And as to EB I merely am one of the (many?) thousands of players whom were swept away by the depth of research and volunteered effort, you know, merely a game, yet something the team has transformed into a magnum opus that held great wealth of knowledge (and plenty of respect, I might add)

Of course this is perhaps also the reason why some of us are empassioned about the fine details of such projects; and in many times argue heatedly too.

Yet, it should be clear why ad hominem is a logical fallacy. An argument is an attempt to elicit our consent to the truth of a proposition by appealing to other propositions we accept--not by appealing to force, flattery, or personality. If you disagree with a claim, logic demands that you inspect the reasons put forward to support it.

Ad hominem is obviously fallacious. Why do people continue to commit it and be persuaded by it? Maybe because there's something satisfying, emotionally, about putting down someone you disagree with. It's irritating to admit that someone you dislike has made a valid point. Also when you identify with a view, an attack on it seems like an attack on you, so it's natural to counter with a personal challenge of your own.

While some more learned (or better-read) members of EB might try to point out some of our very own points of arguments are filled with fallacies. Yet I might add by trying to identify these fallacies and defend your charges you should be led to a deeper understanding of the argumentative interaction in adversary contexts. If you treat the charge of fallacy as in incantation with which to strike down the person you criticize and end debate, you reveal yourself as a name-caller who is hostile to the rationality of argumentation.

I really would like to say that, in all arguments, it requires some detachment from your beliefs--the Socratic ideal of pursuing the truth, wherever the path to it may lead.

Postscript:Do you understand now, Mr. MP why am I stirred to type these jibberish for, what reason? I am simply dumbfounded by your dogged attitude of ego-centrism, good sir. Thus I have now jumped my own gun to give you a friendly (perhaps not too friendly) prod at your side.

[The Persian Cataphract]

The mosaic itself dates to 200 BC, but the image, and all of its corresponding details, is thought (by consensus) to be copied from an original 4th century BC painting, which would account for many of the details seen in the image which disappeared after the latter half of that century (such as the long-sleeved "Persian" cavalry tunic and a more archaic form of helmet worn by one soldier).

Well my good sir, you beat me there. To be honest, I actually forgot that it was a copy of a painting... But it would have made a hell of an argument, non

What is the citation for the use of silk by the Hatrenes?

Our "citation" is not found in written sources, but archaeologically from what has been found in Hatra; King Uthal himself has been subject to reconstructions. In fact, King Uthal is the template behind the Hatrene clibanarius of David Nicolle's "The desert frontier" on the series of Roman enemies, as is the second resconstruction published on Montvert's "Sassanian armies". His helmet, of Parthian bashlyk design, is clearly covered with a cloth-piece, quoted by authorities as a very Persian practice, and underneath his coat, we find quilted cloth.

It is henceforth very natural to propose that silk could have been used to such purposes as well; It is known that silk is tough. Being a royalty, I doubt that King Uthal would have chosen any "lesser" textile. Again, the discussion is not about whether the Hatrene cavalry used silk, but to build a continuum on declining equipment. That Hatra actually does have quite a few statues featuring felt caps of Parthian model or helmets featuring quilted covers, as well as tunics of the same model, of clearly Iranian fashions is almost common knowledge. Parthian heavy cavalry has always and foremostly been equipped to withstand horse-archery. When cataphracts got heavier, they deviated from this purpose to attain a shock role. Implications are many, after all there is still a mention of Cardaces between Persis and Carmania in Strabo's geography,and these implications my friend, are vital in our discussion on trends. It is true that trends come and go, but we are clearly not speaking of decay.

Depictions of Macedonian cavalrymen from the 5th century BC show them carrying aspides; a few centuries later we see Macedonian heavy cavalrymen commonly carrying shields on 3rd century stelai. We don't see depictions of cavalry carrying shields in between, or have literary mentions of such a practice. Are we to assume that they did? Obviously, the use of such shields was not forgotten in these armies. One can fill in such gaps as one pleases.

Why should the continuum ever be disregarded? Especially in feudal societies where each man provided his own equipment, we'd still emphasize gradual change, not abrupt halts and sudden surges of different equipment. The Kyrbasia existed from Imperial Medean times and remained popular even among the local rulers of the Bâzrangid sub-kingdom of Persis as evident in mints. If we then see Parthian dress in Hatra dated between 1st and 2nd century CE, then why exclude quilted technology completely?

King Uthal sends his regards:

[MeinPanzer]

Our "citation" is not found in written sources, but archaeologically from what has been found in Hatra; King Uthal himself has been subject to reconstructions. In fact, King Uthal is the template behind the Hatrene clibanarius of David Nicolle's "The desert frontier" on the series of Roman enemies, as is the second resconstruction published on Montvert's "Sassanian armies". His helmet, of Parthian bashlyk design, is clearly covered with a cloth-piece, quoted by authorities as a very Persian practice, and underneath his coat, we find quilted cloth.

See, this is what I thought. You are presenting conjecture here as fact. When you state something like "[t]his was not merely a trend jump; We see that silk was used as a form of defense against archery on Hatrene (Parthian) heavy cavalry" offhand, you make it sound like a fact. In fact, what you have here is just about the epitome of speculation. First of all, that looks like a ceremonial piece of headgear; we have no way of knowing if it is covering a helmet.

It is henceforth very natural to propose that silk could have been used to such purposes as well; It is known that silk is tough. Being a royalty, I doubt that King Uthal would have chosen any "lesser" textile.

And once again, this is pure speculation. I have no problem with speculation, but you need to present it as such when using it to support an argument like this. We have no idea if what is depicted on this statue is meant to represent armour at all and not just riding clothes or royal costume. We have no idea what this kind of clothing could be made of, and saying that it was made of silk is conjecture, through and through.

Again, the discussion is not about whether the Hatrene cavalry used silk, but to build a continuum on declining equipment. That Hatra actually does have quite a few statues featuring felt caps of Parthian model or helmets featuring quilted covers, as well as tunics of the same model, of clearly Iranian fashions is almost common knowledge.

Yes, we see quilted caps and tunics being worn, but these are not implements of armour. And I'd like for you to present me a clear image of a cap that clearly shows a helmet underneath.

Parthian heavy cavalry has always and foremostly been equipped to withstand horse-archery. When cataphracts got heavier, they deviated from this purpose to attain a shock role.

Cataphracts always fulfilled the role of shock troops.

Implications are many, after all there is still a mention of Cardaces between Persis and Carmania in Strabo's geography,and these implications my friend, are vital in our discussion on trends. It is true that trends come and go, but we are clearly not speaking of decay.

What do Cardaces have to do with the discussion at hand? You're just meandering and presenting conjecture here.

Why should the continuum ever be disregarded? Especially in feudal societies where each man provided his own equipment, we'd still emphasize gradual change, not abrupt halts and sudden surges of different equipment.

Because cultural interactions and inventions provided new and improved or more favoured forms of weaponry and equipment. If a nation were existing within a vacuum, we would expect to observe a gradual development punctuated by brief periods of innovation. However, cultural interactions throw in wrench in those gears and mean that oftentimes changes occur sporadically.

The Kyrbasia existed from Imperial Medean times and remained popular even among the local rulers of the Bâzrangid sub-kingdom of Persis as evident in mints. If we then see Parthian dress in Hatra dated between 1st and 2nd century CE, then why exclude quilted technology completely?

I accept that quilting itself was not lost, and I never suspected such a thing. It is evident that quilting was used for civilian clothing in the east during the Hellenistic period. However, that does not naturally extend to military equipment.