Small question: What armour is this?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

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:

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.

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

See, this is what I thought. You are presenting conjecture here as fact. epitome of speculation. First of all, that looks like a ceremonial piece of headgear; we have no way of knowing if it is covering a helmet.



pure speculation.speculation, . is conjecture, through and through.











meandering conjecture






.

your just being a troll now.
good way to win an argument, make personal attacks....