@Matthew Amt: I see :D I figured that those would probably very rare items, maybe only worn by the wealthiest hoplites.
Thx for taking that pic :D


On the shield issue:
Both the Greek Hoplon and the Roman Scutum were intended to be used within a phalanx or something similar. That means there's always someone protecting your right. Greek hoplites usually sought for as much cover as possible behind the left shield-part of their fellow comrades to the right.
An isolated hoplite could very well be killed by a lighter armed and faster Peltast. This happened on several occasions during the Peloponnesian War. Small groups of Hoplites in small and rocky valleys got ambushed and killed by Peltasts. On the other hand on the open battlefield in close formation the Peltasts had to run from the hoplites as fast as possible ;)

Possibly the language is correct, but merely ambiguous. English shows a similar problem with the word "arm".

Obviously, this does refer to a limb with a hand on it.

A man who is "armed" usually has both hands still attached, and is carrying a weapon in one of them.

Nowadays, "arms and armour" typically means weapons and armour; but the late medieval English text "How a man shall be armed" talks about how to put on armour, not about his weapons.

Congratulations, Dan! Have you thought of slipping a suitable Homeric name to your offspring?

Her first name is Miranda. My wife is a classicist too but the only thing we could both agree on for a middle name was Diana.

Congratulations, Dan!! Wonderful name. She probably wouldn't like growing up as "Diomedes", eh?

Yup, as I understand it, "hoplite" is indeed a proper ancient term, basically meaning an armed man. The Greeks were often very vague about their terminology, using words interchageably when we tend to use them much more specifically.

Khairete,

Matthew

Mr Howard
Congratulations. 'tis a wonderful thing.
Geoff

Congratulations, Dan!


But, getting back to earlier plate, is it safe to assume that the earlier armour was cast? If so, (and this is the part that boggles my mind) how would you get it that thin with a presumably reusable cast?

The one piece bronze breast plate story was associated with some of the Greek's enemies (Mercedes?) as well.

I wonder if anyone else has any more information on Charlemagne / Carolingian armour and training descriptions?

Charlemagne's armour was described by at least three period authors (most famously The “Mad” Monk of St. Gaul, etc.) within 100 years of his death. The more glamorous description is in the chronicles written by Monk of St. Gaul. Several internet translations I have seen of these state that his armour consisted of "plates of iron." It seems to be accepted that the Monk of St. Gaul intended to convey that his breast plates were single piece, because there were period texts challenging him on the point of the breast armour being solid. These period critics argued that the Monk of St. Gaul exaggerated his descriptions saying that the armour would have been too heavy to wear.

Einhard’s historical (805 A.D.) chronicle of Charlemagne’s one major defeat said it was the Gascons (Anglo-Nordic/Vikings who departed from Norway and lead a well known series of raids around 787) who ambushed Charlemagnes forces during his Spanish expedition. Einhard blamed the defeat on favorable Gascon differences such as “lightness of their armour” and better ground. One might speculate that most of the actual Gascons may not have afforded a hauberk. Archeological evidence from burials seems to be that more successful warriors would have had a hauberk, helmet, and varying degrees of splint for arms and legs. Whatever these warriors’ armour actually was like, at that time it was perceived to be light in comparison with the armour of the Carolingian forces.

Many people have asserted that a partial set of chess pieces found in a desk at Aachen validate that Charlemagne’s forces wore mail. At least two of those pieces were examined for purposes of restoration and were found to have been constructed with materials and methods which lead the curators to conclude that all of the chess pieces examined so far are of 13th century or later origin. Most of the surviving effigies and décor at Aachen are no earlier than 1200 A.D.. Most statues and effigies are actually of much later origin than that, and tend to show him wearing robes and royal regalia. Mounted depictions tend to show what appears to be greaves covering his lower legs.

Right, bronze armor and helmets were hammered, not cast. It still boggles us as to how they hammered out sheet bronze or thin plate that they started with, though! Heck of a job, first casting a relatively thin blank without flaws, then repeatedly annealing and hammering. Even the folks who do period bronze casting these days are baffled, and amazed at the craftsmanship that was possible back then.

Fittings or small items such as crest knobs and such could be cast. And bronze weapons were generally cast, though hammering was done to harden cutting edges.

Khairete,

Matthew

Plates seems to have been more common in the east during the "dark ages". The east romans, and later, Byzantines used lammelar, scale, and splint armour in addition to mail. As did the arabs.

This could be due to better manufacturing "infrastructure", and a general higher level of social order, standing armies and the like.

This article has a pretty good discussion of relative sizes of furnaces required to produce single large pieces of steel. It sounds as though large iron blooms of sufficient quality to make big pieces of plate depended on later period furnaces.

http://www.forth-armoury.com/research/wire/authentic_wire.htm