| Author |
Message |
|
P. Schontzler
Location: WA, USA Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 99
|
 Posted: Mon 26 Aug, 2013 12:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: | | Quote: | | But outdated ideas such as 70 pound panoplies have been shown to be ridiculous--wouldn't it be much better just to omit them? |
Hi Matthew,
I'd be happy to incorporate contrary evidence if you have it -- I'd appreciate if you could point me to some alternate sources. As it is, I choose to keep such quotes in for now because:
* In this case, at least, the quote comes from the Museum of Fine Arts' current (I photographed that label in 2011) display gallery of classical art and arms. While I share your skepticism of a 70lb panoply, I'm hesitant to dismiss it outright without solid contrary evidence in a quotable source. One hopes, at least, that the staff of a museum of the MFA's prestige includes curators who did their own research before writing such a label. I don't do primary research myself, so I rely on those who do, and on my own critical thinking to make judgments about whose arguments are most convincing.
* It's a succinct, paragraph-length summary of the subject, which is what I want under each heading in my organizational scheme. It's surprisingly tough to get a short contextual description of Greek hoplites -- despite so much being written about them -- so I've taken the few I've come across so far. Weapon 2006 and Withers 2010 aren't the most rigorous of works either, but as you said, good sources are hard to find! |
It is important to be aware that historians can make false assumptions on functionality of gear based on inaccurate understanding of science. To use myself as an example, I studied history and avoided science so I have to rely on those who have personally investigated and handled iron, bronze, etc. to know their properties. As one not familiar with the properties of iron, I might assume that it must be exceedingly thick to be protective, etc. My point really is, we are all fallible because we all make assumptions based on our understanding, which is never perfect.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Aug, 2013 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: | Hi Matthew,
I'd be happy to incorporate contrary evidence if you have it -- I'd appreciate if you could point me to some alternate sources. |
Sounds like Sean has better sources at his fingertips than I do! Years ago there was a display of Corinthian helmets in the Higgins Armory Museum which included a sign noting that the average weight was 2 to 3 pounds. The Hermann Historica site listed weights in that range for a couple dozen Greek helmets--NONE of them was over 3 pounds, as I recall.
I don't have that much data for cuirasses, I'm afraid, but antiquities dealer David Michaels did weigh one and found that it was under 6 pounds (breast and backplates included). Here and there I have seen references to armor thicknesses of about 1mm, and the cuirasses I have made from 1mm bronze are 9 to 10 pounds.
No Greek shield survives with wood intact, so we are left to reconstructions based on fragments. Those made according to Peter Connolly's information were thicker at the rim than in the center, and if made of oak and modern plywood like my first one, they run about 18 pounds. However, we have since learned that they should be *thinner* at the rim (like most other shields through history), and if made with lighter woods such as poplar, birch, linden, etc. (as with archeological examples from other times and places), the result is 10 pounds or less.
Similarly, a pair of greaves is going to be about 2 to 4 pounds. We know they could be "sprung" onto the leg, so they could be no thicker than mine, which are too thick to "spring" at 18 gauge or c. 1mm.
So even if we use the *maximum* weights, here, it's only 35 pounds! I *think* the Olympia report (Holger Baitinger) lists weights for the sword blades found there--I don't have it with me here at work but I can tell you they will weigh about a pound or so. Even with a scabbard, you're talking about 2 pounds. Spear weight estimates will of course vary according to shaft length and thickness, which we cannot prove. Christopher Matthew does good work with that, again working with spearheads and buttspikes from Olympia, and I think he comes up with general ranges between 2 and 3 pounds.
Be as critical as you like, but I don't think they were lugging even 30 pounds into battle.
| Quote: | | * In this case, at least, the quote comes from the Museum of Fine Arts' current (I photographed that label in 2011) display gallery of classical art and arms. While I share your skepticism of a 70lb panoply, I'm hesitant to dismiss it outright without solid contrary evidence in a quotable source. One hopes, at least, that the staff of a museum of the MFA's prestige includes curators who did their own research before writing such a label. |
Sorry, but they're simply parrotting Snodgrass, and he's flat out wrong. A curator of *fine arts* probably has no knowledge of military equipment at all. Very few authors or curators have actually handled and weighed ancient helmets and armor. Some will heft a piece and declare with wide eyes how "heavy" it is and how horrible it must have been to wear. Yet we reenactors regularly run around with reproductions that weigh up to twice what the *known* originals did without any undue discomfort or restriction. Okay, I will say that an 18-pound aspis DOES count as "undue discomfort"! But seeing for myself how MUCH lighter an aspis can be, it was crystal clear to me that the ancients never experienced a shield that heavy.
One benefit we have to being amateurs is that we can simply publish facts without worrying about having our careers smacked down by a bunch of stuffed shirts in a peer-review session.
| Quote: | | I don't do primary research myself, so I rely on those who do, and on my own critical thinking to make judgments about whose arguments are most convincing. |
Oh, I'm with you there! I would LOVE to get my hands on ANY original Greek armaments! It drives me crazy that so many museums have apparently thought it taboo to actually WEIGH an artifact--they could have saved so much BS and debate. We have a heck of a hole to climb out of, and Snodgrass is still at the bottom, trying to shake us off the ladder. Let's leave him behind, eh?
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Aug, 2013 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, friends. 
* Sean,
Thanks for that list of works; I'll see if I can't track them down. I have the Hanson titles, as everyone else does, though haven't read through them yet; several years after reading his Carnage and Culture, it's still hard to read past his politics while trying to make use of his history.
* Matthew,
I photographed the Corinthian helms on display at the Higgins as of 2011, though the labels didn't include weights. They, and some others from different museums, are uploaded here: http://www.forensicfashion.com/BC490GreekHopl...thian.html
Jeff Forgeng also took me back to the Armory's storage, where there were at least 30 other Corinthians. The one I handled did seem subjectively "heavy," being of thick metal, but it was very closely shaped -- much smaller than most modern replicas would lead you to believe -- and I suspect that this fitting would've distributed that weight much more comfortably on the head and neck than its weight alone would suggest. That's true of all armor, I think: that weight alone is less of an indicator of comfort and practicability than proper sizing and fitting.
I dare say, the Higgins' storage has a surprisingly comprehensive array of weapons, and I really hope it doesn't get lost in the museum's impending closure and consolidation with Worcester Art.
| Quote: | | Sorry, but they're simply parrotting Snodgrass, and he's flat out wrong. A curator of *fine arts* probably has no knowledge of military equipment at all. Very few authors or curators have actually handled and weighed ancient helmets and armor. |
I can believe that, though the MFA has a highly esteemed archaeology department with many notable achievements. Maybe a friendly letter to them might address this problem? It's worth a try...
| Quote: | | One benefit we have to being amateurs is that we can simply publish facts without worrying about having our careers smacked down by a bunch of stuffed shirts in a peer-review session. |
I'm kind of in that gray area, not a specialist but not quite an amateur either. Though not a trained historian, I do have reputation-dependent advanced degrees (MA, JD) that I occasionally leverage for lecturing on topics outside my areas -- including history, on which I've been speaking at conferences for the past several years (see here: http://www.forensicfashion.com/Lectures.html ). So, while I don't have any tenure plans riding on my historical presentations, I do try to validate their faith in me by meeting their expecations as best I can. 
* P.,
| Quote: | | My point really is, we are all fallible because we all make assumptions based on our understanding, which is never perfect. |
This is an issue I've struggled with a great deal while pursuing the study of arms and armor. Because it relates to so many subject areas, it's impossible for anyone to have a comprehensive grasp of all aspects of it, and therefore there's a greater deal more inter-personal reliance than in certain other fields where conclusions can be independently tested and verified. That being the case, we should be especially wary of relying on "experts" for anything, and really make a habit of demanding supporting evidence. Yet on the whole we don't; there's a whole lot of simple repeating (and outright plagiarism), and people sometimes defend the repeaters/plagiarizers for no better reason than that those people are their friends. It'll take a change in the overall culture of our community for this to really improve, because it's so pervasive and habitual. I'm not saying that relying on others' work is bad in itself; just uncritical over-reliance.
http://ForensicFashion.com/CostumeStudies.html
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Aug, 2013 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For the protective capacity of Greek armour, shields, and helmets the easiest to access is
P. H. Blythe, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour Against Arrows in the Persian War (490-479 B. C.), PhD, University of Reading (1977)
Here are the Guttmann helmet weights that Matt posted back in 2006:
Corinthian helmets: 1343 g, 1570 g, 1017 g, 1982 g (though heavily encrusted), 951 g, 1067 g
Chalcidian helmets: 921 g, 791 g, 742 g, 694 g, 800 g
Illyrian helmets: 912 g, 955 g
Pilos helmet: 893 g
The earliest example of the Naue II dates to c. 1450BC and was found in northern Italy; examples dating slightly later have been found in Europe, Scandinavia and the British Isles. By 1200 BC it had spread to the Levant, Egypt, and the Aegean. It saw use in all of these areas right through until c. 800BC and was made in both bronze and iron. What other sword saw such widespread use or longevity?
If you want information on earlier Greek shields then I'd offer my own book, which also summarises all of the best weapon tests against bronze armour and has details on the weights of plenty of items, all of which is fully cited, but those citations are confirmed by personal practical experimentation rather than relying on armchair speculation.
http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Bronze-Age-Mil...nt/p/3272/
Regarding the use of Greek terms and accuration translations, if you won't believe me then all I can suggest is to study the language yourself like I have.
Regarding the last point about "composite armour", it is logically impossible to prove a negative. There is no evidence that Greeks ever used such a thing. To counter my statement all you need is a single example. Right now all you have is a spurious interpretation of some ambiguous illustrations by an art historian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Aug, 2013 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Right now all you have is a spurious interpretation of some ambiguous illustrations by an art historian. |
Dan, when you say "all [I] have," you make is sound like I'm actively promoting or defending this view. As I said above, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm simply collating notes from various sources, some of which obviously contradict each other. I'm not personally invested in resolving it one way or the other, since I don't do primary research myself (as I also said above) and have nothing riding on the outcome. I simply follow the weight of evidence, so if there's evidence you think will persuade me to your view (one which you do have an investment in, having written your book), I'm quite happy to consider it.
Just want to make it clear that when I take notes, that's not the same as me endorsing the truth content of those notes.
http://ForensicFashion.com/CostumeStudies.html
Last edited by Ruel A. Macaraeg on Mon 26 Aug, 2013 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Aug, 2013 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
But your website doesn't make that clear. Every time someone cites old outdated information it is that much harder for people like Matt and myself to debunk that rubbish. It has taken us years to start to turn things around and your website takes us backwards. It is extraordinarily frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Aug, 2013 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | But your website doesn't make that clear. |
If it's not clear from my notes, it's because it's not clear in my own mind yet; I haven't reviewed the evidence to the extent that you (or your opponents) have, enough to make a decision either way. When the notes contain an obvious contradiction, I notate it in red (as I did in the "Nudity" section, for example). That's the nature of research -- our understanding improves the further we investigate the evidence. Right now you're telling me you have the answers -- and God knows I'd like to believe you because it'd make things alot easier! -- but other writers say the same after reaching opposite conclusions. I ask instead that you give me the opportunity to look at the merits of your arguments on their own, and weigh them against opposing arguments.
I'd rather review the evidence myself instead of taking anyone's word -- even if it's your word, and I respect you more than anyone else doing arms and armor research because you've always been willing to ask the hard questions of people that they often avoid. You hold people accountable, and I like that!
I will promise you this, though. I'll get a copy of your book in the very near future, and if your evidence persuades me, my notes will reflect that.
http://ForensicFashion.com/CostumeStudies.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Sep, 2013 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Hoplon means "gear" or "tool", not "armour". In a martial context it refers to the "tools of war" - weapons, shield, and armour - i.e. the entire panoply. The closest English translation would be something like "arms". |
And "panoply" itself comes from pan + oplia, meaning quite literally "the entire suite of arms." Just pointing it out since the semantic connection between panoply and hoplite/hoplon aren't quite as obvious as it should be when the words are rendered in English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic