Chariots

[HVC]

I wonder how accurate the oral tradition of "a man from nantucket" is?

[Malthus]

You are ignoring the fact that the type of heavy bronze armour described by Homer has been confirmed through archeology. There is only one way a person could have been transported to the fight while wearing that kind of cumbersome weight - on the back of a chariot.  This is not Homer or Homers making things up out of whole cloth to conform to their own age.

Heh are you seriously contending infantrymen cannot have worn heavy bronze armour? 

I'd love to see a source for this claim. As far as I know, later Greek infantry didn't have a problem wearing heavy bronze armour. Is the "archaic" armour so much heavier than later Greek bronze armour?

http://www.amazon.com/Archaiologia-Archaic-Armour-Archaeologica-Septentrionalia/dp/9529888031

The subject of this book is Archaic Greek body armour with the primary aim to present the typological range appearing among the finds of bronze armour and representations in art. The author raises also the question concerning the identification of Archaic armour in the extant literary sources and sees signs for both bronze plate cuirasses and complete corslets being reflected in the Homeric Iliad. In the discussion of armour for limbs the author introduced a new method for dating arm guards, greaves, etc. on the basis of the perforation-holes round the edges. The secondary aim of this book is to discuss some questions 'beyond' the typology. This aspect raises from the relative rarity of the armour discussed in this book among the originals discovered at Olympia in comparison with the quantities of helmets and shields. It is suggested that the panoply of Archaic Greek soldiers was quit often not full, especially the use of the bronze cuirass being fairly limited, and the author maintains that there were different tactical and social reasons for this, e.g. that certain pieces of bronze armour were carriee by officers only. In this connection the author makes also an attempt to reconstruct the weight of the panoply, concluding that the burden of most soldiers was less than 20 kg, while some of their comrades carried only 12 to 13 kg. The weight also helps in reconstructing the costs of Archaic Greek panoply , regarding which the author finds support for the Aristotelian definition that the hoplites were rich.

Damn, I'm pretty sure *I* could walk around carrying 20kg, and I'm hardly a 20 year old Homeric warrior.

And check this out:

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm

Note the plentiful depictions in art of figures in armour on foot. The one example given of a chariot clearly shows a chariot *archer*. The description is as follows:

On an Achaean-Cypriote seal from Cyprus dated XV-XIV century BC two warriors on chariot are represented. The one handling the bow seems to wear a defence with shoulder protections and belt. One shoulder protection is also identifiable on the chariot driver.

This is of course consistent with "chariot as mounted archery" theory, but not with "chariot as battle taxi" theory.

[crazy canuck]

From the same site you quoted there appears to be a strong argument that warriors wearing Dendric armour were indeed moved to the field by chariot.  This site appears to be attempting to rebut that widely held view.

Some high fidelity reconstructions have demonstrate how this panoply, despite the huge aspect, was enough flexible and comfortable to be used also during fights on foot and not, as sometimes argued, exclusively by warriors fighting from the chariots.

They are arguing form their reconstructions but even they admit there is no evidence that the other view is necessarily wrong.

On pottery the most clear representation of a warrior equipped with a "Dendra" style armour comes from a fragment from Mycenae dated LH IIIA or LH IIIB (1350-1300 BC). In this image an embossed or decorated cuirass with a large neck protection is recognizable. The four horizontal trips could be explain both as decorations or segmental plates (see bellow mentioned findings). The pottery is likely representing a fighting scene being a falling sword visible in front of the warrior. Unfortunately from this fragment it is not possible to identify whether the warrior is fighting on foot or from a chariot.Indeed this is a clear evidence that the "Dendra" style armour were used for active fights and not only by chariot's driver.

They also appear to be arguing a different point then the one you are making.  They make the point that the warrior didnt fight from the Chariot exclusively but also fought on the ground, which is entirely consistent with the view that a warrior wearing Dendra style armour was taking to and from the battle by chariot which would significantly increase his mobility.

[crazy canuck]

LOl, Malthus, you should have read the site more carefully before posting in defence of the position that the oral history was inaccurate in detail.  You recall I said the description of the armour was confirmed by archealogy.  The site based there reconstruction on the descriptions given by Homer....

In the Iliad the Achaeans are described as wearing bronze(*1). Even if their armour is generically indicated as "Thorek" (*2) in some cases further details are given. Based on these elements an hypothetical recontruction of some of the defence described in the Iliad can be made.
The Iliad's hexameter analysis, and some elements and places described in it, have demonstrated how the poem had its origins in the Mycenaean time (*3) (see also the page dedicated to the Trojan war) thus for all the reconstructions on this page, archaeological elements coming from the Late Helladic period have been reasonably used

[Malthus]

From the same site you quoted there appears to be a strong argument that warriors wearing Dendric armour were indeed moved to the field by chariot.  This site appears to be attempting to rebut that widely held view.

Some high fidelity reconstructions have demonstrate how this panoply, despite the huge aspect, was enough flexible and comfortable to be used also during fights on foot and not, as sometimes argued, exclusively by warriors fighting from the chariots.

They are arguing form their reconstructions but even they admit there is no evidence that the other view is necessarily wrong.

On pottery the most clear representation of a warrior equipped with a "Dendra" style armour comes from a fragment from Mycenae dated LH IIIA or LH IIIB (1350-1300 BC). In this image an embossed or decorated cuirass with a large neck protection is recognizable. The four horizontal trips could be explain both as decorations or segmental plates (see bellow mentioned findings). The pottery is likely representing a fighting scene being a falling sword visible in front of the warrior. Unfortunately from this fragment it is not possible to identify whether the warrior is fighting on foot or from a chariot.Indeed this is a clear evidence that the "Dendra" style armour were used for active fights and not only by chariot's driver.

They also appear to be arguing a different point then the one you are making.  They make the point that the warrior didnt fight from the Chariot exclusively but also fought on the ground, which is entirely consistent with the view that a warrior wearing Dendra style armour was taking to and from the battle by chariot which would significantly increase his mobility.

I was rebutting the point you were making, which was that archaic armour was too heavy to use unless the warrior was transported about by chariot!

What the site is saying, is that you could use the armour *either* fighting in a chariot (which you say *wasn't* done), or on foot.

Here's another interesting and relevant source to consider:

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Early_Greek_Warfare.html?id=Bd9UD6GYTMcC&redir_esc=y

First published in 1973, this is a study of the literary and archaeological developments in the warfare of early Greece. Dr Greenhalgh considers in particular the military history of the chariot and mounted horse, both as they were represented in poetry and art and as they were used in reality from about 1100 to 500BC. He finds the picture superficially presented by the sources incoherent and often incredible, and attempts a reconstruction which does justice to both tactical and technical possibilities and to the social and economic facts of life in the period. He shoes how the Homeric poems, for example, can be systematically misleading - in part misconceiving the character of the Mycenaean age, and in part conflating with this misconception the conditions of their own time. This illustrated study will be of value to archaeologists, historians of warfare and Homeric specialists; its wider implications will interest social and political historians.

The main point is this: we *know* from inscriptions that Mycenaen kingdoms that Mycenaen kings spent large sums on the upkeep of specialist chariot forces (the Palace records disclose large stores of chariots). Simple logic would demonstrate that a sizable chariot force would be extremely expensive. We also know, beyond a doubt, that in cultures of which Mycenae would have been aware (the Hittites, Assyrians and Egyptians) specialized chariot forces were an effective and battle-winning arm, fought in a particular manner - to shower the enemy with missiles and then to skewer them with spears as they ran away. 

Are we then to believe, based on a poet writing 400 years later, when chariots weren't used at all - a poet who had no concept of the basic organization of the Mycenaen state, demonstrated by numerous errors in the text (see the appendix to the above volume, part of which is available online) - that chariots were merely used as transport, never for fighting? 

[Jacob]

Lawyers arguing history. This can only end in tears...

[crazy canuck]

Lawyers arguing history. This can only end in tears...

Agreed, we will never find a client willing to pay us for this.

[Malthus]

LOl, Malthus, you should have read the site more carefully before posting in defence of the position that the oral history was inaccurate in detail.  You recall I said the description of the armour was confirmed by archealogy.  The site based there reconstruction on the descriptions given by Homer....

In the Iliad the Achaeans are described as wearing bronze(*1). Even if their armour is generically indicated as "Thorek" (*2) in some cases further details are given. Based on these elements an hypothetical recontruction of some of the defence described in the Iliad can be made.
The Iliad's hexameter analysis, and some elements and places described in it, have demonstrated how the poem had its origins in the Mycenaean time (*3) (see also the page dedicated to the Trojan war) thus for all the reconstructions on this page, archaeological elements coming from the Late Helladic period have been reasonably used

Except, as you well know, I was not citing it for that point, but to make nonsense of your claims about archaic armour. 

I take it you are not still advancing that point?

[crazy canuck]

There is nothing you posted on that site which rebuts the claim that chariots were not used to transport warriors in that heavy armour to the battlefield.  Indeed, as already noting they were attempting to establish that such warriors fought both from chariots and on the ground.  A point I readily concede as it is no way inconsistent with the notion of chariots being used to move warriors around the battlefield.

[Malthus]

There is nothing you posted on that site which rebuts the claim that chariots were not used to transport warriors in that heavy armour to the battlefield.  Indeed, as already noting they were attempting to establish that such warriors fought both from chariots and on the ground.  A point I readily concede as it is no way inconsistent with the notion of chariots being used to move warriors around the battlefield.

Again, are you still advancing the point that battle transport was necessary because archaic armour was too heavy to use otherwise?

The fact that armour could have been used in a chariot *or* on the ground hardly proves your point.

I also direct your attention to the other source I have cited above, from Cambridge University Press: "Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages". It has the benefit of being directly on point.

[crazy canuck]

Again, are you still advancing the point that battle transport was necessary because archaic armour was too heavy to use otherwise?

I have advanced the position taken by, its seems, the bulk of scholars, that the Iliad got a lot of the details about the weapons, people, ships, armour etc. right.  Given that he got the details correct there is little evidence that the description of warriors in full armour being transported to battle is incorrect.

The source that you rely on for the weight of the armour is a reconstruction and putting all the difficulties of someone attempting to accurately recreate armour from that period aside they do not claim that warriors were not transported by chariot - as you do.  The claim they make is that they suspect that given the weight those warriors fought both on Chariots and on the ground.

You want to make the argument that chariots were not used for the purpose of moving warriors around but you have not cited any source consistent with that view.

Btw, I note you started arguing that the oral tradition only got the vague parts right - like there was a battle at some point.  The site you gave my supports the alternative view that oral traditions also get the details right - after all they themselves informed their reconstructions on the details provided in the Iliad.  I assume you have abandoned your first line of argument?

[Malthus]

Again, are you still advancing the point that battle transport was necessary because archaic armour was too heavy to use otherwise?

I have advanced the position taken by, its seems, the bulk of scholars, that the Iliad got a lot of the details about the weapons, people, ships, armour etc. right.  Given that he got the details correct there is little evidence that the description of warriors in full armour being transported to battle is incorrect.

The source that you rely on for the weight of the armour is a reconstruction and putting all the difficulties of someone attempting to accurately recreate armour from that period aside they do not claim that warriors were not transported by chariot - as you do.  The claim they make is that they suspect that given the weight those warriors fought both on Chariots and on the ground.

You want to make the argument that chariots were not used for the purpose of moving warriors around but you have not cited any source consistent with that view.

Btw, I note you started arguing that the oral tradition only got the vague parts right - like there was a battle at some point.  The site you gave my supports the alternative view that oral traditions also get the details right - after all they themselves informed their reconstructions on the details provided in the Iliad.  I assume you have abandoned your first line of argument?

Well, first, for all your talk about "the bulk of the scholars", I'm the only one posting sources. And the source I have found most directly on point - entitled conveniently enough "Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages" - makes pretty much the exact same argument I've been advancing.

The notion that archaic armour is too heavy to use on foot without chariot transport I assume you have abandoned, though you won't say as much. Again, I'll point to the sources - that state that such armour weighs at most 20 kg. That says it all, I'd think.

The issue is how those ancient warriors actually fought with chariots. You claim I have not cited any source consistent with my view. Again, I refer to the scholarly source I have found and noted above - it is unequivocal: the account in the Iliad makes no sense, is not consistent with how chariots are used elsewhere at the same time, and derives from a source hundreds of years after the action. I dunno if you have missed it or something. If so, here's the link again:

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Early_Greek_Warfare.html?id=Bd9UD6GYTMcC&redir_esc=y

There are obviously bits of the Iliad which are not accurate accounts of the battle. Unless, of course, you secretly believe in the Greek gods. 

[crazy canuck]

Yes Malthus, there is no evidence supporting the existence of Olympian Gods.  You must be right about everything else too.

[Malthus]

You must be right about everything else too.

Finally. 

[Queequeg]

Malthus, I don't think the era we are dealing with is the what we might call the "Classical Bronze Age."  It's an era of stagnation, and ultimately of defeat at the hands of the Sea Peoples.  Hittite authority has declined markedly in the West.  Pyama-Radu ('Priam'), a dispossessed Hittite noble, took control over Troy and a good chunk of the west coast, a traditional area of Hittite influence. It's not the end, but you could see it from there.  I would not be surprised if warfare was already changing substantially-compare it with the decline of the Cataphracts in the West as the Barbarians started moving in.