Armor from Mycenaean Greece turns out to have been effective(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Armor from Mycenaean Greece turns out to have been effective
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/researchers-get-modern-marines-to-test-ancient-greek-armor/
109 comments
They should have done more stabby stabby on camera
[deleted]
From the article:
> People suspected the Dendra armor was ceremonial
That's not true. I don't think that there was ever anything approaching a consensus that the Mycenean Greek armor in question, the Dendra Panopoly, was entirely ceremonial. In fact, I've never even seen that view expressed. Many people believed that it would prove practical enough for infantry fighting. The old counter-argument -- which even then was speculative -- was that the armor was intended for charioteers. See:
https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/encased-bronze...
What's more, people have been making and sparring in reproduction pieces for years:
https://mindhost.tumblr.com/post/141243954157/dendra-panoply...
And especially:
https://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm
> "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."
> People suspected the Dendra armor was ceremonial
That's not true. I don't think that there was ever anything approaching a consensus that the Mycenean Greek armor in question, the Dendra Panopoly, was entirely ceremonial. In fact, I've never even seen that view expressed. Many people believed that it would prove practical enough for infantry fighting. The old counter-argument -- which even then was speculative -- was that the armor was intended for charioteers. See:
https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/encased-bronze...
What's more, people have been making and sparring in reproduction pieces for years:
https://mindhost.tumblr.com/post/141243954157/dendra-panoply...
And especially:
https://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm
> "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."
I wonder if this was intraoffice politics.
You work with two loud, tenured professors who both believe a certain thing that your advisor thinks is bullshit, and your dissertation or post doc publications become about how Steve and Mark are wrong. Suck it, Steve.
You work with two loud, tenured professors who both believe a certain thing that your advisor thinks is bullshit, and your dissertation or post doc publications become about how Steve and Mark are wrong. Suck it, Steve.
That may be the case.
There's also, assuredly, an element of that very recent controversy: "If it's not published in a peer review journal, it doesn't exist."
Now that somebody has written up a report of people sparring in modern recreations of the Dendra Panopoly, and has had it published in a decent journal, the matter is settled. Before, despite dozens of people and groups doing the same exact thing, I suppose it wasn't!
Goes to show.
There's also, assuredly, an element of that very recent controversy: "If it's not published in a peer review journal, it doesn't exist."
Now that somebody has written up a report of people sparring in modern recreations of the Dendra Panopoly, and has had it published in a decent journal, the matter is settled. Before, despite dozens of people and groups doing the same exact thing, I suppose it wasn't!
Goes to show.
The original paper does not state that there was a consensus that the armor was ceremonial, but lists it as one of several possibilities.
From the introduction: "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?"
From the conclusion: "The discovery of the Dendra panoply in 1960 immediately raised the issue of its function. Could it have been worn in battle [...]–as repeatedly demonstrated by the exploits of the warriors in the Iliad? Was its use restricted to those who rode to battle in chariots? [...]–again, a regular practice in the epic and indicated in the Linear B archives by the association of armour and chariots. Or was it too cumbersome to be worn except on ceremonial occasions [...], as stated, for example, in the caption to the pieces of armour from Thebes on display in the Archaeological Museum of Thebes?"
The paper lists several references for the the positions mentioned (which I have not cross-checked). Among them is also the study that is provided as reference for the sentence you quoted. The author's of the paper summaris the result of this predecessor study as follows: "Sixty years on we now understand, despite its cumbersome appearance at first sight, that it is not only flexible enough to permit almost every movement of a warrior on foot but also resilient enough to protect the wearer from most blows", and explain what their own study has added to this insight: "In addition, our experiments have now demonstrated, we hope convincingly, that the armour is also of a weight and structure to permit extended use in combat, day after day, for up to 11 hours, without detriment to a fit warrior (although, apart from the Iliad, we have no accounts of battles of such duration)."
Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
From the introduction: "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?"
From the conclusion: "The discovery of the Dendra panoply in 1960 immediately raised the issue of its function. Could it have been worn in battle [...]–as repeatedly demonstrated by the exploits of the warriors in the Iliad? Was its use restricted to those who rode to battle in chariots? [...]–again, a regular practice in the epic and indicated in the Linear B archives by the association of armour and chariots. Or was it too cumbersome to be worn except on ceremonial occasions [...], as stated, for example, in the caption to the pieces of armour from Thebes on display in the Archaeological Museum of Thebes?"
The paper lists several references for the the positions mentioned (which I have not cross-checked). Among them is also the study that is provided as reference for the sentence you quoted. The author's of the paper summaris the result of this predecessor study as follows: "Sixty years on we now understand, despite its cumbersome appearance at first sight, that it is not only flexible enough to permit almost every movement of a warrior on foot but also resilient enough to protect the wearer from most blows", and explain what their own study has added to this insight: "In addition, our experiments have now demonstrated, we hope convincingly, that the armour is also of a weight and structure to permit extended use in combat, day after day, for up to 11 hours, without detriment to a fit warrior (although, apart from the Iliad, we have no accounts of battles of such duration)."
Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
The first paragraph from the article linked in OP is:
> "The Dendra armor, one of the oldest suits of bronze armor ever found, had been considered a purely ceremonial piece. It seemed impossible to use in battle due to its cumbersome design."
Of course, this is completely false. It's more of a journalism problem than an issue with the study they're reporting on, of course.
> "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?"
This is a remarkably thin justification. If a set of armor can be used in combat, then its suitability for extended use hinges only on its weight and weight distribution. (Assuming the set doesn't include a closed helmet, as those can be troublesome in other respects; they can make it hard to breathe and hard to see.) A simple in silico ergonomics study, the kind that can be run in a single afternoon, could have answered their question. Though, admittedly, that would be less fun.
> "The Dendra armor, one of the oldest suits of bronze armor ever found, had been considered a purely ceremonial piece. It seemed impossible to use in battle due to its cumbersome design."
Of course, this is completely false. It's more of a journalism problem than an issue with the study they're reporting on, of course.
> "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?"
This is a remarkably thin justification. If a set of armor can be used in combat, then its suitability for extended use hinges only on its weight and weight distribution. (Assuming the set doesn't include a closed helmet, as those can be troublesome in other respects; they can make it hard to breathe and hard to see.) A simple in silico ergonomics study, the kind that can be run in a single afternoon, could have answered their question. Though, admittedly, that would be less fun.
It’s interesting that you pillory journalism here as if a crime has been committed, while simultaneously reading the least charitable interpretation of the words possible, then concluding absolutes like “completely false,” which is itself your interpretation and most charitable to you being the arbiter of truth here. And you’re on this horse regarding imagining what ancient armor was used for. You don’t know. The people quoted don’t know. Nobody knows.
If the journalist talked to one guy who said you know, I think that’s ceremonial, blah blah, the quote is fair. One person thought it. One person told the reporter as much. You disagree. Journalism is working as intended.
Tip for the future: “journalism is broken” is usually a synonym for “I’ve taken a position that differs, and I therefore overfeel that the world is doing things wrong”.
If the journalist talked to one guy who said you know, I think that’s ceremonial, blah blah, the quote is fair. One person thought it. One person told the reporter as much. You disagree. Journalism is working as intended.
Tip for the future: “journalism is broken” is usually a synonym for “I’ve taken a position that differs, and I therefore overfeel that the world is doing things wrong”.
Anyone can make stuff up. I'll happily make up 19 different things and tell it to you with a straight face, all before lunch.
It seems like the whole point of elevating a field of activity and dignifying it with a fancy term like journalism is that it has some sort of standards. Otherwise, what good is it to anyone?
If it doesn't have standards, then we should just call it "people making up random stuff" instead. Then at least we'd be describing things with a bit more accuracy.
It seems like the whole point of elevating a field of activity and dignifying it with a fancy term like journalism is that it has some sort of standards. Otherwise, what good is it to anyone?
If it doesn't have standards, then we should just call it "people making up random stuff" instead. Then at least we'd be describing things with a bit more accuracy.
A journalist is never supposed to report something they got from a single source with words like "it was considered". They're generally not supposed to report soemthing they got from a single source at all. But if they do, it should be "so-and-so believed it was purely ceremonial" or "we've spoken with one professor who believed it was purely ceremonial".
But the job of journalists is to do the research. That's the whole purpose of good journalism: ask around, build some context on a story, then report it. Don't just tell me what one guy believed, I can find that out on my own. Tell me if others with context also believe the same: that's the part I don't have time for.
But the job of journalists is to do the research. That's the whole purpose of good journalism: ask around, build some context on a story, then report it. Don't just tell me what one guy believed, I can find that out on my own. Tell me if others with context also believe the same: that's the part I don't have time for.
Agreed. Applying the views of few to many displays a lack of journalistic integrity. It’s a distasteful pattern that has become pervasive, but even more disturbing is the fact that so many people seem to be comfortable with it.
Don't think Ars is above creative editing and weasel words to chase engagement
The parallels with “European plate armor was too bulky to be used and knights couldn’t stand up when they fell”, shouldn’t be lost on anyone. It’s a common belief handed down over the years, but it’s complete bollocks. We know it is, because back in the 60s or 70s someone had the idea of actually putting the armor on, run around in it, and even get knocked down and stand up in it. There is like a BBC film showing this or something.
It’s kinda weird that people keep dismissing the armor of the past as completely impractical, even though the people in the past keep saying or implying that this is exact what they wore into battle.
It’s kinda weird that people keep dismissing the armor of the past as completely impractical, even though the people in the past keep saying or implying that this is exact what they wore into battle.
There are more recently made videos, I believe, demonstrating the same thing:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI
imagine being a medieval peasant conscript and seeing that guy from the first few seconds of the first video charging at you, knowing full well he's from the warrior class and trained his entire life for the job of fighting.
terrifying...
terrifying...
I remember reading somewhere that peasants who killed an enemy night would effectively be treated as war criminals. So you'd be fucked no matter what you do.
The modern equivalent would be seeing an MRAP or an APC rolling down the street.
The sci-fi version would be seeing a space marine.
The sci-fi version would be seeing a space marine.
1st video about halfway through, that's where the turkish get up is useful!
I thought it was a clip from power rangers for a minute.
Some of this has to do with jousting armor being some of the best preserved sets and those were extremely impractical.
Codpieces with erect penises are a tactical.
https://youtu.be/C6XqBsosHwM
https://youtu.be/C6XqBsosHwM
This is one of those 'myths' that I only ever see mentioned when it's someone informing everyone that it's a myth. I've seen it 'busted' so many times I wonder if the real myth is that anyone ever believed it in the first place.
You see it a lot in movies, and that belief from movies gets in the popular conscience. Plate armor in most movies gets penetrated by light slashes and masses of plate wearing soldiers are easily beaten by the lightly armored hero. My friend who often wore armor on subways always had drunk people come up to him and try to play pranks like pushing him etc thinking he would fall due to impractical armor etc, but armor makes it easier to stand your ground.
So it is like physics, there is widespread belief in Aristotelean physics but you wont see anyone talk about believing it online, even though we know from surveys that there is a significant fraction who do.
So it is like physics, there is widespread belief in Aristotelean physics but you wont see anyone talk about believing it online, even though we know from surveys that there is a significant fraction who do.
Well, because it was thoroughly debunked decades ago.
I remember reading this 'fact' in books as a kid in the 80s.
I remember reading this 'fact' in books as a kid in the 80s.
It's probably leakage from the well-known Battle of Agincourt, which showed it could be a concern, but the mud is an important detail.
It was difficult to mount a horse while wearing heavy armour though and I think that's how the rumour originated.
People in modernity have a habit of dismissing what people in the past said as a "heuristic that almost always works."
But it doesn't always work, and there's some pretty glaring holes in modern perspectives as a result of its overuse.
But it doesn't always work, and there's some pretty glaring holes in modern perspectives as a result of its overuse.
"The Court Jester" movie didn't help dispel that myth ... ;)
There are quite a few YouTube videos showing how full plate is worn and how much range of motion you’d have.
Looking at that armor, it makes WAY more sense why Homer/Greeks would make Achilles' weak point his heel... Dude is literally a bronze tank in that armor. Only way to really stop him is to take out a leg, and his feet are like the least armored thing about him.
That's a great observation. The very tendon we named after him is just hanging out there.
In WW2, the Japanese Zero did not have armor on the theory that the lighter weight would make the Zero more maneuverable and that was the best defense a pilot could have.
The Zero's first adversary was the P40 Warhawk. The P40 was inferior in every way but one - it had forward armor. The pilots figured out that the way to beat the Zero was a head on attack, with both pilots blasting away. With no armor the Zero would get shredded. The Zero pilots had a pretty hard time of it during the war.
The Zero's first adversary was the P40 Warhawk. The P40 was inferior in every way but one - it had forward armor. The pilots figured out that the way to beat the Zero was a head on attack, with both pilots blasting away. With no armor the Zero would get shredded. The Zero pilots had a pretty hard time of it during the war.
> The pilots figured out that the way to beat the Zero was a head on attack, with both pilots blasting away. With no armor the Zero would get shredded. The Zero pilots had a pretty hard time of it during the war.
Sounds like that lack of armor wasn't an advantage.
Sounds like that lack of armor wasn't an advantage.
Arms race. It was an advantage until the enemy adapted.
> It took over a decade of research, elaborate numerical models, and 13 Greek marines fighting in it from dawn till dusk to prove it was surprisingly good at its job
A decade of research and mathematical models to determine that an ancient civilization wasn’t just making useless armor for fun?
A decade of research and mathematical models to determine that an ancient civilization wasn’t just making useless armor for fun?
> A decade of research and mathematical models to determine that an ancient civilization wasn’t just making useless armor for fun?
To be fair, making armor for fun is a decent industry/hobby in modern times, for stuff like LARPing, movie props, etc. Who's to say that the armor wasn't an example of something similar in ancient times? Taking the time to actually put it to the test, in its original context, is a good effort to prove or disprove that.
To be fair, making armor for fun is a decent industry/hobby in modern times, for stuff like LARPing, movie props, etc. Who's to say that the armor wasn't an example of something similar in ancient times? Taking the time to actually put it to the test, in its original context, is a good effort to prove or disprove that.
Ceremonial armors aren't made for fun. Should our descendents of the year 3000 look at the British bearskin (the tall furry hat of the Royal Guard) and think "of course, this was standard combat attire".
Presumably something like the mitznefet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitznefet_(Israeli_military)
https://www.twz.com/israeli-troops-chefs-hat-helmet-covers-e...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitznefet_(Israeli_military)
https://www.twz.com/israeli-troops-chefs-hat-helmet-covers-e...
Exactly. Archeologist from the future working from fragmentary sources won't be easily able to determine if the mitznefet is battle gear or ceremonial parure. In fact, they could reach the wrong conclusion by noting the bearskin is more widespread than the mitznefet ("if it is efficient battle hat, why isn't it more widely in use?").
The article claims this is the sole armor we have ever found, and that there are also no depictions of armor, while there are numerous depictions of weapons, helmets, etc. So the thought wasn't "Mycaeneans smithed bronze armor for ceremonial purposes", it was "this one guy had a ceremonial suit of armor smithed for him". Turns out this is likely wrong as well, but it's not absurd on the face of it.
A suit of this armor would have been expensive as hell. Combined with the standard palace economy I would image it was rarely seen in combat even if it was used there.
But you might expect to see many depictions of it, since it would be high-prestige. The people painting vases weren't doing live battlefield reporting, there's no reason to expect their depictions to be accurate to real battles.
Those techniques almost certainly took considerably more than a decade to develop originally, and it's not like the battle-ready bronze armour business has been booming for the last couple of millennia, so there's been a bit of a brain drain in that sector.
That probably wasn't the only thing they were doing!
The idea that we and we alone discovered being smart, or maybe, at best, the people in the 19th and 20th centuries were on to something although they are still nowhere near as smart as us, and everyone else in history were nasty drooling superstitious cretins in every way is ingrained surprisingly deeply into our culture, in multiple places, for multiple distinct reasons.
> fed roughly 4,500 calories worth of goat cheese, roasted meat, olives, bread, water, wine, and other Bronze Age culinary delicacies
Where do I sign up?
Where do I sign up?
Keep an eye out for signs that say ταβέρνα
I was thinking this myself.
Here’s a short video of this armor in action: https://youtu.be/rm2ZR25xU8M?si=6HdtRO8cFxB5HO8l
Thank you! I particularly like the brief clip of an armored guy standing on a chariot strapped to a treadmill. It appears he is able to stand stoically while machines work underneath him. I have to assume it’s some sort of wind tunnel test and there’s a fan or something off camera left?
Ok, warmups are over. Send in the retiarius and let's see what happens!
The huge collar is a really interesting feature. That's sure going to make it hard to attack the soldiers neck, with not that much cost to mobility or even visibility. I think the neck is one of the trickier articulation points in European plate armor and space suits, for similar reasons. The giant collar seems like a gordian knot type of solution. But if anyone gets as far as deploying hooks to the battlefield, perhaps as part of a halberd-like weapon, those collars will be trouble.
From what I've seen, gorgets were generally more common than articulated visors. so the collar is a fairly standard feature, it's just more obvious than on later plate. Obviously the drawback of that design is that more standoff means more surface area to armour, which means more weight for the same protection.
More standoff means that the armor can spread a blow over a larger deflection without injuring the wearer. Also, a blow is going to contact a larger area of metal during the deflection. So you could use lighter or more flexible material - heavier perhaps but superior protection.
When Achilles defeats Hector, he's able to do so because he exploits the gap in his armor that leaves the neck exposed. Achilles knows about this because the armor had previously belonged to him, and he's now fighting in new armor gifted to him by a different goddess.
Replace "divine gift" with "innovation" and now we have a story about how exactly this sort of armor was a hot new technology.
Replace "divine gift" with "innovation" and now we have a story about how exactly this sort of armor was a hot new technology.
> The composition of this ordeal was inferred from statistical analysis of fights in The Iliad. Each of those scenarios included a fair share of spear throws, sword strikes, shooting arrows, and spear strikes, all performed in full body armor. Overall, the whole day was effectively a long, high-intensity interval exercise.
I love the idea of people 2000 years from now doing statistical analysis of Rambo movies to deduce how wars were fought in 20th century.
I love the idea of people 2000 years from now doing statistical analysis of Rambo movies to deduce how wars were fought in 20th century.
Can 1 man really beat a battalion by himself
The person carrying such an expensive suit probably had a very specific role on the battlefield. Which is a source of endless speculation. Presumably they had to be protected to perform a task while exposed to arrows or spears.
It looks so silly! But there's an equally silly chestnut among archeologists, that when an artifact is found and the boffins can't divine it's purpose, the go-to answer is "religious use" or "ceremonial".
The neck part of the armour is actually quite clever on closer inspection -- no complex moving part, doesn't restrict the wearer's head movements (well, other than looking at your own feet I guess) and seems to offer robust protection.
It reminds me somewhat of the benevolent aliens in Fifth Element.
The neck part of the armour is actually quite clever on closer inspection -- no complex moving part, doesn't restrict the wearer's head movements (well, other than looking at your own feet I guess) and seems to offer robust protection.
It reminds me somewhat of the benevolent aliens in Fifth Element.
The most interesting thing about these old forms of armor to me is how they were developed in the first place. Did craftsmen work with warriors to test and fine-tune which designs worked and which didn’t? Or maybe it was more of an evolutionary process, whereby the winners of a conflict (which they won by having better armor) became the rulers, and therefore their designs were considered the best and copied?
Dudes get back from a war and say "hey, this one guy that killed most of us had a neat-o neck piece, can we have those and see if they help?"
I recall watching a lecture on Youtube where the lecturer pulled up a picture of the same armor as an example of archaeologists misinterpreting the purpose of what they find. The lecture hall, filled with professionals, started laughing as if it were some obvious well-known mistake of the archaeologist misidentifying it as armor. Still not sure what they all thought it was.
Ceremonial armour feels so strange concept. For something to become ceremonial it must first have real use case. You don't just go around inventing things from zero. Maybe you will scale it up and make it more impressive, but to have meaning it must first at some point had some real use.
That’s a good explanation of their origin. Ceremonial objects could be preserved and their progenitors lost, due to material reuse, ceremonial objects being well preserved through different storage methods, or something else.
However, usually objects of ceremonial use are also functional, just too expensive for everyone to use. E.g. we would tend to find an especially engraved bowl in ruins of a religious building—-it could still hold soup or beer in a pinch.
However, usually objects of ceremonial use are also functional, just too expensive for everyone to use. E.g. we would tend to find an especially engraved bowl in ruins of a religious building—-it could still hold soup or beer in a pinch.
A full suit of bronze armor back in 1200 BCE must have been absurdly expensive.
To make bronze, you need to alloy copper with tin which is rather rare
The alternative to tin was arsenic which is incredibly toxic to work with.
To make bronze, you need to alloy copper with tin which is rather rare
The alternative to tin was arsenic which is incredibly toxic to work with.
For the marines, I think wearing a kevlar helmet, LBV (or whatever they are using nowadays) with water, ammo etc, would already be 30+lbs (not including plate), so I suspect the marines would be like "45lbs, is that it?"
I initially read 'Dendra Armor' as 'Daedra Armor'
submission linking to actual paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40527844
[deleted]
In 3000 years, what of our culture will be wrongly associated with usage in a religious ceremony?
My money is on the cybertruck
My money is on the cybertruck
The bathroom mirror.
I mean it is largely ceremonial... (along with all those F-250s in the middle of a crowded city)
170 fucking ad partners.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Like the loaves and the fishes, they multiply.
>"fed roughly 4,500 calories worth of goat cheese, roasted meat, olives, bread, water, wine ..."
Where do I sign up ...
Where do I sign up ...
It looks imposing enough, reminds me of Stargate's aliens.
I love to see experimental archaeology making fools out of bookish academics too weak and lazy to get up from their chairs.
>> His team assumed the Trojan War happened
Stop there and try to prove that, first.
Stop there and try to prove that, first.
From the actual paper:
"Our hypothetical date for the Trojan War (1300–1200 BC) was needed to enable estimates of the environmental conditions (temperature, day-night cycle, etc.) but should not be considered as a contribution to the continuing discussions about the date of the War. Moreover, the Trojan War cannot be taken as a historical event, at least in the form described in the Homeric epics [...]. There is no way to know whether it reflects a single event or a period of turmoil that was triggered during an alleged migration from Greece to the eastern Aegean, a narrative that has been also put into question [...]"
Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
"Our hypothetical date for the Trojan War (1300–1200 BC) was needed to enable estimates of the environmental conditions (temperature, day-night cycle, etc.) but should not be considered as a contribution to the continuing discussions about the date of the War. Moreover, the Trojan War cannot be taken as a historical event, at least in the form described in the Homeric epics [...]. There is no way to know whether it reflects a single event or a period of turmoil that was triggered during an alleged migration from Greece to the eastern Aegean, a narrative that has been also put into question [...]"
Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
That should be put to the attention of the author of the article above, then (on Ars Technica).
So literally ? Hard to, however there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated and many torched cities that were rebuilt frequently. It might be more pertinent to say which events of over 20-30 major campaigns inspired the texts of the Iliad.
> there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated
Persia won't come into existence for at least 600 years if "the era" is Mycenaean Greece.
If you're talking about the region of the Persian homeland, there are zero records of invasions by Greeks of the era. It's on the other side of Mesopotamia from them. Troy is located in Anatolia both according to classical tradition and modern belief.
The best currently known evidence for the Trojan War is stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter
Persia won't come into existence for at least 600 years if "the era" is Mycenaean Greece.
If you're talking about the region of the Persian homeland, there are zero records of invasions by Greeks of the era. It's on the other side of Mesopotamia from them. Troy is located in Anatolia both according to classical tradition and modern belief.
The best currently known evidence for the Trojan War is stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter
I suspect OP is thinking of the Sea Peoples, some of whom are conjectured to have been Greeks (e.g. Acheans).
Do we know anything at all about any contact between the "Sea People" and Persia?
e.g. the distance between ancient Persia and Egypt significantly (~50%) larger than between Egypt and the Greek mainland and sea travel was much faster in the first place.
e.g. the distance between ancient Persia and Egypt significantly (~50%) larger than between Egypt and the Greek mainland and sea travel was much faster in the first place.
Well, again, the concept doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as Persia in the time of the Sea Peoples.
Distinctively Iranian languages would have existed at the time - in fact, distinctively Indic and Iranian languages are both documented for the period - but there was no polity identified with Persians and there was certainly nothing identified with Persia.
Terminology of the region tends to use different ethnic identifiers for different Iranian groups. (Medes / Persians / Parthians etc. etc.) This means that referring to "Persia" is a lot more specific than just a geographical designator. It's kind of weird, since in other historical contexts you do see ethnically similar groups treated as if they were the same.
But if you do want to just consider the people broadly construed, you're stuck with the fact that the relevant state in the late Bronze Age was Elam, which isn't Iranian at all, and "Persia" still doesn't apply.
If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire, then it included Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Iranian plateau, Afghanistan, and everything in between, and there are indeed lots of records of contact between the Sea Peoples and "Persia" by that definition.
But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" in a Bronze Age context. We'd have to stop referring to "Egypt" at all! At the time, there was no relevant concept that would relate to "Persia", the regions were not politically or culturally unified, none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"...
Distinctively Iranian languages would have existed at the time - in fact, distinctively Indic and Iranian languages are both documented for the period - but there was no polity identified with Persians and there was certainly nothing identified with Persia.
Terminology of the region tends to use different ethnic identifiers for different Iranian groups. (Medes / Persians / Parthians etc. etc.) This means that referring to "Persia" is a lot more specific than just a geographical designator. It's kind of weird, since in other historical contexts you do see ethnically similar groups treated as if they were the same.
But if you do want to just consider the people broadly construed, you're stuck with the fact that the relevant state in the late Bronze Age was Elam, which isn't Iranian at all, and "Persia" still doesn't apply.
If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire, then it included Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Iranian plateau, Afghanistan, and everything in between, and there are indeed lots of records of contact between the Sea Peoples and "Persia" by that definition.
But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" in a Bronze Age context. We'd have to stop referring to "Egypt" at all! At the time, there was no relevant concept that would relate to "Persia", the regions were not politically or culturally unified, none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"...
> But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia"
Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though? Yes they were a lot more concentrated geographically and the link between them and classical Greeks/Hellenes is strong but still seems like an anachronism.
> If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire
Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap.
> But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia"
Certainly, that why I wasn't sure why did they mention Persia in the first place.
> none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"
Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though? Yes they were a lot more concentrated geographically and the link between them and classical Greeks/Hellenes is strong but still seems like an anachronism.
> If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire
Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap.
> But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia"
Certainly, that why I wasn't sure why did they mention Persia in the first place.
> none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"
Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
> Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though?
If you want to refer to an Iranic group in the Bronze Age as "Persian", that's not what I meant to label as completely absurd.
Referring to Anatolia as "Persia" because Persia conquered it many centuries later, and then failed to maintain control, is completely absurd.
> Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap.
Yes, agreed, but that was the only reason I could think of for the original claim about contact between Bronze Age Greeks and "Persia".
> Considering that the word ["Persia"] is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
To the best of my knowledge, the ancient form is Parsa and "Persia" derives from that, not from the much later form "Fars". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%90%8E%B1%F0%90%8E%A0%F0%9...
I don't know when that term originates. It's possible that people living in the region would have used a related term for themselves in the Bronze Age. It would have had nearly no political significance. It's also possible, as far as I know, that the term is more recent than that.
I also don't know whether Achaemenid Persians would have referred to themselves by a term of that nature. There's a huge ongoing fight on Wikipedia over what terms are appropriate as Persian endonyms. What appears to be beyond dispute is that the people tended to refer to themselves by a term cognate with Aryan or Iranian. (Though when the Parsees leave for India, a thousand years later, they end up being called Parsees.) If you know more about this, I'd like to hear it.
If you want to refer to an Iranic group in the Bronze Age as "Persian", that's not what I meant to label as completely absurd.
Referring to Anatolia as "Persia" because Persia conquered it many centuries later, and then failed to maintain control, is completely absurd.
> Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap.
Yes, agreed, but that was the only reason I could think of for the original claim about contact between Bronze Age Greeks and "Persia".
> Considering that the word ["Persia"] is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
To the best of my knowledge, the ancient form is Parsa and "Persia" derives from that, not from the much later form "Fars". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%90%8E%B1%F0%90%8E%A0%F0%9...
I don't know when that term originates. It's possible that people living in the region would have used a related term for themselves in the Bronze Age. It would have had nearly no political significance. It's also possible, as far as I know, that the term is more recent than that.
I also don't know whether Achaemenid Persians would have referred to themselves by a term of that nature. There's a huge ongoing fight on Wikipedia over what terms are appropriate as Persian endonyms. What appears to be beyond dispute is that the people tended to refer to themselves by a term cognate with Aryan or Iranian. (Though when the Parsees leave for India, a thousand years later, they end up being called Parsees.) If you know more about this, I'd like to hear it.
> Referring to Anatolia as "Persia" because Persia conquered
Yeah, that was the entire point of my initial comment. To be fair I don't think I was able to contribute much besides that and of course I agree overall with what you're saying.
Yeah, that was the entire point of my initial comment. To be fair I don't think I was able to contribute much besides that and of course I agree overall with what you're saying.
[deleted]
Persia? What about China? I don't think there is any evidence of any contact between bronze age Greece and Persia.
well we did find the city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy
also there are burned remain, anti-chariot defensive works, and bronze arrow heads radio carbon dated to the right era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Korfmann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy
also there are burned remain, anti-chariot defensive works, and bronze arrow heads radio carbon dated to the right era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Korfmann
To be precise, what "we" (Heinrich Schliemann) found were the ruins of multiple cities, in multiple archeological layers, in a region that is rife with such things. We... well, he, then proceeded to declare one of those cities "Troy" and even took pictures of his wife with some jewels he found which he proclaimed to be "the jewels of Helen of Troy" [1].
That should suffice to underline the uncertainty, from a purely scientific point of view, of what, exactly, was found by Schliemann. My opinion is that this man has caused no end of damage to any attempt to find the historical truth, if any, of the Homeric epic. I've had a few fights with fellow Greeks who were convinced that Schliemann really-really found Troy, the actual city from the Iliad, which was a true story then. A friend once told me that not only Troy was found, but that it was "seven cities", as Troy is described in the Iliad; most likely a reference to the multiple layers of ruins at the place excavated by Schliemann. Some of whom were indeed destroyed by fire, suggesting war, if memory swerves, but not all and in any case there have been so many wars in the thousand years since the first city was built there that we might as well assume it was aliens who first destroyed it.
... which some people inevitably will.
___________
[1] Some of the history of those excavations is on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_history
The rest I know by dint of being born Greek and having read my fair share of ancient history (extracurricularly, obviously) as a child. I might misremember some things.
That should suffice to underline the uncertainty, from a purely scientific point of view, of what, exactly, was found by Schliemann. My opinion is that this man has caused no end of damage to any attempt to find the historical truth, if any, of the Homeric epic. I've had a few fights with fellow Greeks who were convinced that Schliemann really-really found Troy, the actual city from the Iliad, which was a true story then. A friend once told me that not only Troy was found, but that it was "seven cities", as Troy is described in the Iliad; most likely a reference to the multiple layers of ruins at the place excavated by Schliemann. Some of whom were indeed destroyed by fire, suggesting war, if memory swerves, but not all and in any case there have been so many wars in the thousand years since the first city was built there that we might as well assume it was aliens who first destroyed it.
... which some people inevitably will.
___________
[1] Some of the history of those excavations is on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_history
The rest I know by dint of being born Greek and having read my fair share of ancient history (extracurricularly, obviously) as a child. I might misremember some things.
> “Such suits of armor were recorded in palace archives—in the equipment lists of those complete or needing repair. This indicates they were supplied at the expense of palatial centers,” says Flouris. They were bloody expensive and thus financed, maintained, stored, and issued during emergencies by the state. Mycenaean palatial centers disappeared around 1200 BCE, and the supplies of Dendra-type armor disappeared with them.
So... it sounds like the armor was kind of ceremonial in a way. Even if it was functional it didn't sound very practical - it only existed as a projection of force and wealth in defensive situations.
So... it sounds like the armor was kind of ceremonial in a way. Even if it was functional it didn't sound very practical - it only existed as a projection of force and wealth in defensive situations.
You could say the same thing about intercepter aircraft and it’s a real stretch to call those ceremonial.
Hey, in Canada the newest model will be! Next year we'll have, what, four F-35s? We'd almost be better off making a bunch of that bronze armour and the cool hats...
As a fellow Canadian I gotta agree on this one.
One glance at the pictures tells me there's no way this design is for ceremonial use. This armor looks like a prime example of function over form.
Working out as a projection of force assumes its usefulness at impressing force.
This is science at its best.
> During those 11 hours, a typical warrior in Homeric tales would go through 31 one-versus-one duels, 10 encounters with the enemy on a chariot, two chariot-versus-chariot engagements, and one chariot-versus-warrior-on-ship encounter (a ranged battle where the warrior defended beached ships from charging chariots).