3 ms·
Analysis of Greek prehistoric combat in full body armour
- slibhb 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendra_panoply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendra_panoply
- Vecr 2y agoThe armor has very good coverage (better than modern military armor except bomb suits), but personally I wouldn't call armor "full body" unless it also covers the arms, legs, and at least some of the tops of the feet, plus of course a more complete full head helmet.
- adrian_b 2y agoWhat is shown in the photo is probably not the complete armor, because that Wikipedia page also mentions greaves and arm guards.
- swagasaurus-rex 2y agoLeg and foot armor was often times unnecessary in bronze age combat. Spears are meant to keep the enemy at a distance. Aiming for the foot would require some reaching, putting you in significant danger of counter attack. Armies lined up in row and each man covered the man to his right so reaching in battle would be a risky maneuver. As for protection against arrows only requires a thin layer of armor to deflect, and that armor is best located above the knee since arrows come from above. Alexander’s phalanx did not utilize foot or leg protection except for the most prestigious officers. Their thin shields were wide enough to cover their body, and it was noted that a phalanx with their spears raised, could scatter a volley of arrows along the spear shafts. Keep in mind all of this equipment needs to be packed and marched long distances, in the summer heat since armies did not campaign in the winter due to challenges with provisioning a sizable armies in wintertime. The wealthy elite could have baggage trains to carry superfluous equipment, but the bulk of any army marched on their own two legs and carried everything they went to war with on their backs.
- throwawayffffas 2y agoThere are a lot of assumptions about how this armor was used in this comment. It's worth mentioning, that the armor was found with an arm guard, greaves, two swords, no spearheads and no shield. Additionally this is from 1500 BC. If you have a guy in phalanx wearing this in mind, you are probably wrong.
- mr_toad 2y agoThe basic concept of Phalanxes date back to 2500BC at least. Greek hoplites might be more recent, but it’s a surety that the basics were in place long before that. Full body armour (probably expensive), along with swords suggest that’s this was probably the armour of someone high ranking, rather than a common soldier.
- swagasaurus-rex 2y agoThis is the source I'm referencing: https://acoup.blog/2019/05/03/collections-armor-in-order-part-i/ https://acoup.blog/2019/05/03/collections-armor-in-order-par... He talks about the economics of bronze age warriors, how most soldiers were generally expected to bring their own arms and armor which could be costly, and how soldiers would prioritize armoring their heads and torsos before other body parts.
- arp242 2y agoThe article has several images of the armour as tested.
- hermitcrab 2y agoI only skimmed the article. Is the high 'collar' shown here supposed to be a realistic replica?: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301494 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... It looks much higher than a medieval bevor and very impractical. You wouldn't be able to see much of attacks to your torso or legs.
- icegreentea2 2y agoYes, it's supposed to be a realistic replica (see sibling link to the "Dendra panolpy). Another previous discussion on this subject (links to Ars article referencing/based on the linked paper): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40522939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40522939 The apparent "impractically" of the armor is one of the very reasons it's being tested. I think the apparent reduction in visibility is probably being exaggerated in some of the pictures that they've chosen to use. In addition, since a lot of the fighting would be with spears, I'd assume there would often be enough distance that the high visor wouldn't obstruct too much relevant vision.
- teruakohatu 2y agoI agree, the camera angle is from below and the spearman seems to be tilting his head. Figure 3 in the paper has a image showing an angle that implies the spearman had decent vision.
- hosh 2y agoIt is probably compensated by the shield and the heavier torso armor. Attacks to legs (depending upon height differences) reduces the measure unless the attacker squat and thrust without leaning forward. Big shields also have similar issues with visibility. They can protect you, but they also cut visibility.
- epilys 2y agoCloseup photo of the collar/neck part: https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/site/assets/files/2766/detail.jpg https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/site/assets/files/2766/...
- poulpy123 2y agoI will be the pedant one, but is it prehistoric if the armor is more recent than writing ?
- poulpy123 2y agoafter checking wikipedia, history in greece starts after the bronze age
- drcode 2y agoBronze age Greece has known writing in linear B, which we can decipher, we just don't have that much of it
- throwawayffffas 2y agoThe armor is from the 15th century bc. The first attested linear b finding is from the 14th century bc. So the armor is prehistoric.
- mkoubaa 2y agoFor anyone like me that wanted to see the mentioned computational model, it is here: https://figshare.com/articles/software/Late_Bronze_Age_Warrior_Model/12090831/1?file=22477940 https://figshare.com/articles/software/Late_Bronze_Age_Warri...
- jvanderbot 2y agoIf you'd like more information on how you'd fight in this armor, I believe a Sarissa phalanx was common for helenistic greece. https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/ https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-... If you aren't familiar with acoup.blog, highly highly recommended.
- robotomir 2y agoI am sorry for jumping on this opportunity to be a smartass, but this type of armor predates the sarissa phalanx by almost 1000 years.
- jvanderbot 2y agoWell I stand happily corrected then!