Men of Bronze: The Weaponry of Greek Hoplites in the Classical Era

124
Men of Bronze: The Weaponry of Greek Hoplites in the Classical Era


Hoplite Shield: The Impenetrable Wall of the Ancient Greek Army


The key element of the ancient Greek warrior's protective armament was the famous shield - the aspis. This most important component of the equipment has undergone a long evolutionary path since the Mycenaean era. Initially, the shield had the shape of an eight with side cutouts. By the 8th century BC, it had transformed into a round shield known as the Argive (Argive) or hoplon. From this name came the term "hoplite" - a heavily armed infantryman who became a symbol of Greek military power.



The Argive shield differed from its predecessors by its increased convexity and reinforced edge. These features gave it the necessary rigidity to withstand blows in battle. The shield's diameter was about a meter, and its weight was 7-8 kilograms. It protected the warrior from the chin to the knees, and also partially covered the left side of the neighboring fighter in the line. Thus, the shield served not only as an individual means of protection, but also as an important element of the collective defense of the phalanx.


Hoplite Shield - Argive Hoplon

Despite its impressive size, the shield was relatively thin. This made it effective against spears and swords, but vulnerable to javelins and arrows. This design reflects the Greek desire for a balance between protection and mobility, which was critical for maneuverability in a phalanx formation.

The shield was attached to the arm using a bronze bracelet, the porpax. It was riveted to the inside of the shield with two plates. The warrior would put his forearm through the porpax and grab the cord that ran around the entire circumference of the edge of the shield. This cord was attached to the shield with rivets placed at regular intervals and hidden under the outer covering.

An interesting detail: the Spartans, after the end of military campaigns, detached the porpax and stored it separately. This prevented the possible use of the shield by the helots in the event of a rebellion. This practice emphasizes that the shield was important not only as part of the armament, but also as a symbol of civil status.

The base of the shield was made of wood, probably walnut. In the classical period, it began to be covered with a thin layer of pressed bronze or ox leather. In the archaic period, the metal coating was limited to the edges and the central boss. In the classical era, the central boss disappeared. Emblems were applied to the shields, often in red on a black background, which is clearly visible in vase paintings.

After their first encounters with the Persians, the Greeks introduced an additional element: a leather apron on the lower edge of the shield. It served to protect against enemy arrows and darts. This innovation demonstrates the ability of the Greeks to adapt their weapons to new threats.

Shields also served as a means of identification and expression of belonging to a certain polis. For example, the Argives were famous for their white shields, sometimes decorated with an image of a hydra. Even Aeschylus mentions these shields. Shields mainly featured geometric patterns, images of objects and animals. Over time, special symbols emerged to indicate belonging to a certain polis: lambda for Sparta, a club for Thebes, and so on. These symbols not only helped identify warriors on the battlefield, but also reinforced the sense of unity and pride in their city-state.

Helmets: protection and intimidation


The hoplite's helmet, like the shield, was not particularly strong. It could not always withstand a sword blow, but its flexibility made it easy to put on, take off, and lift onto the forehead during a break. The main problem with the helmet was the lack of straps to secure it to the chin. This created the risk of losing the helmet in the heat of battle.

The most common was the Corinthian helmet, known since the 8th century BC. It gradually evolved and completely covered the face, leaving only slits for the eyes, nose and mouth. However, the main drawback of this design was that it covered the ears, making it difficult to perceive the commander's commands. Therefore, warriors often kept the helmet raised until the start of a direct confrontation. This allowed them to better hear orders and assess the situation on the battlefield.

In the 5th century BC, new modifications of the helmet appeared, reflecting the desire to improve hearing and visibility:

1. Chalcidian helmet with ear holes and removable or fixed cheek pieces.


Helmet of the Chalcidian type from southern Italy, 2nd half of the XNUMXth century

2. Attic helmet with removable cheek pieces and without a nasal guard.


Attic helmet

3. A Thracian helmet with a raised brim to protect the eyes and ears, long cheek pieces covering the mouth, and a small crest on top.


A type of Thracian helmet

In parallel, the Boeotian type of helmet developed and spread. It was more open and derived from the felt headdress. According to Demosthenes, the contingents from Plataea were still wearing such headdresses during the first Persian invasion. The Boeotian helmet had a wide visor, projecting all the way around, especially on the forehead. This diversity of helmet types shows how the Greeks experimented with design, trying to find the best balance between protection and practicality.

The inside of the helmets was usually lined with fabric. Some warriors also wore a fabric headdress under the helmet to soften blows. A horsehair comb was often placed on top of the helmet. Initially, it served to give the warrior a more impressive appearance, and later became a sign of rank. The comb was stored separately from the helmet in a special box to preserve the colors. Before battle, it was attached to the helmet using fork-fasteners or a slightly curved rod.


Fork-holder for a comb (for a Roman helmet, though)

Officers, like Roman centurions, wore a transverse crest. It is also known that taxiarchs and strategoi often decorated their helmets with crests with ostrich feathers. These elements not only served a decorative function, but also helped soldiers quickly identify their commanders in the chaos of battle.

Another distinctive sign of Spartan officers was the bacterium, a stick that could be straight or curved at one end. It was used to support the body under the left armpit. In simple terms, it was a staff or even a crutch. The bacterium served not only as a sign of distinction, but also had a practical use, allowing officers to conserve strength during long campaigns and battles.


Miniature depicting a Spartan commander wearing a helmet with a transverse crest and holding a bacterium in his hand

Armor: from bell to anatomy


In the Archaic period, the most important warriors wore bell-shaped armor with horizontal ring plates widening toward the waist. This bulky armor, which we can imagine on Homeric heroes, evolved over time into the so-called "anatomical" bronze armor of the Classical era. This evolution reflects a general trend toward increased mobility and adaptation to phalanx tactics.

The anatomical armor was modeled to the shape of the torso and closed at the waist. From it hung strips of tanned leather, called pteruges. They were arranged in two layers, with the second layer covering the gaps left by the first. This solution provided additional protection for the lower part of the body without limiting the warrior's mobility.


One of the early versions of the anatomical cuirass

Essentially, the armor consisted of two bronze plates connected by three hinges on each side - one on each shoulder and two on the sides. The hinges were usually opened and closed on the right side, secured with pins. Some models used straps under the arm for additional fixation, attached to two rings where the plates met. This design allowed the warrior to easily put on and take off the armor, and also ensured a good fit.


Later (Roman) anatomical armour with straps and pteruges for the hips and shoulders

There was also another type of armour called "composite". In this, the bronze was covered with linen or leather to prevent rust. Some armours were made of only a few layers of tanned leather or linen (linothorax). Linen armour was valued for its flexibility, lightness and low cost. It could be up to half a centimetre thick. The joint was usually located on the left side. Another U-shaped piece extended from the centre of the back to cover the shoulders, with the two ends fastened to the chest.

Greek warriors wore clothing under their armor. Until the middle of the 5th century BC, this clothing was most often a chiton, a typical wardrobe item of that time. The chiton was usually made of linen or wool. It was a rectangular piece of fabric that was wrapped around the body, draped, and belted at the waist. The upper edge was turned down to the waist. Later, the chiton was replaced by an exomis, a short, sleeveless linen tunic, pulled in at the waist with a belt.

The protective armament was complemented by greaves, introduced in the 7th century BC. Craftsmen shaped them to match the contours of the calf. Thanks to this, they fit tightly to the leg, without requiring additional straps for fixation. Initially, greaves covered the leg from the ankle to the knee. Over time, they began to be made so that they also protected the knee, which turned out to be especially vulnerable in battle. In some periods, something like stockings were worn under the greaves to prevent the bronze from rubbing against the skin.

Offensive weapons: spear and sword


Of the offensive weapons, the spear, called doru or dori, played a much more important role than the sword. The Greeks preferred spears with shafts made of ash, which provided the optimal balance between strength and lightness. Although some cities imported wood from other Balkan countries, ash grew in abundance in the mountainous regions of the peninsula. The spear was just under two and a half meters long and weighed about a kilogram.

The process of making the spear was quite complex and required a high level of skill. First, the logs were split lengthwise using wooden mallets and wedges. After the pieces of wood had been left to age, they were further processed, removing all weak parts. The result was a rough shaft about six centimeters in diameter. Then a special craftsman, called a doryxos ("spear sharpener"), used a small curved knife called a xuelé to give the shaft its final shape. Several methods were used to finish the shaft's surface: grinding with abrasive stones or sand, polishing with leather or cloth, possibly with the addition of oil, and processing with metal scrapers to achieve smoothness.

The shaft was then passed on to other craftsmen who added metal parts made of iron or bronze. Resin was used for the joints, and in some cases iron rings. The leaf-shaped tip itself was attached to the sharper end. The back point, called the storax (“lizard killer”), was attached to the thicker end. It was used for stabbing weapons into the ground while the hoplite was resting. The final stage of processing was to wrap the center of the shaft with a square piece of cloth, which was then sewn on. This provided the warrior with a secure grip.

As for the swords, they were a secondary but no less important weapon for the hoplite. Greek swords were mostly bronze and came in various types. The hoplite carried his sword in a scabbard, suspended over his shoulder. The scabbard was made of wood and covered with leather. This design allowed the weapon to be quickly drawn if necessary, especially if the spear was lost or broken during battle.


Xiphos

The most common type of sword was the xiphos. It had a characteristic cruciform hilt and a straight, double-edged, leaf-shaped blade that widened toward the hilt. The blade was about 75 centimeters long. This size made the sword long enough to deliver effective blows, but not so large that it would get in the way in the tight formation of the phalanx.

An interesting evolution of Greek bladed weapons occurred from the 60th century BC. At this time, curved single-edged swords, probably of eastern origin, became widespread. These swords, called kopis (not to be confused with the Egyptian khopes) and machaira, were about 65-XNUMX centimeters long. Their handles were often shaped like a bird or an animal's head, and were also pronouncedly rounded to protect the knuckles. This design not only ensured a secure grip, but also gave the weapon additional aesthetic value.


Mahaira

The emergence of these new types of swords is evidence of the cultural exchange and borrowing of military technology that was characteristic of the ancient Greek world. It also demonstrates the willingness of the Greeks to adapt and improve their weaponry using the experience of other peoples.
124 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    24 September 2024 05: 56
    It is not entirely clear what material was used to make the armor. Iron? Bronze? Plastic? Apart from bronze fasteners, I found nothing. Of course, I know all this, but there are readers who do not. It would be good if the Author, without going into material science and the technologies that existed at that time, explained in a few words how the armor of that time was made.
    1. 0
      25 September 2024 08: 52
      Linen armor was both cheap and cheerful and could withstand a blow no worse than bronze.
    2. +1
      29 September 2024 18: 48
      Hypothoraxes are bronze (the halves of the cuirass were hammered out on stone matrices), linothoraxes are glued from several layers of fabric (they could have metal scaly reinforcements).
      Iron armor was also found in the late antique period; armor from a tomb in Vergina, attributed to Philip II of Macedon, is known; it is characteristically made in the form of a linothorax.
      http://xlegio.ru/netcat_files/Image/armies/max/alexandercavalry02.jpg
      Regarding this:
      Linen armor was valued for its flexibility, lightness, and low cost. Its thickness could reach half a centimeter.

      Reconstructions of linothoraces show that they were quite rigid (10-12 layers of glued fabric). In addition, expensive linothoraces are known, trimmed with expensive fabrics and dyed with expensive dyes (for example, purple).
  2. +3
    24 September 2024 07: 25
    Anatomical armor was modeled by torso shape and closed at the waist

    I don't think the torsos had the kind of pronounced abs that are seen on the armor.
    Rather, it is a wishful thinking...
    1. +3
      24 September 2024 10: 39
      Rather, these are decoratively made stiffening ribs.
      1. +4
        24 September 2024 10: 52
        Quote: Andobor
        Rather, these are decoratively made stiffening ribs.

        On the ancient cuirass, not only the abs are highlighted, but also the nipples.

        It is therefore suggested that: the ancient Greeks developed their "muscular" armour to suit "heroic nakedness"

        The ancient historian Thucydides mentions that the cuirass of a bronze hoplite in battle is inseparable from him. In other words, during battles, the armor of a Greek warrior is his real body, and his spear or sword is an extension of his hand.

        The Greeks were concerned about the impression their warriors could make on their enemies - they were not simply clad in bronze muscular cuirasses. In fact, from the outside it seemed that they themselves The hoplites were made of bronze and thus frightened the enemies.(c)
      2. +1
        25 September 2024 08: 56
        This is to show off... well, what's the point of feathers on knights' helmets? Yes, the same Greeks with a shoe brush on a Corinthian helmet, it looks nice. But there simply was no heavier weapon to knock off this helmet with a blow from above, and with or without a head, well, as luck would have it.
        1. 0
          30 September 2024 17: 22
          The comb also allowed you to see who was in front of you and visually, like feathers, made the warrior’s figure taller.
          1. 0
            30 September 2024 17: 35
            For the phalanx, everything is clear anyway, you just know your neighbors, you've been to each other's holidays and funerals, don't forget - this is a militia. A relative who hasn't seen me, or at least in infancy, well, I wasn't far behind then, identified me by the back of my head, believe it or not. My son has the same.
            No need to modernize, those people knew each other and communicated for years, they, roughly speaking, poked around in the same sandbox at one time, and who was standing next to you in front or behind you knew very well - these were your neighbors. No need to modernize history. Who is the eldest. Yes, they painted feathers, or the comb went across, so that there was a reference point, but not in order to accidentally hit one of their own, but to understand where the efforts of the phalanx's onslaught are directed.
  3. +1
    24 September 2024 07: 43
    I would also like to add that the Greek spear always had an iron tip, unlike the bronze ones used in the East, but why swords were always bronze is unclear...
    1. +4
      24 September 2024 10: 11
      They just didn't know how. Bronze is more malleable, and an iron sword is not just high-tech of that time, it is its pinnacle. It was much easier to make an iron spearhead.
      1. -1
        30 September 2024 17: 40
        Only the Greeks were more technologically backward than the Persians... have you ever wondered why Alexander the Great went crazy after conquering the Persians?
    2. +5
      24 September 2024 11: 28
      Quote: Luminman
      I would also like to add that the Greek spear always had an iron tip, unlike the bronze ones used in the East, but why swords were always bronze is unclear...

      The classic hoplite spear was equipped with a bronze spearhead at the reverse end.
      In addition, the spear was the main weapon of the Greek (Macedonian) phalanx. The sword was auxiliary. It began to be made of iron en masse only at the beginning of the wars for the succession of Alexander the Great.
    3. +2
      24 September 2024 15: 51
      Well, if you consider that iron is a soft metal, then bronze is better. Most likely, the weapon was still made of steel.
    4. 0
      30 September 2024 17: 39
      Bronze could also pierce Greek linen armor. And what century were the swords bronze? We have plenty of iron Scythian akinakes found in the same period, where did you get this information? The main weapon of the phalanx is a spear, and the shield is a hoplon. Subsequently, the Macedonian phalanx began to abandon swords altogether.
  4. +5
    24 September 2024 08: 06
    Thanks to the Author, interesting review article.

    The shield's diameter was about a meter and its weight was 7-8 kilograms. It protected the warrior from the chin to the knees, and also partially covered the left side of the neighboring fighter in the line.


    Probably the right one?

    This practice emphasizes that the shield was important not only as a piece of armament, but also as a symbol of civil status.


    It is worth mentioning that the dead were often brought on a shield - "With it or on it."

    The author mentioned all the components of the armor, except perhaps the greaves.

    An interesting point about clothing is that it seems they often fought barefoot.
    1. +2
      24 September 2024 10: 59
      The author mentioned all the components of the armor, except perhaps the greaves.

      A very important item in the defensive armament of a hoplite is the bracers.
      1. +3
        24 September 2024 12: 15
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        hoplite weapons, such as bracers.

        Did not have!
      2. -1
        30 September 2024 17: 48
        One, why is there a bracer on the hand that holds the shield? It's the same with the greaves, but the other way around... the left one.
        All this is money, but with a hoplon of 60-80 cm ceiling, why do you need a left bracer? But the right one is mandatory, the first thing that flies is right on the hand, and then on the head and the lower jaw is better to hide behind the shield, otherwise they will give it to you with a kick, well, it will be unpleasant.
        Moreover, these are my assumptions without relying on sources, the neighbor on the left could hit the opponent with a spear to his neighbor on the right. We just don't have detailed descriptions of how this happened.

        But from the point of view of historical science, we do not have exact data and everything that I said and said above, are assumptions, but I see it exactly like that. With all due respect, Vladislav, I worked on the topic of the Greco-Persian wars for 5 years.
  5. +6
    24 September 2024 08: 11
    A brief excursion into the armament of the ancient Greek hoplite for dummies (like me). But this passage offended me.
    . Emblems were applied to the shields, often in red on a black background, which is clearly visible on vase paintings.

    On those vases everything is either black and red, or red and black. And about
    bell-shaped armor with horizontal ring-shaped plates that widen toward the waist. This bulky
    You could at least provide a picture for clarity. Otherwise it turns out that Achilles was fighting Hector in some terribly inconvenient crap.
    And about the straps under the helmets - since they weren't there, it's not because the Greeks didn't invent them and stupidly lost helmets every now and then in battle, but there were probably other reasons. Maybe, for example, when hit, the helmet could become deformed, skewed and the straps could dig into the neck and under the jaw. And in battle, I think such an inconvenience is worse than a helmet flying off. Besides, try to knock off the same Corinthian helmet.
    1. +4
      24 September 2024 08: 35
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      Perhaps, for example, upon impact the helmet could become deformed, skewed and the straps could dig into the neck and under the jaw.

      The only reasonable explanation...
      1. +2
        24 September 2024 08: 49
        It's nice to hear approval of your thoughts from authoritative people.
    2. +6
      24 September 2024 08: 50
      It would be possible to at least provide a drawing for clarity.
      Please. The so-called "Dendra armor".
      1. +2
        24 September 2024 08: 54
        Thank you hi It's really not a very convenient device. Is it really made of iron? Or is it just a trick of the world?
        1. +5
          24 September 2024 08: 59
          Is it really iron?
          Bronze. Reenactors made replicas and found the use of the armor quite tolerable.
          1. +4
            24 September 2024 09: 03
            Well, a man-tower. That's how I imagined Goliath. Brad Pitt in "Troy" wouldn't be so photogenic in this. winked
            1. +2
              24 September 2024 09: 09
              Brad Pitt in "Troy"
              I think that all this "striptease" around the spear, performed by Pitt, has nothing to do with historical reality. Although I like the film.
              1. +3
                24 September 2024 09: 14
                all this "striptease" around the spear, in

                Similar "acrobatics" are found on ancient Greek vases. He acts there not only with a spear, but also with a sword no less epically. I also like the film
                1. +4
                  24 September 2024 09: 20
                  But the vases are 700 years younger than this armor. And the tactics and protective weapons have changed. Such armor was available only to leaders of the level of Hector and Achilles.
                  1. +3
                    24 September 2024 09: 27
                    Well, you really can't throw out any kundstuks in such tower-like armor. So in reality, everything looked more mundane and scarier. However, like everything that distinguishes real war from cinematic war
                  2. +2
                    24 September 2024 17: 41
                    The scene in Troy where Pitt leaps and stabs a large opponent in the throat over his shield is actually about that much older than the events of the Trojan War. It is known, for example, from a very beautiful stone brooch with stunning detail.
                    The blade there is a short Mycenaean rapier, they had no others.
                    1. +1
                      25 September 2024 13: 09
                      There is another problem, he fell out of order, i.e. he could have killed, which by the way was normal for that century. But at the same time he exposes his neighbors, especially the one on the left.
                2. +4
                  24 September 2024 10: 15
                  He not only uses a spear there, but also uses a sword no less epically
                  But in reality: attack-parade-riposte. And from the outside, no one will understand anything. belay
                  1. -1
                    25 September 2024 13: 10
                    They killed with spears, or with a sword, or as a last resort.
              2. +3
                24 September 2024 10: 14
                I think that this whole "striptease" around the spear, performed by Pitt, has nothing to do with historical reality.

                Yes, I did, with other reenactors, in several films. And the first question to the director from the reenactors is "What do you want - beautiful or real?", they ask to show the difference, then they say - "no, real is not necessary - the viewer will not understand anything - let's do "spectacular", not "effective". Reenactors have a list of films that are not embarrassing and not disgusting to watch, but there are very few of them.
                1. +3
                  24 September 2024 12: 02
                  And the first question to the director from the recon is: "What do you want - beautiful or real?" They ask to show the difference, then they say: "No, we don't need real - the viewer won't understand anything - let's make it "spectacular" and not "effective".
                  The guys from St. Petersburg's "Old Friends" say the same thing.
            2. +1
              29 September 2024 19: 55
              Well, I don't know...
              Here people have drawn a picture - a comparison
              1. 0
                29 September 2024 20: 09
                Thanks, I'll even save it. It turns out the filmmakers weren't so wrong about everything except Achilles' equipment. Well, Pitt wouldn't look good in such a device, but the weapons are quite appropriate, and Hector is quite authentic.
          2. +2
            24 September 2024 17: 29
            Anton, good health. You are welcome to joke: if it is bronze, then... How much does it weigh and try marching in such a bell"?
            1. +2
              24 September 2024 17: 54
              Vlad2, in principle, armor can be carried in a cart and put on before battle...
              The convoy didn't appear yesterday evening.
              1. +1
                24 September 2024 20: 00
                An ox cart cannot manage a fast march; it will simply fall behind.
              2. 0
                25 September 2024 13: 14
                They carried them on themselves, and they weren't that heavy. A hoplite's armor weighed about 6 kg. For a convoy, convoy drivers were needed, but where could they be found? Here, one must understand the structure of Greek society. And even for money, there were few who wanted to leave their trade.
                For example, in Athens and not only there there were citizens, but there were non-citizens, personally free, and why the hell would they drag themselves on a campaign?
            2. +2
              24 September 2024 18: 43
              As far as I remember, at the level of Maximilian's armor. The same 18-25 kg. Mobility is much lower. All the drawings I've seen imply that a fighter in such a suit worked with a spear with both hands in a line of the same.
              1. +1
                25 September 2024 13: 19
                You are mistaken. A hoplite normally hit with one hand, because with two he would expose his belly. Moreover, this is really only my guess, I cannot confirm it based on the source, the victim could not have been the first rank, but the second, the third would have been hard to reach.
                Why hold the spear with both hands? This is a Macedonian phalanx, not a Doric one, and it had its own diagram, look at Connolly, there is a clear picture there.
            3. +1
              24 September 2024 19: 20
              Hello, Slava! They didn't march in this, they fought in this. And only a few.
      2. 0
        27 September 2024 08: 05
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Please. The so-called "Dendra armor".

        This is most likely armor for chariot combat, not "infantry". It is at least 200 years older than the Trojan War, during which they were already drawing "slightly" different armor. In the 15th century BC, the Greeks still shot and stabbed from chariots.
        Although Andreas D. Floris proved last year that one can run and swing in such armor for several hours without significant limitations, the armor is clearly not for the masses.
    3. +6
      24 September 2024 09: 40
      And about the straps under the helmets - since there weren't any


      There were chin straps, but I'm not sure if they were on all helmets.

      Corinthian helmets were probably usually strapless.

      A selection of Chalcidian helmets, all with holes in the cheekpieces for a strap (cord)
      https://andrewbek-1974.livejournal.com/544958.html

      Illyrian helmet with holes in the chin area

      Illyrian helmet without holes in the chin area

      Helmet-pilos, paired holes for a strap are visible (theoretically it could be for cheek pads, but it is unlikely)

      Bust of Pyrrhus. Less representative, because it belongs to the later, Hellenistic era, but the intricate chin clasps are very clearly visible.

      Attic helmet from the Samnite area. No holes in the cheekpieces
      https://ru.pinterest.com/pin/667095763572519974/
      1. +4
        24 September 2024 09: 54
        PS I also remembered that in the Iliad Menelaus dragged Paris by his helmet. He dragged him until the chin strap broke. laughing
        1. +2
          24 September 2024 18: 46
          Off-topic: it would be more logical if not for the helmet, but for a very similar-sounding four-letter word: the second and third are the same as in the word "helmet", but the first is "h". And drag it like that until it came off. Although, Paris would scream so much that, perhaps, the chin strap would break earlier. Although, his vocal cords would break even earlier.
          1. +2
            24 September 2024 19: 04
            If Alaksandu-Paris was wearing armor from Dendra, then it would be problematic to grab hold of this
            1. +2
              24 September 2024 19: 26
              It folded upwards, like a Soviet tourist cup. So if a soldier, when falling, slid on his butt a couple of meters, there was something to grab onto, that's the most...
              1. +2
                24 September 2024 19: 44
                It folded upwards like a Soviet tourist cup.


                Possibly depends on the reconstruction
                Bakas and Antonis have apron sections that are hanging out quite a bit, it seems like they are about to come apart
                https://koryvantesstudies.org/studies-in-english-language/page215-2/


                And in recent tests involving marines, the apron looks quite monolithic,
                https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soldiers-put-an-ancient-greek-suit-of-armor-to-the-test-and-it-passed-180984411/

                Both warriors are in similar poses, although in Bakas' experiment the fighter has his leg forward
    4. +4
      24 September 2024 10: 13
      The Greeks knew about such helmet straps very well, they just didn’t always use them.
      In Homer, Menelaus drags Paris by his helmet, and the strap snaps.
      1. +2
        24 September 2024 10: 57
        The Greeks knew about such helmet straps very well, they just didn’t always use them.
        In Homer, Menelaus drags Paris by his helmet, and the strap snaps.

        Totally agree!
        It's just that at a certain point in time, the use of sponge as a balaclava became more common, which allowed us to abandon the belt fastening system. By the way, the latter is quite a dangerous thing.
        1. +3
          24 September 2024 18: 35
          I think this is primarily due to the high probability of getting a couple of ounces of lead in your helmet from a Balearic slinger (or its cheaper equivalent). They shot extremely accurately and very far.
          1. +4
            24 September 2024 22: 22
            Good night!
            Quote: AllBiBek
            I think this is primarily due to the high probability of getting a couple of ounces of lead in your helmet from a Balearic slinger (or its cheaper equivalent). They shot extremely accurately and very far.

            Quite a reliable version - I agree!
            I would like to add that, contrary to the opinion of the Author, horsehair combs also primarily served a protective function.
            1. +2
              25 September 2024 11: 11
              I disagree, Pan). The Greeks did not have cutting blades of the required length to endanger the crown of the helmet. And the risk of getting caught on the dome with a kopis is minimal, they still have to reach. The extremity is much closer and more convenient. And all other weapons are more piercing.
              1. +1
                25 September 2024 12: 15
                Interesting note,

                But here's the thing... We know that the Athenians and especially the Thebans preferred to attack on the run, and the first contact could be in the form of a shield-to-shield strike, after which that same othismos would begin. It turns out that from the very beginning there could have been a fierce "cartney" (it might not have happened, especially in the case of the Spartans, who preferred methodical pushing), where there is a place for short blades, among other things. This is even without taking into account the discussion of "poking versus pushing".

                Again, Epaminondas was most likely killed with a sword (according to Plutarch), which means they hit something more dangerous than a limb.
                1. 0
                  25 September 2024 13: 40
                  I don't know. I defended my thesis on the Greco-Persians. Tactics, weapons, were the same for everyone and later the same Lacedaemonians were beaten with terrible force. The Sparta phenomenon is exaggerated. They sent 300 Spartans and a thousand, probably conditional, Periekoi to Thermopylae. The only benefit from the death of King Leonidas's detachment was that he allowed the rest of the Greeks to escape. That's all Sparta put forward in the supposedly pan-Greek struggle.
                  I can't speak for Epaminondas, what difference does it make how he was killed? These are details.
                  And the short blades made me laugh, they were the same for all Greeks, like the Katzenbergers in the 30 Years' War. We open cans with a can opener, not with an axe.
                2. -1
                  25 September 2024 13: 52
                  What's the point of hitting the shield? They held spears above their heads.
                  https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/i?id=d9ffe36aadc0821ed90f7b78d40eb1c3_l-9461391-images-thumbs&n=13
                  This is roughly what it looked like, run the link on the internet
                  1. +2
                    25 September 2024 14: 50
                    They held spears above their heads

                    I know how spears were held in the classical phalanx. This does not contradict what I am writing.

                    What's the point of hitting the shield?

                    The blow of shields against the enemy's shields is recorded by ancient authors. A possible explanation is that if two phalanxes attack at a run, they can only stop by physically pushing against each other - hence the shield-to-shield blow.

                    And the short blades made me laugh; they were the same for all the Greeks.

                    This is most likely not true, Plutarch has a passage that the Spartans' blades were shorter than those of other Greeks
                    1. 0
                      25 September 2024 15: 50
                      First of all, I don't argue for the sake of arguing. About running, formation can be broken, training is needed, and a phalanx is a militia, and as for blades, I have never seen archeological confirmation that something was shorter or longer. The question is not about the length of the blade, but about its applicability, whether in a landfill or the economic component, a blade is expensive.
                      1. +2
                        25 September 2024 16: 11
                        First of all, I don't argue for the sake of arguing.

                        So far, I have a different impression. You haven't provided any arguments at all.

                        About running, the line will break, training is needed and the phalanx is a militia



                        Plutarch on Leuctra
                        The enemy, having guessed his plan, began to reorganize his battle order, deploying and bending the right wing with the intention of encircling and locking in Epaminondas with superior forces, but at that moment three hundred soldiers of Pelopidas rushed forward, closing ranks as they ran,


                        Herodotus about Marathon
                        The behavior of the Athenians seemed insane and even fatal to the Persians, since there were few enemies and, moreover, they rushed at the Persians at full speed.


                        Xenophon on Greek mercenaries in Cilicia
                        And so, at the sound of the trumpet, the Hellenes raised their arms and went on the offensive. Then, with loud cries, they quickened their pace, which automatically turned into a run.


                        Goldsworthy's Opinion
                        https://www.roman-glory.com/04-01-15
                        When the phalanx approached the enemy, usually everyone except the Spartans would break into a quick walk or run.




                        The question is not in the length of the blade, but in its applicability, what in the dump,

                        The question is about the possibility of using a short blade in a phalanx fight in general. The dump is a private option for use


                        and as for the blades, I have never seen archeological confirmation that there was anything shorter or longer there.


                        Plutarch
                        Demades claimed that sword-swallowing magicians always preferred Spartan ones because they were the shortest. To this Agid the Younger replied: "And yet the Spartans reach their enemies with these swords too
                      2. -1
                        25 September 2024 16: 27
                        Could you somehow separate the text so that it would be easier to read?
                        Plutarch on Leuctra

                        So what the hell? Well, I frankly find it funny. What did Plutarch himself see? Moreover, even if he saw something, I would find it funny, I will tell you as a participant of Antimaidan. What real eyewitnesses of him told me that it seemed like we were in two Kievs and in a parallel reality.

                        Further, Herodotus has the Athenian center wavering at Marathon. Even the stipulation that the Persians almost broke through is nonsense. Marathon is the precursor to the Battle of Cannae.
                        And so, at the sound of the trumpet, the Hellenes raised their arms and went on the offensive. Then, with loud cries, they quickened their pace, which automatically turned into a run.

                        When did you start running, at what distance? Dear interlocutor, did you run in armor? I did, and that very running is needed for a strike, and a distance of 30 meters is a fucking limit. No one ran with a tape measure there. In addition to not getting tired while running, you also need to not break the line, and tell me where the lousy militia got such training from?
                        Well, just imagine today's accountants and lawyers with machine guns on their phones, it's about the same picture, only worse.
                      3. +2
                        25 September 2024 16: 35
                        So what the hell?

                        Killer argument laughing
                        Plutarch's sources have long been sorted out. There are more than a hundred of them. This is his undoubted value.

                        The course of the Battle of Marathon is of no importance in this case. What is important here is that the attack was carried out at a run, as I wrote about. Hence the possibility of a "shield to shield" strike when the phalanxes collided.

                        When did you start running, and at what distance?

                        It is of no fundamental importance. Even if they switched to running 30-50 meters from the enemy, it does not matter. What is important is that a relatively deep (8 or more ranks) phalanx runs, which means it cannot stop at once, so a thrust - a blow to the enemy's shields is quite possible or even inevitable. And this will be the minimum distance where there is room even for very short swords. That's the whole thesis.
                      4. -1
                        25 September 2024 16: 56
                        A killer argument laughing
                        Plutarch's sources have long been sorted out. There are more than a hundred of them. This is his undoubted value.

                        Any source is valuable, but forgive me for being rude, but when did he live?
                        People like you sincerely admire me. Do you just study to be a historian for 5 years?
                        So the Macedonian phalanxes began to abandon swords altogether in the Hellenistic era. And do you really think that such a topic can be saddled with such a rush? I haven't even told you about Epaminondas.
                      5. +2
                        25 September 2024 17: 04
                        I only brought one possible element of collision mechanics. That's all. I didn't try to give my vision of the general concept of the classical phalanx, I don't have one, the topic is inexhaustible.

                        Your passive aggression with attempts to pick on half of the posts in the topic is completely incomprehensible. Moreover, no arguments are given, there is only puffing out of cheeks.
                      6. -2
                        25 September 2024 19: 37
                        Well, 5 years since I dealt with the issue, then we'll talk. The topic is completely exhausted by graphic images, who there was, how it was quite clear, and the general principle of its action is described by historians, given the weak development of science in the 19th century.
                      7. +2
                        25 September 2024 20: 32
                        Already not even funny
                        The entire topic is literally spammed with messages from our know-it-all, who decided to play the role of that very plug. At the same time, there were no arguments, and often you can’t even determine the subject of discussion.
                        You just shit yourself trying to argue with the thesis that phalanxes often attacked by running, you were literally led by the nose, but the level of pathos does not decrease laughing
                        There are many unclear points in understanding the phalanx. Above I gave a link to an article by Adrian Goldsworthy about the role of pushing in the clash of phalanges. This is only one of many controversial issues, which is written about by a well-known specialist in antiquity, and not a no-name with an irrepressible ego, who has exhausted the topic
                      8. -1
                        25 September 2024 20: 45
                        Of course it's not funny, I saw only pathos and show-off, nothing more, but I'm a little out of my normal cock age. If I've shit myself somewhere, it was entirely in your mouth, is there anything to freeze about?
                        If something is not clear to VPM, well, I'm afraid, these are not my problems, well, look at how it developed, take the Sumerians, there is even a drawing of how some held shields with both hands and the rest hid behind with spears, I'm not even talking about what kind of grip the spear had.
                        I don't give a damn that someone made it up, and especially who and how understood it, well, I'll refer to Mr. Connolly and then what, man?
                        But unlike some people, I know how to swing this or that object, well, for example, how to hold a shield so that your teeth don’t get knocked out.
                        So, here's a miracle, a battle of phalanxes is not a mutual murder, but who will push whom. activist.
                        The trick of the Battle of Marathon is that the flanks were strong, Miltiades built the phalanx in an unconventional way. Hannibal did roughly the same thing at Cannae, only developing Miltiades' idea.
                        Ask me a few more stupid questions to keep me entertained.
                      9. +1
                        25 September 2024 21: 11
                        Selected liquid.

                        You still haven't understood the subject of the discussion you've gotten into.
                        The features of the Marathon battle are even listed on Wikipedia, but they have nothing to do with the subject of discussion.

                        And on topic, since Peter Connolly was mentioned
                        https://www.roman-glory.com/02-01-02
                        As the phalanx approached the enemy, the trumpet sounded again and the hoplites raised their spears into a fighting position over their right shoulders. Now they usually switched to running



                        You can continue to wriggle out. You are clearly in good shape today and would give any non-commissioned officer a run for his money. I wish you good health)
                      10. -3
                        25 September 2024 21: 20
                        Your meme, really? Where is it about running in Herodotus, you stupid chatterbox? Any, mother-fucking, historical statement is based on a source. Herodotus is a mono-source, I read him, but you haven't held him in your hands, I'll tell you right away that Herodotus doesn't make much sense. For example, the defense of the Athenian acropolis genuinely puzzles me in his description.
              2. -1
                25 September 2024 13: 32
                So the kopis was a piercing one, it was mistaken for a cutting one because of its shape.
              3. -1
                25 September 2024 13: 48
                This didn't fly into your helmet, it's not pleasant. That dump is essentially a fight
            2. -1
              25 September 2024 13: 31
              Doubtful, Vladislav. It's more of an intimidation. And these cockerels are even more of a hindrance. The blow didn't penetrate the helmet, but the spear, I'm talking about the phalangites, didn't slide but got stuck and the helmet's wearer is no longer in a very good condition.
          2. -1
            25 September 2024 13: 26
            Well, maybe it was accurate, but their task was different. Killing with a slingshot is a difficult thing, but disrupting a phalanx is just the thing. If a pile of stones is healing you, then you won't be able to freeze, and this disrupted the formation on the eve of the enemy phalanx's attack. Only they acted the same way against the enemy.
      2. -1
        25 September 2024 13: 24
        Greeks of what time? I wrote my diploma on the first half of the 5th century BC, and in the second everything was already somewhat different. And helmets in the 13th century BC looked different and their battles with chariots - they did not know how to ride horses. Horses are also scared.
    5. -1
      25 September 2024 13: 46
      Victor. Aren't you confused by the gap between the 13th century BC and the 5th? Holy shit, something must have changed since then. Why the hell get involved in this topic with children's ideas?
      I can't say anything about the siege of Troy, but I can say a lot about the Greco-Persian wars, which, to your surprise, were started by the Greeks.
      1. +3
        25 September 2024 13: 57
        Why the hell get involved in this topic with children's performances?
        I can't say anything about the siege of Troy, but I can't say a damn thing about the Greco-Persian wars, which, to your surprise, began

        Dear Sir, I am simply not afraid to seem ignorant of something and ask questions if something is unclear to me. But you are trying to flaunt your erudition for some reason, dragging in the Greco-Persian wars for some reason and explaining to me that they were started by the Greeks. Although this does not relate to the topic of the article or to my comments.
        In short, man, don't flatter yourself, get closer.
        1. -1
          25 September 2024 14: 03
          Well, go ahead and ask, whoever can, will answer them, what are the problems?
    6. -1
      30 September 2024 18: 04
      Forgive me, but where is Achilles and where is the phalanx? Are you not confused by the chronological gap between the 13th century BC and the second half of the 6th century BC. When the phalanx first began to form? Then, at the time of formation, the future hoplites had two spears, one striking and the second - a dart and there was no phalanx. Can you tell me why there is a heel piece of armor? I refer you to Peter Connolly "Greece-Rome".
      The drawings that you saw have nothing to do with the armor that was in the reality of the Trojan War.
      From my own experience I can say that getting hit in the helmet is not pleasant at all. The helmet could have been deformed, of course, but my own attic is intact. I am far from the strongest person and I hit the helmet on the stick with a wooden stick, and I dented it, though with a step, if you understand what that is.
      Let's move on, a phalanx fight is not a fair knightly duel, i.e. doryu, this is a hoplite spear, you could screw over your opponent's neighbor, and in the end the question there is not who will stab whom more, as they show in stupid movies, but who will push whom and break the formation.
      How the straps will dig into the neck I don't know, but if you snatched a normal blow to the head, then you'll be lost. The helmet is more of an insurance, the blows were taken on the shield and, my opponent, the strap was tied on the chin, just so that he wouldn't strangle.
      1. +1
        30 September 2024 18: 12
        Dude, I don't feel like talking to you specifically. Stop showing me what a pseudo-erudite pseudo-expert you are. Enough.
        1. -1
          30 September 2024 18: 14
          Of course I don’t want to, read how much I’ve written on this topic and wave a pickaxe, but here I see a couch expert.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. +6
    24 September 2024 10: 52
    There are a lot of gaps in the article that should have been clarified when preparing the topic.
    For example.
    Initially, the shield had the shape of a figure eight with side cutouts.

    The earliest shields of the Cretan-Mycenaean civilization had a tower-like shape. The figure-eight and apis are essentially two different evolutionary stages of the development of the tower-shaped shield into the classic gapon. By the way, a number of scientists do not agree with such an evolution.
    This made it effective against spear and sword strikes, but vulnerable to darts and arrows.

    On the contrary.
    Complex composite bows were not yet in widespread use in the ancient era. A fulgate can pierce a gapon, but by its appearance the phalanx shield had acquired a metal plate, became smaller in diameter, flatter and thicker.
    Even the pinnacle of perfection of the throwing weapon, the pilum, is designed to stick into the shield and, having “broken” at the hinge, interfere with the infantryman.
    Shields also served as a means of identification and expression of belonging to a particular polis.

    Yeah, unfortunately I have to admit that the Dear Author is far from being on topic!
    The Athenian hoplites were the first to use shields as a means of identification due to their "bad life". They simply painted them white. Just off the top of my head, I can throw together from memory a dozen typical images on the Athenian hoplite gopons: an owl, a star, a rooster, a symbol of wolf-legged people, etc.
    Scientists identify 12-14 stages of development of the design on the shield. Of these, 3 are systemic (at the level of policies or states). The remaining reasons are related to personal preferences from "who am I" to "who do I want to be"!!!
    Well, and the last "red-black" drawing of the shield is a myth refuted in the 18th century. Potters were simply limited by the technology of making amphoras. Moreover, the key basis was the temperature, not the composition of the clay.
    Well, something like that, have a nice day everyone, and success to the Author in his endeavors. At the very least, get acquainted with the materials previously posted on the resource and the comments to them!
    1. +3
      24 September 2024 12: 20
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      At the very least, get acquainted with the materials previously posted on the resource and the comments to them!

      WOW, this is where all new authors should start!
  8. +4
    24 September 2024 12: 13
    Dear Alexander! How illiterate are you? "A helmet of the Chalcidian type from southern Italy, 2nd half of the XNUMXth century." You have neither an indication of the authorship nor the place where the photo was taken under any of the captions. Moreover, the image of the helmets has an overprint "Arkaim". Do you have permission from "Arkaim" to use this photo? Do you understand that it is indecent not to indicate the origin of the photo, and even more so to use our Russian photos without indicating the authorship. Or all your photos are "public domain". In this case it is possible, but even then you need to indicate the source - the museum! Otherwise, you can get into trouble for yourself, and the site may get into trouble. "Miniature depicting a Spartan commander in a helmet with a transverse crest and with a bacterium in his hand." Now this is completely unacceptable. You need to indicate the manufacturer ...
    1. +1
      24 September 2024 17: 50
      Vyacheslav Olegovich, bravo: "they whipped you". From now on, he will remember
      1. +3
        24 September 2024 18: 03
        Quote from lisikat2
        Vyacheslav Olegovich, bravo: "they whipped you". From now on, he will remember

        Katya, I didn't write anything offensive. But in my opinion, before sitting down to write somewhere, you need to: A - look at what and how others write there - style, manner of presentation, volume. The last thing to inquire about in the editorial office, then B - look at how it is formatted, for which there is a GOST, and the closer you are to it, of course, the better the article will be. No need to invent anything. Everything has long been there. You just need to use what others have done before you, and not reinvent the wheel.
        1. +1
          24 September 2024 18: 08
          "Not reinventing the wheel" is boring.
          And so it's a flight of fancy.
          PS.
          I don't have the courage to finish writing the second article.
          She is 85% ready.
      2. -1
        30 September 2024 18: 11
        Maybe myself. There are specialists who understand better than me. But definitely not on this resource. I am especially touched when a young lady gets into the military topic. Are you able to understand anything about antiquity? Have you even discovered Herodotus? Or should I list the sources I worked with, at least 50 percent?
        Simple question - what is a phalanx? Certainly not an insect.
    2. -1
      30 September 2024 18: 07
      Well, you found out where the photo came from, and we have a scientific community here? Don't threaten me. I said about the transverse ridge, Peter Connolly, and you know, it's funny to hear about intimidation, here it's just chatter, you're chattering, right?
      1. 0
        30 September 2024 18: 56
        Quote: Alexander Salenko
        Well, you found out where the photo came from, and we have a scientific community here? Don't threaten me. I said about the transverse ridge, Peter Connolly, and you know, it's funny to hear about intimidation, here it's just chatter, you're chattering, right?

        Alexander! Nobody is threatening you. But... You won't like it (and neither will the editors of VO!) when, because of the lack of an appropriate caption under a photo, you are presented with a bill... for 90 thousand. And that's at least. I was once presented with a bill for !,5 million. You won't want to pay that much. And VO even less so. And this is not a threat... I am sharing my positive experience with you, and you are getting angry. I know people who make money by prosecuting such narrow-minded authors. Do you want to meet them? Then you won't find it funny anymore. And one more thing to say before you leave: smart people learn from other people's mistakes. Fools learn from their own!
        1. -1
          1 October 2024 10: 20
          Holy shit, what is the crime? Internet chatter? If I reacted to all the Internet threats, I would have been feeding the worms long ago. I can also say a lot about what other people earn money on and that it would cost me much less. I have been threatened so many times online...so let me ignore you.
          1. 0
            1 October 2024 10: 56
            Quote: Alexander Salenko
            Let me ignore you.

            In caring for your neighbor, the main thing is not to overdo it. Sorry, I forgot this rule. And the elements of the crime, by the way, are as follows - using photographs without indicating the author, that is, their appropriation. The author has the exclusive right to his work (Article 1270 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). This means that he disposes of it as he wants: publishes, corrects and allows others to use it for money or for free. That is why you should be especially wary of author's photos that do not have "public domain" written under them.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
  9. +4
    24 September 2024 17: 03
    In it, bronze was covered with linen or leather to prevent rust.

    rust on bronze?! belay
    But!
    1. +3
      24 September 2024 17: 24
      Comrade "sailor" - Ivan, this is a new word in metallurgy: "rusting bronze".
      She is widely known in "narrow circles" as well as fried snow
  10. +1
    24 September 2024 17: 17
    Comrades, the "xiphos" is ideally preserved, unless it is a drawing.
    I suspect the "anatomical armor" is a "new creation"
    1. +2
      24 September 2024 17: 48
      Of course it's a new product.
      But the fact that the kopis is labeled as machaira indicates that the author is confused about these blades; the Greeks called any cutting blade machaira, but a kopis is a kopis.
      1. -1
        25 September 2024 13: 55
        Not cutting but chopping and what is the difference between them, except for words? Xiphos is also chopping, it was not soon that they thought of stabbing with swords.
      2. -1
        30 September 2024 18: 13
        Chopping, even xiphos often broke because they were used for chopping, there are such finds.
      3. 0
        1 October 2024 15: 04
        Is this what you downvoted me? I was not the only one who worked on this topic, then I just went to earn money. Xiphos is also a chopping sword, damn, what kind of commentators are there?
  11. +1
    24 September 2024 17: 47
    Good health to all, have you noticed that the shape of the "Thracian helmet" has remained virtually unchanged for centuries: a firefighter's helmet in the 20th century is almost identical in appearance and the base material is copper. Perhaps in different proportions
    1. +2
      24 September 2024 18: 04
      Quote from lisikat2
      Perhaps in different proportions?

      It's beautiful, that's why it hasn't changed!
      1. +2
        24 September 2024 18: 12
        I think there was a "golden mean" in the combination of beauty, functionality and the economic component is also taken into account.
    2. 0
      1 October 2024 15: 07
      It's a coincidence. Helmets changed a lot every 30 years, sometimes more often, sometimes less often, and a fire helmet with a comb is if a burnt log collapses. A phalangite's protection is a shield. That's why there was a saying: with a shield or on a shield.
      1. 0
        1 October 2024 19: 38
        Actually, this proverb is from ancient Sparta. Usually, deserters, first of all, got rid of the shield, which prevented them from running away.
        That's why in Sparta we looked at a warrior without a shield with suspicion.
        With a shield - alive and with victory. The dead were brought on the shield.
        ,
        1. 0
          Yesterday, 07: 08
          Or is it attributed to the Spartans, we don't have a single Spartan source on this topic. We know from history how the Spartans could run, for example, in the battle of Leuctra, you probably haven't heard of that. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.
  12. 0
    25 September 2024 08: 41
    Dear author, I will finish reading the article, but I have a question right away.
    Despite its impressive size, the shield was relatively thin, making it effective against spears and swords, but vulnerable to darts and arrows.

    I agree with the dart, but that's the problem with any shield, no matter what it is, but about the arrows, you'll have to excuse me. The bows weren't English longbows, and piercing a shield, let's say, we don't really know anything about that, doesn't mean hitting the one behind that shield.
    1. +1
      30 September 2024 19: 19
      The longbows were popularized by Sargon II, you've probably heard of him? There was also something like a pedal at the bottom for stability. So the Greeks had every opportunity to get acquainted with this weapon on the battlefield, they were actively recruited as mercenary infantry in all theaters of military operations in the Middle East and Asia Minor.
      As for the composite bow, it has been known since the Middle Scythian period.
      But I agree, the Greeks were not good at bows. On the battlefield between Greeks and Greeks, the javelin and sling ruled.
      1. 0
        1 October 2024 10: 35
        Here the question of life-size bows is their primitiveness, I did not make bows but I shot with them enough, with homemade ones but not children's ones. This long shoulder, which is also in medieval British longbows, is an indicator of primitiveness, and the Persians shot while sitting with a canopy and a pedal, rather, I have not tried to shoot so that the butt does not go away.
        The advantage of bows is debatable in itself, it hits further, and a sling is much cheaper, it won’t kill, well, it’s unlikely, but it’s quite capable of breaking a bone, and when something flies into your helmet, it’s not very pleasant, I know from my own experience.
        The Greeks abandoned the bow as unnecessary, they knew it very well, there is a description by Herodotus about the sons of Hercules who will pull his bow there. But a dart that got stuck in a shield is very much in the way, the fighter's balance is disturbed, this log pulls the shield down, and they try to reach it with a spear above the shield. The phalanx is a tight formation and there is no fencing: drill training and striking technique. Moreover, the first is more difficult, you are not marching on a parade ground.
    2. 0
      1 October 2024 19: 40
      Salenko, a reasonable remark.
  13. +1
    25 September 2024 08: 51
    The hoplite's helmet, like the shield, was not particularly strong. It could not always withstand a sword blow.
    I probably got carried away sending the first answer, author, why do you need such a helmet then? Neither the xiphos nor the kopis were powerful swords, moreover, the sword is not the main weapon of the hoplite. In the Macedonian era, the phalangites even stopped carrying them, or rather not in the Macedonian, but in the Hellenistic. The main weapon in the phalanx is the spear. In the classical era, it was held with an overhand grip in order to pass over the enemy's shield.
    I'll probably get tired of raking through everything, but author, take an interest in the armor of the 7th century BC. They were much more ridiculous in terms of weight, even heel pads flashed somewhere.
    To understand what a phalanx is and how it was formed, you need to look deep into the centuries, as I did when writing my diploma, which took me 5 years. And from today's bell tower, I would not leave a wet spot from it, namely in terms of the military component, with the political everything is fine.
  14. +1
    25 September 2024 09: 19
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    Complex composite bows were not yet in widespread use in ancient times.


    Who knows. Others point out that the Hittites had composite bows, and then the Egyptians. So the Persians and Scythians could well have used something similar. However, powerful bows can also have a simpler, classical design. I don’t think that the physical capabilities of ancient archers were much inferior to those of the Welsh at Crecy. So arrows could have been a dangerous weapon for these hoplites as well.

    It's funny to read about two-meter spears made of ash weighing 1 kg. Okay, bamboo, but a spear made of ash... turns out to be some kind of thin stick.
    1. 0
      25 September 2024 14: 01
      The dominance of the bow was not obvious. And where to shoot at the hoplites? In the forehead, there are hoplons, shields, overhang, so there are 8 rows. either you won’t throw it all the way, or you’ll throw it too much and no one will stop the others after the first row from raising their shields.
      And I agree about 1 kg.
  15. 0
    25 September 2024 09: 25
    Quote: Alexander Salenko
    I agree with the dart, but that's the problem with any shield, no matter what it is, but about the arrows, you'll have to excuse me. The bows weren't English longbows.


    Longbows are heavily promoted, they are nothing special. The design is very simple. The hunting bows of our Siberian peoples (larch, reinforced with horn plates) would give these longbows a run for their money. With such bows they took both bear and elk.
    Ultimately, it all comes down to the physical capabilities of the shooter and the quality of the metal of the arrowhead. If the shooter is a strong man, he will use a stiff bow that will pierce the armor in no time. The metal in the armor is thin, otherwise you won't fight very well, so it is possible to pierce it.
    1. 0
      30 September 2024 19: 26
      English peasants made their longbows from ash, the yew army longbow became army longbows firstly because regardless of the shooter's physical training, it cannot be pulled higher than a certain limit, either on the lower or upper bar; conifers as a raw material for a bow is nonsense. But, in the end, it gave a dense volley on a specific area, with a minimum spread.
      And, secondly, the yew bow could only take a certain number of shots. About 2-70. But it retained its mechanical characteristics regardless of the surrounding conditions. After that, it just snapped.

      And the output is exactly the ideal army bow, a squad of archers with it - an analogue of a shrapnel shell launched at a specific point. More likely even an analogue of MLRS.

      It was hardly used for hunting food, recons on bows note the very lousy accuracy of the yew longbow with a straight shot. The canopy is no better.
  16. 0
    25 September 2024 09: 26
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    rust on bronze?! belay
    But!


    Well, bronze didn't appear right away. At first they used copper, and it actually oxidizes.
    1. 0
      25 September 2024 21: 20
      Copper is also not very prone to corrosion. Well, it will darken a little. They will clean it so that it shines. Under the fabric it will oxidize more than bare metal in the open air.
    2. 0
      30 September 2024 19: 28
      In the Chalcolithic period, copper weapons were a status item, not a weapon. The same Otzi had a copper axe with him.
      No signs of use.
      I strongly suspect that he stole it, for which he was caught and killed. We were lucky, he fell into a crevice, from where it was impossible to get the copper axe from his body.
  17. 0
    27 September 2024 09: 42
    Quote: Alexander Salenko
    The dominance of the bow was not obvious. And where to shoot at the hoplites? In the forehead, there are hoplons, shields, overhang, so there are 8 rows. either you won’t throw it all the way, or you throw it too much and no one stops the rest after the first row from raising their shields


    You can also shoot at shields, aiming at the center. If the arrow hits the right spot, the hand holding the shield will be damaged - that's already a benefit.
    It is not necessary to shoot a bow flat, it is possible to do it from above. With the necessary skill and the necessary balance (a sufficiently heavy arrowhead) - it is quite possible. The arrow falls from above and can find a vulnerable spot. Let's take into account that there were a lot of arrows, the weapon is quite rapid-fire.
    A similar technique was used in the Middle Ages, often with success.
    But as for raising the shields... it's debatable. It was the Romans who made the "turtle", but their shields were different, of a different shape. Well, maybe the Greeks used such a defensive stance, but it's unlikely. Then they would have changed the shape of the shield to a more rational one.
  18. 0
    27 September 2024 09: 48
    Quote: Alexander Salenko
    For example, in Athens and not only there there were citizens, but there were non-citizens, personally free, and why the hell would they drag themselves on a campaign?


    Maybe for money. Maybe for a chance to become a citizen. Meteks were given citizenship for merit, right?
    Well, there were enough invalids, old people, and others. By the way, what prevented the slaves from being put to work? Should a slave work or not?
    It is unlikely that there was ever an army without service personnel, wagon drivers, etc. There were probably field hetaerae, but why write about this in the chronicles?
    1. 0
      27 September 2024 21: 44
      By the way, in the final stages of the Peloponnesian War, both the Athenians and the Spartans recruited slaves (helots) to fight, promising freedom in exchange.
  19. 0
    29 September 2024 18: 48
    The most common was the Corinthian helmet, known since the 8th century BC.

    The Corinthian helmet is quite expensive and quite difficult to manufacture. The most common helmet in the early antique period was the pilos - a simple open cone-shaped helmet (could be supplemented with cheekpieces).
    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrewbek_1974/78542193/4691128/4691128_1000.jpg
    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrewbek_1974/78542193/1093516/1093516_900.jpg
    Later, the Thracian type of helmet was mainly used - simple and with unique masks-cheekpieces
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Phrygian_helmet.jpg
    https://x-legio.com/photo/2770/phrygion-helmet.jpg
    These swords, called kopis (not to be confused with the Egyptian khopes) and mahaira,

    They write that kopis and makhayras are one and the same.
    1. 0
      30 September 2024 19: 33
      No, the mahaira has a slightly upturned nose, and the handle protects the fingers with something like a hilt.
      At best, the fingers of a kopis are protected by a chain.