Weapons and Armor of Ancient Egypt

Weapon and armor in the time of the pharaohs - the builders of the pyramids

Looking through the archive of their publications by stories armor and weapons issued in VO, found that among them there is no one on the history of weapons of ancient Egypt. But this is the cradle of European culture, which gave humanity a lot. As for the periodization of its history, it is traditionally divided into the Old Kingdom (XXXII century - XXIV century BC), the Middle Kingdom (XXI century - XVIII century BC), and the New Kingdom (XVII century - XI century BC.) Before the Ancient Kingdom in Egypt, there was a pre-dynastic period and then the Early Kingdom. After the New Kingdom there was also a Late period, and then the Hellenistic period, and between the Ancient, Middle and New kingdoms, as a rule, there were also transitional periods filled with distemper and revolts. Often at this time Egypt was attacked by nomadic tribes and warlike neighbors, so its peaceful history was by no means a military affair in Egypt, and therefore offensive and defensive weapons were always held in high esteem!

Already in the era of the Old Kingdom - the era of the kings of the pyramids in Egypt, there was an army recruited from free peasants, some detachments of which were armed with uniform weapons. That is, the army consisted of warriors with spears and shields, warriors with maces, small hatchets and daggers made of copper and bronze, and detachments of archers with large bows, the arrows of which had tips of flint. The task of the troops was to protect the borders and trade routes from the attacks of Libyans - the most significant among the tribes of the Nine Bows - the traditional enemies of ancient Egypt, the Nubians in the south and the nomadic Bedouins in the East. During the reign of Pharaoh Snofru, the king’s army captured 70000 prisoners, which indirectly indicates the number of Egyptian troops, the perfection of their tactics, and - their superiority in armament!

Since it is very hot in Egypt, the ancient warriors did not have any special “military uniform” or protective clothing. All their clothing consisted of a traditional skirt, a wig made of sheep's wool, which acted as a helmet to protect the head from the stunning blow of a mace, and a shield. The latter was made from bull skin with the hair facing out, which was apparently joined in several layers and stretched over a wooden frame. The shields were large, covering the person right up to the neck and pointed at the top, as well as slightly smaller ones, rounded at the top, which the warriors held by straps attached to the back.

The warriors were built in the phalanx and moved on the enemy, hiding behind shields and putting spears, and the archers were behind the infantry and shot through their heads. Similar tactics and roughly the same weapons among the peoples with whom the Egyptians fought at that time did not require any greater weaponry perfection - more disciplined and trained warriors won and it was clear that they were, of course, Egyptians.

At the end of the Middle Kingdom, the Egyptian infantry, as before, was traditionally subdivided into archers, warriors with short-range strike weapons (clubs, clubs, axes, axes, darts, spears) who did not have shields, warriors with axes and shields, and spearmen. This “branch of the armed forces” had shields of length 60-80 cm and width around 40-50 cm, as, for example, in the figures of soldiers found in the tomb of Nomarh Mesekhti. That is, in the era of the Middle Kingdom, the Egyptians knew a deep structure of spearmen, hiding behind shields and built in several rows!

Interestingly, the troops of the Egyptians at that time consisted solely of infantry. The first use of horses in Egypt was witnessed during the excavations of the city of Buchen, a fortress on the border with Nubia. The find dates back to the Middle Kingdom, but although the horses at that time were already known, they did not have wide distribution in Egypt. It can be assumed that a certain wealthy Egyptian acquired it somewhere in the East and brought it to Nubia, but it is unlikely that it was used as a means.

As for the archers, they were armed with the simplest bows, that is, made of a single piece of wood. A complex bow (that is, assembled from different wood species and pasted over with leather) would be too complicated for them to make, and even expensive to supply with such weapons to ordinary foot soldiers. But do not think that these bows were weak, because they had the length of 1,5 m, and more, and in skillful hands were a very powerful and long-range weapon. English bows of the Middle Ages from yew or maple, and from 1,5 to 2 m in length, were also simple, but they pierced steel armor at a distance of 100 and the English archer despised anyone who couldn’t release 10 - 12 arrows in a minute. True, there is one subtlety. They didn’t shoot straight at their patrons, or only fired at very close distances: almost point blank! At a long distance they shot up with volleys at the command, so that the arrow fell on the knight from above and struck not so much himself as his horse. From here and armor on a neck at knight's horses from above! So, the capabilities of the Egyptian archers armed with bows of this size cannot be doubted, and they could easily hit opponents, not protected by metal armor, at a distance of 75 - 100 m and up to 150 m under favorable conditions.

Ancient Egypt: weapons and armor of warriors on chariots

During its thousand-year history, Egypt has experienced not only ups and downs. So the era of the Middle Kingdom ended with the invasion of the nomadic Hyksos, its defeat and a period of decline. The fact that they fought on two-wheeled high-speed chariots harnessed by a pair of horses helped them to cope with the Egyptians, which gave their troops unprecedented maneuverability and mobility. But soon the Egyptians themselves learned to breed and train horses, make chariots and fight them. The Hyksos were expelled, Egypt experienced a new rise, and its pharaohs, no longer content to defend their borders and expeditions for gold in Nubia, started wars with their neighbors in Asia, and also tried to penetrate the territory of modern Syria and Lebanon.
Especially the warlike pharaohs of the New Age of the New Kingdom were representatives of the Ramses dynasty. Armament of warriors at this time became even more deadly, as the technology of metal processing was improved, and in addition to the chariots, the Egyptians also learned a reinforced bow, which increased the range of the boom and the accuracy of its hit. The power of such bows was truly great: it is known that such pharaohs as Thutmose III and Amenhotep II shot through them with arrows and pierced through copper targets.

Already at a distance of 50 - 100 m with an arrow with a metal leaf-shaped tip, apparently, it was possible to pierce the shell of a warrior on the enemy's chariot. The bows were kept in special cases on the sides of the chariots - one on each (one spare) or one on the side closest to which the shooter stood. However, it has become much more difficult to use them now, especially when standing on the chariot and also on the move.

That is why the military organization of the Egyptian army at that time also underwent major changes. In addition to the traditional infantry - "mesh" appeared chariotry - "netheter." They now represented the elite of the army, all their life they were learning military craft, which for them became hereditary and passed from father to son.

The very first wars in Asia brought rich booty to the Egyptians. So, after the capture of the city of Megiddo, they got: «340 prisoners, 2041 horse, 191 foal, 6 breeding horses, 2 chariots decorated with gold, 922 ordinary chariots, 1 armor of bronze, 200 leather shells, 502 combat archery, 7 tent silver-trimmed pillars belonging to the king of Kadesh, 1929 cattle heads, 2000 goats, 20 500 sheep and 207 300 sacks of flour. ” The vanquished recognized the authority of the ruler of Egypt over themselves, swore an oath of loyalty and pledged to pay tribute.

Interestingly, there is only one bronze and 200 leather in the list of captured shells, which suggests that the presence of chariots required the increased protection of those who fought on them, because they were very valuable professional soldiers who were sorry to lose. But the fact that there is only one metal shell testifies to the exceptionally high cost of the then defensive armament, which only the princes and pharaohs of Egypt possessed.

Many chariots taken as trophies clearly indicate their wide distribution, not only among Asians, but also among the Egyptians themselves. The Egyptian chariots, judging by the images and artifacts that have come down to us, are light carts for two people, one of which ruled with horses and the other fired at the enemy with a bow. The wheels had wooden rims and six spokes, the bottom was woven, with the minimum of wooden fences. This allowed them to develop greater speed, and the stock of arrows in two quivers allowed them to conduct a long battle.

In the Battle of Kadesh - the largest battle between the troops of Egypt and the Hittite kingdom in 1274 BC. - thousands of chariots took part on both sides, and although it actually ended in a draw, there is no doubt that it was the chariots that played a very important role in it. But in addition to new bows, the Egyptians also had two new types of long daggers - with a massive leaf-shaped blade with an edge in the middle, and a blade rounded at the end, and piercing-cutting ones - with elegant, long blades with parallel blades that smoothly turned into an edge, and also with a convex rib. The handle of both was very comfortable, with two cone-shaped bells - up - the pommel and down - the crosshair.

Sickle-shaped (sometimes double-edged) bladed weapons borrowed by the Egyptians from their enemies in Palestine and undergone a number of modifications in Egypt, the khopesh (hepesh), were also widely used, like maces, axes with a narrow blade and moon-shaped axes.

This is how the infantry of ancient Egypt, including the Ancient and Middle kingdoms, could look like. In the foreground are two warrior-spears in headscarves, with padded protective aprons in the shape of a heart over an ordinary apron, perhaps in quilted jackets, with crescent-shaped short swords made of bronze, and then warriors with a battle mate, combined with an ax and with a pole ax with a uniform blade. A dart thrower has no defense weapon at all. Two black warriors with bows in their hands - mercenaries from Nubia. Only one pharaoh has armor on his body, next to which stands a signalman with a drum. A box of a set of soldiers of the company "Star". Oh, what is only now for the boys there! And what kind of soldiers I had in my childhood - heaven and earth!

Palette Narmera. Depicts Pharaoh Narmer with a mace in his hands. (Cairo Museum)

Pharaoh Nermer's mace heads. (British Museum, London)

Darts and shield. Ancient Egypt. Middle Kingdom Modern reconstruction. (Metropolitan Museum, New York)

The painted figures of warriors from the tomb of the Nomarch Mesehti. (Cairo Museum)

Top maces of the Egyptian warrior. (Metropolitan Museum, New York)

The ax of their tomb Ahhotep. New kingdom. 18-I dynasty, XVI century. BC. (Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

Ancient Egyptian battle ax. (Metropolitan Museum, New York)

Reconstruction of the chariot of the New Kingdom. (Museum Remer-Pelizaeus. Lower Saxony, Hildesheim, Germany)

Surprisingly, the ancient Egyptians knew and used boomerangs very similar to those that were used and consumed by the indigenous people of Australia. So these two boomerangs from the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamen are very similar to the Australian ones and differ from them except in their decoration! (Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

Pharaoh Tutankhamen on the chariot. Painting on wood, length 43, see. (Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

The golden dagger of Pharaoh Tutankhamen. (Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

Pharaoh on the chariot. Wall painting in the temple of Abu Simbel.

Relief from the requiem temple of Queen Hatshepsut depicting Egyptian soldiers of the XVIII dynasty, 1475 year BC. er Limestone painting. (Berlin's Egyptian Museum)

Comments

[V.ic]

The flock is interesting, but some flaws come up upon critical examination.

During the reign of Pharaoh Snofru, the king's army captured 70000 prisoners, which indirectly says

... suggests that this figure should be divided by at least 10, and it would be better by 100, since this is an ordinary praganda, exalting the deeds of another "great warrior". Why? Yes, we read below:

So, after taking the city of Megiddo, they got: “340 prisoners,

This is how many cities had to be robbed in order to recruit prisoners of 70 thousand?

Warriors were built in the phalanx.

Most likely, they lined up in a line, for an echeloned formation, in which the spear warriors stood in the second rank, etc. and was called "phalanx". And the phalanx is a later invention of the Macedonians, which made it possible to break through any battle formation of those times. The era of the use of the phalanx ended in the Battle of Kinoskephal in 197 BC, when the Roman legions, as a more controlled military unit "legion", dealt with the hitherto invincible formation of the "phalanx" type.

protected by metal armor,

I admit that metal is only for command personnel. Read below:

in the list of trophy shells there is only one bronze and 200 leather ones,

But you can believe this, since the source is indicated:

The painted figures of warriors from the tomb of the Nomarch Mesehti. (Cairo Museum)

[kalibr]

That is, you know for sure that the Egyptians could not be built in three or four lines and so go to the enemy? Only Macedonians!

[RiverVV]

Savages could not think of making spears of different lengths. :)
It’s actually worse. The Egyptians used not only a linear system, but also columns with deep construction, and even covered from the flanks and from the rear by archers and chariots. Well savages!
Actually, the Roman legion could well be built as a phalanx.

[V.ic]

Quote: RiverVV

Actually, the Roman legion could well be built as a phalanx.

Did they need it? The Roman legion was subdivided (according to historians) into cohorts, which in turn were divided into maniples, and these, in turn, into decias, which maximized the combat effectiveness of the Roman troops, which were the most controlled troops of their time. No wonder the Russian language has the word "manipulate", the meaning of which can be found in the explanatory dictionary. Consequently, the armament of all infantrymen had to be unified: spears of the SAME length, hence the impossibility to build a phalanx, in which the spearheads from the back rows were in approximately the same place as the first row. It was true that the Romans had a "turtle" construction, when the back rows, covered the front and themselves with shields from above.

Quote: RiverVV

The Egyptians used not only a linear system, but also columns with deep construction, and even covered from the flanks and from the rear by archers and chariots.

Did they tell you this? It would be interesting to look at the text (hieroglyphic!) Of written sources telling about this, well, if you are special, then open the veil of truth to us!

[RiverVV]

Two for ignorance of the history of Ukraine’s ridge. :)

Of course, the Romans used both the linear system in its pure form, and its modifications. The tactics of the legions were generally very flexible, up to the actions of a separate contubernia in different branches of the army. And they did have spears of different lengths, we google "triariy" and estimate the length of the ghast. And the legionnaire also carried relatively short throwing pilums, which he could not only throw, but also use them in hand-to-hand combat, even sometimes instead of a sword.

As for the Egyptians ... Well, right in the article - figures of soldiers from the tomb of some kind of nomarch. It’s not their combat training (it wasn’t then), and not the marching system (why line up there like a parade?), Namely, combat formation.

[V.ic]

Quote: RiverVV

Well, right in the article - figures of soldiers from the tomb of some kind of nomarch.

And you, dear, the word "nomarch" does not give the Hellenism? It seems that the first Greek ruler of Egypt after Alexander Filippovich was his commander Ptolemy, the founder of the dynasty. Yes, and "nom" = an administrative unit characteristic of Greece and Macedonia. Therefore, "Nomos Archontos" (in Russian = "regional Fuhrer"), ie These figures have an indirect relationship to the historical army of the pharaohs of ancient dynasties, since belong to the era of Hellenism. In the ancient Egyptian language it had a name consonant with the word "sepat", "sept" ...

Quote: RiverVV

It’s not their combat training (it wasn’t then), and not the marching system (why should they line up like a parade?), Namely, combat formation.

Yeah, the warriors already covered themselves with shields and closed the ranks! No, perhaps they didn’t hide and close, namely, the unit on the march!

[abrakadabre]

That's just more like a camp system

[RiverVV]

Yeah ... Without bags, but with shields and wigs. Turn on your brains a little. The infantryman on the march looks a little different.

And so think: why should I discuss the structure of the Roman legion with a man whose brain is off? He got to the nomarchs ... You see Hellenistic sounds ... On the issue of Roman copies there are no more objections? Come on, find something else wrong.

[abrakadabre]

1. Marches are different. There may be many kilometers between theaters of war, or maybe from the camp to the place of construction on the battlefield. Or from the barracks to the training ground for a couple of hours of training.
2. Why? At least so that your words are taken seriously, and not just like a shaking of the air. Moreover, you have already brought a hodgepodge from the levels of organization of the legion.

[RiverVV]

I understand that you were not on an emergency? :))) He marches to the training ground for a couple of hours ... Ancient Egyptian training ground - it sounds proudly. It will be necessary to remember.
Go away, do not make people laugh.

[abrakadabre]

Not ham, dear, but you will not be sent. Poke a stranger - to expose himself first of all cattle. This time.
YOUR insinuations about the facts of my biography (military service) have no coincidence with reality. What speaks of YOU, as a worthless analytics. These are two.

Now on to the case. Field training is not necessary for a month in the field. To practice a considerable part of the exercises, it is enough to go to the parade ground. To work out other things, it is enough to leave the barracks in the field for half a day. Or according to YOURS, moving from the barracks to the palace of the pharaoh to conduct a review will take many days?
[qoute] Ancient Egyptian training ground - it sounds proud [/ quote] Any person who is slightly educated and educated will understand the essence of the context, and not cling to a formal combination of words. However, some characters prefer, instead of a meaningful conversation or a reasoned argument, to exercise in a dull humor.

[V.ic]

Quote: RiverVV

Yeah ... Without bags, but with shields and wigs. Turn on your brains a little.

Just about ... the bags in the wagon train are traveling, but what is in the wigs is to save the shaved head from the sun (why shaved? Why should the insects not start). Read your smart thought. (See above)...

Quote: RiverVV

And so think: why should I discuss the structure of the Roman legion with man, whose brain is off?

Have you served in this very Roman legion? Then you just remind a person (see above)...

Quote: RiverVV

Come on, find something else wrong

It seems that I didn’t drink with the Brudershaft ...

[abrakadabre]

There are a lot of options when a unit can go in an organized formation with weapons, but without the rest of the equipment. The same exit from the camp on the battlefield to build before the battle.
But our boorish opponent does not know. He lives in his cattle world. And he does not perceive the arguments of a normally working brain in principle.

[abrakadabre]

[quote] Turn on your brains at least a little. [/ qoute] Substitute your head, literate, turn on ... you ...

[abrakadabre]

In fact, the ancient Egyptians not only wrote texts, but dyuzhe painted for any reason. Fine (and not just textual, although there are such) sources on the Egyptian phalanxes - many wagons.
But you won’t believe it anyway. For it is against your point of view.
The fact that the Romans brought the tactical flexibility of the system to perfection does not mean that, apart from them, no one suspected the existence of the phalanx in general and the various reconstructions of the dense infantry masses in particular.
Speaking about the structure of the Roman legion, if you want to pass for the competent side of the dispute, it is worth analyzing a specific era: the tsarist period, the early republic, the republic (the reforms of Gaius Maria), the imperial heyday and the late empire. For in the periods listed, everything was a little different. Otherwise ... your reasoning about a spherical horse in a vacuum or about nothing.

[Glot]

That is, you know for sure that the Egyptians could not be built in three or four lines and so go to the enemy? Only Macedonians!

Why? Theoretically, they could have five lines, but it was the classic phalanx, with rows of sarissophores standing in a special way and having spears of various lengths, with its controllability and system of use, this is, if not the invention of the Macedonians, then they reorganized and perfected the battle formation and tactics of conduct battle precisely the phalanx.
And so it is clear that even before the Macedonians the tactics of building in several lines were used for sure, but not exactly. Yes, and six-meter sarisses, was there something similar among the Egyptians at that time?

[abrakadabre]

The classic phalanx is a phalanx of heavily armed hoplites that do not have saris in service.
In general, just look at the exact definition of the term "phalanx" in relation to tuning. Judging by the comments, 9 out of 10 people present have a rather rough idea about this.
Spears of different lengths in different rows are cabinet conclusions of the 19th century. The principle of manning and supplying the army of the ancient Macedonians Like the banal replaceability of those killed in the first ranks due to replenishment from the rear, it does not allow arming the ranks with spears of different lengths.
Moreover, the experience of medieval pikemen directly speaks of the same "standard" length of pike or saris.

[V.ic]

Quote: kalibr

That is, you know for sure that the Egyptians could not be built in three or four lines and so go on the enemy?

Yes, even in 10 and 20 lines! Take a wooden pole ...
Where to get it? Yes, split the log, about 8 meters long, cut it off with bronze knives, to the required thickness, polish it with burrs, put a tip into the split. Get in line in the fourth line of the Egyptian system. Put your crooked product on the shoulders of the infantrymen from the third, second and first lines and the march! Ask why the product is crooked? So it led with uneven drying of the shaft ...
Yes, and it turns out that long spears are a luxury no Egyptian commander unnecessary. Instead of one long spear, several short ones could be made. Egypt is not so rich in slender pines and precious Lebanese cedar.
Keep in mind, just in case, that it was the Bronze Age. Metal was VERY expensive! Therefore, trophy armor and weapons were VERY great value.

[RiverVV]

There were probably not many cedars in Egypt. But in the south of the country there was (and still is) a bamboo. For copies - that’s it. Another question is that in the absence of the enemy’s serious armor and cavalry, a long spear is not particularly necessary.

[Vend]

I’m always wondering who the sherden are. hired infantry of Egypt, were armed with long swords and if I remember correctly, leather armor. Celts, Slavs, Scythians, Greeks?

[RiverVV]

Well, let's forge a classic long sword with that technology - this is unlikely. Bronze is not strong enough, so I had to pervert with sickle-shaped blades.
Sherden in general is a warrior, but not belonging to the Egyptian warrior class (yes, in Egypt there was a completely formed caste system). It could be a mercenary, or an ally soldier, or even a captured prisoner. In India, by the way, there was also a similar attitude towards mercenaries. It seems that they are not a kshatra, but no matter how noble it looks, but in general - who will vouch for it? In general, as a robber who has not yet been caught. It was difficult for a mercenary in India ...

[Vend]

Quote: RiverVV

Well, let's forge a classic long sword with that technology - this is unlikely. Bronze is not strong enough, so I had to pervert with sickle-shaped blades.

Yes, what are you. Archaeologists have found enough swords with long blades. http://www.medieval-wars.com/armory/wpn_swords.html

Quote: RiverVV

Sherden in general is a warrior, but not belonging to the Egyptian warrior class (yes, in Egypt there was a completely formed caste system). It could be a mercenary, or an ally soldier, or even a captured prisoner. In India, by the way, there was also a similar attitude towards mercenaries. It seems that they are not a kshatra, but no matter how noble it looks, but in general - who will vouch for it? In general, as a robber who has not yet been caught. It was difficult for a mercenary in India ...

What am I for? Sherden did not belong to the Egyptian people, but they were hardly captured. Shereden for some time constituted the elite guard of the pharaoh. Sherden in the language of, for example, the Kyrgyz - perk up, feel a surge of energy, have a formidable look; to be full of courage; There is this word in the Bulgarian language. So there are many assumptions, but the answers ...

[RiverVV]

Comparison with all sorts of Kyrgyzstan does not roll. Maybe the Kirghiz borrowed something from the Coptic through the merchants, but I doubt that it was them who were hired to protect the pharaoh. :)

The Egyptian society of the pre-Hellenistic period can only be compared with Ancient India. There are a lot of parallels. These regions clearly communicated among themselves, proved by Heyerdahl. Surely there was a trade, and where there was a trade, there were mercenaries and security. There, at your link, look at Indian weapons. Knife number 9 - nothing like? But, for obvious reasons, the Indians did not share the secret of iron weapons with the Egyptians.

And the picture you brought up ... Put yourself a natural experiment: take a meter strip of bronze, sharpen it and try to chop off a tree branch. You will understand that this strip will need to be made of such a thickness that it will not be realistic to wave it in battle. Well, bronze doesn’t have the strength to make a long straight sword out of it. Not that one. And she is heavy. Short sword - please. And on the long one you need iron, the bronze will be overweight. Or the blade will have to be bent, which was done.

[Vend]

Quote: RiverVV

Comparison with all sorts of Kyrgyzstan does not roll. Maybe the Kirghiz borrowed something from the Coptic through the merchants, but I doubt that it was them who were hired to protect the pharaoh. :)

The Egyptian society of the pre-Hellenistic period can only be compared with Ancient India. There are a lot of parallels. These regions clearly communicated among themselves, proved by Heyerdahl. Surely there was a trade, and where there was a trade, there were mercenaries and security. There, at your link, look at Indian weapons. Knife number 9 - nothing like? But, for obvious reasons, the Indians did not share the secret of iron weapons with the Egyptians.

And the picture you brought up ... Put yourself a natural experiment: take a meter strip of bronze, sharpen it and try to chop off a tree branch. You will understand that this strip will need to be made of such a thickness that it will not be realistic to wave it in battle. Well, bronze doesn’t have the strength to make a long straight sword out of it. Not that one. And she is heavy. Short sword - please. And on the long one you need iron, the bronze will be overweight. Or the blade will have to be bent, which was done.

Why doesn't it roll? Very much even, yes you yourself answered the question. Where did the term come from into the Kyrgyz language? Here's the question. I repeat once again, the prisoners could not be in the protection of the pharaoh. Theoretically, trade between Egypt and India could go on, but iron weapons would certainly have ended up in Egypt, even in single copies. And it would be Indian. As far as I know, there are no such finds in Egypt. Maybe Indian traders visited Egypt. The question then arises, why did the more advanced India not conquer Egypt?
You want to say that the bronze weapons found by archaeologists are fiction or falsification? Well don't be funny. Bronze weapons were advanced, compared with the stone, actively used by the Egyptians. And this despite the fact that in Egypt, stone processing was at a considerable height. And for the experiment, you need to know the exact composition of bronze in ancient swords. Otherwise, it will be a waste of time.

[RiverVV]

That is, how did the term "come from"? The army of Alexander the Great throughout Central Asia and spread new words fairly, and left a trace in the gene pool. :) But this is a much later period.

The composition of bronze throughout the ancient world is the same: copper and tin with small proportions of zinc and lead. Lead, by the way, is useful in this case, because it increases the ductility and workability by sharp. Then they still did not know how to melt beryllium, or silicon. Accordingly, the strength of all ancient bronzes differs in a very limited range. It is most affected by the phosphorus content in the alloy, and its ancient smith could not dose and increase it. Tin also affects strength, but if there is too much of it, the alloy generally becomes brittle. Hardness also varies with% tin and lead quite strongly.

That is, a straight long sword made of bronze can be made. But to fight them ... What will you do with a sword that bends from a blow? Take with you to the grave most likely. Here is a sample in the figure in the grave and found.

[kalibr]

You are not right. The composition of bronze in the ancient world is just very different. At the early stage, the bronzes were not tin, but mysky, surmist, lead, silver. And long swords were known from Greece to Sweden and England, but they fought with the method of injection, and not cutting.

[RiverVV]

Well, you yourself think: well, how could an ancient blacksmith adjust arsenic content in his metal? How? There were no analyzers on the market then. If metal can still be roughly measured on the simplest lever scales, then free arsenic cannot be obtained in the forge. At least a retort is needed. You have to add its ore, but how much arsenic is in the ore - how do you know? I will tell you one more secret: arsenic is contained in tin ores as an impurity. So he got into bronze with tin, no one added it on purpose.

In addition, arsenic primarily affects the corrosion resistance of bronze, and not its mechanical characteristics, of which only malleability slightly increases. Yes, and it increases corrosion resistance only in minimal quantities, and if it is more than half a percent it is simply harmful, this is typical for an excess of additives. High content generally makes the alloy brittle.

You heard the ringing, but you don't know where it is. Googled stupidly "the composition of antique bronze", but in materials science - no belmes.

With swords it means they fought "by thrusting methods" ... The sword is three kilos in weight. :) It's bronze, even steel. Take a three-liter jar in your hand. Can you prick someone with a dumbbell of the same weight? Hold it horizontally with your wrist for at least ten minutes.

[kalibr]

I do not know how he could, not metallurgist! I know the composition of the ancient bronzes ...
And relatively "googled" - then you are about yourself. I have not been using Google for such things for a long time, my fellow historians would simply not understand me and would laugh at me. These are popular articles for making money here. Their scientific counterparts are in completely different places! And there, believe me, they are not assessed by experts. In publications of scientific conferences in Sofia, Prague, Warsaw and many other places. And in the Russian Federation it is "Voprosy istorii" - a journal from the list of the Higher Attestation Commission.

[RiverVV]

I already wrote to you, which explains the admixture of arsenic in ancient bronzes. By the way: not at all, right?

And a thrust with a sword ... Well, it's funny! I strongly recommend that you experiment on yourself. Well, to hell with him, with a sword - take an ax. An ordinary cleaver weighing one and a half kilos. Grasp the end of the shaft in your palm like a sword handle and hold it horizontally. In a correct way, you also need to stretch your hand slightly forward (did you see D'Artagnan in the movies?) So that the opponent does not reach you with the same poke, but we will wait a little with this. Just hold your weight with your wrist and time it.

[kalibr]

All this was done without me by reenactors in Greece and Britain. My business is not to swing a sword, but to engage in historiography. And now a number of works confirm or, shall we say - contain what I wrote. All! People are reputable and famous. The list of literature will give you nothing anyway. This article is popular, so I will not argue about anything more. You will not understand me, but it makes no sense for me to understand you. They understand me where necessary, but here I do not want to "strap".

[RiverVV]

Clear. If a person is heavier than a pencil and did not hold anything, then it is useless to explain something to him about the real world. Well then ... Whoever thinks he knows life will know it, but it will be too late.
Ida about the Trojan War. I will try to prove to the hamsters that it was protected by the Slavs. :)

[kalibr]

You know, it would be very nice if you proved this with an article in the journal "Voprosy istorii". Or in "History Illustrated" - that's where I would read your arguments with pleasure. And here ... especially in the comments, so what and how can you prove? Do you want to prove you are better at swords than Ewart Oakeshott and Richard Robinson? However, there is a magazine where it will be taken with pleasure - "Secrets of the XX century". Make stuff, write to them, please.

[RiverVV]

Do I need it? I like weapons, but I'm not a fan. I’m more joked about turning on my brains and hinting to authorities that they don’t understand the nichrome in the subject and I need to think a little too. All of these Evartes and Ricards are also people, they also do not know everything, and may well be mistaken in something.

Here take the same arsenic bronze. Allegedly arsenic was added SPECIALLY to it. But at that time there was no technology that allowed regulating the content of alloying elements. Stupidly was not. Copper and bronze can still be measured, but arsenic and phosphorus - no way. And to clear copper and bronze from impurities was also impossible.

[kalibr]

And I need to pay attention to hints like you?
We met here only because I wanted to. And so I would not know about your existence.
About errors ... Any expert can be mistaken. Rockets are falling! But in order to point out a specialist to errors, you need to know at least as much. It is said - one fool can ask more questions than a hundred wise men answer!

[RiverVV]

And it is also said that he will ask a question - a hundred smart people will not answer. But if a hundred smart people did not answer the question, then it is not at all necessary that he was asked by a fool, right?
I understand that you already conducted an experiment with an ax? A prick with a sword ... However ... :))) You are a pure theorist. Test theory sometimes with practice. Damn him what others say. His experience - he is always his.

[kalibr]

I am a theorist, yes. But there are enough of my friends and practitioners. For example, Michael Simkins, the author of a number of books on ancient weapons. He restores ancient museum specimens with maximum precision. There are people who restored the swords of the Sarmatians (the surname Gorelik does not tell you anything?), Romans. And Ermine Street Guard? Well, Evarth Oakeshot received the honorary title of "master of swords". His typology is recognized all over the world ... And here he is just about a thrust with a sword and writes. Moreover, there are no bronze thrusting swords weighing 3 kg! You will have a photo of restored Mycenaean blades of this type - quite a military weapon. And, of course, Evart may be wrong about something, although his critics did not notice this. But I have no idea what? And why should I test something with practice? It's easier to ask them, they have already checked everything that is possible! From what is available to Russians - the book by Peter Connolly "Greece and Rome in Wars". Read the preface about him ... Or David Nicole, author of 45 monographs on military history. This is generally a walking encyclopedia. What you ask - there and then an answer or a photo. All the distrust of Russians from the fact that their historians for many Soviet years hung lapps on their ears. And that's not all and not all! So I don’t understand your addiction to subversion. Is that young enthusiasm is the reason, but not deep knowledge.

[Chiropractor]

Sorry to interfere in your pompous dialogue, but the phrase about the pricking swords of the ancient world of Sweden is too much. Until the late Vikings, swords ended in roundness; it was a chopping weapon. This is north, not south. Here you have a shirt on top and a jacket made of hide - you get tired of stabbing with bronze. And if not for the summer period, then the clothes are even thicker, and even the armor ...
Therefore, swords are only chopping, with the exception of imported from hot countries.

Stitching weapons gained widespread practice only when a tight formation with large shields was organized - here you can’t swing around without hitting a couple of comrades. In such a tight formation, you need a stabbing sword - so that when you strike it is minimally revealed to yourself and reveal the left side of the one standing to your right.

And yes, a bronze sword can be made 60 cm long, of which 10-12 cm will be a handle, but the thickness of the sword should be considerable - soft copper requires constant (!) Sharpening. And to maintain the given strength, an increase in thickness is also needed. Hence the increase in the weight of such swords, which reduces the fencing qualities and makes them a "sharp club".

I will not reveal secrets if I say that the best length of an infantryman’s sword is from his armpit to his fist. All swords above this are cavalry. One-and-a-half and two-handed people will appear later - when the task appears for them and technology for their manufacture is opened.

[abrakadabre]

You are somewhat mistaken. Just bronze piercing swords for the second millennium BC to the region of Sweden and the British Isles are available. And in very good condition for such old products.
Bronze is a much harder and more resilient material than copper. The question of the rigidity of the blade was perfectly resolved at that time by the presence of an edge along the blade.
For an illustration of such ancient piercing bronze "swords" see the following photo, in which there are three in good condition. And one blade in a badly damaged form at the bottom of the photo.

[abrakadabre]

Here is another photo of the swords of the second millennium BC And from the region where at this moment the developed cavalry did not exist in principle.
The blades are long and stitching. The stiffness of the injection blades is excellent, due to the very developed rib along the entire blade. Given that more or less decent armor at that time was good if every 50th warrior. But really good armor is even less common.

[RiverVV]

Well, what does the "master of swords" have to do with it? Even if he is a Jedi Master himself, he will not abolish physics, chemistry and anatomy.

[abrakadabre]

How many swords did you hold in your hands? How many armor did you take down on your shoulders? Just say a number. Any reasoning about other people's misconceptions and amateurism instead of clearly voiced numbers is not accepted.

[abrakadabre]

[qoute] Do I need it? I like weapons, but I'm not a fan. I’m more joked about turning on the brains and hinting to the authorities that they don’t understand the nichrome in the subject and I need to think a little bit. [/ qoute] Ohhhh ... Militant Hamster AttackE !!!
[qoute] All of these Ewarts and Ricards are also people, they also don’t know everything and may well be mistaken in something. [/ qoute] Only the not-so-lazy anonymous cattle can decide whether knowledgeable people are mistaken or not.

[abrakadabre]

The expressed point of view is absolute nonsense, outstanding amateurism in the matter.
For:
1. The corresponding real bronze blades from the finds are available.
2. There are metallographic analyzes of these findings.
3. There are successful modern experiments in the reconstruction of the technology for manufacturing authentic replicas.
4. There are successful experiences in testing / using manufactured replicas.
None of the points listed above confirms your point of view. And it does not even give an ambiguous interpretation of such. Only unequivocally: MIRROR.

[Vend]

Quote: RiverVV

That is, how did the term "come from"? The army of Alexander the Great throughout Central Asia and spread new words fairly, and left a trace in the gene pool. :) But this is a much later period.

That is, a straight long sword made of bronze can be made. But to fight them ... What will you do with a sword that bends from a blow? Take with you to the grave most likely. Here is a sample in the figure in the grave and found.

Well sherden were long before the Macedonian. The invasion of the peoples of the sea was on Ancient Greece, but what did the Greeks call these aliens? The names have not reached us. The bronze composition has already been answered. It is no secret that the ancient Greeks had bronze swords, which bent after the blow and straightened out by stepping on it with their feet. And you will pay attention to the forms of long bronze swords. They are not only loy in order to chop, but also to break their weight. If the bronze weapons did not exceed the stone, there would be no civilization leap. So almost all weapons, including iron, are found either in graves or in sacrificial pits or swamps. What's so surprising. A sword, any bronze though iron, is an expensive thing, nobody will just scatter it. In the grave of a noble warrior put.

[RiverVV]

In composition - there the pedagogical dude has read. Never mind.
And in shape ... Any practical bronze / copper blade is either curved, or thickened, or all together. Otherwise, he simply bends. In battle, this is not very good.
But have I already said that?
You seem to be confusing strength and hardness. Strength for a sword is the ability of its material and structure to resist dynamic loads. It is dynamic. But the dynamic load acts only in a certain direction. Hence the bending of the blade in the direction opposite to this load.
And the hardness of bronze in any case and with any of its composition is quite sufficient to cut bones and flexibility does not interfere with the solid blade at all.

[RiverVV]

In general, if you think about it ... In Sanskrit, the word "shala" means "shelter". Sounds L and R are confused very often. Maybe "sherden" is a distorted Sanskrit "closed", or "carapace"?

[abrakadabre]

"Horses mixed in a bunch, people ..."
Which one is Alexander? What kind of Egyptians? What are the Kyrgyz ?! The concept of the epochs of YOU (you first started poking) is familiar? Before you say something unambiguous in Ancient Egypt, decide on a specific era. For it is very important. By the time of the birth of Alexander the Great, iron was used in military affairs even by quite backward peoples. Not to mention the Mediterranean. At that moment, only the most avid lovers of digging in ancient papyri remembered about sherden from the annals. Is it a joke - a thousand years difference.
Egypt as a state has existed for at least THREE thousand years. And until the Kyrgyz people, as a people with modern features, still wait about two thousand years.
But no, everything must be thrown into one big pile, it is not known what and carefully mixed.

[Tsayper]

There is a version that they are residents of ancient Sardinia

[kalibr]

There will be an article about the Trojan War and the peoples of the sea. There will be about Sherd. But who they are by nationality is the question ...

[Vend]

Quote: kalibr

There will be an article about the Trojan War and the peoples of the sea. There will be about Sherden. But who they are by nationality is a question ...

Well this is good news. Thanks. If you wish, I can help with some research.

[kalibr]

Thank! You can only help this: find pictures or photos. And not just from the Network, but with an indication of which museum in which country. See what is in the Metropolitan Museum - they have a photo gallery on the topics: metal-work, Asia, Egypt ...

[abrakadabre]

1. If you have so crooked hands that you are not able to make a DIRECT pole for a spear, speak for yourself, and not for everyone.
2. Deflection of the dried pole in 2-3 cm - is it a suitable pole or are we rejecting?
3. Why on earth did you think that in the phalanx you can fight only with multi-meter saris? Who got this nonsense in your head?

A tight formation in 4-6 ranks, one-man armed with 2-3-meter spears and shields and acting on command will still be a phalanx, whether you want to admit it or not. It is only in your fantasies that the phalanx did not exist before the Macedonians. And according to this version, the Spartans and the Greek hoplites generally fought in a heap, small. Not to mention other nations. Despite the most detailed and numerous descriptions of the opposite.

[Mikhail3]

Quote: abrakadabre

The tight formation in the 4-6 line, armed with 2-3-meter spears and shields, and acting on command will still be a phalanx

No, it will not. Because you can’t strike forward with a two-meter spear even through two lines. It will be a dense system of people desperately interfering with each other. Therefore, this, of course, was not. There was a deep layered formation, but only two (this is the maximum) front lines participated in the attack.
The phalanx struck from all depths of the ranks - all 6-8-10 ranks! That is why such results were achieved against a crowd of undisciplined opponents, albeit good individual fighters.
Before the Greeks (judging by the modern version of history), people could be built in a rectangle. But it was simply impossible to develop and implement a complex, deeply thought-out control system for a military unit before the appearance of such phenomena as science and mass schools (which the Greeks came up with).
It was necessary to calculate the lengths of the copies of each line, make uniform weapons, teach people dozens of complex maneuvers, distribute responsibilities ... Without scientists and gymnasia, this is simply unrealistic. Imagine only the distribution of responsibilities in a working phalanx. The front rows hit, and serve as a shield for the rest. Those behind them are also beating, plus they are helping to support long spears, plus they are preparing to replace the killed and wounded both in front and from the sides. Plus, you need to be ready to turn "all of a sudden" and in the right direction. Change the rate of movement, also all together, and the turns and rates of movement will count in several gradations, indicated by different signals. Here "hay and straw" will not work, only people with a trained mind can work this way ...

[abrakadabre]

And nevertheless, in spite of your historical and erotic fantasies, a dense infantry system of 4-6 ranks, armed with the same 2-3-meter long pole arms, shields and acting on command is called a phalanx. That is how the ancient Greek hoplites fought (that the Athenians, that the Spartans, that other Greeks). And such a construction of them all over the world (except for you) is considered a classic phalanx. Unlike the later and its development Macedonian phalanx. Which is also a phalanx. But later.
An even later and more developed phalanx was used by the ancient Roman legions. Both in the offensive, by closing the individual maniples of the guesthouses and the principles that support them, into a single phalanx of the legion, and on the defensive, when all of the above went beyond the line of the triaries, who were armed with almost a set of hoplite: a large shield, a powerful spear, heavy armor.
The fact that certain maniples in the legion were completely independent tactical units did not contradict and did not prevent the use of the common phalanx of several units in battle.

A historical bike from the 19th century about spears of different lengths in different ranks can be completely thrown into the trash of history. Himself in school years considered her very slender and reasonable.
This theory, very popular in the recent past and modern near-scientific and pseudo-scientific amateur circles, is not supported by archaeological findings, historical references, or experiences of direct reconstruction of the interaction of people within the system (especially when replacing front lines due to death and injuries, as well as when trying to maneuver) , research on the acquisition and logistics of ancient armies.

[Mikhail3]

Quote: kalibr

That is, you know for sure that the Egyptians could not be built in three or four lines and so go to the enemy? Only Macedonians!

Well yes. Pretty sure. Because the phalanx is completely meaningless if the soldiers do not have specific weapons. No different lengths of spears, no phalanx shields, no metal mantles, nor heavy durable helmets were found. An attempt to build a phalanx without all this will only lead to the fact that most of the soldiers will be completely useless in attack (for the inability to reach the enemy) but be a convenient inactive target for darts and canopy arrows.
Anyone can BUILD a phalanx, even a cook. But fighting in this way was possible only with heavily armed hoplites.

[abrakadabre]

You contradict yourself. In a previous post, you write about the Macedonian phalanx with long spears. In this about the Greek hoplites. BUT!!! The heavily armed hoplites had spears about 3 meters long. Moreover, ALL are the same length. You refuse to call such a construction a phalanx.
Sarisophors had much lighter armor. Which for the phalangist you also do not approve of. That is, from extreme to extreme. And that is not a phalanx and that. So the ideal phalanx exists only in your imagination. And did not exist in real history (according to your version)

[abrakadabre]

I will disappoint you, but the phalanx was invented long before the Macedonians. Such a construction was used by the Sumerians, and the Babylonians (Akkadians) who came to replace them, and later Assyrians (although the cavalry was the main striking force), and the Egyptians of all the Kings listed in the article, and the ancient Greeks from the legendary period to the conquest of Greece by the Macedonians .

[otto meer]

Somehow the conversation went wrong. First of all, it is worth understanding what is meant by the authors under the word phalanx. If we talk about the classic phalanx as a dense construction in several lines, this is one thing, but if we examine it in more detail, it is completely different. Firstly, the number of ranks varied within a very wide range, from 2-3 to 50 (as in the battle of Levktra), and maybe more. Secondly, the lines could be continuous or with breaks (for example, the division by enomotia among the Spartans). In the third, the number of ranks could be variable, 10-12 on the left flank, 8 on the right (usually more on the left - the so-called oblique phalanx). And in the fourth and fifth ... twenty-fifth.
T.ch. arguing about whether the Egyptians knew the phalanx is simply stupid. Of course they did. Let this construction be called differently and had its own peculiarities.
In general, I think that the phalanx (namely, as a dense structure in several lines) was known to almost all peoples and armies. Here's an example (and try to refute): the wall of the Viking shields, the Shiltron of the Scots, the battles of the Swiss, the manipulation of the Romans, etc., etc.
That something like this.
And by the way, spears / peaks of different lengths in the phalanx are a delusion.

[Mikhail3]

Quote: otto meer

T.ch. arguing about whether the Egyptians knew the phalanx is simply stupid.

I agree. To be built in tight formation and break into the battlefield so that the warriors who were unable to somehow fight the war from the depths of the system were quickly killed by archers, dart throwers and slingers, it’s really stupid. And to call this construction a phalanx even more stupid, it is rather such a construction for a speedy campaign in the possession of the next god of death.

[otto meer]

Quote: Mikhail3

I agree. To be built in tight formation and break into the battlefield so that the warriors who were unable to somehow fight the war from the depths of the system were quickly killed by archers, dart throwers and slingers, it’s really stupid. And to call this construction a phalanx even more stupid, it is rather such a construction for a speedy campaign in the possession of the next god of death.

That is, according to your theory, everyone who used the construction of such a plan sought to quickly get "into the possession of the next god of death"? And your main argument is the impossibility of the rear ranks to carry out active actions and a mortal threat for them (and why only for them?), From the throwers of any deadly weapons? Or have I misunderstood something?

[Mikhail3]

Quote: otto meer

And your main argument is the impossibility of the rear ranks to conduct active actions and a mortal threat for them (and why only for them?), From throwers of all deadly guns? Or am I misunderstood something?

You understood me absolutely correctly. I apologize for the belated answer ... The phalanx is not a construction with a rectangle. Only historians can think so - absolutely armless and meaningless creatures who consciously drowned out their analytical thinking in childhood, so that it does not bother them and does not interfere in the clouds.
The phalanx is a combat formation that allowed to mass a spear strike of the entire depth of its separation (in my memory, it seems like up to 15 rows, I’m not sure) in the front row section. The meaning of the phalanx is, first of all, that it pierced any enemy construction with one blow. Long spears from the depths of the system hit so hard that they shattered both the shields and warriors, in spite of any opposition that a single fighter is capable of exerting. A few steps, a few strokes - and the enemy building is cut!
This is what the phalanx is. Yes, she is inactive and vulnerable to many types of resistance. But so far, some tribes of semi-wild opponents could not organize this opposition - the phalanx reigned on the battlefield.
And just a solid construction is the path to death. Cold steel fighter in a dense crowd, what should he do? What is left for him? Just shove the shoulder in front of the standing one. And when they kill this forward-looking man, most likely the soldier dented in a heap and will not be able to raise his hands, not like a weapon, as he is already slammed.

[abrakadabre]

This is not the meaning of the phalanx. Its meaning is that the army as a whole or its part built by the phalanx act as one person on command. Both on the offensive and on the defensive. In this case, an individual person as a cog - in case of injury or death, was painlessly replaced for another from the back rows for a general battle. Also, while in the ranks, they all support each other with their weapons.
This is useful not only for effectiveness in battle itself, but also from the point of view of the human psyche in battle: support for those nearby does not allow panic to spread so quickly with an impending threat.
Unlike just an unorganized crowd of barbarian armies. Where each fighter is left to his own devices, has an opponent's choice, hopes for individual skill and luck, and if there is a threat of losing the battle, he decides whether to fight to the end or to flee the battlefield.
In the phalanx, the commander decides for him. Well, except in cases of complete loss of control and general panic.
[qoute] Long spears from the depths of the system hit so powerfully that both shields and soldiers were pierced [/ quote] Oh how! What is Freud's explanation. The longer, the more powerful !!! Bravo! This is a breakthrough in military affairs.
The longer the spear, the heavier and more bent it is from its own weight. If with a length of 2-3 meters this is completely irrelevant, then for 4-6-meter peaks is crucial.
The heavier the weapon (spear), the faster the fighter will be exhausted. And the weaker he will be able to wield them.
Long spears from the depths of the system beat not a bit more powerful than from the first row. Absolutely. I would even say that the front row beat the most. Because the best fighters were put in the front row and these fighters had at least some place and a review to aim and invest in the blow.
And how many already repeat: different ranks of copies did not have different lengths. Bike it.

[Olezhek]

but the phalanx was invented long before the Macedonians. Such a construction was used by the Sumerians, and the Babylonians (Akkadians) who replaced them, and later Assyrians

Well, combat missiles came up very long before Von Braun ...

Seriously, you need to look at WHAT is the PHALANG.

[War and Peace]

your article on "weapons of the ancient Egyptians" is mostly a mockery of common sense, for example

and shield. The latter was made of bovine skin with wool outward, which, apparently, was connected in several layers and stretched on a wooden frame

like this? a shield made of skin, which is simply pulled over the frame, CANNOT protect against being hit by a weapon, at least it is a hand injury holding a shield, and probably just a destruction of the shield's shield, such a "shield" cannot be ...

Since in Egypt it was very hot some ancient “military uniforms” or protective clothing the ancient warriors did not have. All their clothes consisted of a traditional skirt, a wig of sheep’s wool, which played the role of a helmet that protects the head from the deafening blow of the mace and shield.

yes, the author you would have at least a little to include your own head, and not persist in the nonsense of previous generations of "historians". PHARAOH PRUS have seen enough? Have you seen how the Arabs who live in this very desert dress, and the Berbers are shepherds? They are ALL wrapped in wide and long clothes, because in the sun you can get burned, at least, or you can just DRY like a wet rag in the wind. NAKED EGYPTIAN SOLDIERS are just another tradiko nonsense. Some of the reconstructions show Egyptian soldiers, some WITHOUT SHOES, some in funny sandals without backdrops. On a hot desert - the temperature of the sand can reach 80 degrees. C ?? - eggs are baked - DO NOT WANT, and in stupid slippers it is impossible to run and fight effectively, but the main thing for the fighters.

It is traditionally divided into the Ancient Kingdom (XXXII century - XXIV century BC), the Middle Kingdom (XXI century - XVIII century BC) and the New Kingdom (XVII century - XI century BC) . e

that is, starting with the CENTURY OF COPPER and then Bronze?
here, too, there is something to say, the copper age CANNOT be earlier than the bronze century, because it is not an easy task to isolate pure copper without impurities, so the BRONZE, the so-called MOSCOW-AFTER, was always used, but it could not be used for the manufacture of weapons, because it was FRAGILE and accordingly brittle, it may have been pricking weapons, but it wasn’t chopping. There is NORROW COPPER in the world, but in very insignificant quantities, but mainly copper in nature, goes like oxides and sulfides, all kinds of chalcopyrite, azurite, malachite, etc. .d.- all with impurities ...

[War and Peace]

This chariot is from a German museum, what is it made of? Is it really wood? But any horse owner can say that such a cart is doomed to crumble in the first hundred meters over rough terrain, but WHEELS? such a unit will immediately sink in the sand. But maybe this thing is copper-bronze? then why do we need to wrap the joints of the structure with a rope when it is possible to rivet? What is the axis of? copper will be erased quickly, copper is a soft metal, bronze is fragile, then it will crack. This "Egyptian" arba is not viable, some of the historians wanted to pass off the invented for the real.
Regarding the "tutankhamun", Fomenko and Nosovsky have a wonderful visual study of what the tomb of tutankhamun is, how it was discovered, what absurdities, absurdities, inconsistencies and outright falsification, such as Nosovsky, who himself said there was a bad painting about the design of the "tomb", which is made UNDER THE ANTIQUE, there are almost no inscriptions, which is strange and stands out from the general picture of the burials of the kings, in short, the tutankhamun project is pure commerce and bred ...
http://my.mail.ru/mail/5kov-57/video/19/6056.html

[War and Peace]

in short, Manetho was not a very diligent guy and made a mistake with his classification of Egyptian history, besides, was he even there? After all, the papyrus on which this ancient Greek "historian" of the 4th century BC. e. cannot last 2.5 thousand years, and even so well

[kalibr]

It's all bullshit ...

[War and Peace]

Quote: kalibr

It's all bullshit ...

good answer, standings

[kalibr]

You watch the movie Pharaoh 1963 of the year, where they drive on such replicas perfectly. There are detailed descriptions of these chariots, and in the tomb of Tutankhamen they found it in a disassembled form. And do not refer to the Internet, you need to refer to the monographs of recognized scientists. Http://my.mail.ru/mail/5kov-57/video/19/6056.html - you will never convince me, I don’t even look at it I will. And there are no inscriptions in the tomb because he died in a hurry. But besides Tudakhamon there are other tombs, where the inscriptions are ... Your Nosovsky is just zero for me, but zero is zero, how many do not multiply it or do not refer to it.
Yes, the funniest thing is that the remains of ancient chariots were found here on the territory of Russia - there is a journal called Vestnik Archeologii. And there is a wooden axle. And on the peasant carts of the beginning of the century there was also a wooden one. And it did not crumble.

[Severomor]

Quote: kalibr

You watch the 1963 Pharaoh movie, where they ride such remarks perfectly. There is a detailed description of these chariots

So .... you still have to watch the movie "Cleopatra", where the ships are shooting from stone throwers and log throwers. They torment each other with Greek fire

Will we study history on the fantasies and equipment of Hollywood?

[War and Peace]

Quote: Severomor

Quote: kalibr

You watch the 1963 Pharaoh movie, where they ride such remarks perfectly. There is a detailed description of these chariots

So .... you still have to watch the movie "Cleopatra", where the ships are shooting from stone throwers and log throwers. They torment each other with Greek fire

Will we study history on the fantasies and equipment of Hollywood?

the fact that feature films have some influence on the author of the article, I guessed, and given the rich and developed sense of ceasing Hollywood artists, a simple layman admiring irresistible forms Elizabeth Taylor should not speak, but evaluate and accept the Holivuv point of view on that story ...

[kalibr]

This is not Hollywood. You look, and then criticize ...

[Mikhail3]

You look at a wooden stick as thick as a human fist. The central axis of this chariot is made of just such a stick! Now put this stick on two block of wood, spaced the width of its wheels, and stand in the middle, like the pharaohs of arrows. What spring? And you know, very springy ...
Now fasten the wheels to the short bronze axles and try to transport this stick with a load fastened to it (do not become yourself. Take care of yourself) along a humid field. Bet the strongest wooden stick you find in ten meters? A tree, you know, has a rather limited strength ...
And in the Pharaoh movie, these chariots are welded steel frames ...

[kalibr]

Pharaoh is one of the best historical films and, probably, the only one where it did not lie. See for yourself find the historical inconsistencies and bloopers and write to me.

[Glot]

like this? a shield made of skin, which is simply pulled over the frame, CANNOT protect against being hit by a weapon, at least it is a hand injury holding a shield, and probably just a destruction of the shield's shield, such a "shield" cannot be ...

One small remark, at least for this paragraph. Since there is basically nothing to explain to the Fomenkoids, everything is dead in their heads, alas. But still ...
Shield and skins stretched over the frame, no, can not withstand the blow?
It depends on what you beat. There was no steel weapon then, plus, with a shield it is not necessary to meet a blow like a piece of armor - in the forehead. You can change its trajectory at an angle and take it away. Again, against those bows, it will do.
I also advise you to pay attention to some African tribes, which until recently used to the full in similar shields, or slightly modified. But there already was. True, AK has not yet reached everyone. )))
Yes, there was something about "half-naked Egyptians" and burns. So we look at African tribes again. Can you find the pictures yourself? There, too, almost naked and barefoot and, nothing, they do not burn themselves.
Think about what you are clogging your head with. Recheck what Fo & Co is pouring into your ears, it's very simple - to double-check. If it's not too late, of course ...
Perhaps that's all.

[Severomor]

Since there is basically nothing to explain to the Fomenkoids, everything is dead in their heads, alas.

Approximately the same phrase is often said by the descendants of the ancient Ukrainians to reasoned arguments about the state and history of Ukraine. Only the words "cotton wool", "glass wool", etc.

Historians should consult with military engineers, logistics, shipbuilders, veterinarians, and just techies.

[Glot]

Approximately the same phrase is often said by the descendants of the ancient Ukrainians to reasoned arguments about the state and history of Ukraine. Only the words "cotton wool", "glass wool", etc.

Well, nevertheless, I brought a counter-argument to a friend, and you ...))

Historians should consult with military engineers, logistics, shipbuilders, veterinarians, and just techies.

This is not primary.
The historian works with things that have come down to us, with objects, with narrative sources, and so on. Based on this, he draws certain conclusions. Of course, he consults with specialists in other profiles, but this is not primary.

[War and Peace]

Quote: Glot

One small remark, at least for this paragraph. Since there is basically nothing to explain to the Fomenkoids, everything is dead in their heads, alas. But still ...

Well, there’s nothing to talk with the Tradicians because of the lack of common sense, however, the answer is not for you — your teaching will die when you die, but for those who doubt it ...

Quote: Glot

It depends on what you beat. There was no steel weapon then, plus, with a shield it is not necessary to meet a blow like a piece of armor - in the forehead. You can change its trajectory at an angle and take it away. Again, against those bows, it will do.
I also advise you to pay attention to some African tribes, which until recently used to the full in similar shields, or slightly modified. But there already was.

that is, when the warriors come together in battle, they discuss in advance "what to beat"? Typically Tradik's approach - looking at reality from the office ...

Quote: Glot

Yes, there was something about "half-naked Egyptians" and burns. So we look at African tribes again. Can you find the pictures yourself? There, too, almost naked and barefoot and, nothing, they do not burn themselves.

there are a couple of considerations
firstly, the skin of blacks and Arabs is different, there is some kind of pigment called melanin that absorbs ultraviolet, the rest of the nations do not, and the Egyptians are something closer to the Asiatic race.
Secondly, even Negroes do not walk naked in the deserts, the same Ethiopians do not live in the desert and do not walk in the sun, but always look for shelter from the sun, cover their skin with all kinds of dyes, which also helps to tolerate direct sunlight ...

[Glot]

that is, when the warriors come together in battle, they discuss in advance "what to beat"? Typically Tradik's approach - looking at reality from the office ...

And who said about the contracts. You are not even able to understand such a simple thought.
Meant what weapon then was used. )))
Well, what else to talk about? )))

Secondly, even Negroes do not walk naked in the deserts, the same Ethiopians do not live in the desert and do not walk in the sun, but always look for shelter from the sun, cover their skin with all kinds of dyes, which also helps to tolerate direct sunlight ...

Once again, I recommend to see the photos, their mass on the network. And with shields, and naked and ...

[War and Peace]

Quote: Glot

And who said about the contracts. You are not even able to understand such a simple thought.
Meant what weapon then was used. )))
Well, what else to talk about? )))

Shpakovsky at least watched the article? so he brought a photo of a JADE Mace, try to protect yourself from such a leather shield, besides there were spears, it is IMPOSSIBLE to protect yourself from a spear with leather armor, the hippos negroes strung on the spear, and the hippo has the thickest skin, do not drive the blizzard ...

Quote: Glot

Once again, I recommend to see the photos, their mass on the network. And with shields, and naked and.

don't you understand Russian? that the Negro is good, the Egyptian is death ...

[kalibr]

On the hippopotamus skin alive! On the shield - several layers of skin boiled out in oil. Is not nothing!

[abrakadabre]

The most important thing is not this. On a hippopotamus skin closely. The shield is held in a hand slightly or strongly extended forward. Most of the shock is not absorbed due to the strength of the material, but due to hand depreciation. Therefore, it is easier to pierce the skin of a living hippopotamus than its own, stretched over a shock-absorbing frame (shield in hand).
The same thing: the fabric worn on the body easily pierces, and the free-hanging curtain is practically impenetrable for an arrow fired from the BATTLE bow at most distances.
And by the way, let your opponent try to kill the hippo with a mace with a standard combat top of 200-300 grams ... I think the offended hippo will catch up with this impenetrable fun guy in 5-7 meters. Fatal for the latter.

[Glot]

firstly, the skin of blacks and Arabs is different, there is some kind of pigment called melanin that absorbs ultraviolet, the rest of the nations do not, and the Egyptians are something closer to the Asiatic race.

For starters, you would know who the Egyptians were, what was the composition of their armies, and who went naked and who was dressed.
Do not bring everyone together.
Arabs are generally newcomers there. )))

[War and Peace]

Quote: Glot

firstly, the skin of blacks and Arabs is different, there is some kind of pigment called melanin that absorbs ultraviolet, the rest of the nations do not, and the Egyptians are something closer to the Asiatic race.

For starters, you would know who the Egyptians were, what was the composition of their armies, and who went naked and who was dressed.
Do not bring everyone together.
Arabs are generally newcomers there. )))

Well, who were the Negroes Egyptians, or what?

[kalibr]

They already wrote to you - they made shields, beat them with bronze weapons. They didn't break through. English history magazines have written about this. The fact that you do not know English and have not read them is not my fault. And in general, I once asked you: Who are you? Age, education ... I don't want to argue with the baker! Fomenko and Nosovsky will have enough cover. Did you yourself write something or "neither one nor the other and no name?"

[kalibr]

You are absolutely right. But "them" is probably too late!
By the way, the prairie Indians were very proud that their leather shields, set at an angle, reflect even the round bullets of European guns!

[kalibr]

Have you seen the tomb figures in the text? About bronz here, however, was my article a long time ago. Look ... There are bas-reliefs on the walls of temples, where people are in slippers. Who told you that they fought in the desert? In the desert, no one fought ... But about the shields like this: in England they made a replica of a shield made of leather ... and it could not be cut through with a bronze sword. Again, everything is on the walls of the temples.

[abrakadabre]

Quite the opposite. A shield made of stretched skin perfectly protects against:
- arrows (springy)
- impacts outside the point of contact with the holding hand.

Due to the fact that the shield is springy, it is more difficult to cut through it than a purely wooden one if you keep the shield not close to the body.
At the same time, the wooden shield is more stable against a power puncture if the shield itself is firmly rested against the obstacle by the back side (fighter’s body).
The point of contact between the shield and the hand holding it is additionally protected with an elbow grip:
- for wicker and skin-covered shields - more dense weaving in this place + stuffed soft pillow;
- for wooden and metal shields - only a stuffed soft pillow.
With a fist grip - a umbon or a rigid handle spaced from the plane of the shield.

she (bronze) could not be used to make weapons

Archeology disagrees with you. Museums with bronze weapons in their collections, too. Ah ... This is a conspiracy and fakes. It’s probably scary to live with such suspicion

[Russian Uzbek]

"" The warriors were lined up in a phalanx "" "
"" Most likely lined up ""
yes no guys! the Egyptians fought in columns, thus reaching the depth of the system
I must say that the construction is quite primitive, but in combination with slings gave a devastating effect, it should be said that the peoples surrounding Ancient Egypt did not know the system at all and went into battle simply with an armed crowd
by the way on fot - a typical construction of the ancient Egyptian army - column

[abrakadabre]

Please indicate on the basis of what you think that it was the fighting, and not marching, construction of the ancient Egyptians that was a column? In more detail, please do not offer Fomenko and other Nosovsky.

[kalibr]

For all the years of the Xnumx Snofru reign !!! For all!!!

[alexey garbuz]

Did the pyramid builders have axes inserted into a split tree? The ruler’s knife, although golden, could differ from the same knife of a commoner, but only iron? Or has iron rotted into dust for millennia? It is hard to believe that the people of that time did not have more modern weapons.

[kalibr]

What archaeologists have found is believed in that!

[abrakadabre]

What do you consider "modern" weapons? assault rifles and tank wedges? Armored infantry and heavy cavalry? Something other?
Modern in relation to which era?

[Support]

As far as I read various literature as far back as the 80-90s, most of these theories are pure fiction or more correct assumptions. We agreed in the World to take it this way and not otherwise. Most of the products in museums in Egypt, as well as geyropov, issued as originals - a clean remake. These bikes are already tired.

[kalibr]

And you know that for sure? And of course, a remake of the entire Cairo Museum and the finds of the tomb of Tutankhamun? And you, I see a supporter of "conspiracy theory". And what is Gayrope?

[abrakadabre]

In common parlance, this is called "I have not read the book, but I condemn" or militant dilettantism.

[Glot]

As far as I read various literature as far back as the 80-90s, most of these theories are pure fiction or more correct assumptions. We agreed in the World to take it this way and not otherwise. Most of the products in museums in Egypt, as well as geyropov, issued as originals - a clean remake. These bikes are already tired.

It seems to me that you have read the wrong literature on History. Rather, it is a kind of yellow-boulevard reading matter, or nonsense of underschooling rather than academic works. )))
As prof. Preobrazhensky:
- Do not read Soviet newspapers in the morning .... )))

[abrakadabre]

To paraphrase the famous catchphrase: "I'm glad to read, I'm sick of reading"

[Glot]

To paraphrase the famous catchphrase: "I'm glad to read, I'm sick of reading"

Yes, or so. )))
It’s just clear that they are often boring scientific papers, or completely unreadable if not in the subject.
And some kind of book with a loud title, a sensational headline, written in a popularist style, with an abundance of "proofs" of what was not or was, it is swallowed by immature minds, and voila - everyone and everything is lying, but I know that "the pyramids were built newcomers from the Big Dipper "or that" Rome was founded by the Rus "or ... in general, a vinaigrette tastefully seasoned with mayonnaise. ))) That's just, no matter how heartburn was. )))
And you can also look at RenTV. )))
Oo-oo-oo-oo, there is a "storehouse of true knowledge" that flows like a wide river. )))

[abrakadabre]

REN-tv is TNT on interesting topics.

[Glot]

REN-tv is TNT on interesting topics.

Ohhhhh, TNT is a thing. )))
One of us once went from work to the casting "DOM2", a few years ago. What says work? I'd better get there, I'll drink and eat, beat the local dancers and they'll pay me more money for that.
Casting failed. )))
But in a fifteen minute interview I received 70 Baku.
And if it had passed, then it would have been like that, drank / ate / freaked out all over the Country and, from 100 to 300 dollars a day, would have received. Then so these monkeys were paid there. Beginner - weaving a day, an old-timer - three hundred dollars.
Here is TNT. )))

[RiverVV]

Well, for sure, I've seen enough ... Ukrainians are so gullible!

[kalibr]

How well you wrote !!!

[Severomor]

Quote: Glot

It seems to me that you have read the wrong literature on History.

And you will not tell me what liter of history you need to read.
To be sure that I am reading the right books.
Very interesting about the Roman legions and the "Batu" invasion

[Glot]

And you will not tell me what liter of history you need to read.
To be sure that I am reading the right books.
Very interesting about the Roman legions and the "Batu" invasion

Well, I don’t know for whom both Fomenko and Co. ravings are right. )))
How to choose literature on a topic in which you understand little but want to know more and be sure that infa is close to the truth or the truth?
- We look at the publication. Whose it is, who is the author, what does he do, etc.
You will not go to treat your teeth to a locksmith from Uncle Vasya’s garage, and don’t get on a plane, which Suddenly Jamshut, a dryer, decided to control from a nearby eatery? Everyone should do their own thing, and professionals should trust more all the same than grief-lovers or crooks at all.
- We look at what sources, works the author used when writing a book.
- We look at the table of contents. More precisely, as he calls the chapters from in the book. Often this also helps.
- Scroll through the book, reading the paragraphs there, here, to choose from.
Well, something like this I personally choose books in the departments of historical literature.
By the way, why is Batu quoted?

[Severomor]

Quote: Glot

do not board the plane, which Suddenly decided to drive the jamshut from the nearest eatery

The Jamshuts didn’t send planes to shopping centers so sickly.
But this is the official version, and when I say that I do not believe and try to explain something, the answer is a conspiracy theory.

So what to read: Tatishchev or Miller? Bayer or Karamzin? Shletser or Morozov? Or maybe Lomonosov, but ....

By the way, the works of V. Yang - complete nonsense, all-historical history or a historical novel?

[Glot]

The Jamshuts didn’t send planes to shopping centers so sickly.
But this is the official version, and when I say that I do not believe and try to explain something, the answer is a conspiracy theory.

So what to read: Tatishchev or Miller? Bayer or Karamzin? Shletser or Morozov? Or maybe Lomonosov, but ....

By the way, the works of V. Yang - complete nonsense, all-historical history or a historical novel?

You perfectly understood what I meant when I talked about the Jamshuts. Therefore, do not distort. )))
What to read, I have already outlined approximate concepts. More precisely, not what, but to whom or whom to trust and to whom, no.
The question of faith is a very difficult question, and a personal one. Don't you believe some information? So your full right to check it. Find additional sources, evidence, compare everything, analyze and decide whether to believe or not. What does conspiracy theory have to do with it? It is nonsense. There are no global conspiracies to replace or change history, and there have never been. But people who "with a pitchfork on the water" tried to change it, who carrying unsubstantiated nonsense found adepts for themselves and fooled their heads were always.
Do you not believe the versions of historians by this or that moment of it? And did not think about the question, why actually should they deceive you? They study, move forward, study what has come down to us, analyze it for years, decades, and even centuries, wasting time, life, to deceive you? And some kind of slurred person, who didn’t understand where he jumped out from and did not study even a small fraction of what is available for studying to the professionals, will tell you that they all lie and will believe it? Or lead on beautiful fables or outright fiction?
Well, this is again a personal matter for everyone, what to believe in. To deprive you of faith? What for ? Believe in "aliens from the Big Dipper" or in the fact that Etruscans are / Russians and so on. )))
Yes, Vasily Yan ...
Definitely a writer. Therefore, do not learn history from his books. )) Although, he wrote them, of course, not from scratch, but this is not a chronicle. )))

[kalibr]

You put the question very correctly and answer it. Indeed, why should a person who values ​​his reputation deceive anyone. The ignorant can be deceived. Not difficult. But suddenly a person will appear among them who knows what then? I'm not talking about self-esteem. But it's also money ... "Oh, this is the one!" - and that's it ... the way to print is closed. At least in England so. To my books that were published there, they made such strict requirements that ... it was easy to write them. It was very difficult to do them, but to write books for a semi-literate gopot who likes to subvert everything - there are people too. They are ready to declare the pyramids a forgery and frescoes on the walls and tons of gold in the tomb of Tutankhamun. Everything is fake! And what was the price they didn’t try to calculate? In a word, you understand what is what and it is very gratifying!

[kalibr]

I will write, but will you get it?
Simkins M. Warriors of Rome. L .: Blandford, 1992.
Robinson HR The armor of Roman Legions. Ermine Street Guard. 1976.
This is an example of the Roman fortress at the UK. // Bishop MC (21 March. 1983 Sheffield) . PP. 12-13.
There are more books. But this is enough. Simkins is the largest weapon restorer in England. Copies museum samples masterfully. And the book wrote the most detailed. Bishop is a collection of articles on the finds of that time. I don’t know anything about Batu, not my topic.

[Severomor]

Quote: Prop

We agreed in the World to take it this way and not otherwise. Most of the products in museums in Egypt, as well as geyropov, issued as originals - a clean remake. These bikes are already tired.

What do you want? The Copper-Stone Age is in the yard. The main weapon is stone. What is made of copper? So, decorate the dishes. "Great" historians assumed that they made mad saws to cut a stone for ........ but that's another story))))).

Here are the painted figures - it seems to be true. Voices ... bare-footed infantry. Shield and spear with stone (later a bronze tip). The armament of the army is the most identical and massive weapon.

I agree with the comment above 70 divide by 000 we get 100 people. It seems to be true, and even that is a bit much.

[RiverVV]

Under the captives could well understand the population of the captured area. True, the Egyptians in the south fought no longer for the purpose of territorial conquests, but to run-to-rob-enslave.
In addition, for the WHOLE period of the reign of the pharaoh, you can catch more than 70K prisoners if you wish.

[Mikhail3]

And by the way, there, above, besides the fair-sighted Holozad of infantry, you still have a funny idea. About the fact that the Egyptians still drew a lot. Indeed, a lot. In almost all of these figures, there is naturally a pharaoh, ten times larger than the rest, and his troops. The troops are always depicted in a messy pile waving spears and sticks. The order and linear constructions are in the image of marching columns and prisoners tied with one rope. In all other cases - porridge.

[RiverVV]

Not at all messy. The Egyptians just painted. They did not know what perspective was and objects located one after another were depicted either canonically, as a whole, or next to each other, but again canonical. They have all the drawings - template. The fact that for us - an erratic set of pictures, for the Egyptian was a completely holistic bas-relief.

But on the contrary, their sculpture was individual. Portrait resemblance was welcome.

[kalibr]

To get started, read THE COUNTRY OF GREAT HAPI N. Petrovsky, A Belov is an old, but kind book. And V.Zamarovsky THEIR MAJESTY PYRAMID. Science 1981-86's.

[Nagaibak]

Let's talk about Egypt and more pictures, more.))) It is possible about the fortification of Ancient Egypt isho.)))

[kalibr]

But with pictures of Egypt the problem ... In the Cairo Museum can not be removed, it is very expensive. And then through the glass is generally bad to shoot. As in the Metropolitan Museum of electronic photo library they do not have! To remove the walls of the temples in general works. In the morning in the shade, dazzle the sun in the sun, and in the evening you left. Shoot in the tombs ... get there yet. So pictures surprisingly little!

[Severomor]

It is also interesting about various combat vehicles, stone throwers, rams and ballista.

Or dr. Egyptians have not reached this point?

[kalibr]

Not reached, the fortress besieged the fence fence!

[Jan Ivanov]

about my dearest thoughts, about my dearest. )

[igordok]

Quote: Yan Ivanov

They have such huge heart-shaped fig leaflets, obviously, smaller leaflets could not cover everything that was needed.

These "fig leaves" cover, or rather protect, the iliac and femoral arteries.

[Jan Ivanov]

This protection is implemented very strangely. With this board in front, which dangles around the belt and hits both legs while walking and running, you can only stand. And when you are standing, the same shield will protect the ileal and femoral arteries much better. And in the figure, the fighter very much threw the "femoral arteries" apart. Obviously does not protect them.

[otto meer]

Quote: Yan Ivanov

They have such huge heart-shaped fig leaflets, obviously, smaller leaflets could not cover everything that was needed.

And he (leaflet) is also printed / quilted, so that ... God forbid!

Quote: abrakadabre

Oh ... Who ...

So this is good! Otherwise, they would all say the same thing ..... and they would go crazy.

[Timyr]

Stone axes still fought under Hastings, the poor in a word. The Hittites Guard was armed with iron weapons. There still a letter was the Hittite king sends an iron dagger to Pharaoh as a gift. You can recall the iron yiadu worth more than gold.

[kalibr]

Who told you that they fought with stone axes at Hastings? Where does this information come from? I had an article here about Hastings and the "Bayeux carpet" - find and read, but do not repeat the nonsense!

[RiverVV]

Well, maybe someone was fighting ... Beggar in any army was enough. And certainly there were slingers in both armies, but are they on the tapestry?

[Tsayper]

Emnip there were not axes, but stones tied to sticks - for throwing. Mentioned in some source. Then, on the principle of a damaged telephone, they turned into stone axes.

[Timyr]

From the Saxons, not the Normans. As the rogue said correctly enough. Yes, and the road armor was, the Saxons gathered the militia there. No, of course, there were no slingers, but they are not depicted on the tapestry.

[Olezhek]

“Thanks to Alexander the Great, the phalanx acquired a reputation as an invincible striking force, sweeping away everyone and everything in its path. However, Philip II, the creator of the Macedonian phalanx in the middle of the XNUMXth century BC, learned to fight his subjects in the ranks of the phalanx not from a good life. was the only cheap way to organize an effective mass army of untrained peasants who did not have the opportunity to constantly train with weapons and acquire armor. "
"The phalanx is inherently inactive, its goal is to hold back the frontal pressure of the enemy. On rough terrain, the phalanx broke the formation and became vulnerable. When struck on the flank or rear, the phalanx lost its advantages and turned into a poorly organized crowd. In battles, Philip II and Alexander the Great. inflicted a decisive blow with cavalry forces at a time when the main forces of the enemy were bogged down in unsuccessful attempts to break the formation of the phalanx.As one historian noted, the phalanx served as an anvil for Alexander, the sledgehammer was the cavalry. Greek mercenaries of the Persians or Greek troops in the Lamian War inflicted heavy losses on the Pedzeitars, and only the tactical superiority of the Macedonian commanders did not allow the Greeks to gain victories. "

Two big quotes that agree.
Since we are talking about phalanxes ...
All the same phalanxes - this is the Macedonians.

[Olezhek]

Many fought in a closed formation - and even fiercely unbridled Vikings - exhibited a "row of shields"
Meaning - a relatively large but poorly organized crowd runs up.
At each concrete moment (we do cool-mo) - it is impossible to organize uniform pressure on the system - it is empty somewhere where it is thick and you break through to the system - you run up a row of shields + you get blows from several sides.
Story almost always beats the crowd.
BUT pedestrian and phalanx are not synonymous - here the devil has beguiled you ..
Ancient Egypt and the phalanx ...

[Olezhek]

In the battle of Kadesh - the largest battle between the armies of Egypt and the Hittite kingdom in 1274 BC. - Thousands of chariots took part on both sides, and although it ended in virtually a draw, there is no doubt that chariots played a very important role in it. But besides the new bows, the Egyptians had two new types of long daggers.

Robyaty - what phalanxes ??
It's not about that.

The article is valid.

[Olezhek]

Since in Egypt it was very hot some special "military uniform" or protective clothing the ancient warriors did not have. Their entire clothing consisted of a traditional skirt, a fleece wig, which played the role of a helmet that protects the head from the mace's stunning blow and shield

In general, information about the troops and tactics of ancient Egypt - very little. So such articles are hard to write.
But the ancient Egyptians fought actively.
So the topic is complex and interesting at the same time.
As in general, the war of the Ancient World - (TO the Romans and classical Greeks)

[kalibr]

There will be another article about the Trojan War and weapons of this era. But really not enough time.

[Reptiloid]

I am writing as soon as I read the article, the book by A.M. Kondratov "Atlantis of the Tethys Sea", the end of the last century. Shardens are Sardinians. PRST ---- Philistines, SKR --- Siculs (inhabitants of Sicily). The text about how Ramses II led the Hittite army to flight in the battle of Kadesh by means of a SPELL !!! In modern terms --- what was THAT ??? Thank you so much for the article: this is a journey. I love Ancient Egypt, ancient Indian states, ancient civilizations of Hindustan , Indochina and Indonesia. I try to study the Ancient Egyptian language on the Internet, I study Hieroglyphs.

[kalibr]

Wow, what a fine fellow you are! I approve! But you also need to learn English. The English-speaking school of Egyptology is very strong. I will try to write about the Battle of Kadesh. They sent me a book from England - "The First Armies", there it is very interesting ...

[Reptiloid]

Dear Vyacheslav, A.M. Kondratov is no longer alive. I could not find the electronic version. His books looked like brochures in a paperback. I bought in a second-hand book dealer:
Silent Guardians of Secrets
Mysteries of the Great Ocean
Address --- Lemuria
Atlantis Sea Tethys
Atlantis Five Oceans
Look for Atlantis offshore
Footprints on the shelf
Look for dinosaurs in the depths

I read these. But recently I found out that there are much more of His books left. I would like to buy them, and ALSO A. A. Voronin, Lewis Spence and others on the same topic. The beautiful Blue Pentalogy about Atlantis is --- read. !!!

[kalibr]

Excuse me, but ... I do not believe the authors of such writings! Everything is sucked out of there. I myself have sometimes written articles on this technology - yes, there are even technologies for writing such books! - and ... to be honest, there was an unpleasant feeling. Why not? But ... something says - where is the evidence? They are replaced by a spectacular play of the mind. These are not the books you need to read to become a specialist. Take "Country of Big Hapi", Petrovsky and Belov, "Their Majesty's Pyramids" by Wojciech Zamarovsky, Secrets of the Mayan priests Kuzmishchev ...
I can give books by foreign authors - everything can be ordered. But this is English.

[Iraclius]

Before the era of the Early Kingdom, the Egyptians shock-crushing weapons were unfamiliar. It was brought, most quickly, by the soldiers of Mesopotamia. According to some hypotheses, the first rulers of the Dynastic period were the conquerors from Sumer. Thanks to the maces, they were able to prevail over the indigenous population.
Most importantly, with all due respect to the civilization of Egypt, they have never been militant. In the entire history of Egypt, one can only recall Ramses II and Thutmose III. The Egyptians did not even learn how to build normal fortifications.

[abrakadabre]

Do you yourself understand what you wrote? There are no peoples on our planet who did not know shock-crushing weapons. For:
1. Impact-crushing weapons are used even by chimpanzees - this is a stone or stick turned up on occasion.
2. The first of the generally known objects made by ancient man ... not one of the first, but the first - these are shock-crushing primitive "choppers", which did not immediately have a developed cutting edge for cutting, and not crushing.
3. Any sufficiently strong and heavy object that a person can take in his hand is a shock-crushing weapon.
Therefore, the Egyptians were undoubtedly well acquainted with such weapons. From the most primitive clubs to specially made war clubs and maces.

[abrakadabre]

Answer what Pharaoh is holding in his hands?

[Iraclius]

I clarify. By impact-crushing, I mean a mace with a spherical massive pommel. These maces became widespread in Egypt after the conquest of the Sumerians, this is a Middle Eastern invention. The reed shields of the Egyptians and the almost complete absence of protective weapons gave the aliens from Mesopotamia a significant advantage. The image from your post is the latest. The traditional Egyptian mace has a plate-shaped, disc-shaped, almost flat impact top and in profile resembles a klevets - a much lighter and less effective weapon. Suitable to fight against the Naked nooby barbarians.

[abrakadabre]

Repeat

this is a Middle Eastern invention

This Middle Eastern invention of yours has been known to mankind (everything) since the era when mammoths did not even think about extinction. Neanderthals still used such weapons. The image I cited in which the pharaoh of only Upper Egypt holds a completely banal mace with a spherical top is just very ancient and was made in Egypt at a time when the Sumerians did not even think about expanding into such a distant country like Egypt. Image created BEFORE the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt into one kingdom. This is indicated, in addition to dating by modern methods:
- the presence on the head of the pharaoh only one crown - Upper Egypt.
- the absence of later developed hieroglyphs - writing has just appeared and was still very archaic in writing.

By the way, do not enlighten in more detail about the successful conquests of the Sumerians in Egypt? I will fill in the gap.

[Iraclius]

I'm talking about the Pre-Dynastic period.
I quote.

... Secondly, in the graves of warriors from the time of the Nakad II period, new types of weapons appear, previously unknown to the inhabitants of the Nile Valley. It is in them that we first meet the "pear-shaped mace" - the ceremonial par excellence weapon of the pharaohs. The muzzle of the mace is round, tapering closer to the handle, which gives it a characteristic pear-shaped shape. In the earlier graves of warriors of that Nakad II period, the clubs had a rounded shape, resembling a miniature disk. This change of ceremonial weapons was very dramatic.
Now let's recall the cave paintings from the shores of Wadi Hammamat. Perhaps the reader remembers that I especially emphasized the figure of the leader standing on the boat with a pear-shaped mace (rod) in his hand. It is this weapon that is depicted in the hands of victorious warriors on the hilt of a knife from Jebel al-Arak. There is hardly any doubt that the pear-shaped mace was brought to Egypt by the very People on Square Boats. Margaret Murray, one of the most active supporters of the theory of the Dynastic race, sees in this new weapon the guarantee of decisive military superiority of the aliens:
“The main task of all types of weapons is to defeat the enemy and prevent him from striking you. In primitive hand-to-hand fights of antiquity, a warrior who has heavier weapons and is able to kill the enemy with the first blow, or at least seriously injure the enemy, always triumphed over a lightly armed warrior. That was the case in the Hercean (Nakad II) period. The mace of the Amratian (Nakad I) period was effective only if the blow was inflicted by its most optimal point, breaking the skull of the enemy or breaking the artery. Warriors of the Herzanian period possessed much more formidable weapons. Instead of a disc-shaped mace with a cutting edge, they received a massive pear-shaped mace that crushed the shields and armor of the Amratian period from the skin of rhinos or hippos, killing the enemy with one blow or breaking his arm and thereby making him defenseless. So, the pear-shaped mace of the Hercean period was a very formidable weapon. "
So, it turns out that Petri discovered the tombs of the great warriors who invaded the Nile Valley? The question arises: were the natives of the Nile valley (i.e., native Egyptians) buried in the graves of Nakad I period, that is, the native Egyptian tombs buried in the tombs of the Nakad period II, were exclusively representatives of the foreign military elite, who arrived from Sumer and prevailed over their predecessors, who rested in the cemetery Nakadskogo I period? Anthropologist Douglas Derry, based on an analysis of measurements of the skull, gives an affirmative answer to this question:
“People of the Pre-Dynastic period had narrow skulls, the height of which markedly exceeds their width - a trait inherent in all Negroids. For the Dynastic race, on the contrary, they all had a wider skull, the height of which, exceeding that of the people of the Dynastic era, was still noticeably smaller than its width. And this indicates a larger volume of the skull and, therefore, a larger brain volume among the interventionists. "

Further, I refer to David Rohl's book "The Genesis of Civilization. Where We Come From". It describes the conquest campaigns of the Sumerians in the Nile Valley.