Military Review

Armor of the Trojan War (part two)

38
As with the swords, the armor of the Trojan War appeared long before it began. The earliest element of the defensive armor is the bronze shoulder strap found in one of the tombs from Dendra (tomb no. 8) and relating to 1550 - 1500 BC. At first they thought it was a helmet, but later they were correctly identified as a shoulder strap for the right shoulder. There were no other parts, and this gave rise to three hypotheses:
a) the entire armor was originally placed in the tomb, but later it was removed;

b) the shoulder pad symbolized all the armor;
c) only this shoulder strap was metal, and the rest of the leather armor and it just crumbled from time to time.

But in the tomb of Dendra No. 12 (1450 - 1400 BC) found the full armor of the warrior, which consisted of bronze parts.

Armor of the Trojan War (part two)

Dendra Armor

This protection consists of: a) two bronze plates about 1 mm thick, which protect the warrior’s body; b) two bronze shoulder pads (similar, but not equal in form, to the find in the tomb No. 8); c) two parts of curved bronze plates attached to the underside of the shoulder pads to protect the forearm; d) two triangular pieces of bronze attached to the shoulder pads for an extra chest; e) bronze neck; f) six bronze plates attached to the lower edge of the shell - three in front and three in the back.


Reconstruction of Dendra armor.

All parts have a series of small holes at the edges with a diameter of 2 mm, used to attach the lining to the inside of the shell. The lining was leather, its remains were found inside the plates. Were found thin strands of goat wool. Large holes, roughly 4 mm, at the edges of all elements were used to connect different plates with each other using leather laces.


The famous "Agamemnon mask" from the "gold-rich Mycenaeans."

The armor was reconstructed, and it turned out that, despite its strange design and considerable weight, they were quite flexible and convenient for use by infantrymen, and not, as is sometimes said, exclusively by soldiers on chariots. This experimental reconstruction also leads to the conclusion that this armor was created to fight with a sword and a spear. But it’s not convenient to use onions. Protecting the throat is especially important if we recall the presence of rapier types C and D sword in warriors (see part one on swords). Of course, this does not mean that this armor was designed specifically to protect only against these swords, but this, of course, was considered by the creators of the armor. An interesting feature of this armor is the difference in the width of the armhole: for the right hand, the armhole is more than provides greater freedom of the right hand in battle. This is further evidence that the “Armor from Dendra” is intended for ground battles, and not just for parades or chariot warriors.


"Lion Gate" in Mycenae.

By the way, the total weight of this armor ranges from 15 to 18 kg. Considering the size of the chest plates and the analysis of the skeleton found in the tomb, it was found that the warrior who owned the “Dendra armor” was 1,75 m tall, but very slim and weighed about 60-65 kg.

The discovery is confirmed by fragments of ceramics from Mycenae (1350 - 1300 BC). In this image, a breastplate with a large nobleman is quite recognizable. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine from this fragment whether a warrior is on foot or fighting on a chariot.


A fragment of pottery depicting a warrior in armor with a characteristic of ours.

117 bronze plates were also found (around 1370 - 1250 BC) during excavations in tombs in Messenia. They have small holes from 1 to 2 mm in diameter for attaching to the lining. That is, the platelet plate armor was also known to the ancient Achaeans.

It should be emphasized, however, that most of the armor described above was used by the soldiers of the Crete-Mycenaean culture long before the Trojan War itself. If 1250 is considered the year of the fall of Troy, then 100 is 250 years after 1100, and if this event is dated 1000 or XNUMX as a year, as some historians do, then this time becomes even longer. And from here again the question arises about the continuity and tradition of the Achaean weapons. As far as it corresponded not so much to the time of his discovery, then just the problem does not arise as to the time that interests us. That is, figuratively speaking, “could the Dendra armor be worn” by the legendary Achilles.


"March of the Warriors" - the image on the Mycenaean vase. Pay attention to their strange horned helmets with combs and round shields with a trimmed bottom edge.

Since bronze armor was supposed to be extremely valuable, there is every reason to believe that the same "armor" could be passed from one generation to another until it became completely unusable, or it was not buried together with the warrior in the grave. But ... the development of armor based on combat experience cannot be ruled out either, although the tradition of the ancients historical crops was exceptionally high. In Japan, for example, almost until now, everything old was considered better than new, so a chipped tea cup is valued more than a new one!

At the same time, in the rest of Europe, solid forged bronze armor and, in particular, bronze cuirass were also used. They were found in Slovakia, Hungary, and Italy, since they bordered on the Achaean civilization and either borrowed them, or bought them, or ... got them in battles.

A wonderful example of Achaean armor ... in the form of a stone vessel in the form of a cuirass with shoulder pads. From the burial in Crete near the palace at Knossos (around 1350 BC).

Thus, for example, well-preserved bronze cuirass found in the Danube near Pilismaroth of Hungary (1300 - 1100 BC) reached us.


Pilismarot Breastplate.

A fragment of an armor plate in Slovakia was found (around 1250 BC) A fragment of a cuirass from Cerna nad Tisou, Slovakia (1050 before 950 BC) was also found. True, all these finds are fragmentary. But they are indicative in the sense that they prove the presence of such armor at that time. That is, in the Bronze Age, metal armor was not such an amazing rarity! In fact, these were the real ones ... knight armor, covering the torso, neck and legs to the knees, or lamellar ("scaly") armor, again very similar to the later ones, but made of bronze, not iron. That is, somewhere from the 15th century to the fall of the Aegean civilization, the level of metalworking that was characteristic of it was very high.
Well, the later images of the heroes and scenes of the Trojan War, made by the classical Greeks, have no real relation to the past. That is, we see signatures under (or above the figures): Achilles, Ajax, Hector, but these are nothing more than artistic images associated with the peculiarity of the lack of historical thinking in people of that time. What they saw around them, they also projected onto the past. Therefore, shield-goplon, "helmets with ridges" and muscular cuirass from the arsenal of soldiers of the Trojan War should be excluded. Including future designers of the Iliad and Odyssey books published for children!
Author:
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Riv
    Riv 29 September 2015 06: 47 New
    +8
    And why, in fact, the hoplop shield should be excluded? Because they were not found during excavations? So after all, in the time described, no one (except the richest) would make such shields of metal. He bent a suitable branch as an edge, attached a wicker base from twigs, covered it with leather. You can make convex. Nothing too complicated, cheap and cheerful. A sling stone will not break, a spear will be stuck, and no more is needed. It is clear that the product made of leather and wood in the soil simply decays, and they will not put it into the stone tomb due to the same cheapness.

    But to trim the edge at the shield of such a simple design will not work. The edge must already be made in two parts. The design will be complicated, the price will rise. Actually, fighters with such shields look quite well-fed in terms of armor. Why is trimming necessary? And imagine that you and your comrades fell under the shelling of slingers. The solution is trivial: put the shield on the shield, set the spears and calmly stomp forward. For this, a cutout is needed so that there are no holes in the wall of the shields.
    1. kalibr
      29 September 2015 07: 32 New
      +5
      I always liked and like when in the comments our people express unusual ideas that had never occurred to anyone before! So with the cropped shield the same thing. I have never read that such a form was to put them on one another. But it is possible! Thank you for such an original thought! Probably, you won’t be able to stomp further with two rows of shields, but why not make a wall ?!
      1. Riv
        Riv 29 September 2015 08: 36 New
        +1
        Stomp? Easy. This is much simpler than modern drill training, and under a hail of stones, people learned quickly. Probably the development of a similar topic was a constricted shield resembling an eight.
        1. kalibr
          29 September 2015 09: 44 New
          +2
          That’s just the fosmerkoobrazny shield appeared earlier! About it in the following material.
      2. Aljavad
        Aljavad 30 September 2015 01: 51 New
        +1
        I always liked and like when in the comments our people express unusual ideas that had never occurred to anyone before!


        Brainstorming, however! good
      3. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 30 September 2015 14: 51 New
        +3
        For a more accurate reconstruction of the method of using a shield with a cutout, it is worth looking at how exactly the hand grip looks from the back. Do not guess, namely to see on the art or artifact. On this from this is not visible.
        Based on the size (and hence weight) of the shield, in use it is similar to the hoplon. The method of grasping the hoplone is known from numerous ceramics - this is an elbow grip.
        Since on the given ceramics there is a monotonous formation of soldiers with spears taken "on the shoulder", and not "at the ready", most likely this is a marching formation. This means that a heavy shield is carried in the position of the hand down, and not taken on a bent elbow. That is, in a position that allows the least fatigue.
        When taking the shield on a bent elbow to the combat position, the notch of the shield will turn on the right side of the warrior. This allows you to stab with a spear forward, without opening yourself and without opening the system. Only through the cutout in the shield.

        This is a purely logical reflection, from personal experience of wearing and using a shield, but not claiming to be true.

        In addition, the proposal that the cutout for a better docking of shields in a single field is redundant: Keeping the docking plane will not work in battle. Yes and no need. Shields and without this overlap perfectly in any plane: that in the horizontal, in the vertical, that in any other. Though a Roman turtle. The overlap is much easier to hold in conjunction.
  2. IS-80
    IS-80 29 September 2015 09: 18 New
    +2
    Quote: Riv
    The solution is trivial: put the shield on the shield, put the spears and calmly stomp forward. For this, the cutout is needed so that there are no holes in the wall of the shields.

    And not at all for that. The shield was not placed on the shield, but in the phalanx the shield adjoined the shield on the right side. The cutout was needed for the convenience of owning the spear that the warrior put into this cutout. And if the soldiers put the shield on the shield, the bottom row will squat the enemy?
    1. kalibr
      29 September 2015 09: 43 New
      +2
      So the cutout is below! Where to put the spear? And the rear mounts are exactly for his position, that's the thing!
      1. IS-80
        IS-80 29 September 2015 10: 39 New
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        So the cutout is below! Where to put the spear? And the rear mounts are exactly for his position, that's the thing!

        At what bottom? This is just a stowed position.
        1. Riv
          Riv 29 September 2015 10: 58 New
          +2
          Here again: turn on the brain and think. Take a disc made of boards with a diameter of seventy centimeters and hang it behind your back. There will be no problems with fastening. You can pin the loop anywhere. The lower edge of the shield rests on your lower back, and the upper edge on the neck. Walk like thirty kilometers. Appreciate the convenience? Now throw this disk to hell and spread the calluses with petroleum jelly. :)

          In fact, the ancient Greek was not a complete idiot. If he could fly a stone, then he took a shield on his hand. And if it’s quiet around, then smart people invented carts for this case and harnessed donkeys to them.

          The same garbage with greaves. In battle, they are very useful, but walking in them for long distances, and even more so running - hellish torment.
          1. IS-80
            IS-80 29 September 2015 11: 15 New
            +1
            Quote: Riv
            In fact, the ancient Greek was not a complete idiot. If he could fly a stone, then he took a shield on his hand. And if it’s quiet around, then smart people invented carts for this case and harnessed donkeys to them.

            Thanks, Cap. No one says that they walked from morning to evening for thousands of kilometers on foot, and this is understandable. Over short distances in the face of a possible attack by the enemy completely. This is your version with the installation of the shield on the shield does not stand up to criticism. For such a position of the shields is extremely inconvenient, and if you still move about like that this is generally a complete guard.
            1. otto meer
              otto meer 29 September 2015 12: 15 New
              +2
              Quote: IS-80
              This is your version with the installation of the shield on the shield does not stand up to criticism. For such a position of the shields is extremely inconvenient, and if you still move about like that this is generally a complete guard.
              Aha, I join. In the end, whoever prevented the shields from being pulled out with an "overlap", the structure turns out to be much stronger and there are no problems with a strange shape.
            2. Riv
              Riv 29 September 2015 13: 32 New
              +4
              You just never seriously went. :)
              The last thing to be thrown behind is a weapon. This principle is already around 7000 years old. If the weapon is with you, then it is positioned so that it can be easily put on alert. If you made a habit of hanging a shield on your back in war ... Well, Darwin’s theory is harsh.
              Good. Here is another picture for you. The shield is clearly shown in a fighting position.
              1. IS-80
                IS-80 29 September 2015 13: 52 New
                +1
                Quote: Riv
                Good. Here is another picture for you. The shield is clearly shown in a fighting position.

                So what? There is no spear-bearer here at all. And the era is later.
              2. Riv
                Riv 29 September 2015 13: 56 New
                +1
                So yes: such a neckline is a clear weakening of the structure. But why did you make it? And besides using infantry in the ranks, I have no other options. Weapons not cut out. To put his spear, it is too wide. What is the ritual meaning? Which one?
                All the same, I am inclined to the idea that, given the global shortage of armor (something similar is felt on the Amazon, but the helmet has the same name), a denser closure of the shields made sense. Subsequently, when the armor began to spread widely, the shield became completely round and much heavier. The one on the vase is even light in appearance.
                1. IS-80
                  IS-80 29 September 2015 14: 34 New
                  0
                  Quote: Riv
                  To put his spear, it is too wide.

                  I find it quite normal. Plus leaves space for vertical movement of the spear for striking the head, body, legs.
                  Quote: Riv
                  All the same, I am inclined to the idea that, given the global shortage of armor (something similar is felt on the Amazon, but the helmet has the same name), a denser closure of the shields made sense.

                  This is quite logical.
                  Quote: Riv
                  Subsequently, when the armor began to spread widely, the shield became completely round and much heavier. The one on the vase is even light in appearance.

                  On a Mycenaean vase, it does not seem easy. Here, probably, a whole bunch of factors play a role.
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 29 September 2015 16: 11 New
                    +1
                    Somehow for fun, try to take a pair of one and a half teaspoons of beer and raise them on an outstretched arm. So, as in the picture. How long do you hold? A board shield will be heavier.

                    Spear through the slot in the shield with a spear ??? Do you even imagine what a system is? After all, he cannot move fast, and the fighter in him cannot maneuver. If you cover the fighters with such circles as in the picture and build, then the same number of slingers will last half an hour to stupidly stone everyone with a safe distance of a hundred meters.

                    Do the experiment yourself. Wait for the winter, your friend will throw snowballs, and you will be protected by a wash basin. For reliability, go to the rink. Your friend will be skating, and you will be in boots. Very quickly, you will realize that either a larger basin is needed, or two are needed.
                    1. Aljavad
                      Aljavad 30 September 2015 02: 00 New
                      0
                      A board shield will be heavier.

                      Is he boardwalk?
                      Or braided and leather-covered?
                    2. abrakadabre
                      abrakadabre 30 September 2015 15: 15 New
                      +1
                      Do you even imagine what a system is?
                      You will be surprised, but regularly. Do you yourself often go into service with a shield and a spear?
                      Do the experiment yourself.
                      You exaggerate. The phalanx is always accompanied by a crowd of archers, slingers and other dart throwers. Which really helps to fire in response. In addition, the phalanx will not stand for hours in the rain from arrows, unless there are some special reasons, such as the numerous numerical superiority of the enemy or the extreme inconvenience of the position for attack.
                2. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 30 September 2015 15: 05 New
                  +2
                  The notch for the spear is not wide. Firstly, this is a fairly sketchy drawing, not a drawing. Secondly, to change the direction of the spear injection without revealing oneself (and similar manipulations in battle), it is necessary to make a cutout larger than the diameter of the spear itself.
                  The shield did not become a large hoplon, not because the armor also became heavy. In the Middle Ages, just the opposite relationship: with the development of armor, shields began to decrease.
                  Just completely armed hoplites covered not only themselves, but also comrades from blows from the side, and subsequent lines of the phalanx from shelling. That allowed replenishing the back rows with less hospitable wars for the reserve. In blind defense, this allows the shields of the first two lines to practically close the entire phalanx.
              3. Evg_K
                Evg_K 29 September 2015 17: 38 New
                +1
                Hm. Apparently, such a shield is more convenient to protect an open face than a round one. The lower edge of the cut at eye level, the protection of the face on the right and left is clearly higher.
                1. Riv
                  Riv 30 September 2015 07: 48 New
                  +1
                  Horns are rather small. And then: on later models of infantry shields there is nothing similar.
                2. The comment was deleted.
              4. The comment was deleted.
              5. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 30 September 2015 15: 03 New
                +2
                The shield is similar. But there are radical differences:
                1. This is not Greek. The complex is Asian.
                2. This is not a phalangist (in terms of other Greeks), but in one way or another an analogue of the Peltasts - light infantry.
                3. Shield in size for maneuverable combat, and not for formation. This is also indicated by the battle hatchet, and the absence of heavy armor - quilted armor with shoulder pads.
                That is, there is a cutout for better visibility during operations in a loose formation. Therefore, the cutout is on top.
            3. The comment was deleted.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 30 September 2015 14: 55 New
        +1
        A heavy shield taken with an elbow grip in a campaign is more advantageous to keep so that the arm is straightened. In this case, the cutout on the right of the shield is rotated down. The warriors most likely carry shields along the camp, straightening their arms down.
  3. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 29 September 2015 09: 36 New
    +2
    Thank you very much for the article, Vyacheslav! I liked it very much.
  4. DimanC
    DimanC 29 September 2015 09: 46 New
    +1
    I have not seen the first part, but in other places I read that the Iliad is a collection that can describe not a single war, but several at once, which stretched for decades. During this time, the Greeks have changed a lot in tactics and equipment ...
    1. kalibr
      29 September 2015 12: 01 New
      +2
      Look in the previous materials. Look at the profile - there are all the articles there.
  5. Glot
    Glot 29 September 2015 10: 20 New
    +2
    it was found that the warrior who owned the “armor from Dendra” was 1,75 m tall, but he was very slim and weighed about 60-65 kg.


    By today's standards, not just slim, quite thin even. But the growth for the time of the Trojan War is quite high. Surely the noble was a comrade, and his family ate well.

    Since bronze armor was supposed to be extremely valuable, that is, there is every reason to believe that the same “armor” could be passed from one generation to another until it became completely worthless, or it was not buried with the warrior in the grave.


    Yeah, that was it.
    It was possible to hold in their hands such elements of equipment transmitted not a single decade or century. Forged, patched in places of breakdowns. He also once examined a pair of Corinthian helmets, which their later owners transformed strongly, cut off the molded gosher, replacing them with other, mobile ones, removed the part covering the nose, in general, it was clear that these things were transmitted for a long, long time.
  6. Eagle Owl1
    Eagle Owl1 29 September 2015 15: 01 New
    +5
    as I have repeatedly participated in battles with the shield wall, I can say this: if the shields are round, with the formation closed, the sectors below the left and right, from the shield, are open. If we are talking about javelins - there is a very weak spot. I agree with the opinion that the neckline was either right or left, but all soldiers in the chain are the same. Due to the cutout, the closing area was larger.

    By the way, in the first part, the author for some reason claims that chopping is easier than stabbing and builds hypotheses on this deeply erroneous opinion. I can argue with my own experience, I can offer to take an iron rod weighing 1-1,3 kg and try to chop the target or stab it, but I can refer to the sunset history of European chivalry. The essence of the matter will not change - chopping (not fencing in the generally accepted sense !!) is much easier than chopping. To train 20 peasants to stab much faster than to teach them how to fight using a chopping blade.
    1. Glot
      Glot 29 September 2015 15: 39 New
      +1
      as I have repeatedly participated in battles with the shield wall, I can say this:


      Where did you participate, Gawgamels, or in the battle at the Dog Head Gorge? Or maybe ... the clang of copies, the booming explosions of grenades and screams - Allahakbar, rang out for a long time in the Thermopyl Gorge ... laughing

      Sorry, could not resist, no offense. smile
      1. Eagle Owl1
        Eagle Owl1 29 September 2015 16: 45 New
        +3
        For more than 15 years, there have been festivals of historical reconstruction (not to be confused with roleplayers). Almost every self-respecting fest has a bugurt - a group battle of two teams. In teams of 5 people or more. I saw fights 100 on 100.
        Weapons: swords, hoods, axes, halberds, shields.
        The rules are simple - full contact. As long as one team fails to fill the other, the battle continues. But while a person is standing, almost everything is possible.
        1. kalibr
          29 September 2015 18: 29 New
          0
          I am not against historical reconstruction. On the contrary, with all hands in favor. But, as M.V. Gorelik (probably you know who this is?) Told me how he was invited to one such club in Moscow. And on the wall there is a notice "Scramasax test tomorrow". He was amazed and asks, what could be a credit for a subject about which only it is known that he was? And to him - how they used it, methods of working with him, peculiarities ... Gorelik left this club right away!
        2. Glot
          Glot 29 September 2015 18: 58 New
          0
          For more than 15 years there have been festivals of historical reconstruction


          Yes, I understood what you mean, it’s so, SHUT. smile

          It is impossible to finish. But while a person is standing, almost everything is possible.


          And to kill? laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. kalibr
      29 September 2015 18: 25 New
      +1
      This is not what I affirm, but Ewart Oakeshott and many other specialists in this field. They recognized their opinion authoritatively ... You should know the books of Evart ... They are in Russian.
      1. Glot
        Glot 29 September 2015 19: 04 New
        0
        This is not what I affirm, but Ewart Oakeshott and many other specialists in this field.


        Vyacheslav, how do you feel about John Verry’s book?
        1. KakoVedi
          KakoVedi 29 September 2015 19: 46 New
          +1
          It’s better with Russian folk tales ... Homer ... Everything is said there!
        2. kalibr
          29 September 2015 21: 07 New
          0
          Do not read! Alas! I don’t even know this name.
    4. Aljavad
      Aljavad 30 September 2015 02: 24 New
      +1
      By the way, in the first part, the author for some reason claims that chopping is easier than stabbing and builds hypotheses on this deeply erroneous opinion.


      The chopping blow is more "intuitive". And this is a medical fact, not the opinion of the author. Watch how very young children fight.

      In general, "cutting" is a later phenomenon. The first weapon (not hunting equipment) is a club. Upgrade - ax. You can't prick in principle. Tradition, however! Therefore, a stabbing blow is a revolution in military affairs. It is more rational and energetically beneficial. But this must be taught.

      And cutting, which is harder to teach (even with a saber, even with a katana), is a completely different story. For veterans of the Trojan War, unimaginable. As for Charles XII attack chain or in bulk.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 30 September 2015 15: 26 New
        +1
        The chopping blow is more "intuitive".
        Invalid output. Both actions are quite intuitive. This is not so difficult for the brain, the choice of action depending on the shape of the subject: for a club, ax, wide blade - cutting; for spear, narrow sword, etc. - an injection.
        An injection is much less costly in efforts, much faster and therefore more difficult to parry, it is much easier to inflict fatal damage.
        Felling has an advantage in the area of ​​the affected area. That is, if the target is moving fast, it waved widely and you’ll get somewhere. Provided there is no armor.
        And ... cutting requires space, that is, a sparse system. And for the injection there is enough space even in the densest formation.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Eagle Owl1
    Eagle Owl1 30 September 2015 11: 49 New
    +5
    I will answer in one message at once to everyone.
    In my opinion, it is always worth checking the theory of even venerable specialists by their own practice. As I already wrote, it is a well-known fact that the decline of chivalry began with the training of peasants in combat with peaks and halberds. These units were taught a couple of months, and after that, a trained, packaged knight could not do anything for years. In a closed formation there are basically two blows - an injection and a chopping (from asshole!) From top to bottom.
    How many of you fought in close formation? To someone who is in such a system, in a battle he will show me 4 different chopping blows - I will put a box of unfiltered wheat !!!! Even 3 different chopping blows in such a formation is difficult to do - neighbors interfere (from behind, including). But the injection is easy.
    If you think that the intellect of the peasants in the 15th century was more powerful than that of their counterparts in 10 BC - I think that here you are mistaken.
    A real battle very quickly removes the husks, fools die immediately. And the smart one immediately understands that having set the blade in front of him, he will be further from the enemy and better covered than when he starts to wave the blade.
    Another point: when injecting, the contact spot is measured in mm2, and when chopping cm2. Yes, consider some kind of armor. In which case is it easier to break through?
    In the Game of Thrones in the last season, it is very beautifully shown what one who stabs can do with a chopping opponent. I would not refer to this episode if I myself had not experienced this 10 years ago. I tried to chop and stabbed me for 30 seconds five times.

    The fact that the pricks did not know before the 15th century is mine, you need to trust Orlovsky less ("Richard Long Arms").
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 30 September 2015 15: 29 New
      +1
      I fully subscribe to your words.
  9. andrew42
    andrew42 30 September 2015 14: 20 New
    +1
    "A remarkable example of Achaean armor ... in the form of a stone vessel in the form of a cuirass with shoulder pads. From a burial in Crete in the area of ​​the palace in Knossos (about 1350 BC)." - ??? Everything would be fine, only it is impossible to imagine that the wild Achaeans, destroying the remnants of the ancient Minoan culture in Crete, would erect a monument to their own warrior in ceremonial armor. Some kind of mixing of cultures in one heap, and hostile to each other cultures. The same about the armor from Messenia: it is extremely presumptuous to believe that the Messenians (descendants of the Pelasgians) did not have their own warriors and armor. Or were they from the "creation of the world" slaves-helots among the Achaeans-conquerors with descendants in the form of Spartans wedged to their full heads?
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 30 September 2015 15: 39 New
      +1
      It is believed that the Achaean invasion is not quite such an invasion of completely alien conquerors in a few weeks. Rather, the rise of the mainland provinces during the catastrophic destruction of the metropolis in Crete due to volcanic activity. With a less uniform culture in the region. including weapons.
      Yes, there were local differences. But with the rather long domination of Crete (for more than one century), everything should have come to relative uniformity. At least in military equipment.
      1. andrew42
        andrew42 30 September 2015 16: 14 New
        +1
        "Rather, the rise of the mainland provinces" -? Lacedaemon's attitude to Messenia is like Hitler's to the Jews :)
      2. andrew42
        andrew42 30 September 2015 16: 17 New
        0
        Yes, and about Knossos. Knossos burned, and burned well. Such is the "not entirely alien" coming. When palaces are burning, there is no question of gradualness.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 1 October 2015 08: 06 New
          +1
          The fact that Knossos burned does not mean that his completely alien barbarians were burning him. In Odessa, too, they burned the House of Trade Unions. With people, by the way. Their own, not some Papuans from Oceania.
          There is a well-grounded version that after the fall of the metropolis in Crete, the formerly subordinate peoples of the mainland "provinces" (in quotes, because the exact status and name are unknown), as less affected by the eruption of Santorini, began their own expansion. Including towards the former metropolis. And that same Mycenaean heyday came.
          The close ties during the Cretan hegemony clearly imply the borrowing of weapons and armor in one form or another.

          The Trojan War definitely falls under this expansion. And after the fall of Troy and the decline of the countries of Asia Minor surrounding it: the collapse of the late Hittite empire, the defeat of its fragments by Assyria, etc. for a time the Achaean union relaxed. This led to the invasion of the Dorians, with whom everything is also not at all clear in terms of their origin. Whether they were newcomers or existed as one of the peoples of the Achaean Union itself and simply took advantage of the situation ...
  10. Stilet
    Stilet 5 October 2015 22: 40 New
    +2
    Quite an interesting combination in the photo. Boar fangs helmet on leather with felt and full bronze armor. Maybe the archaeologists were wrong, somehow it doesn't really match ... On the "march of the warriors" at the central zoldat one can see the fastening of the shield handle. Externally, the shield looks a little convex, most likely wooden, sheathed with leather (the stitching is visible along the edge). Armor and helmet are most likely made of leather with a patch of bronze or copper plaques. For the fourth warrior (from left to right), the comb is supported by metal stripes. "Strange horns" are most likely hollow tubes for feathers or horsehair. Inserted into the tubes, they visually increased the height of the warrior or made him shaggy. And yet these are the Greeks, some noses are worth it! laughing
  11. Ivan Ring
    Ivan Ring 19 October 2015 00: 44 New
    0
    The situation with the bracers and greaves is not entirely clear.
    Was it just strips of bronze tied to pieces of leather, or was it more "anatomical"?