British Museum pictures

Users who are viewing this thread

Slytacular

Sergeant Knight
I visited England a month ago and I took a lot of pictures from what was displayed in the British Museum in London. I disagree with the majority of how equipment is displayed in this mod, but I figure you guys (rgcotl mostly) would appreciate this.

Samnites/Romans/Etruscans Part one









Samnites/Romans/Etruscans Part two

















Greeks/Thracians









 
Slytacular said:
I disagree with the majority of how equipment is displayed in this mod, but I figure you guys (rgcotl mostly) would appreciate this.
It's appreciated but could you elaborate on this? We've done and still do plenty of research on that department and while we still have much to do I hardly feel like we are mostly wrong about this. Granted that it is a possibility, two thousand years passed and we still make discoveries and miss things out but we've changed things we felt were wrong on the process even if it takes time.
 
I don't have much evidence or proof to back up my observations, but my understandings are based upon my notice that there is an unquestioned conflict on the definitions, culture, trade, and what would be logical or realistic that people skip over on their own perceptions. Sometimes just Google searching the first page of images and links and copy-pasting does not seem like a correct way to "research" things. I don't think Rome at War is displaying anything incorrectly because of evidence. Its the missing gaps not discovered, decayed, or erased that is not considered or left out of question. Questions such as:

-why do modern artists portray so much bronze during the Iron Age? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iron%20age
-where do the Greeks get so much tin if bronze were the more used equipment? Why would it be used more if the distance of the source deposits are so far away?
1280px-Tin-ancient-sources.svg.png
-where is the raw literature evidence that suggests that there were more bronze equipment and few of iron? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limonite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nawCa-4dWgY
-where is the classical or ancient era literature evidence that says there were no knowledge on how to create steel? http://www.leesauder.com/pdfs/Aristotle%27s%20Steel.pdf
-what about leather, hides, aketons, gambesons, padding, coifs?
-why would soldiers want to wear a little bronze chestplate that offers very little protection? Are you sure its not an ornament or something someone would hang on the wall? What about properly protecting the upper arms, feet, and thighs? Are you sure that the images you see on vases portray armour incorrectly in order to appeal to the customer more?
Cyrus the Younger who knew both the Iranian and Greek armies, tactics and strategies, nearly succeeded in removing Iran's military weaknesses. He supplemented his Asiatic force with a large army of Greek hoplites, formed battalions of heavy cavalry which wore helmets. Breast-plates, and thigh-guards (this protected the sides of the horse as well), and carried a Greek sword in addition to their own arms; their horses too were protected with frontlets and breast-pieces. He made effective use of the coordination of heavy cavalry and heavy infantry-an art which later Agesilaus and especially Alexander employed to the fullest and with the best results. It must be remembered, however, that the effectiveness of the Persian shock cavalry was severely hampered by the lack of stirrup and the saddle. "Encumbered with a corslet of scale armour and poised precariously atop his steed, the horseman kept his seat only through the pressure of his knees. He will have been in serious danger of being unhorsed whenever he delivered a blow with his saber or came within reach of an enemy soldier". - See more at: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenid_army.php#sthash.HRfDeBv5.dpuf
-what about blackening/blueing metal or curing/hardening leather?
-are you sure you're not underestimating the buying power of people back then to afford better equipment? If lacking proper equipment in an army wouldn't soldiers be very interested in creating something to make up for it?

Its questions like these and I have more that I am looking up and creating in my mind. Its possible the troops may look similar to how its portrayed in this mod based on seemingly valid illustrations, reconstructions, and raw artifacts. I just extremely doubt that they did look like they do in the mod. The soldiers are portrayed having very little protection (even lacking protection against nature) to the point it makes no sense to me what so ever. The equipment only makes sense if it were only gladiatorial combat where the users lack equipment on purpose.
 
Okay then and how much experience of melee combat or general understanding on the simple cost of equipping armies numbering tens of thousands (farmers) do you have? Not to mention you forget an extremely vital thing: the shield. You know, the big thing covering most of your body that you keep between you and the enemy. Also, do you have any idea how stupidly hot it would get to wear large amouns of armour in the mediterranean? This mod portrays, for the most part, the average soldier. The higher tier (richer) troops have more and better equipment. And seriously, they were poor, really poor. Or just didn't want to spend money on equipment that they might've not even needed in combat much.

Oh and half your questions aren't even relevant to generally accepted history, such as: "-where is the classical or ancient era literature evidence that says there were no knowledge on how to create steel?". Newsflash: there isn't because they knew how to create steel.

Please don't start conversations about history based on what you think. There's a reason historians tend to reach consensus's.
 
thanks for refs
and about the armors
some time ago i watched deadliest warriors probably a lot of our users did that to
so the point in that show were "kill "
cardiophylax is an armor with protects mainly heart
if you were hitted somewhere else but not in the heart means you still could fight
that type of armor is easy to make and it probably were quite easy to get at that time
bronze as we know is ligter and the main matterials for armors in that time were still bronze
blaksmithers artistic level in that time probably were way more advantage than it is today
but it could be that they had problems with makig things from iron in that time due the fact it were new technology untested unprooved ws the well known bronze with had thousands years of expierience, and testing
in other hand almost all warrios had shields and shield were the main thing with protected most of the warriors.
Even today ppl buy things more likely with they know well and evading newcomer company products.



 
There's more going under the hood than the "research" thread where users can post images and some tidbits of information (sometimes wrongly so) and going for first page google images and wikipedia. We've got a fair collection of books and museum pieces images from which we cross information to draw our conclusions. Some books raise similar questions to yours and that might help you explore possible answers, armor is often shaped to the enemy you expect to find and is often a way to express your cultural identity which has been on several occasions a way to be identified by the others which could play either at and advantage or not depending on your reputation.
Joub also raised a very valid point, shield is your first line of defence when it comes to combat and as good as your armor might be, you'd rather not be hit. Mobility is also an important factor, a well equipped as they might have been the Sacred Band of Carthage still suffered a bitter defeat against lighter equipped Greeks.
I know I don't really answer all your questions but we're doing our best with the information we have and leave little room to speculation and I'm sure with some digging you can find your answers, a piece or two always raises some doubts but when there are a few dozens from different sources it kinda puts a different perspective like for the kardiophylax type of armors and helmets recovered in Italy, maybe this could help:
http://michael-engel.io.ua/album505865_0
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1348999/
http://www.arretetonchar.fr/italie-musee-de-paestum-campanie/#prettyPhoto
 
@kickingjoub: Well instead of trying to beat me into some common sense like an ignorant piece of poop, why don't you consider I already understand/know all of what you said and I am attempting to view things outside the box? Sorry if I questioned your bible.

@Horton: Cool.

@rgcotl: You're welcome dude, it could be easier to make bronze, but you also have to consider the record that the Egyptians, Assyrians, and other super powers two-three thousand years ago were already working and experimenting with iron/steel.

@seekndestroy: freaking cool links! Thanks! I'll read up on it. Anybody with a purpose to kill has the potential to do so with or without tools and equipment. I am more interested in questioning the reason why someone could not afford something or do something to make up for the lack of something rather than purposely limiting themselves of equipment for intentional reasons. I like how Micheal Burns stated that his collection of information is a thesis. What I elaborated to you in the previous post are stepping stones to my own thesis.
 
Slytacular said:
@kickingjoub: Well instead of trying to beat me into some common sense like an ignorant piece of poop, why don't you consider I already understand/know all of what you said and I am attempting to view things outside the box? Sorry if I questioned your bible.

So you.... you know that they had the knowledge to produce steel... and that it's generally accepted that they had said knowledge, but you wrote: "-where is the classical or ancient era literature evidence that says there were no knowledge on how to create steel?" And somehow I'm doing something wrong by pointing this out? Also keep the bible out of this, I didn't even site anything remotely resembling "my bible".
 
Back
Top Bottom