Warning: Incoming Novella.
matmohair1 said:
Mythical subjects have often been popular, as decorative elements on armor and equipment. Especially when there are those able to
afford such status symbols. From the Roman Victoria, to the Norse ravens, Huginn and Muninn shown on Vendel era helmets.
Greek helmets have a wider variety of subjects viable for such propose, and a lot of communities across Europe where connected by
trade, allowing the flow of ideas, and cultural exchange to flourish. We have a written record of a Gallic warlord, whose helmet was
taken by a Roman Consul, bearing a Scylla as a crest, which is also depicted on Greek coins. Different clues help build a better picture
of the past. It's all interconnected in the end.
Unnecessary negationism is the reason the Flat-Earthers are popping up everywhere nowadays!
Not everything has to be perfect, we all work with what we have at the moment, & we need not dig into the earth core to theorize its layers.
Likening flat-Earthers to historical scrutiny in this context, is certainly a disingenuous comparison if I've ever seen one. I'm frankly disappointed you would go there, finding it necessary to compare the two. Especially in this field, it is quite an inaccurate comparison! Firstly there is an unrelenting wealth of scientific evidence that easily and readily disproves the flat-Earther arguments. Negationism in this context is identical to historical revisionism. Holocaust denial is an example of that, or denial of committed war crimes and/or genocide, those are popular examples of it.
Historical revisionism, (or negationism) proper, involves skewing or manipulating evidence, re-interpreting it in a manner which spites the evidence, and so on and so forth. That's nowhere near anything I've done or suggested here, and to suggest so is just dishonest.
'We have a written record of a Gallic warlord, whose helmet was taken by a Roman Consul, bearing a Scylla as a crest, which is also depicted on Greek coins.'
Yes, and it seems you are very conveniently ignoring the fact that what is a given for one culture is not a given for others. What a rich Gaul might like and what one very specific rich Roman Consul might like, might not be what a Greek would. In fact, I don't think there is very much evidence at all for Romans as early as the Republic, as having very elaborate or large adornments. And as far as I know, that Consul's scylla is the exception, not the norm. Gauls/Celts are of course a different story. If there are truly just a handful of examples of said Scylla on helmetry, I don't think it would be a great instance to include in a game without it being immediately over-represented. Have Greeks had fancy crests? Certainly. Did Gauls/Celts in particular have especially large three-dimensional attachments to their helmets on occasion? (Such as the bird with wings on hinges that flapped when moving?) Of course. Does this imply for a certainty that Greeks did this with a scylla? Heavens no. That
ONE Roman Consul did it, (as far as you've shown), and we assume some Gauls did as well, (though as far as I'm seeing, we have but one example of that too) does not mean anyone else did it. The fact that your response to rational criticism which simply suggests that you be more skeptical, and follow a reasonable reliance on evidence in order to base your conclusions is seen as an act of revisionism, tells me this may be less about caring about actual history and more about egotism.
I'll repeat myself, a depiction of a Goddess on coins in no way whatsoever suggests an accurate depiction of anything a hoplite wore. Vase imagery showing scenes with hoplites that have large scyllas would be far more plausible, and those don't exist as far as I know. A written record of some soldier or important figure in the
Greek world as having a Scylla would be even better. And best of all, an actual archaeological find that can be traced back to Greece proper, would be the best. To my understanding, we have neither.
This is how these things work; you must temper your claims with skepticism. You must be a realist, not a fantasist. It is okay to suggest something is plausible without hard evidence. But ironically, it is barking up the same tree of irrationality that is revisionism, to
insist, as a fact, something existed without any textual, archaeological, or pictoral evidence. Statuary of Gods, mythic figures, and goddesses, adorning unrealistic, never-used, essentially fictional gear, has existed in most every culture that you've suggested, especially the Greeks, who were fond of putting strange, shortened versions of Attic-looking helmets onto their Athenas, and in some cases deliberately adding archaisms to their statuary, such as a tilted back corinthian helmet, even when the helmet was far out of use.
This is where your argument falls apart; as I've stated and as you have yet to respond to, mythic depictions are not, and often never were, a realistic depiction of gear that men used. As I've said, if we're to base our re-creations on statuary for instance, we would absolutely be seeing Corinthian helmets in use by the Hellenistic Era. If you can see why that is a leap of an assumption, you should theoretically be able to see why what's depicted
ON A GODDESS, ON A COIN, is not a surefire reflection of some development in historical reality. Yes, it helps to have note of some Roman Consul doing it, and some Gaul, but to attribute with a certainty that this was reflected in Greece is quite simply a leap.
In any case, the most elaborate headwear attached to Greek helmets, such as swans, bronze horns, and so on, were an aspect of the Archaic era. By even the Classical period, there is no evidence for adornments that vary very much from standard crests, transverse crests, phrygian tops, and so on and so forth. I would expect perhaps in some examples where a hoplite has money to spare, some additional adornments as engravings, painting, a fancy crest, and so on, but I would not expect a full-blown, large, three-dimensional Scylla to adorn any Greeks' helmet in the Hellenistic Era.
We can assert things all we'd like, if the evidence doesn't hold up, until we can verify this, we'd be wrong. Need I bring up the Lambda for a third time?
It is a theoretical possibility. Technically speaking, all our wonderful depictions with Lambda-bearing Laconians, are not a direct result of any hard evidence. So that could very well be flat-out false. Do we allow this reasonable assumption? Sure. It is somewhat likely, given that other states used letters as shield devices, and in particular, perioikoi or liberated helots might not have any personal/tribal heraldry to adorn their shields with in any case. Does that means we can assert it as fact? Hell no.
What I'm saying, generally, is that your attitude toward what was a historical reality needs far more tempering if you're really striving for impartial academic perspectives. Because I could very well use your curious logic here to assert other things for which there is no evidence and claim your rational criticism of that perspective is also 'negationism'.
Like I say, I generally love your stuff, you've a great wealth of pictoral illustration and references to magazines and books, but hording a digital pile of Osprey books does not give one the authority to determine theory as fact, nor does it make one an expert in the archaeological record, or even familiar with how plausibility is judged among experts in the field. In fact, a number of said books are obviously dated by now. New considerations and in some cases new evidence have determined some depictions and written statements as less likely, the communites of which, who are themselves really the ones on the bleeding edge, (as well as the academics themselves), have adapted to the new information and are eager to correct aged interpretations based upon new findings.
Here is a perfect example where said skepticism is necessary, and in particular, where depictions of Athena, head adorned with some really weird headgear, are liable to be fantastic depictions, which may not reflect the historical reality.
http://www.theoi.com/image/K8.2Athena.jpg Notice the wealth of obvious mythological qualities here. The helmet appears to be functional, and yet unfortunately, we have never unearthed one that looks exactly like this. When it is fit beside an image of obvious mythological characters, how accurate can we say it is, really? How likely to be true? We wouldn't really know, and yet, if this was a common, 'realistic' battle scene depiction we could say it was likely with more confidence. That it is a depiction of an interaction between two mythological figures does not help the argument. Believe me, if you would have this helmet commissioned as part of your Archaic hoplite kit, and when asked where it originated, only had an image of a goddess and gods to show for it, you would be looked at with great skepticism.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/f2/44/6bf2446362a8249ea29db9182668ca29.jpg Besides the mythical details here, note that the particular shaping of this strange Attic(?) helmet, with a very high, fore-shortened brow, (such that you could see her hair), is not anything coming close to what we've found archaeologically. Not to mention it's fore-shortened brow, exposing the front of the head entirely, and some of the top of the scalp, or the very oddly shaped, blocky little cheek guard, offers very little protection and in shape is also unlikely to really do its' job. The crest, at least, is a period depiction often reflected in archaic hoplite helmetry. Should we shove this helmet into our perceptions of historical reality because it was depicted on a vase, worn by Athena? Probably not, no.
http://www.theoi.com/image/K8.8Athena.jpg Here we have an extremely decadent, super ornate depiction of some manner of cuirass and again some version of an Attic helmet. It appears to have appliques of bronze ears facing forward and antennae or rods of some sort curling back? Historical reality? Well, not only does very little of it reflect any other period source, but it is once again a depiction of the goddess Athena. Grains of salt.
http://www.crestonhall.com/mythology/images/0300/604b.jpg Here's another one, where we have some variation of 'Attic' helmet which doesn't exist anywhere in any archaeological record; with a very high re-inforced brow, the Archaic crest again, and what is essentially an open face.
https://project3-ss.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/9/5/42953039/7078244_orig.jpg Another excellent example! The hoplite depicted is played almost perfectly by the book, realism-wise. Nearly everything on him is a reflection of aspects that have long been verified and cross-examined and found in archaeology to boot. (Generally speaking, we know both cuirasses and TY corselets existed, his seems to be some amalgamation of both) And yet, on the very same image, we have two characters, females, likely mythological figures, again with the implausible fore-shortened Attic helmet with thick, reinforced brow which sits too high on the head, and it is on
these figures that we see one enormous, elaborate attachment of some kind of griffon(?) with a tall, webbed, fish-like crest sitting atop of that. A reality? Unlikely. There's plenty of reason as to why such things would be depicted on mythological figures and not typical hoplites.
The 'Attic' helmet itself, as a Greek convention typically adorned by their soldiery, is actually questioned within the re-enactment community, due to what precious little physical evidence there is for them in that region. We have a multitude of corinthians, chalkideans, phrygians, thracians, a huge wealth of piloi especially in the Hellenistic Era. We have a lot of variation of Attic helmet from Italy, from the Etruscans, Romans, Samnites especially, and so on.
But as of yet, from what I've heard, hard archaeological finds for the
Greek Attic helmet have been mysteriously elusive. As such, our earlier preconceptions that find it to be given object which we knew for sure would exist on various Greek soldiery, has been replaced with skepticism. Not following whim, but following the evidence, or lack thereof. Now that's another story, and something I want to get into with that community. Because I too had thought that Attican helmets were a given, that their dating and findings were surely numerous in the areas of Greece we'd expect them to be. Apparently, they're not. The helmet certainly exists, and they've been found in some number elsewhere in the Mediterranean, but the record of finds within Greece don't match that for some reason, and yet, we have finds of just about every other type of helmet, often in considerable numbers.