Form Fitting Armour

[Swadius 2.0]

(click to show/hide)

But why is this form fitting armor never criticized?

I think it had to do with the way in which hoplite warfare took place. As you can see, the one piece armor doesn't leave a lot of room for maneuver, I think this is the case because there really was no need to bend or duck that fast when two lines of hoplites met. Casualty rates in hoplite heavy armies without a significant cavalry regiment were in the single digits, most often under 5% even for the losing side.

There is also the nature of the type of strikes taking place in the phalanx formations too. It might be the case that the majority of the attacks when two lines meet were trusts from spears. The danger of an angle strike may not be very prominent in those formations, as such, there's little danger of an attack catching the bulge of the pectorals.

[Ule]

well i dont know about ancient warfare, but it was my belive that iron is stronger than bronze. also i never said iron vs bronze is like cutting buuter, but from what i know (and no i havent handled bronze why would i?) bronze baldes went duller alot quicker than iron blades, hence in my head iron > bronze. clearly not but theres my reasoning ya condisending prick.

point still stands though, its not form fitting as such, nor has protubsions that could be to deadly.

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

average? do you look like that? i know i dont.. and i am an average male. oh so average.

Not quite like that, but I consider myself below average.

[Moss]

I don't think that counts as form fitting, to be honest. It's simply a breastplate shaped LIKE the human body, but the person wearing it need not actually look like that.

But the proportions look like it would fit as a second skin to any average male.

1. It's not form fitting, the breast plate may have looked like a naked chest, but it had a fair amount of padding underneath it. Hoplite breastplates are often depicted as more form fitting than they were in art because it looks nicer, same thing happens to more modern breastplates.
2. Bronze age Greece was not the height of practicality. Warfare was often hightly ritualized and formal, as such looking imposing was as important as being practically protected. You'll notice that the illustration you gave also shows the guy as having a giant floppy dong on his head and a fake metal beard.
3. That picture is a recreation based on a piece of pottery. Real examples that we have look far more practical, you'll notice that the photo you posted is significantly more barrel chested, it has extra room for some thick padded cloth to line it. They may have had decorative fake muscles, but they weren't designed to hug any real muscles underneath. Like so:

(click to show/hide)

[teh.frickin.pope]

ya condisending prick.

Welcome to Taleworlds!

Nice link by the way, I enjoyed it.

@ Moss, wasn't the floppy dong thing an armored representation of a type of cloth hat? Or was the point of the hat to be all floppy and dongy as well?

[xenoargh]

Well, you know, provide facts and stuff with pictures to help explain something basic, that makes people curse at you. 

Yup, must be Taleworlds 

Anyhow, Moss's arguments are good ones, as are Swadius's, but I think that Moss's arguments about the somewhat ritualized nature of Greek warfare deserves extra points; they put a great deal of emphasis on formal war, at least amongst themselves; they had semi-regulated duels between fighters between the lines and other things that are pretty fascinating, really; they're most of the source of the idea of leaders engaging in ritual combat to settle a conflict that pervades Western traditions even to this day, even if it mainly only applies to movies.

[Haresus]

Ah, the good ol´ days when wars were won in a single ritualistic battle with few casualties on a field prepared for special occasions such as this one... Then the dishonourable scum were born who started to burn down villages, rape, slaughter, ambush and other backstabbing strategies and war became something much different.

[xenoargh]

Yeah, some time in the Stone Age, those innocent days of honorable slaughter as men killed men and then ate them... ah, those were the days 

They had rituals and duels, that does not make them some paragons of what we'd consider virtue today.

They happily killed and raped and did underhanded things to each other, just like everybody else, besides being pederasts and slavers and a bunch of other things we don't approve of; but, like the 'laws of war' that we have today, they had little rules about how it worked, is all.  Like a lot of the African tribes, they fought wars at least partially for ritualistic reasons, and did not always fight what a modern person would consider a "war", where territory permanently changed hands, etc.

[Kobrag]

In Ethiopia two armies would run at eachother, hit someone with a stick and run away again.

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Well, you know, provide facts and stuff with pictures to help explain something basic, that makes people curse at you. 

Yup, must be Taleworlds 

Anyhow, Moss's arguments are good ones, as are Swadius's, but I think that Moss's arguments about the somewhat ritualized nature of Greek warfare deserves extra points; they put a great deal of emphasis on formal war, at least amongst themselves; they had semi-regulated duels between fighters between the lines and other things that are pretty fascinating, really; they're most of the source of the idea of leaders engaging in ritual combat to settle a conflict that pervades Western traditions even to this day, even if it mainly only applies to movies.

Interestingly enough, duels between leaders were a common thing in the ancient world. Celts, Germans - even Persians did it. As well as leading from the front, but leading from the back is usually more effective.

[LordOfShadows]

Well, you know, provide facts and stuff with pictures to help explain something basic, that makes people curse at you. 

Yup, must be Taleworlds 

Anyhow, Moss's arguments are good ones, as are Swadius's, but I think that Moss's arguments about the somewhat ritualized nature of Greek warfare deserves extra points; they put a great deal of emphasis on formal war, at least amongst themselves; they had semi-regulated duels between fighters between the lines and other things that are pretty fascinating, really; they're most of the source of the idea of leaders engaging in ritual combat to settle a conflict that pervades Western traditions even to this day, even if it mainly only applies to movies.

Interestingly enough, duels between leaders were a common thing in the ancient world. Celts, Germans - even Persians did it. As well as leading from the front, but leading from the back is usually more effective.

Actually, until fairly recently (the last four hundred years or so) leading from the front was more common and arguably more effective during battle. There is evidence for the Mesopotamian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek and most other ancient states showing the emperors, kings and generals going so far as to personally work the battering rams, work in the undermining and assault with the lead elements up ladders or across siege tower bridges. Alexander nearly died at least three times during sieges due to his habit of getting ahead of his guard.

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Well, you know, provide facts and stuff with pictures to help explain something basic, that makes people curse at you. 

Yup, must be Taleworlds 

Anyhow, Moss's arguments are good ones, as are Swadius's, but I think that Moss's arguments about the somewhat ritualized nature of Greek warfare deserves extra points; they put a great deal of emphasis on formal war, at least amongst themselves; they had semi-regulated duels between fighters between the lines and other things that are pretty fascinating, really; they're most of the source of the idea of leaders engaging in ritual combat to settle a conflict that pervades Western traditions even to this day, even if it mainly only applies to movies.

Interestingly enough, duels between leaders were a common thing in the ancient world. Celts, Germans - even Persians did it. As well as leading from the front, but leading from the back is usually more effective.

Actually, until fairly recently (the last four hundred years or so) leading from the front was more common and arguably more effective during battle. There is evidence for the Mesopotamian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek and most other ancient states showing the emperors, kings and generals going so far as to personally work the battering rams, work in the undermining and assault with the lead elements up ladders or across siege tower bridges. Alexander nearly died at least three times during sieges due to his habit of getting ahead of his guard.

Not really. The most effective way of commanding an army is from slightly behind the center. That way you can oversee the battle and react accordingly. That's how Romans and Persians did it.

Neither of those shied away from single combat though. Even Darius III beat a revolt by defeating a rebel leader in a duel.

[Amman de Stazia]

its partly a morale thing.  If the King is in the front line, it can't be that bad.  If the King is at the back, the safest place, ready to leg it at the first setback, then obviously the other side is expected to win.

Also, it is a pre-requisite for most cases of the ruler's authority.
In almost all the examples anyone will come up with, it is the nature of RULE in the society that the ruler must lead by example, and that includes in war.

The exceptions to the rule would be eg. Greek democracies and Roman Republic where there was a defined political class and system which led to the situation where a person or group of people could rule the country without any military pedigree being required.

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

its partly a morale thing.  If the King is in the front line, it can't be that bad.  If the King is at the back, the safest place, ready to leg it at the first setback, then obviously the other side is expected to win.

Also, it is a pre-requisite for most cases of the ruler's authority.
In almost all the examples anyone will come up with, it is the nature of RULE in the society that the ruler must lead by example, and that includes in war.

The exceptions to the rule would be eg. Greek democracies and Roman Republic where there was a defined political class and system which led to the situation where a person or group of people could rule the country without any military pedigree being required.

But you forget the benefits of overseeing the battle. That way the general can actually have some amount of control over what's going on after the initial plan has already started taking place. Also, the benefits of having a trained, professional army - those can be used to great effect without actually fighting with them, since they require no example from their leader. Examples are the Achaemenid Persian Spada and the Roman professional army.

[Thedalitz]

Some of the roman generals fought in the front lines, notable examples are Pompei leading cavalry charges and Julius Cesar standing in the front of the battleline. Even a well drilled professional army still have a breaking point.