Maille During the Time of Darius I

[Paullus Scipio]

In this respect, the design is deceptively simple, though. The tube-and-yoke actually has a fairly unique design if you take into consideration its characteristics. They are:

1) A tube body.

2) Two loose, roughly rectangular shoulder yokes which are tied down at the front.

3) A rectangular neckguard.

4) Pteruges.

5) A separate backboard which is attached to 1) and from which comes 2) and 3).

Of course some of these elements are not always present (such as 5, which sometimes is either not shown clearly on representations or was left out) or are not present in the same qualities or quantities; but if you accept that most of the time they do, and if you take these aspects together, you realize that it is pretty hard to chance upon this particular design......
.......And on top of that, organic armour of the Greek style (whether linen or leather) is not found. So the tube-and-yoke is actually pretty complex and hard to chance upon, and I think it's pretty safe to assume a single origin for it.

One would be tempted to add another criteria.." made of organic material, often leather and sometimes quilted linen, and often re-inforced entirely or to a lesser degree with metal scales or plates" ....but for that all-iron example from the 'Philip Tomb'.
And of course not all are a separate 'Tube' and 'Yoke' - some in Greek art seem to be cut in a single piece with no 'separate backboard', but instead the shoulder pieces and neck-guard are simply an extension of the back of the 'Tube'.......

[Paullus Scipio]

Meinpanzer/Ruben wrote:

I just went through Herodotus' account and I can't find it. Could you please provide a passage number?

...I expect Ruben is perfectly familiar with the relevant passage from Herodotus Book 9, but for the benefit of others following this discussion, here is the relevant account of Masistius death....
"Selecting, to accompany them[the Athenian Hoplites], the whole body of archers, these men relieved the Megarians, and occupied a post which all the other Greeks collected at Erythrae had shrunk from holding. After the struggle had continued for a while, it came to an end on this wise. As the barbarians continued charging in divisions, the horse of Masistius, which was in front of the others, received an arrow in his flank, the pain of which caused him to rear and throw his rider. Immediately the Athenians rushed upon Masistius as he lay, caught his horse, and when he himself made resistance, slew him. At first, however, they were not able to take his life; for his armour hindered them. He had on a breastplate formed of golden scales, with a scarlet tunic covering it. Thus the blows, all falling upon his breastplate, took no effect, till one of the soldiers, perceiving the reason, drove his weapon into his eye and so slew him. All this took place without any of the other horsemen seeing it: they had neither observed their leader fall from his horse, nor beheld him slain; for he fell as they wheeled round and prepared for another charge, so that they were quite ignorant of what had happened. When, however, they halted, and found that there was no one to marshal their line, Masistius was missed; and instantly his soldiers, understanding what must have befallen him, with loud cheers charged the enemy in one mass, hoping to recover the dead body."

Note the passage in bold - Herodotus does not even tell us that Masistius wore a helmet, still less a mask, merely that being unable to stab his body through the breastplate, one of the soldiers killed him by stabbing him through the eye......

[MeinPanzer]

One would be tempted to add another criteria.." made of organic material, often leather and sometimes quilted linen, and often re-inforced entirely or to a lesser degree with metal scales or plates" ....but for that all-iron example from the 'Philip Tomb'.

Well, and perhaps others - it is an unfortunate fact that for the huge majority of evidence we would not be able to tell even if the cuirass were made of metal. Nonetheless, such cuirasses can be made of so many different kinds of materials that I simply omitted that as a criterion.

And of course not all are a separate 'Tube' and 'Yoke' - some in Greek art seem to be cut in a single piece with no 'separate backboard', but instead the shoulder pieces and neck-guard are simply an extension of the back of the 'Tube'.......

For this reason 5) is basically optional.

Note the passage in bold - Herodotus does not even tell us that Masistius wore a helmet, still less a mask, merely that being unable to stab his body through the breastplate, one of the soldiers killed him by stabbing him through the eye......

That's the passage I thought Artabanos might have been referring to. As you state, there is no indication of a mask being worn, or even any headgear whatsoever.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I had read that as meaning thet they were fooled by his clothing covered armour,
so the stab to the eye was possible the lucky killing shot. Did he have a shield or not? I can't recall. Or am I thinking of another passage/instance?

[Artabanos]

@MeinPanzer

Which artefacts are you drawing this collar from, and which Parthian sources were you referring to before? You don't have to post pictures, I'm just curious to hear which ones you are referring to.

Its the bust of a Parthian with brown to blond/red beard/hair color. He wears a Karbysia.

Why would some kind of neck protection need to be worn?

Because they are often short with no neck protection and the latter was very important in Iranic warfare.

There is no doubt that Xenophon was aware of Persian sources and drew on them, but his work is certainly not "more or less a copy" of Persian work. Have you read critical literature on "On Horsemanship" or "Cyropaedia? There is good reason to doubt the accuracy of some things that Xenophon writes.

Sure but the core facts are mostly correct.

As for Herodotus; I have here a German translation which differs somewhat from Paullus Scipio's one. It says that he first fought against the Greeks but as he was overwhelmed they tried to kill him but were unable until someone hit his eye. So you are right it could be just a coincident.
However from the fighting we know that the Greeks were fighting the Persian cavalry with arrows and IIRC also other projectiles. Only when Masistios' flank was exposed the arrow hit his horse. This reminds me of the Parthian cavalry which used heavy armoured horse archers against enemies with bows and thus being well protected against the arrows of the enemies. This troops wore metal face masks.
This alone is no proof but I believe that Parthian and Achaemenid heavy cavalry were very similar to each other.

However thanks for that translation now I will re-think whether I will use a face mask for my Canakkale sarcophagus style horseman or not.

[MeinPanzer]

Its the bust of a Parthian with brown to blond/red beard/hair color. He wears a Karbysia.

Where was it found?

Because they are often short with no neck protection and the latter was very important in Iranic warfare.

And yet we see early Parthian depictions of men wearing such short helmets without any neck protection - the cataphract figurine from Seleucia on the Tigris or the terracotta plaque from Babylonia showing a cataphract attacking a lion, for instance.

Sure but the core facts are mostly correct.

The facts are probably mostly correct, but it's a matter of figuring out which ones are and which aren't, which makes using it as a source difficult.

However from the fighting we know that the Greeks were fighting the Persian cavalry with arrows and IIRC also other projectiles. Only when Masistios' flank was exposed the arrow hit his horse. This reminds me of the Parthian cavalry which used heavy armoured horse archers against enemies with bows and thus being well protected against the arrows of the enemies. This troops wore metal face masks.
This alone is no proof but I believe that Parthian and Achaemenid heavy cavalry were very similar to each other.

No, they weren't, and there is a large amount of archaeological information proving that they weren't very similar to each other. We cannot rely on Parthian evidence to reconstruct Achaemenid troops because there were huge advances in the arms and armour used in Iran and its environs even just between the end of the Achaemenid empire and the Seleucid period, let alone between the Achaemenid and the Parthian, one being the introduction of the proper cataphract.

[Sean Manning]

Of course, that's only two conditions of your five, and one of them (no. 3, the rectangular neck guard) doesn't exist on most Greek examples. They just have a small tab at the top of the neck guard.

I'm confused by this. What are you referring to as the neck guard? I think your "small tab" is my neck guard; the difference between the Greek neck guards and the examples shown on, for instance, the Canakkale sarcophagus is simply a matter of size.

Yes, my tab and your rectangular neckguard are the same thing, but we disagree about interpretation. From a 2" tab to a 10" neckguard is a big difference. You assume that the tabs on Greek and Celtic tube-and-yoke armours are the ancestor of the large neckguard of Persian armours, but I'm not sure. Its possible that these Persian armours opened at the front or were closed on top of the shoulders, in which case they didn't have a “tube body”. So we have one definite similarity (pterges) and two possible similarities (a tube body and neckguard) depending on how you interpret the evidence.

To make up for derailing Lepidna's thread, here is my sketch of the seal impression: .
The sketch concentrates on the armour and leaves out the axe at the neck and the enemy warrior.

I don't think there exists any evidence for Persian cavalry using laminated arm armour like Xenophon describes. He describes scythed charioteers as wearing it, but we never hear of it being employed by cavalry. In addition, his prescription for wearing such armour (which he calls "cheir") on the right arm only seems fantastical. You have to take Xenophon's prescriptive comments about cavalry armour with a grain of salt, as we not only have no evidence of Greek cavalry ever employing such armour, but also very little evidence relating to Persian cavalry. I would not reconstruct heavy Persian cavalrymen with cheir, but the rectangular shoulder guards that has been discussed here would definitely fit with a heavy Persian armament.

Please take this in the spirit of friendship and not as an attempt to start another debate, but a defense for the left arm only isn't all that uncommon. Many late (+XVI/+XVII) European armours consist of a breast-and-back, an open helmet, and an 'elbow gauntlet' which protects the left arm from the elbow to the fingertips. They are called harquebus armours. The elbow gauntlet let the rider defend himself with that arm without risking his hand being cut off. We have very few images of fully armoured cavalry so we wouldn't expect to have many images of the “arm” and Xenophon is an extremely reliable source on Greek cavalry (although he is telling readers the best way to do things not describing all the varied ways which people do them). I'd be interested in any modern source which disagrees.

I believe there are a few Achaemenid period coins which may show laminated arm armour or just pleated sleeves.

[MeinPanzer]

Yes, my tab and your rectangular neckguard are the same thing, but we disagree about interpretation. From a 2" tab to a 10" neckguard is a big difference. You assume that the tabs on Greek and Celtic tube-and-yoke armours are the ancestor of the large neckguard of Persian armours, but I'm not sure.

To be fair, such neck guards on Greek examples vary quite a bit in size, and we see cuirasses with tabs that are taller than 2". But I think it's about as big a difference between the Greek-size neck guards and the examples shown here and the Greek-size backboards and the Celtic size backboards shown on those cult statues. All I'm saying is that these different portions could easily be changed to accommodate different tastes.

Its possible that these Persian armours opened at the front or were closed on top of the shoulders, in which case they didn't have a “tube body”. So we have one definite similarity (pterges) and two possible similarities (a tube body and neckguard) depending on how you interpret the evidence.

Well, regardless of whether it opened at the front or the side, I would still regard the cuirass as having a tube body. At any rate, the other seal (Head's Fig. 14 b) shows the "box" shape marking out a panel on the cuirass's side which is typically seen on Greek tube-and-yokes, as on for instance the Philip II cuirass, so this is further indication that it was a tube-and-yoke.

To make up for derailing Lepidna's thread, here is my sketch of the seal impression:
The sketch concentrates on the armour and leaves out the axe at the neck and the enemy warrior.

And here's a photograph for those interested:

http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/persarmour.JPG

He also has a gorytus hanging from his belt.

Please take this in the spirit of friendship and not as an attempt to start another debate, but a defense for the left arm only isn't all that uncommon. Many late (+XVI/+XVII) European armours consist of a breast-and-back, an open helmet, and an 'elbow gauntlet' which protects the left arm from the elbow to the fingertips. They are called harquebus armours. The elbow gauntlet let the rider defend himself with that arm without risking his hand being cut off.

I don't doubt that such armour was worn at some point throughout history, but my point is that all the ancient parallels we have for the use of such arm armour indicates that it was worn on both arms (right down to actual examples, like those from Chirik-Rabat and Ai-Khanoum).

We have very few images of fully armoured cavalry so we wouldn't expect to have many images of the “arm” and Xenophon is an extremely reliable source on Greek cavalry (although he is telling readers the best way to do things not describing all the varied ways which people do them). I'd be interested in any modern source which disagrees.

Take a look at most critical texts of "Peri Hippikes." It's clear that Xenophon is picking and choosing what he prescribes (so that he, for instance, prescribes a Boeotian helmet and Greek-style cavalry boots with Persian parapleuridia). Ancient evidence makes it abundantly clear that cavalrymen could fight just fine with cheires on both arms, but Xenophon states that because it hindered the right arm, it should not be worn. So while Xenophon was clearly drawing on actual items of equipment in Greek and Persian use, we should not rely on his descriptions as anything other than a "dream" cavalryman's panoply and a Greek perspective on the use of such pieces of armour.

I believe there are a few Achaemenid period coins which may show laminated arm armour or just pleated sleeves.

Considering how unlikely it would be for a man to be wearing only cheires without any other armour, I think it's pretty clear that these (and that figure so often reproduced from the Oxus hoard that is said to possibly be wearing cheires) are just pleated sleeves.

[Artabanos]

@MeinPanzer

Just re-looked the photos I'm using for my artwork and realized that another indication of the neck-guard for heavy infantry was the seals displaying Persians fighting Scythians. This could be the place of the Sagaris but I think on this seal it really looks like an short neck guard.

Where was it found?

Transoxania IIRC.

And yet we see early Parthian depictions of men wearing such short helmets without any neck protection - the cataphract figurine from Seleucia on the Tigris or the terracotta plaque from Babylonia showing a cataphract attacking a lion, for instance.

True but the above mentioned seal is nearly shouting "short neck protection with short Kuban-style helmet plus a Karbysia covering it" if you ask me. At least it shows the neck-protection.

No, they weren't, and there is a large amount of archaeological information proving that they weren't very similar to each other. We cannot rely on Parthian evidence to reconstruct Achaemenid troops because there were huge advances in the arms and armour used in Iran and its environs even just between the end of the Achaemenid empire and the Seleucid period, let alone between the Achaemenid and the Parthian, one being the introduction of the proper cataphract.

Nevertheless similar and this personal judgement is simply based on my photo collection. There is even a image displaying an un-armoured Canakkale sarcophagus style horseman (headgear and clothing) from the Parthian period.

[MeinPanzer]

Transoxania IIRC.

You wouldn't happen to be referring to this painted bust from Takht-i Sangin, would you?

http://www.afc.ryukoku.ac.jp/tj/tajikis ... /no205.jpg

If not, I have no idea what you are referring to.

True but the above mentioned seal is nearly shouting "short neck protection with short Kuban-style helmet plus a Karbysia covering it" if you ask me. At least it shows the neck-protection.

It shows that such armour was probably often worn together, but not that such helmets were never worn without neck protection, as you stated before.

Nevertheless similar and this personal judgement is simply based on my photo collection. There is even a image displaying an un-armoured Canakkale sarcophagus style horseman (headgear and clothing) from the Parthian period.

So just wearing early Parthian clothing and a kyrbasia? Such costume was worn for quite some time at the beginning of the Arsacid era, but I don't think that reflects upon the armour worn by the Persians.

[PMBardunias]

1) A tube body.

2) Two loose, roughly rectangular shoulder yokes which are tied down at the front.

3) A rectangular neckguard.

4) Pteruges.

5) A separate backboard which is attached to 1) and from which comes 2) and 3).

These features are still so common and obviously functional that the appearanced of them all together cannot be considered rare. As you noted, 3 and 5 are lost in some t-y armors, while 2 is very much reduced in later Hellenistic armors. You will find Japanese corsets that could fall within the extreme range of the t-y in form, if not construction. Indian textile armor such as that taken from the Tippoo sultan would as well. As for #5, there are armors from the Gilbert islands which have a robust back-board.

The armor we were discussing doesn't seem to me to fit any of these criteria except #4, pterges. We don't know if it is a "tube" or overlapping in front down the middle as in many central asian armors. Also, the "board" does not seem to be the simple structure we see in the t-y, which fits beneatht he helmet neck-guard, but wraps the whole head. This means it cannot be as narrow as the t-y and implies a completely different construction because the width of the t-y neck is set by the distance between the shoulders. Widening the neck if the same t-y construction was used would rob the shoulders of material. It could of course flare outwards, but there is no evidence of that here.

[Gregg]

Ugh, I can't seem to find the image on the MET website. I'll still have to contact them and ask their permission to use the image, which shouldn't be a problem.

I'll definitely have to read your article. I thought that "mail" was generic for armor to begin with. The Victorians seemed to do a lot of generic labeling as you tend to find that any non-woven textile is labeled as just "knitting".

You can find the original page, along with a description of the armor, here:

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_Of_Art/r ... 000.66.asp

This armor may well be authentic. Much Scythian armor has been found in good enough condition to reproduce what it probably would have looked like when complete, and Greek-style shoulder guards were not universal. Also, examples of the thin leather backing that the scales were sewn onto (apparent in the Met's example) have survived in some Scythian kurgans, so the survival of hardened leather scales is not so extraordinary.

Further evidence of it's Scythian origin would be the series of wide scales at the waist, probably included specifically to accommodate the wide Scythian girdle, which seems to have been nearly ubiquitous for armored Scythian cavalrymen from at least the 6th c. to the 4th.

Of course, if this armor is indeed Scythian, it should be remembered that the Scythians and Persians at the time of Darius I weren't exactly on the best of terms, and I'm not at all sure how influenced the soldiers of Darius I would have been by Scythian military fashions.

Gregg

[Lepidina]

Excellent!! Exactly what I needed. The Met has the terms of how to credit the image. Thanks!!

I'd give you karma but I don't think the new board has that feature any more.

Oh, I'll try and remember to get you the exact quotation that we're using in the course. It essentially goes something like "Said woman will make a suit of mail that will protect. It will be delivered on this date blah blah blah."

So that got me thinking, why would a woman be contracted out to make a suit of mail? Well since you guys pointed out that it would have been scale armor, NOT chain, it makes sense. I assume that she'd contract out for the scales or even have them given to her and just do all the sewing. But who knows, maybe she made the scales herself as well.

[MeinPanzer]

1) A tube body.

2) Two loose, roughly rectangular shoulder yokes which are tied down at the front.

3) A rectangular neckguard.

4) Pteruges.

5) A separate backboard which is attached to 1) and from which comes 2) and 3).

These features are still so common and obviously functional that the appearanced of them all together cannot be considered rare.

Firstly, I did not intend this list to be any hard and fast guideline. My point was that though some of these features sometimes are missing, seeing most or all of these together, and especially elements like pteruges (which are extremely rare if not absent in almost all other forms of ancient armour from other cultures) and the two loose shoulder yokes, is too coincidental to be just a chance occurrence.

As you noted, 3 and 5 are lost in some t-y armors, while 2 is very much reduced in later Hellenistic armors.

But almost always when either 3 or 5 are lost, all the other elements are present. Secondly, I would have to disagree with your second point, but even if the shoulder yokes were extremely reduced in size, their very presence (perhaps even as a useless, vestigial decoration) would be indicative of its origins.

You will find Japanese corsets that could fall within the extreme range of the t-y in form, if not construction. Indian textile armor such as that taken from the Tippoo sultan would as well. As for #5, there are armors from the Gilbert islands which have a robust back-board.

I'm not very familiar with the first two, so maybe you could post pictures, but looking up armour from the Gilbert islands, I notice that it only qualifies in having a tube body. The backboard is not anywhere near similar to that of tube-and-yoke cuirasses, even the exaggerated Celtic examples (which maintained the general form, but simply enlarged it). In effect, you are proving my point - individual characteristics of the tube-and-yoke pop up in various cultures and at various times, with some cuirasses possessing two or even three characteristics, but to find all of these together would be extremely rare.

Of course, this is all moot when it comes to the discussion at hand, since we cannot verify a few of those qualifications with the depictions at hand.

The armor we were discussing doesn't seem to me to fit any of these criteria except #4, pterges. We don't know if it is a "tube" or overlapping in front down the middle as in many central asian armors.

For the qualifications I only consider the superficial shape of the body and not the construction, since we are often left in the dark about that with almost all tube-and-yoke representations and examples we have anyway.

Also, the "board" does not seem to be the simple structure we see in the t-y, which fits beneatht he helmet neck-guard, but wraps the whole head. This means it cannot be as narrow as the t-y and implies a completely different construction because the width of the t-y neck is set by the distance between the shoulders.Widening the neck if the same t-y construction was used would rob the shoulders of material. It could of course flare outwards, but there is no evidence of that here.

But it doesn't wrap around the head at all, at least in the photographs and line drawings I'm looking at.

[MeinPanzer]

Ugh, I can't seem to find the image on the MET website. I'll still have to contact them and ask their permission to use the image, which shouldn't be a problem.

I'll definitely have to read your article. I thought that "mail" was generic for armor to begin with. The Victorians seemed to do a lot of generic labeling as you tend to find that any non-woven textile is labeled as just "knitting".

You can find the original page, along with a description of the armor, here:

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_Of_Art/r ... 000.66.asp

This armor may well be authentic. Much Scythian armor has been found in good enough condition to reproduce what it probably would have looked like when complete, and Greek-style shoulder guards were not universal. Also, examples of the thin leather backing that the scales were sewn onto (apparent in the Met's example) have survived in some Scythian kurgans, so the survival of hardened leather scales is not so extraordinary.

Further evidence of it's Scythian origin would be the series of wide scales at the waist, probably included specifically to accommodate the wide Scythian girdle, which seems to have been nearly ubiquitous for armored Scythian cavalrymen from at least the 6th c. to the 4th.

Of course, if this armor is indeed Scythian, it should be remembered that the Scythians and Persians at the time of Darius I weren't exactly on the best of terms, and I'm not at all sure how influenced the soldiers of Darius I would have been by Scythian military fashions.

Gregg

The problem is that from Ukrainian Scythian graves, only very small pieces of well-preserved leather have ever been found. This piece is several times larger and better-preserved than any provenanced examples I am aware of, which makes it very suspicious.