02-03-2012, 08:32 AM
''The fact that such ornate or large additions to the helmet would have added perhaps 2-4lbs on the helmet. Also unusual because no depiction of these types of exaggerated crests appears anywhere''
I gave you picture not because of the left one - horns, they are from 7th BC and for some different topic... but the right one ,the crest holder.
As seen in...almost EVERY single pottery image or statuette.
"6th century is not 5th century. 5th century Phalanx battles with huge horns would be somewhat....inconvenient."
There was a phalanx in 6th century, much more typical than 5th (5th BC is not just 479-470 BC but also Peloponnesian wars as well, not particularry ''heavy'' phalanxes there). And again, horns are not for this subject as they are from 7th BC, but the crest holder is.
''Because wood is lightweight, easily carved, tapped and drilled.''
I asked HOW do you know they depicted wood. What evidence other than your own logics do you have for it.
So what if it's easier, it is easier to carve wooden shield rims yet the Greeks carved bronze rims and attached it to wood..It is so much harder yet done. If their ways were ideal, we would still be fighting like hoplites today..
You are constantly using modern logics, your logics. It is just logics not common sense. They had plenty of time, and judging by all artefacts found in Ancient Greece easy way out was not their way.
''Why wouldn't a 10 ounze crest box of wood be more advisable than gigantic bronze horns?''
It would..It does not proove they used it. They used so many unadvisable things and principles. Just because something is not advisable does not mean they did not use it or do it.
Would you point me to the lines where either of those poets mentioned red crests...Especially the latter. Or any other color for that matter.
And the last issue,the dogtags etc seems a bit fabricated to me, yes even though Diodorus mentioned it, it is far from fact. Not aware of any real evidence for anything from your last sentence. Just some of your views and ideas.
I gave you picture not because of the left one - horns, they are from 7th BC and for some different topic... but the right one ,the crest holder.
As seen in...almost EVERY single pottery image or statuette.
"6th century is not 5th century. 5th century Phalanx battles with huge horns would be somewhat....inconvenient."
There was a phalanx in 6th century, much more typical than 5th (5th BC is not just 479-470 BC but also Peloponnesian wars as well, not particularry ''heavy'' phalanxes there). And again, horns are not for this subject as they are from 7th BC, but the crest holder is.
''Because wood is lightweight, easily carved, tapped and drilled.''
I asked HOW do you know they depicted wood. What evidence other than your own logics do you have for it.
So what if it's easier, it is easier to carve wooden shield rims yet the Greeks carved bronze rims and attached it to wood..It is so much harder yet done. If their ways were ideal, we would still be fighting like hoplites today..
You are constantly using modern logics, your logics. It is just logics not common sense. They had plenty of time, and judging by all artefacts found in Ancient Greece easy way out was not their way.
''Why wouldn't a 10 ounze crest box of wood be more advisable than gigantic bronze horns?''
It would..It does not proove they used it. They used so many unadvisable things and principles. Just because something is not advisable does not mean they did not use it or do it.
Would you point me to the lines where either of those poets mentioned red crests...Especially the latter. Or any other color for that matter.
And the last issue,the dogtags etc seems a bit fabricated to me, yes even though Diodorus mentioned it, it is far from fact. Not aware of any real evidence for anything from your last sentence. Just some of your views and ideas.
Nikolas Gulan
