Macedonian Phalanx Illustration

[hoplite14gr]

First, I agree with Rubens comment on clothing modification.
But Greek style chitons could be made from captured cloth.
Bythynia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia (use as starting point only-not very realible).
Bythinians with pikes are a matter of interpretation from the analysis I read on the Battle of Nicopolis and that is why I posted "chances are..." nothing concrete.
I am not dogmatic on Bythyinian Army and it seems that Ruben´s article will provide us with a better picture since he is concentrating his effort on the subject.

All circulating analysis interpret the early Bythinians like Thracians and later Bythinians like any Hellenistic Army with "colorful" Galátian mercenary unit due to Nicomedes I.

Kind regards

[MeinPanzer]

First, I agree with Rubens comment on clothing modification.
But Greek style chitons could be made from captured cloth.
Bythynia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia (use as starting point only-not very realible).
Bythinians with pikes are a matter of interpretation from the analysis I read on the Battle of Nicopolis and that is why I posted "chances are..." nothing concrete.

What account would that be? Not Appian's, right?

[TraderTrey9785]

That's a fine piece of work -- you really capture the depth of the Macedonian phalanx --great job!

[MeinPanzer]

Well, they say that Alexander re-equipped his pike-men with so-called half-armour at the Indus. The old sets were burned.

The only primary source to comment on the burning of the old armour and the introduction of new armour is Quintus Curtius, who says nothing about "half armour," but does say that the 25000 new cuirasses were inlaid with gold and silver.

This suggest not variety, but rather uniformity.
The sources say that the half-armour covered the front and not the back.

What primary source is that?

I find that unlikely. I suspect that it actually was an armour of the Type Alexander wears on the Alexander mosaic. Looking at the reconstrocked armour of the Alexander Sarcophagus (Nick Secunda, The Armies of Alexander the Great, Osprey), I noticed that you could interpret the 'light purple' of the armour as iron ant the light yellow as linen.

Blue is used on the Alexander sarcophagus, just like other paintings of that time period (Aghios Athanasios, for instance) to represent iron, not purple. Those cuirasses are simply dyed linothorakites.

[Kallimachos]

Fantastic work Johnny, one of your best yet.

[drsrob]

Well, they say that Alexander re-equipped his pike-men with so-called half-armour at the Indus. The old sets were burned.

The only primary source to comment on the burning of the old armour and the introduction of new armour is Quintus Curtius, who says nothing about "half armour," but does say that the 25000 new cuirasses were inlaid with gold and silver.

This suggest not variety, but rather uniformity.
The sources say that the half-armour covered the front and not the back.

What primary source is that?

I have this information from Nick Sekunda, but he has it from Polyaenus, Book IV.3.13

Alexander gave half-breastplates [hèmithorakia] to the soldiers instead of breastplates, so that if they stood firm they would be safe because their front parts were covered, but if they fled they would be unable to protect their backs. Accordingly, no one fled lest he be without armor, but they always stood firm and conquered.

Nor Nick, nor me agree with the reason given for the adoption. I personally don't think that the half-armour covered only the front. See my earlier post.

I find that unlikely. I suspect that it actually was an armour of the Type Alexander wears on the Alexander mosaic. Looking at the reconstructed armour of the Alexander Sarcophagus (Nick Secunda, The Armies of Alexander the Great, Osprey), I noticed that you could interpret the 'light purple' of the armour as iron ant the light yellow as linen.

Blue is used on the Alexander sarcophagus, just like other paintings of that time period (Aghios Athanasios, for instance) to represent iron, not purple. Those cuirasses are simply dyed linothorakites.

According to Sekunda the purple colours were faded almost to gray. Some might have been gray. On the sarcophagus the helmets are painted blue. They, however were of bronze rather than iron. And some were painted red. Therefore the blue was probably meant to indicate paint as well.

[MeinPanzer]

I have this information from Nick Sekunda, but he has it from Polyaenus, Book IV.3.13

Alexander gave half-breastplates [hèmithorakia] to the soldiers instead of breastplates, so that if they stood firm they would be safe because their front parts were covered, but if they fled they would be unable to brotect their backs. Accordingly, no one fled lest he be without armor, but they always stood firm and conquered.

Nor Nick, nor me agree with the reason given for the adoption. I personally don't think that the half-armour covered only the front. See my earlier post.

I always assumed that the hemithorax was the often much shorter form of linothorax that can be seen in some iconographic sources. It seems very questionable that it would only cover the front, unless it had metal plating in the front but not in the back or something like that.

According to Sekunda the purple colours were faded almost to gray. Some might have been gray.

The analysis of the paint while it was still very well preserved by Reinach and Hamdy-Bey showed that it was purple.

On the sarcophagus the helmets are painted blue. They, however were of bronze rather then iron.

How do you know they were of bronze? They have some bronze detailing (in yellow), but you can't prove that they were bronze.

And some were peinted red. Therefore the blue was probably meant to indicate paint as well.

The near-contemporary Aghios Athanasios paintings show weapons and armour painted blue, including spearheads. Blue was also used to represent iron in other sources since the time of the Assyrians. Unless you think that they painted their spearheads, it seems that the helmets on the Alexander sarcophagus were iron.

[drsrob]

I always assumed that the hemithorax was the often much shorter form of linothorax that can be seen in some iconographic sources. It seems very questionable that it would only cover the front, unless it had metal plating in the front but not in the back or something like that.

I agree.

According to Sekunda the purple colours were faded almost to gray. Some might have been gray.

The analysis of the paint while it was still very well preserved by Reinach and Hamdy-Bey showed that it was purple.

On the sarcophagus the helmets are painted blue. They, however were of bronze rather then iron.

How do you know they were of bronze? They have some bronze detailing (in yellow), but you can't prove that they were bronze.

Well, until a learned of Phillip's helmet I did not know of a single Greek iron helmet. But that helmets were painted is accepted wisdom AFAIK.

And some were painted red. Therefore the blue was probably meant to indicate paint as well.

The near-contemporary Aghios Athanasios paintings show weapons and armour painted blue, including spearheads. Blue was also used to represent iron in other sources since the time of the Assyrians. Unless you think that they painted their spearheads, it seems that the helmets on the Alexander sarcophagus were iron.

I know my idea is goes against accepted notions. I just looked at the cuirasses on the Sarcophagus and compared them with Alexander's armour on the mosaic and I thought: What if the light purple represents iron and the light yellow linen. Then these two armours would be nearly identical. The sarcophagus even has the same red edging as the painting.

[MeinPanzer]

Well, untill a learned of Philips helmet I did not no of a single Greek iron helmet. But that helmets were painted is accepted wisdom AFAIK.

To be fair, these could simply be "tinned" bronze helmets as well- they need not necessarily be made of iron, just look like iron, or "silvered."

I know my idea is goes against accepted notions. I just looked at the cuirasses on the Sarcophagus and comared them with Alexander's armour on the mosaic and I thought: What if the light purple represents iron and the light yellow linen. Then these two armours would be nearly identical. The sarcophagus even has the same red edging as the painting.

The Alexander sarcophagus had extensive painted detail on it that was still very well preserved when discovered- right down to images of Persian kings with neatly-patterned clothing painted on the insides of Persian shields. If they were supposed to be scale, they would have painted scale on. So on top of not being the usual colour to represent metal, they also haven't actually painted any scales on there when you would expect them to do so.

I think you are trying too had to draw parallels between the Alexander sarcophagus and mosaic. Almost all similarities between the two are due to the general styles of Hellenistic art. Everything about the Macedonian figures (and the Persian figures, for that matter) - Alexander's equipment and costume, the type of helmets worn, the colours - differ, so straining to draw any parallels doesn't bear much fruit, unfortunately.

[hoplite14gr]

[hèmithorakion] literally = half armoring.
It can mean linotharx with metal reinforcement on the front-unlike classical hoplites that had metal scales and at the back.

The word for armor is "THORAX" and is is used unchanged in Greek from the Bronze Age.
"Thorakion" is almost never used alone but rather as part of a composite word.Hypothorakion=subarmalis
Epithorakion=something you have over your armor.

Parts of plate armor (either bell or muscled) were called "gyala" according to Pausanias.

There is example of armor painted purple so blue is not unlikelt but it might be representing iron. It is plausible.

Kind regards

[MeinPanzer]

There is example of armor painted purple so blue is not unlikelt but it might be representing iron. It is plausible.

Kind regards

It could be painted, but how do you explain the same blue spearheads? In the Aghios Athanasios paintings, a man is also shown carrying a pale of some kind which is likewise completely blue. I highly doubt that of spearheads would be painted.

By the way, when you said

Bythinians with pikes are a matter of interpretation from the analysis I read on the Battle of Nicopolis and that is why I posted "chances are..." nothing concrete.

What primary account of the battle are you referring to?

[Peroni]

Stunning Johnny!

They keep getting better and better !!

[Matt15]

Wow thats great!

[Tarbicus]

It could be painted, but how do you explain the same blue spearheads? In the Aghios Athanasios paintings, a man is also shown carrying a pale of some kind which is likewise completely blue. I highly doubt that of spearheads would be painted.

It's the metal reflecting the sky.

Look at my avatar - the seg is grey metal. Looks blue though, because it's reflecting the sky. I did another 3D illustration with a seg, and it looks green and blue, because it's reflecting the grass and the sky. If the setting was in a desert the seg would look beige and blue. Where the seg reflects the interior of the scutum it's red.

[MeinPanzer]

It could be painted, but how do you explain the same blue spearheads? In the Aghios Athanasios paintings, a man is also shown carrying a pale of some kind which is likewise completely blue. I highly doubt that of spearheads would be painted.

It's the metal reflecting the sky.

Look at my avatar - the seg is grey metal. Looks blue though, because it's reflecting the sky. I did another 3D illustration with a seg, and it looks green and blue, because it's reflecting the grass and the sky. If the setting was in a desert the seg would look beige and blue. Where the seg reflects the interior of the scutum it's red.

So you do support the idea that blue represents iron in these paintings?