Help support TMP

"The dark Ages Armies ..." Topic

9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board

1,090 hits since 28 Sep 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP28 Sep 2017 7:34 a.m. PST

The dark Ages Armies of the Greece began after the disappearance of Mycenaean culture from the beginning of the Heliadic period (1100 to 1060 BC) until the end of the so-called Geometric Period (900-700 BC). J.-C.,) preceding the introduction of the hoplitic phalanx between 685 av. AD, and 668 BC. During the second war of Messenia, passing by the so-called Proto-Geometric period (1000 to 900 BC), …

While two- or four-wheeled war chariots, biges or quadriges still appear late in combat in the art of the geometric period, there are no representations of warriors fighting from their chariots which seem to be so than 'taxis' as for the last Mycenaeans.

These chariots were of 4 types :

1) A chariot of the proto-geometric period known as the rail-chariot as in the time of Mycenaeans, it recalled the achean last type of chariot, nevertheless it was certainly slightly different …

2) The four -wheeled chariot as the four -wheeled -chariot of the time of Mycenaeans, is still represented on a huge krater dated around 1100 BC.
Both the rail-chariot and the four-wheeled chariot fom continued to be used until the end of the Geometric Period…
Nevertheless they should be somewhat different from the old Mycenaean models, which were obviously no longer used.

3) A further chariot type to appear in the Geometric pictorial record is called the Helladic chariot or high-front chariot.
This is the most frequently depicted form in the Iron Age, and is the standard type found from the 8th century.

4) The Cypriot chariot type of the 8th, 7th and 6th centuries BC.

Their crews are generally believed to be fighting, and this is sufficient to justify their classification as mounted infantry, as well as for cavalry.

There are, on the other hand, numerous representations of warriors without shields, but armored and mounted, and these 'riders' climb very far back on the horse, almost on the rump.

And if half of this 'cavalry' seem to wear bronze cuirasses, there is also now evidence that each of these 'riders' was accompanied by a helmeted squire, but without armor or shield, armed only with a sword and who had always mounted, guarded the horse of the armored warrior who had dismounted to fight.

Note that Aristotle suggested that this primitive cavalry was the most important arm of an army before the replacement of the tanks by the hoplites.

Pedestrians are represented fighting with the sword, now iron, and / or short spears and javelins …

Indeed from 900 BC onwards. The graves contain spear irons, either alone or with a dagger or a short sword.

Earlier, in an equal number of burials found swords or spear irons, not both.

The warriors usually wore a helmet and a shield, but otherwise they were naked or wearing only a loincloth.

The nobles in the chariots are usually depicted wearing a long, but definitely fragile, convex oval shield, with cutouts on either side to be laid on the back without clogging the elbows.

This type of shield was nicknamed "Dipylon", in honor of the Master of the Dipylon, a painter on a vase of Ancient Greece who worked in the middle of the 8th century BC (Geometric Recent). name to a group of funerary vases, most of which were discovered in Athens in the necropolis of Ceramics, near the Dipylon Gate.

This is because it mainly facilitates the race as we classify the foot warriors as LMI.

The warriors also wore this type of shield, but also in a round and flat version and again with the cutouts on each side and always so that it can be laid on the back without obstructing the elbows, but also a round shield without the cutouts on either side , but with one or more bumps, this implying that they were not yet hoplite shields and all in one unit.

On the other hand some vases also confirm the use of flat, square or rectangular shields of all lengths all painted with plaid pattern.

Other foot warriors are represented with or without shields, but with bows, others with javelins, but always without shields.

Thus the poet Tyrtaeus describes the 'psiletes' mingling with the fighters carrying the shields.

As a result, the archers can give back support to the warriors as the last rank.

Most commentators doubt that the Spartan warriors of Tyrtae are real Hoplites, although fighting close up, they used swords and javelins and spears, and could fight individually rather than in a phalanx that would only appear to be " in the seventh century BC. J.-C.,.

Their shields are long dipylons then covering them from the shoulder to the tibia, and on the round shields of others, it is possible to mention a bump, this again implying that they were not hoplite shields.

A proto-Corinthian vase from the beginning of the seventh century BC. BC also shows warriors with dipylon shields, Corinthian helmets and a pair of lances supported by an archer and fighting another with a hoplite shield, helmet, spear and javelin supported by a launcher Stone.

We will therefore postulate for a "proto-hoplite" transition period before a real hoplitic system from Argos spreads throughout Greece.

TKindred Supporting Member of TMP28 Sep 2017 11:22 a.m. PST

You also postulate a "Dark Ages" period that is difficult to justify.

Velikovsky has, to my mind, pretty well documented the error in dating that Egyptologists made, and influenced the rest of the profession. He has also shown how the entire "Dark Ages" idea fails to hold up when compared to archeological finds throughout the entire Greek, Anatolia and Middle Eastern areas.

See here, for various short articles.

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2017 1:59 a.m. PST

This period of the history of Greece,has been baptized and is so called for ages and for cause and I do not mind …

Dexter Ward29 Sep 2017 2:22 a.m. PST

Good lord. Someone still believes Velikovsky!

TKindred Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2017 5:42 a.m. PST

Forget about Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collison" and instead look on his other work.

It's easy to throw dismissive remarks around but much more difficult to refute his analysis of the historical timeline errors, especially when he documents it so well.

Personal logo Bowman Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2017 5:09 p.m. PST

It's easy to throw dismissive remarks around ……..

He makes it easy.

…….but much more difficult to refute his analysis of the historical timeline errors, especially when he documents it so well.

You're kidding right? His documentation has been excoriated by almost everyone.




Paskal Supporting Member of TMP29 Sep 2017 10:55 p.m. PST

No Bowman, TKindred is not kidding …

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP11 Oct 2017 9:21 a.m. PST

And what figurines for these armies there?

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP22 Oct 2017 11:32 a.m. PST

These armies there really are unpopular,me I love them…

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.