I'm reading through the Iliad again and it sort of hit me that these guys are literally stealing shit off the dead in the middle of a hot battle. They're getting shitkicked in the middle of stripping some guy of his armor.
I know discipline was bad, there are Egyptian armies on record looting the battlefield instead of pushing the rout, but it was a rout, this is comically bad discipline.
Is that legit for the time period, or I suppose archaic Greece even when Homer probably drew a lot of his/their inspiration? It just seems monumentally stupid and lacking any common sense.
Seems like a relatively common occurence throughout history, as armour generally have been among the most expensive items one could own. A Saxon poem details how a viking shieldwall collapsed as the members started to kill eachother over a dead chieftains mail coat.
Jackson Young
Funny you should mention that
>The Afghans were considered a bit too boisterous even in Alexander the Great's time, when Westerners were still willing to admit they too enjoyed the occasional massacre. Now that the West has been taught not to admit such a thing, the Afghans stand out even more, as the last people on Earth who could listen to Homer's poetry and nod their heads, enjoying those page-long descriptions of brains and guts spewing the battlefield without shame. To the Afghans, those Toyotas are Homeric chariots, AKs are heroic weapons, and every day of battle produces tales worthy of another epic poet.
>What is the most obvious thing in every photo from there? The fact that these people enjoy war, consider it essential to every man's life. Try this: a photo from the slaughter in the Mazar fortress showed two turbaned victors leaning over a corpse. One was manipulating a long tweezer, while the other watched, their turbans almost touching the corpse's white face. They were fishing -- fishing for a gold tooth in the mouth of the defeated adversary. What delight was in their faces! What joy, plundering the dead for their gold! >Or this: a Tajik strolling across a field of bodies at Mazar, AK over his shoulder, carrying one dress shoe and looking for a matching one among the corpses. The Western commentator says, scandalized, "Most of the corpses had already lost their shoes." >On the Tajik's face, on the faces of all the fighters, was this great big grin. Even the losers, locked into steel containers, looked interested at the next turn their stories might take, and more than resigned to the prospect that the next episode might be their last.
Elijah Wright
Basically nobody had proper army discipline during bronze age. And consider that bronze is fucking expensive since you had to trade for tin mostly. A bronze armor would be something only the elite would own.
Ethan King
It is totally legit. Warfare in the bronze age was completely different from later eras. Opposing groups would fight for a bit before both drawing back. Leadership was also very important, so if an important warrior got killed via javelin to the jaw (probably the most common death in the Iliad), his subordinates would get scared and retreat. This would give time to loot the dead.
This was probably done as a status and reputation thing when you willed a notable fighter or champion. The average guy's loincloth and stone on a handle probably wasn't worth the risk of bending down.
Joshua Torres
The practice of collecting heads in China and Japan meant people were rushing to hack away trophies from corpses in the middle of huge battles.
Liam Carter
I get it was expensive, maybe moreso than gold today even, but the idea they're literally looting a dead guy while under javelin fire in the heat of battle...I can imagine this must have sounded almost as crazy to Greek familiar with Hoplite tactics as it does to us.
I think there's a very fair comparison to the sandy's in Afghanistan. It's almost unbelievable but there's contemporary evidence with lower stakes and a higher risk. .
Jackson James
That is true. In the State/Duchy of Qin, soldiers were awarded with a plot of land the size of which was determined via the amount of heads brought back.
Noah Ross
The common people during bronze age were dirt poor. They might have copper tools at everyday use.
Daniel Turner
Correct me if I'm wrong please. I don't think homer actually envisioned the Achaeans dressing like that during the trojan war. I think he makes references to phalanxes although it might be the translation. I'm pretty sure he envisioned late bronze age Greece instead. Although I do think the oral tradition mentioned chariots as the iliad has those while classical greece didn't use them for war.
Gabriel Price
That armor (the dendra armor) is from like 1450 bc, so medium bronze age, not late bronze age.
During the late bronze age Greek warriors wore much lighter armors
Justin Morris
But the armor in the Iliad, does it describe that specific time period, is it open to interpretation, or does it reflect Homer's time?
Joshua Jackson
All Greek authors place the Trojan war around 1300-1150 bc, it clearly is a memory of when Greeks interacted with the Assuwa league (hence the word Asia), strange that they remembered particularly about sacking a shitty hullfort and not about invading Cyprus which was a way richer kingdom, or about fighting against the mighty Hittites (maybe because they lost most of the time?).
But still it's straneg that those tales did not live on folk tales but Troy/Wilusa did
Also Hittites refer to both Wilusa and Tarusia as different cities in their account against the Assuwa league (West Anatolia), weird.
But Wilusa seems to be the most fitting parallel to Ilios/Troy, since it's given the epiteth "steep Wilusa" in Hittite poems, the same as "Steep Ilios/Troy" of the Iliad, also Gissarlik, near Lesbos seems to coincide with the Hittite Wilusa which is located near Lezbos (Lesbos), and Hissarlik has a long underground water canal just like Wilusa according to Hittite sources and Troy according to the Iliad
Dominic Torres
This is pretty much the incentive Aztec soldiers got to capture warriors, as they were not paid, they were paid in loot. So they could steal from their captors and take their belongings with them. It might be why they preferred one on one fights in a battle vs. working like a single unit. I understand in the Bronze age there was a lot of one on one fighting as well. Especially with all that emphasis on heroism and glory.
Caleb Kelly
>a shitty hullfort
Wilusa was a major city, the fortified Ilion is not that big but ruins of the city extend out under the fields around, it would have been a sizeable city when it fell. >thetimes.co.uk/article/defences-at-troy-reveal-larger-town-tgcmf7qs35n >Defences at Troy reveal larger town >Ancient Troy was much bigger than previously thought, and may have housed as many as 10,000 people, new excavations have revealed.
Kevin Williams
Ilios didn't have more than 1000/2000 inhabitants according to
Maybe I exaggerated when I said shitty hillfort but it certainly was much smaller than Mycenean cities like Knossos, Mycenae, Pylos or Tyrins
Hissarlik does display great architecture though, but its population was small
Camden Thompson
It's important to remember that Homer "contemporized" his story to some extent, much as Shakespear would have dressed with "Julius Caesar" in contemporary Elizabethan clothing. Homer describes the warfare of the Iron Age, wth large infantry armies clashing, and single combats between champions swinging the outcomes of whole battles. The "real" Trojan War would have been fought between Chariots, where very heavy armor such as the Dendra armor would be used, and not the beautifully described hoplons of the heroes of Homer.
Caleb Barnes
This is just untrue. The armies of the Bronze Age were formed around a core of charioteers, who were full-time warriors who absolutely did train: In fact one of the oldest books in the world is a guide to breeding and training horses for chariots which stresses the importance of the warrior practising manoeuvres extensively before committing to a real fight. The infantry that accompanied such chariot forces was typically untrained part-time soldiers, but their role in a battle was largely just to occupy space to limit the manouvering of the enemy chariotry, they weren't expected to do much fighting.
Jose Sanchez
Are you illiterate? read my link again. >much bigger than previously thought
Connor Stewart
I doubt the infantry was untrained.
Swords such as the Naue II widespread in the Aegean and Europe, necessitate training to be used.
They didn't just go around swinging it like idiots, there were also paid mercenaries in the Eastern mediterranean, so those people probably knew what theyw ere doing.
There was a class of people who were used as mercenaries or support troupes
Alexander Hernandez
>Naue II
We're talking about the bronze age, the naue was part of the paradigm shift in military technology that destroyed the bronze age and is characteristic of the age of iron. The typical armaments of the bronze age infantry was the spear and a big-ass shield, or a bow.
Mason Gutierrez
The Naue II were bronze swords used in the late bronze age, hence they pertain to the bronze age, furthermore, the peoples who sacked all those cities (including Ilios) in the Eastern Mediterranean most likely used those swords
The Iliad is clearly inspired mainly by events that took place in the late bronze age
We're talking about the Iliad
Aaron Peterson
The naue is irrelevant to the bronze age, it was developed in the 13th century BC which, if you recall, was also the century the bronze age ended in. It's asinine to use it to insist that bronze age infantry must have been well trained, it wasn't USED by bronze age infantry, it was used by Chariot Runners and by the Sea Peoples (who certainly learned about from serving as mercenary Chariot Runners).
>We're talking about the Iliad
I know reading is hard but try reading OP again.He references the Iliad, but his question is about the bronze age generally.
Jose Long
The infantry wasn't a big deal in Bronze Age warfare, yes it was important for occupying territory and garrisoning cities but it seldom took an active role during battles, which were for the most part decided by chariots. We tend to think of chariots as being like cavalry, only shittier, but in their time they were the undisputed powerhouse of the battlefield, capable of destroying infantry forces with few or zero losses via relentless barrages of arrows. The infantry in a bronze age battle sat behind its large shields and hoped their chariots could defeat the enemies, because if not, they were probably fucked. The closest there was to properly trained infantry were the numerous archers they fielded, who were drilled in mass archery but not expected to survive a direct chariot charge, or to fight in close combat with other infantry.
Leo Cook
OP
>was also the century the bronze age ended in
The bronze age didn't end there.
Bronze remained prevalent for several centuries, the palatial system ended in the 12th century, but it's not like people stopped using bronze altogether.
Hunter Butler
So we're still in the bronze age, according to your """logic""". Still in the stone age for that matter. Dopey prick.
Aaron Jones
No, according to any archaeologist, iron was scarcely sued before the 10th-9th century bc
