Why did they put horns onto their helmets and also wear bracelets?

>>63871868 (OP)
Cause they were horny!

>>63871868 (OP)
i wonder how many random hoplites could afford a full bronze plate armor like that. sometimes i think all those depictions of them fighting naked wasn't poetic license.

There has been one bronze bell suit of armor found total, right?

It's hilarious to me that archaeologists find one marginally intact suit of armor which was very clearly made for a very wealthy important person and just extrapolate that to "yeah, every guy in the Bronze Age wore this"

>>63872007
>It's hilarious to me that archaeologists find one marginally intact suit of armor which was very clearly made for a very wealthy important person and just extrapolate that to "yeah, every guy in the Bronze Age wore this"
But nobody actually does this.

>>63871868 (OP)
it was the style at the time

>>63871868 (OP)
Because the Rule of Cool is the only one that matters

>>63872011
People do it all the time on 4chan, on /his/ and other boards.

>>63872015
Anons aren't people though.

>>63871868 (OP)
The meta hadn't ruined everything yet, bronze age was all about having fun

>>63872007
this is just projection on your part.

>>63872032
Same as "shrink wrapping" for dinosaurs.
>ha, bet you experts feel stupid now! you didn't even think about THIS (insert idea they've definitely thought about here), did you?

>>63871868 (OP)
Isn't this a unit design from a fantasy strategy game

>>63871868 (OP)
"Domes you with a sling"

>>63872367
No, It's from ancient Mycenaean Greece, during the time of the Trojan War.

>>63872384
>is this a unit from a strategy game
>no it's from troy total war
wut

>>63872007
see>>63872032
and it wasn't marginally intact; it was fully intact, with one other fairly intact partial and several only "marginally intact" bell armor suits
So it was at least something a few very wealthy men had; and keeping in mind that bronze is pretty easy to recycle, and that we may have not found every single example that was ever buried, its not too much a stretch to think that more suits of it existed

>>63872399
Anon
please
https://archive.org/details/the-iliad-homer-lattimore
enjoy my friend

>>63871868 (OP)
You ever tried putting horns on your wrists or bracelets on your head?

>>63872001
>hoplites
Anon, I...

>>63872001
>Actually everyone in the past was naked and starving and wore brown and fought with a shovel
Game of thrones and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>63872424
>Cute witch girl
>surrounded by Halloween sweets
okay makes sense so far.
>Anomalocaris plushie
what am I missing

>>63873321
Even before those sorts of edgy historical/fantasy shows with all the random sex scenes like GoT/Rome/Spartacus people refused to believe beautiful pure white marble statues were actually brightly painted in the past.

>>63872011
Bitchin picture. Diomedes is my nigga.

>>63873381
I actually meant the book.
While gay "the past must have been bad" revisionism has been growing in popularity for a century (as the world becomes more socially and culturally nightmarish) and has cropped up in the minds of degenerates in every century, gen Xers and late boomers really took it and ran with it.

>>63873391
Technically aren't the books ASOIAF?

>>63871868 (OP)
>bull strong
>bull have horns
>I take bull horns
>I am now strong
It's called LOGIC, ever heard of it?

>>63872413
They also did something archeologists tend to be extremely reluctant to do, which is make replicas and stuff soldiers inside them and get actual user feedback about how it performs in military drills and mock battles turns out it works pretty well, actually, so it's reasonable to assume that plenty of the people who could afford it would buy it.

>>63872012
Now, to take the ferry cost a drachma, and in those days, drachma had pictures of bumblebees on em.
>Gimme five bees for a spear
You'd say. Now, where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions because of the trojan war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

>>63873381
It helps that they make the "reconstructions" look deliberately shitty to provoke a reaction instead of assuming there were more layers and blending than survived to the present era, and painting them as carefully as they were sculpted.

>>63872001
That likely inaccurate depiction isn't a hoplite, and the fact is that they didn't for the most part
Here's the tier list of what you aquire as a soldier, if you're a poor fuck you obviously bottom out before the end
>head
>chest
>abdomen
>shoulders (likely as part of the two prior)
>biceps
>thighs/shins (if cav then can be reversed)
>forearms

>>63873405
Yeah unless he meant specifically the first book

>>63872011
All the wars of man over thousands of years and these dudes get to live on in mortality. Ever wonder why?

>>63872001
Varies tremendously across space and time. What I can offer off the top of my head for approximating how much a random soldier could afford (or be given) that gear is the much later and much further away English Assizes stated various kit required (and forbidden if you are a Jew): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181

With 1 mark = 160 pence, 2/3rds of a sterling pound
So a total net worth (chattels and rent = animals and land, I think) of 10 marks = 160*10 = 1600 pence. I am tired of this weird silly british currency so I will cheat and ask chatGPT for some info. Which didn't help, so:
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/resource/medieval-prices-and-wages/
You can see, albeit century or more later, the income of these workers relative to that 1600 pence net worth. This is obviously not the same as weekly income but christ you can give me a break. Even so, minimum net worth of 1600 pence to afford mail of any kind? You'd have to be a skilled worker and still come up short in yearly income.

Earlier and again I am asking the chatbot because I am too lazy to dig up the osprey but I remember the Law of the Ripaurian franks I think having these prices, give or take. This being 700s: https://deremilitari.org/2014/02/carolingian-arms-and-armor-in-the-ninth-century/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Sword = 3 solidi
Sword and scabbard = 7 (presumably scabbard is expensive and luxury item)
Mail hauberk = 12
Helmet = 6
Shield and spear = 2
warhorse = 7
Full cost of a fully equipped horseman = 44

https://ancientfinances.com/2017/06/03/cost-of-weapons-in-northern-europe-in-mid-7th-century/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Peasant's cow for reference was 1 solidi, cow 2. So a mail hauberk would cost between 12 cows or 6 cows.

>>63871868 (OP)
>>63872022
Are these one of them sea peoples?

>>63873566

>>63873617
Sorry I meant ox was 2 solidi, cow was 1. But you get the idea. It's not armor wise but I remember in Hugh Kennedy(?)'s book on Armies of the Caliphate a point was made about the cost of a gucci-gang H&K T1 Operator style Yemeni sword versus a shitty beater Egyptian sword. The latter cost a pittance, the former cost a professional middle-tier soldier's entire yearly income and then some.

From the battle of Meggido, Thutmose III obtained as loot/spoils 2 bronze cuirasses and 200 rawhide/leather cuirasses. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1102/thutmose-iiis-battle-of-megiddo-inscription//?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Thutmose says he carried off 924 chariots of the enemy (his math doesn't add up though but whatever, drunk scribe drank too much mead). That is just one city state and it allows for charioteers who ran off with their armor, but it's still a pretty stark difference.

Nuzi Tablets have lots of info on cuirasses and a huge variety of them (bronze with leather sleeves, leather with bronze sleeves, bronze front leather back, leather front bronze back) but I can't recall specifics that help to narrow down the # of armor.

Much later and michael Burns' South Italic Military equipment thesis finds 45 triple disc cuirasses in South Italy, 22 ITalian anatomical cuirasses (pectorals), and I closed the image and am too lazy to reopen it but I think around 27-37 greek muscled cuirasses. (Cont)

>>63873668
27. And this bears in mind that bronze is recyclable, so when you loot shit you'd just melt it down into ingots if not just re-wearing it.

And of course the Romans have that assize-equivalent by Polybius(?) or Livy, although most now interpret it as an ideal rather than an absolute rule (and that it doesn't mean everyone at Principes had mail, maybe just a linen or leather cuirass or scale or some kind of armor).

In Depictions there's also an issue of 'villainous nudity', a point I realized with some scholar's writing on Assyria. That they always depicted their enemy as unarmored and pathetic looking to display their weakness vis-a-vis Assyria. Since it even contradicts their own records at time (elamites having 'men of the shield and bow', I think even called 'heavily armed' but I may be wrong, yet are never depicted in the art).

To use a modern comparison, if we had a relief monument erected to the defeat of the Islamic State or the Taliban (Hopefully that relief was completed before 2021 whoopsie) would we depict hajji habibi dressed like some T1 plate-carrier operator (as they sometimes had), or like some sneakers turban-wrap slacks and tee-shirt insurgent?

With the Greeks I don't have the material available. The total war approach of entire legions of men fully clad in very heavy armor is probably off. Bronze is expensive, a cuirass is boutique made (or should be, no munitions bronze cuirasses). But we like the spectacle of it so why not. There also weren't usually separate regiments of spearmen to swordsmen (yes yes I know rome) and often the archers were just mixed in a mingling mass of light infantry. So it's a suspension of reality but verisimilitude kept.

>>63873617
What do you think of this guys compilation?

>>63872001
Armor this extensive was basically only worn by chieftains or great warriors, that could also afford quality horses and chariots to carry them around. It wouldn’t be practical to wear this much armor, unless you also could afford the chariot and horses…

The heaviest suits could frequently approach half the weight of the man wearing it. Not bad for people who were on such an olive heavy diet (the wealthy of course ate way more cattle and fish tho)

>>63873948
Fucking shit
https://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html

>>63873617
>>63873668
Quality posts, anon. Appreciated.

>>63873391
>growing in popularity for a century
Try since the fucking Renaissance.

>>63873566
one part quality and many parts luck that their stories weren't lost with the rest of the epic cycle

>>63873668
aren't egyptian royal inscriptions infamous for exaggeration? or is that itself an exaggerated meme

>>63873321
>Game of thrones and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
This has been a belief well before GoT, anon

>>63872058
Dinosaur 'shrinkwrapping' is especially stupid because dinosaurs are effectively giant birds/chickens.
Remove a chicken's feathers and you notice they are, shockingly quite shrinkwrapped, especially if they were covered in scales.
Instead leftists want us to think that dinosaurs were massively bloated obeast monsters.

>>63873381
Some medieval and early modern armor pieces were painted as well. Unfortunately a lot of that was polished off in the Victorian era. And of course there were other colorful leather and cloth items that people would wear into battle. Not that polished white armor wasn't popular too.

>>63873391
It was bad, though. More colorful than often portrayed, but come the fuck on man. Imagine the smell.

>>63873405
I meant the first book.
Like "his first in the series and what came after" "X and it's consequences"

>>63871868 (OP)
for me it's the cedarpunk version

>>63873391
>While gay "the past must have been bad" revisionism
As old as time itself, it always shows up in one form or another.
>we are led to wonder if the time will ever arrive when the gallows shall be placed as a curiosity in museums and sight-seers shall flock to gaze upon it and marvel how a people who gave evidence of so much civilization as did their forefathers... could have employed such a machine for the amelioration of the moral condition of mankind.
>will posterity shudder at a model of a gallows set up in complete working order on a shelf, as we today shudder when we examine the ancient instruments of torture collected in the Old World museums?
>will the American of the year of our Lord 2000 be so far in advance of us?
>we venture to hope so

>>63873429
>instead of assuming there were more layers and blending
Yeah it is insane how that gets never brought up despite blending and layering having been fundamentals of painting since forever.

>>63873429
>It helps that they make the "reconstructions" look deliberately shitty to provoke a reaction instead of assuming there were more layers and blending than survived to the present era
Because they have exactly 0 evidence for any layers and blending.
Assuming things away is what gets you History Channel documentaries about aliens building the pyramids.
The reconstructions are always explicit in the fact they show ONLY things we are certain of. We are certain they were almost all painted and we know about these color layers. Anything beyond that is purely a matter of your own beliefs.
We don't have examples of Greco-Roman statues with preserved colors, we do have examples of both garish and realistic statues in later eras both in Europe and elsewhere.
What the Greeks or Romans did with them or how/if it differed as their preferences and fashion changed is hence an unknown.

>>63873381
vikings or celts in amerimutt historical fiction:
>I HATE luxuries! i only wear undyed coarse wool and animal furs because I'm so TOUGH. we ain't like you fancy southerners here, we love living in mud huts eating only porridge and mutton. EVERYTHING HERE IS BROWN AND DIRTY AND WE LOVE IT

celts or vikings in their own literature:
>he wore a fine soft silken tunic dyed red and blue and purple woolen trousers sewn with gold thread, he wore a silver diadem inlaid with gems like the night sky and his brooch was great and made of fine gold wire. on his hip he bore a sword whose hilt was inlaid with silver and ivory and mother of pearl. he invited his guests to share the finest wines imported from France and Italy which are esteemed in his land

Just shoot the chariots with archers. The horses aren't armored. Just shoot them. I don't get chariots how did this shit ever work out??

>>63873375
if you like airplanes and cute girls and can stomach 3dcgi you should watch her show, or at least the compilation movie
>>63873421
Yeah, they put a few replica sets on Greek Marines and they had a pretty good time.
I can only imagine that that must have been a super fun day at work for them; getting to play around in armour. They took some really cool photos too, of course

>>63878059
>he doesn't know
They were
but also, even a horse doesn't drop dead in a single hit

>>63878545
Speaking of marines, wouldn't ancient marines and landing troops prefer linothorax instead of bronze? After all, a laminated linen plate floats (or, at least, is neutrally buoyant), whereas bronze doesn't.

>>63878585
textile armors absorb water and get heavier, metal ones do not. Something to consider, if I were wanting to fight in armor and worried about falling out of a ship into deep water, my preference would be for armor I can get out of quickly.

>>63878585
Strictly speaking, we don't really know; but probably not.
If you could afford the nicest armour you'd wear it in battle. Obviously, if you had to swim you'd take it off first and just have to deal with that, but if you somehow managed to find yourself overboard you'd just have to hope to undo your straps as quickly as possible before you drowned.linothorax, if we are assuming it to be a quilted gambeson sort of thing, wouldn't have been especially easy to swim in either.
All that said, there is a pretty massive distance of time between 'linothorax' and this armour-- although you had bronze breastplates, greaves and helmets well into classic Greek ages along with hopilites, the Myceanean Bronze Ages, the era from which Greek bronze bell armour, predates that whole mode of warfare by quite a bit of time-- a whole civilization collapse happened between the time of bell armour and the classical hopiltes, so these things were not contemporary.
We have virtually no Greek narrative accounts from the era of the bell armour-- the great majority of written works we have what are basically warehouse lists and spreadsheets, so we know very little about how they actually conducted warfare and naval battles, so can't say "no they didn't use a lighter armour" for sure
Additionally, although they list a number of military goods including a variety of bronze armour types in those lists, linothorax was a word unknown to them-- Homer, who although describes the Myceanean period was writing about it 400 years later, after the Bronze age collapse, doesn't use the word either, the closest thing to it he mentions is calling Diomedes "linen-breasted" which could just mean he was wearing a linen tunic, and the first actual mention of linothorax comes from the 6th century BC iirc-- three hundred years after Homer, and seven after the time of the bronze bell armour.
pic related, a depiction of light armour contemporary to the time the bronze bell armour

>>63878585
>>63878895
Another thing to consider: We don't really have professional, especially trained Marines until the Romans, and those guys just worse what legionaries wore, and they didn't find it a big super big problem. Landing Troops would have just been regular soldiers riding around on ships. A lot of them could hopefully swim, but you really aren't opting to go into the water if you can help it, and you certainly aren't going for a long swim with your arms anyway-- a shield and a long spear are pretty out of the question, so any swims would have probably just been as an expedient measure in unusual circumstances
We don't have too many narratives of Greek naval commanders describing battles in detail the way we have guys like Xenethon describing the minutiae and events of land battles, but we do have some mentions of guys who were also admirals mentioning their fancy bronze breastplates and stuff from time to time, so I think they probably wore them during intense ship-to-ship action.

>>63878895
>so can't say "no they didn't use a lighter armour" for sure
Well, we can pretty much infer that they definitely used a lighter armor as well, since bell armor is mainly charioteer equipment. Hence mobility is mostly irrelevant, since that's the chariot's job.
The armor depicted on that krater is shorter, with pteruges (for extra mobility), closer to the typical image of an infantryman's kit.

>>63873386
Based
Underrated hero

>>63878953
Sorry for the confusion, I was speaking mostly to this distinction that a myceanean "naval" soldier wore different, special, lighter gear just because he expected to fight on ships, and that I think it his gear wouldn't have been too different from a regular, more land based soldiers-- and that because we don't have firsthand descriptions of either land or naval battles from this culture in this time period, we can't rule out anything.
And while Bell armour enjoyers would have almost certainly been chariot enthusiasts as well, being able to afford both, I would hesitate to just go ahead and call it mainly charioteer equipment for that same reason, even if it was likely-- its not like the bell armour is terrible for mobility on foot, at least according to the Greek marines who wore replicas, and we don't have depictions or descriptions of it being in particular use by charioteers in a way that indicates that it was especially necessary to use bell armour on a chariot, or that it was especially useful for a rider to have that extra protection-- I think it was more that if you could afford bell armour, you would have already been able to afford a decent chariot, and that you would opt to use them together where and when you could, given how useful both would be on the battlefield, and would therefore use them together. But anything on this, without a reliable historical source, is just speculation-- even in archeology, where we do have fragments of bell armour as funerary deposits, its not always, or even often accompanied by a chariot or chariot gear-- not that the presence of two things as grave goods means they were always used together, or vice versa of course, but we really just don't have enough information on warfare from that time to know.
What we really need to do is to get a bunch of guys in that armor on chariots and run them through a variety of test to get any insight into this
Pic related is Dendra tomb,

Actually, should probably give this a read
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11111059/

>>63872413
>bronze is pretty easy to recycle
This is actually an important thing topic to underline slightly. It is a fascinating subject how little we have to go by regarding most of history, as many societies were very frugal and/or used materials that either decayed or were recycled. I mean, they have left little trace for us to work by, compared to the more "generic" common conception of archeological remains. There's real mystery in them having only left hints of their larger whole behind them, signs of complex and advanced societies only trailed by non-recyclable and non-decomposing junk such as pottery shards, or inconspicuous (to the untrained eye) but significant alterations to their terrain, such as mounds, or anomalies in the very composition of the soil, like terra preta.
They must've been fascinating cultures. It's a shame they're kinda sidelined and disregarded in the popular imagination. I ought to read up on them more, to be frank.

>>63871868 (OP)
The same reason I have a bussy hunter patch next to my spanker patch. It's the drip, the rizz, the look, pizazz.

>>63872022
>mfw achilles finally comes out of his tent and bitch slaps the whole trojan army

>>63871868 (OP)
+10% headbutt damage and with 4 horns you can use your helmet as a cooking pot.

>>63879291
Yeah, there is a whole, massive category of ancient Greek statues which we only know ever existed because later Roman marble copies of them were made-- when times got tough, or when certain places were sacked the originals were melted down, but the marble ones survived largely because they couldn't be as easily repurposed.
All those old buildings used as stone quarries etc.
Couple that with the fact that a lot of things which actually require a lot of labour and artistry to make, such as textiles, don't survive when buried for too long, a lot has just been lost to the sands of time.
its why fabric, wooden, and vellum finds are so rare and precious
its why archeology is so interesting to me personally, its like collecting a whole lot of little clues to try an solve the big mystery

>>63877988
>their own literature
Celts straight up didn't have literature. They knew what writing was and didn't use it, on purpose. Vikings didn't either. It was the Christians who wrote shit down after the Viking era ended.

>>63878059
Chariots worked because they were used by 6'6" Hyperborean Aryans descending upon peace loving matriarchal farmers who had no idea what a horse was. They really stopped working when it was Indo-European groups fighting against eachother, and then we developed cavalry.

>>63880307
Didn't celts believe that writing was sacred, and only druids were allowed to do it? Or am I thinking about another group?

>>63878895
God I hate this slop. Why is it still ongoing?

>Homer never used the word
here is him using the exact word linothorax. Highlighted since you've never read Homer and can't read Greek.

Stop posting. Stop.

Here are all the lies you ate up:
>Linothorax isn't real
Wrong.
>Linothorax was never mentioned
It was by both Greek and Roman authors.
>We don't know what linothorax actually was
It is specifically and in no uncertain terms linen armor.
>We don't know what it looked like
It is indeed what we depict it as in the modern day.

This retarded youtube lead discourse started years ago and is still ongoing because illiterate morons keep regurgitating it.

>>63873446
I feel like shinguards come before arms and shoulders. Watching some of these slinger videos it looks like skipping giant rocks along the ground was common.

>>63880359
The Celts never recorded anything about their religion and appear to have had a taboo against writing in most cases. They did know how to write and could do it, they specifically chose not to. The druids are recorded as knowing Greek characters and using them for writing about non-religious things.

>>63880380
>the exact word "linothorax":
>the highlighted word linothorex
Is this not the term I mentioned earlier, which scholars have interpreted as Ajax being "linen-breasted"?
I know we are splitting hairs and being super pedantic about this, and that Homer was probably referring to the armour that we are more familiar with from the archaic and classical periods, but the facts are that Homer isn't history, and that this sort of armour is not actually corroborated in the archeological record of the Mycenaean period, no is it mentioned in unambiguous terms in Mycenaean era literary records.
This means that, even though we may wish Homer to infallible, and that chances are something like Linothorax was probably around, we do not know with 100% certainty that they used armor in that form in that time period. This is what I said in my post.
What I didn't say, was anything to the effect that
>Linothorax wasn't real
I never say anything to this effect
>Never ever mentioned
I wrote that the first proper direct mention comes from the 6ths century BC
>Don't actually know what it was
I never anywhere disputed that it was armour made out of linen, I only stated that as the details of its manufacture are attested-- I am unaware of any descriptions detailing the manufacturing process for it, and as we do not have the genuine article from the archeological record-- we cannot know its exact construction with absolute certainty, even if we can make educated guesses-- one of which I even mentioned, assuming it was of quilted construction like a sort of gambeson
>Don't know what it looked like
Again, something I never even mentioned. Its depicted on a lot of Greek art starting from the Archaic period onwards
I really appreciate that you brought in the at the actual Homeric Greek for this discussion, and am glad you did, but Anon you are complete fucking double-nigger for trying to put the words of whatever irrelevant gay swordtuber you have hate for into my mouth.

>>63880402
all body armor would come your big ass shield, so that mitigates things a lot.

>>63881855
Personally I'd prefer a big arm shield.

>>63881840
It is literally the word linothorax.

I am not reading the rest of your post.

>>63881868
>can't read posts
>has to make up strawmen
>is a reddit spacer
sasuga retard

>>63881953
>moron says Homer never used the term
>post Homer using the exact term
I don't care about the rest of you trying to be right when you're objectively and in no uncertain terms completely and totally wrong.

You have no idea what you're talking about and nothing you say is worth reading. So I refuse to read it.

>>63871868 (OP)
Because it looks sick.
>>63873446
Shins come before arms. Your shield can defend your thighs and arms, but your shins will be exposed with an aspis or scutum or really any shield. Sometimes people would just buy the left one because that's generally the only leg you'll need to defend in a battle.

>>63881970
>so I refuse to read it
You obviously did read it but are a coward, too embarrassed to give even the slightest acknowledgement you were wrong about the majority of the 'points' you made to an illiterate, secondary source-only moron such as myself.
How /k/ could ever go on without the noble scholarship and rigorous faggotry of our resident r/swordtube factchecker I will never know

So was the boar tusk helm just for drip and hunting prestige, or was this actually a decent functional bit of kit during late stone age/copper age that was just sort of carried over to the bronze age?
Is there religious significance?

You're all so fucking stupid holy shit

>>63872001
That isn't a hoplite, anon. But the answer is: all of them. If you owned a little land and wanted to vote, you needed a panoply so you could fight for your city. That was a legal requirement for demos-kratia.

>>63882437
According to reenactors who have made them, a boar's tusk helm will strike sparks off a modern steel sword. Yes, they're tough. They are also heavy as fucking hell. Bronze and iron helms are lighter, apparently.

>>63882485
Man this demos-kratia sounds like a cool form of governance, why have I never heard of it before?
I wonder what would happen if we gave this system a go in modern times!

>>63872367
The fantasy unit was based on that design.

>>63882511
>a boar's tusk helm will strike sparks off a modern steel sword
Holy shit if true. I wonder durable they are; I always thought they'd have enough flex to absorb some wear, given their construction and the material, but I wonder how much it would take to shatter a tusk or two.
>heavier than bronze and iron
Yeah, I can imagine
I've only ever held a couple of late medieval helmets, but actual fighting and non-jousting helms are always lighter than I imagined they'd be

>>63882414
>being this mad you spouted dumb shit you knew nothing about and were wrong
Glad you learned something, sorry learning makes you mad. Maybe if you were whiter this wouldn't happen.

>>63872028
This, every else since then has just been a desperate attempt to capitalize on Bronze Age Nostalgia
>>63882571
If I were any whiter I would undoubtedly have the ancestral blood-memory of the Danaans themselves, and be able prove you wrong, and my point correct through racial recollection alone
(Mycenaean Greeks looked like insular Celts btw)
Alas I suffer from the burden of having 1/16th EEF-derived potato-nigger blood, and will never join those immortals on Olympus/Valhalla

>>63872028
>>63882771
I see where the inspiration came from

>>63880307
>>63880359

Irish literature dates to the 6th century AD and a lot of the material is unadultered from pre-christian oral traditions. It's much more "pagan" than anything written about Norse mythology which was all thoroughly Christianized. Also the Gauls DID use writing but they only refused to write down their religious doctrines. But we unironically know more about Gaulish religion from this period than Germanic pagan religion. In Caesar's De Bello Gallico the Helveti compile census documents in their language in Greek letters, and the Romans have to write their messages in a different language because the Gauls can read Latin.

>>63883790
>It's much more "pagan" than anything written about Norse mythology which was all thoroughly Christianized.
For example the concepts of Valhalla and Ragnarok simply do not have parallels in other IE pagan religions and are only mentioned in a single text written by a Christian about 400 years after Christianization and both are obvious parallels to Christian paradise and revelation/apocalypse.
Most pagan IE religions thought you went to some shitty limbo forever unless your descendants worshipped you except the Gauls who are attested by contemporaries to have believed in reincarnation. The same text that describes Valhalla and Ragnarok also claims that Thor is the son of Memnon, the Homeric king of Ethiopia if you want to see how influenced the text is by Mediterranean & Judeo-Christian literature

>>63883819
Heaven and Hell are actually Indo-European concepts pioneered by Zoroastrianism, which the kikes shamelessly ripped off multiple times to come up with Judaism and later Christianity when Judaism wasn't Zoroastrian enough.

>>63871868 (OP)
Because it's tiresome everytime some dumbass says King William is dead

>>63878585
We don't even know what the linothorax is made out of. The name itself comes from one historian theorizing it's made of linen!

>>63872015
>archaeologists

>>63872007
Bronze is very valuable and eminently recyclable. I would wager most of it was melted down into newer forms of armor or statuary. Just like the Colossus, which, despite there only being one of, we all admit was real.

>>63885869
This is bait but I'll take it anyway.
>The name itself comes from one historian theorizing it's made of linen!
The name is literally a Greek word. Not a modern one. It's the exact word used by historical Greek authors. Pic related is Herodotus using the term. Linked post is Homer.
>>63880380

We know with absolute certainty the linothorax is what the Greeks called armor that was made of linen. We also know it was the armor depicted as being worn by Alexander the Great. We know what it was made of, what it looked like, and who used it. It is not modern terminology or made up assumptions.

Basically that slop you were fed by some retard on youtube is 100% wrong on all points and you're retarded.

>>63877985
It's obvious they were painted to a high standard though. It would had been pointless making high quality life-like statues if they were just going to obscure all that detail with a thick layer of paint. Hell, your argument doesn't even preclude ways of painting with only one pigment that produces differing saturation e.g. "inking". historians most certainly were not "certain" that they painted things in a single thick monochrome layer.

>>63873429
This, if they THINNED THEIR FUCKING PAINTS and added a bit of shading the statues would look a lot better. And I am 100% sure that the ancient greeks and romans knew their trade at least at the level of a fa/tg/uy or youtube makeup hoe.

>>63885940
So Homer says Ajax wore linen and you take it mean that he wore the distinctive hoplite outfit of classical Greece. Cool story bro.

>>63886356
>So Homer says Ajax
Wrong.
>Wore linen
Uses the exact term linothorax. Other authors use the exact same term to refer to the armor used by Alexander.

That does not mean that Ajax did in fact wear a linothorax, but it does mean Homer said he did. How you choose to cope with that is up to you. It does in no uncertain terms refer explicitly to armor made of linen.

>>63877985
We have examples of good colorations during the roman era in preserved art. Its kinda ridiculous to assume the same civilization that had artists that produced picrel would just slather on a few basecoats and call it a day.

>Wore linen
Uses the exact term linothorax. Other authors use the exact same term to refer to the armor used by Alexander.

That does not mean that Ajax did in fact wear a linothorax, but it does mean Homer said he did. How you choose to cope with that is up to you. It does in no uncertain terms refer explicitly to armor made of linen.

>>63886390
>exact term linothorax
You mean linen breasted?

>>63886392
Sure, if you take breasted to mean breastplate.

>>63886413
And who is to say the armour found on black figure pottery is the exact same armour that Ajax wore in form and shape? That stuff was obviously scaled or plate, it makes much more sense they were bronze.

>>63886461
No one. Homer wasn't there. He doesn't know. There's no cameras.

However, what we do know for certain is
>linen armor was commonly worn, soldiers are often described as wearing it
>linen armor was made of linen, it is specifically armor made of linen and no other materials are mentioned, they may have been used, but that is not stated
>linen armor was called linothorax and variations thereof, it is not a modern invented term

in short, literally all "well akshually" discourse surrounding the linothorax is wrong and is perpetuated by tards.

>>63880402
>>63882383
You're probably right for most people in antiquity
I think my mind went to the prevalence of padded jacks and maille later on, where protection of arms became a lot more common place, and shield coverage often went that way inclined
Similar reason as to why thighs got more coverage too I suppose, if was all part of the chest protection once maille was more common

>>63886500
Yeah, that's nice. A linen armor existed, but it wasn't the armor of the classical hoplite.