Perhaps there's an argument for entire naked units but I haven't seen anything convincing. This is backed up by the Chigi vase which decidedly does not show 'heroic' combat but two phalanxes battling it out. I'd personally go for the odd naked (not necessarily unarmoured) hoplite in a unit. If that was the case why would they portray their heroes heroically nude or compete nude in the Games? The whole 'naked equals slave' argument doesn't wash with me. The only problem most seem to have is a social one and I'd argue that, at least for some hoplites, this wasn't a problem at all. Would apply equally to unarmoured but clothed hoplites or any unarmoured close order troops. 'Fighting nude in a phalanx would be almost impossible, the scrum alone would leave the hoplite lascerated all over his body at best, with broken ribs at worst.' It's like being at a Rock festival in the Sixties and Seventies some naked people are walking around not all of them There is no practice of completely naked phalanxes described in any source that I have ever come across. This is probably the case the occaisional 'devoted' warrior who strips to inspire his phalanx mates. There are a couple of dudes who have decided to fight nekkid amongst armored and clothed friends and enemies . The other issue with regarding vase art as fact, is often in these pieces the enemy are Amazons, a fanciful opponent. Demosthenes actually went out of his way to promote Philip's barbarity by poinitng out that his scarred body described every city he had taken.Īlexander's youngest Companions took on this Homeric ideal as well and some apparently wore no armor in the early battles, apparently the effect wore off as the war went on :) Part of Philip II's revolution was taking cities, his soldiers weren't as fussy about losing eyes, and being disfigured by scars. This explains their poor ability to assualt and take cities as broken limbs, burns, and the chaotic wounds one suffers in a siege were a deterrent that's why they preferred to starve out opponents- a costly and long process. scars on the backside that one would wear in Elysium forever were awful. The Greeks were incredibly wary of scars, especially dishonorable ones . It's a symbolic representation of youth, beauty, freedom, and risk. This is the crux the vases show heroic nudity as an ideal. "All those vases can't be wrong"? Too true – I hear the Centaurs were a major factor in Hellenic warfare." Oh and please note the size of the shield "All those vases can't be wrong"? Too true – I hear the Centaurs were a major factor in Hellenic warfare. To judge their actions in a Judeo-Christian miasma does nobody any favours. I think there is an entirely misplaced obsession with "Greek Love" and the homosexuality of the ancients. A covering, even flimsy, tends to bolster the psyche. Exposing the meat and two veg to the elements makes most feel vulnerable. Males are and have always been extremely protective of their genitals. The rampant nudity is, I fear, more in the minds of Messrs Jarman and Vidal than actual practice. Glad he didn't wear that exomis today!" going on. I doubt there was much "Hey Nikomedes, check out the buns on old Xenophon. The idea of the Thebans or any other force gleefully prancing around in the raw is really ridiculous. However, that does not mean that you would go all "Nature boy". Obviously the greaves helmet and shield would protect you from the front hence the fact that, later on, they were often dispensed with as an encumberance. Public nudity away from the gymnasium (or as Mr JJ says, prebattle posturing) was not the "done thing" for a freeman.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |