| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
"The soldiers of the Old and Middle Kingdom wore no armour. In the Old Kingdom they are usually depicted wearing only a belt and a small triangular loincloth, and by the Middle Kingdom their costume was invariably the same short linen kilt as that worn by civilian workmen. [...] From the late Predynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian soldiers’ only bodily protection (apart from the occasional use of a band of webbing across the shoulders and chest) was supplied by long, roughly rectangular shields made of cowhide stretched over a wooden frame."
[1]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 32) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. |
||||||
|
"The soldiers of the Old and Middle Kingdom wore no armour. In the Old Kingdom they are usually depicted wearing only a belt and a small triangular loincloth, and by the Middle Kingdom their costume was invariably the same short linen kilt as that worn by civilian workmen. [...] From the late Predynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian soldiers’ only bodily protection (apart from the occasional use of a band of webbing across the shoulders and chest) was supplied by long, roughly rectangular shields made of cowhide stretched over a wooden frame."
[1]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 32) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. |
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No finds interpreted as armor or protection in fight.
|
||||||
|
Widespread use of armor seems to have developed alongside rise of large infantry forces only in Warring States period, 5th c. BCE.
[1]
[2]
[1]: (Dien 1981) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/F82EE9ZF. [2]: (Tin-bor Hui 2005) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/CSPZPNV5?. |
||||||
|
This is possible, but I have found no references to it.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups." The situation only changed "[l]ate in the first millennium AD".
[1]
Of course, wooden objects would not survive in the archaeological record.
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups." The situation only changed "[l]ate in the first millennium AD".
[1]
Of course, wooden objects would not survive in the archaeological record.
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
"The soldiers of the Old and Middle Kingdom wore no armour. In the Old Kingdom they are usually depicted wearing only a belt and a small triangular loincloth, and by the Middle Kingdom their costume was invariably the same short linen kilt as that worn by civilian workmen. [...] From the late Predynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian soldiers’ only bodily protection (apart from the occasional use of a band of webbing across the shoulders and chest) was supplied by long, roughly rectangular shields made of cowhide stretched over a wooden frame."
[1]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 32) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. |
||||||
|
not mentioned in any of the sources that deal with weapons and armor
|
||||||
|
not mentioned in any of the sources that deal with weapons and armor
|
||||||
|
Specifically with reference to body armor; shields were very likely made of wood at least some of the time, see below.
|
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups." The situation only changed "[l]ate in the first millennium AD".
[1]
Of course, wooden objects would not survive in the archaeological record.
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
There is little evidence for armor other than cotton armor and shields, as recorded by the Spanish at the end of this period.
[1]
[1]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups."
[1]
Of course, wooden objects would not survive in the archaeological record.
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
"Protection against weapons was still generally made of leather or thick felt, although the later second millennium saw growing use among those who could afford it of body armor made of overlapping copper or bronze platelets sewn onto the leather. It became more common in the first millennium, now made with iron rather than bronze scales."
[1]
[1]: (McIntosh 2005: 190) McIntosh, J. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KK2E3KMD. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"[T]he introduction of firearms and metal tipped weapons into native warfare forced the Iroquois to reconsider the way they approached combat. They discarded their wooden body armor and shields, which were only marginally effective against metal weapons and afforded no protection whatsoever against French guns. Moreover, continued use of wooden armor became impractical as Iroquois warriors learned to adapt their fighting style to the new weaponry. Shortly after the stunning debut of French firearms in the 1609 revolt of the Mohawks, Champlain recorded that the Iroquois had already learned to ’throw themselves on the ground when they hear the report’ of guns being fired. Wooden armor was too cumbersome for use in evolving Iroquois tactics, which also included hiding behind trees for protection until after the guns had fired. Armor and shields remained present in Iroquois society as teaching and protectice tools in the education of young warriors, but they no longer found a place in Iroquois wars."
[1]
[1]: (Barr 2006, 28) Barr, Daniel P. 2006. Unconquered: The Iroquois League at War in Colonial America. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/943RGM7A/itemKey/KA4QX6HF |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Early reports suggest that a type of wooden slatted armour made of tied rods was used by the Huron and Iroquois."
[1]
"[T]he introduction of firearms and metal tipped weapons into native warfare forced the Iroquois to reconsider the way they approached combat. They discarded their wooden body armor and shields, which were only marginally effective against metal weapons and afforded no protection whatsoever against French guns. Moreover, continued use of wooden armor became impractical as Iroquois warriors learned to adapt their fighting style to the new weaponry. Shortly after the stunning debut of French firearms in the 1609 revolt of the Mohawks, Champlain recorded that the Iroquois had already learned to ’throw themselves on the ground when they hear the report’ of guns being fired. Wooden armor was too cumbersome for use in evolving Iroquois tactics, which also included hiding behind trees for protection until after the guns had fired. Armor and shields remained present in Iroquois society as teaching and protectice tools in the education of young warriors, but they no longer found a place in Iroquois wars."
[2]
[1]: (Johnson and Hook 22-23) Johnson, Michael G., and Richard Hook. 1990. American Woodland Indians. Men-at-Arms. Osprey. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/943RGM7A/itemKey/X87SHFX7 [2]: (Barr 2006, 28) Barr, Daniel P. 2006. Unconquered: The Iroquois League at War in Colonial America. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/943RGM7A/itemKey/KA4QX6HF |
||||||
|
"Protection against weapons was still generally made of leather or thick felt, although the later second millennium saw growing use among those who could afford it of body armor made of overlapping copper or bronze platelets sewn onto the leather. It became more common in the first millennium, now made with iron rather than bronze scales."
[1]
[1]: (McIntosh 2005: 190) McIntosh, J. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KK2E3KMD. |
||||||
|
"Protection against weapons was still generally made of leather or thick felt, although the later second millennium saw growing use among those who could afford it of body armor made of overlapping copper or bronze platelets sewn onto the leather. It became more common in the first millennium, now made with iron rather than bronze scales."
[1]
[1]: (McIntosh 2005: 190) McIntosh, J. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KK2E3KMD. |
||||||
|
"Protection against weapons was still generally made of leather or thick felt, although the later second millennium saw growing use among those who could afford it of body armor made of overlapping copper or bronze platelets sewn onto the leather. It became more common in the first millennium, now made with iron rather than bronze scales."
[1]
[1]: (McIntosh 2005: 190) McIntosh, J. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KK2E3KMD. |
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups."
[1]
Of course, wooden objects would not survive in the archaeological record.
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Barkcloth was considered a simple dress with hunting and ceremonial functions, but the sources establish no connection between bark and military clothing: ’Barkcloth was cheap, ‘the garb of the poorest slave in the realm’, and as recently as the 1920s it was used by hunters who wear old, cheap clothes as they are quickly soiled and torn by the thorny creepers and branches in the forest, the damp earth and the constant dripping from leaves. Barkcloth was also worn by the Asantehene during part of the Odwira festival. Here it was worn to contrast with the elaborate cloth robes worn in the rest of the ceremony, to give this part an archaic character and to show the King’s position in relation to the crucial yam crop.’
[1]
[1]: McLeod, M. D. (Malcolm D.) 1981. “Asante”, 149 |
||||||
|
Barkcloth was considered a simple dress with hunting and ceremonial functions, but the sources establish no connection between bark and armour: ’Barkcloth was cheap, ‘the garb of the poorest slave in the realm’, and as recently as the 1920s it was used by hunters who wear old, cheap clothes as they are quickly soiled and torn by the thorny creepers and branches in the forest, the damp earth and the constant dripping from leaves. Barkcloth was also worn by the Asantehene during part of the Odwira festival. Here it was worn to contrast with the elaborate cloth robes worn in the rest of the ceremony, to give this part an archaic character and to show the King’s position in relation to the crucial yam crop.’
[1]
[1]: McLeod, M. D. (Malcolm D.) 1981. “Asante”, 149 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"The soldiers of the Old and Middle Kingdom wore no armour. In the Old Kingdom they are usually depicted wearing only a belt and a small triangular loincloth, and by the Middle Kingdom their costume was invariably the same short linen kilt as that worn by civilian workmen. [...] From the late Predynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian soldiers’ only bodily protection (apart from the occasional use of a band of webbing across the shoulders and chest) was supplied by long, roughly rectangular shields made of cowhide stretched over a wooden frame."
[1]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 32) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. |
||||||
|
"The soldiers of the Old and Middle Kingdom wore no armour. In the Old Kingdom they are usually depicted wearing only a belt and a small triangular loincloth, and by the Middle Kingdom their costume was invariably the same short linen kilt as that worn by civilian workmen. [...] From the late Predynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian soldiers’ only bodily protection (apart from the occasional use of a band of webbing across the shoulders and chest) was supplied by long, roughly rectangular shields made of cowhide stretched over a wooden frame."
[1]
Parrying stick.
[2]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 32) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. [2]: (Hoffmeier 2001) |
||||||
|
"The soldiers of the Old and Middle Kingdom wore no armour. In the Old Kingdom they are usually depicted wearing only a belt and a small triangular loincloth, and by the Middle Kingdom their costume was invariably the same short linen kilt as that worn by civilian workmen. [...] From the late Predynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian soldiers’ only bodily protection (apart from the occasional use of a band of webbing across the shoulders and chest) was supplied by long, roughly rectangular shields made of cowhide stretched over a wooden frame."
[1]
Parrying stick.
[2]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 32) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. [2]: (Hoffmeier 2001) |
||||||
|
"Body armour, in the form of small bronze plates riveted to linen or leather jerkins, was introduced by the early New Kingdom".
[1]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 42) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. |
||||||
|
"From the late Predynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian soldiers’ only bodily protection (apart from the occasional use of a band of webbing across the shoulders and chest) was supplied by long, roughly rectangular shields made of cowhide stretched over a wooden frame."
[1]
[1]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 32) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. |
||||||
|
"From the late Predynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian soldiers’ only bodily protection (apart from the occasional use of a band of webbing across the shoulders and chest) was supplied by long, roughly rectangular shields made of cowhide stretched over a wooden frame."
[1]
[1]
[1]: (Shaw 1991: 32) Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7J8H86XF. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"The foreign service helmet was introduced in 1877. Made of cork covered in khaki cloth, it was usually worn with the curtain or neck protector. The tunic was also of khaki cloth ... Trousers were of the same material and were worn with puttees."
[1]
[1]: Christopher Wilkinson-Latham. 1977. The Boar War. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Present in preceding and succeeding polities.
|
||||||
|
Were in use in the Han dynasty
|
||||||
|
Wood used as armour, e.g. for shields, unlikely to have been preserved.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
In use in earlier polities
|
||||||
|
present in previous polities
|
||||||
|
Wood used as armour, e.g. for shields, unlikely to have been preserved.
|
||||||
|
Poor men used as infantry carried shield and spear.
[1]
ET: Presumably this shield would have to have been made out of wood?
[1]: (Hooper and Bennett 1996, 13) Nicholas Hooper. Matthew Bennett. 1996. The Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare: The Middle Ages, 768-1487. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Only used in shields, however.
|
||||||
|
Present in previous and subsequent polities.
|
||||||
|
No evidence has survived for obvious reasons but the presence of shields strongly suggests the use of wood.
|
||||||
|
Shields
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Present in preceding and succeeding polities.
|
||||||
|
’[...] protection, along with rainfall, is the sine qua non of peasant society: protection from enemies, from rival overlords, from the forces of nature. In recognition of this necessity, overlords in the time of Funan and throughout Cambodian history often included in their reign-names the suffix varman (originally "armour", hence, "protection").’
[1]
[1]: (Chandler 2008, 23) |
||||||
|
needs expert verification
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
e.g. for shields.
[1]
From the late seventeenth century all armies in the region used varying amounts of personal protection. The infantry were armed with swords, spears and matchlocks, whereas the cavalry was equipped with steel Armour and steel armour. Plate was increasingly replaced with chain-mail and armoured helmets and was available for purchase of as booty. Poorer tribesmen would have been armored with looted materials or the cloth turbans and clothes on their backs.
[2]
[1]: Roy, Kaushik. War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849. Taylor & Francis, 2011. pp. 30-35 [2]: Roy, Kaushik. War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849. Taylor & Francis, 2011. p. |
||||||
|
Inferred as the Bactrian Greeks were equipped in the tradition of the Macedonians. ’
[1]
The Indo-Greeks wore the muscled breastplate typical of Greek armament and made of metal scales and stripped with leather. The pasturage and access to the steppe horses provided sturdy mounts. There is also evidence that the horses were armored in iron in the central Asian fashion, at least in the initial period when the Indo-Greeks had access to the Bactrian Greek trade networks.
[2]
The degree that innovations from either the East or the West affected the equipment of the armies of the Indo-greeks is unknown.
[3]
[1]: Sekunda, Nick. The army of Alexander the Great. [2]: Docherty, Paddy. The Khyber Pass: a history of empire and invasion. Union Square Press, 2008. pp.64 [3]: N. Sekunda: Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC. Vol. 1: The Seleucid Army under Antiochus IV Epiphanes., Stockport: Montvert, 1994. |
||||||
|
"Even with strong crossbows that shoot far, and long halberds that hit at a distance, the Hsiung-nu would not be able to ward them off. If the armors are sturdy and the weapons sharp, if the repetition crossbows shot far, and the platoons advance together, the Hsiung-nu will not be able to withstand. If specially trained troops are quick to release (their bows) and the arrows in a single stream hit the target together, then the leather outfit and wooden shields of the Hsiung-nu will not be able to protect them. If they dismount and fight on foot, when swords and halberds clash as [the soldiers] come into close quarters, the Hsiung-nu, who lack infantry training, will not be able to cope."
[1]
[1]: Nicola Di Cosmo. 2002. Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, p. 203 |
||||||
|
Presumably used for shields?
|
||||||
|
"The bark of white poplar ... was highly prized as a covering for shields."
[1]
"The Tatar foot-soldier carried a bow, an axe, a dagger, a sabre and a small round shield, wooden with an iron rim"
[2]
[1]: (Marozzi 2004, 67) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. [2]: (Marozzi 2004, 100) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. |
||||||
|
Probably for shields?
|
||||||
|
Coded present due to the following in contemporary Chinese sources, which are relevant for gaining insight on the weapons and armor of Steppe Nomads: "Even with strong crossbows that shoot far, and long halberds that hit at a distance, the Hsiung-nu would not be able to ward them off. If the armors are sturdy and the weapons sharp, if the repetition crossbows shot far, and the platoons advance together, the Hsiung-nu will not be able to withstand. If specially trained troops are quick to release (their bows) and the arrows in a single stream hit the target together, then the leather outfit and wooden shields of the Hsiung-nu will not be able to protect them. If they dismount and fight on foot, when swords and halberds clash as [the soldiers] come into close quarters, the Hsiung-nu, who lack infantry training, will not be able to cope."
[1]
[1]: Nicola Di Cosmo. 2002. Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, p. 203 |
||||||
|
given the wide array of offensive weapons it would be surprising if nothing had evolved to counter them. for example, shields and helmets to absorb the blow of crushing weapons like the mace and battle-axe. we would expect the earliest defenses to not have been made of metal and so unlikely to have been preserved.
|
||||||
|
Given the wide array of offensive weapons it would be surprising if nothing had evolved to counter them. for example, shields and helmets to absorb the blow of crushing weapons like the mace and battle-axe. We would expect the earliest defenses to not have been made of metal and so unlikely to have been preserved.
|
||||||
|
inferred from previous use in China
|
||||||
|
Part-time urban militia men often used wooden buckler shields.
[1]
From about 1380 CE shield abandoned.
[2]
[1]: (Nicolle 2000, 15) David Nicolle. 2000. French Armies Of The Hundred Years War. Osprey Publishing. Oxford. [2]: (Boulton 1995, 124-127) W W Kibler. G A Zinn. 1995. Medieval France: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. |
||||||
|
Given the wide array of offensive weapons it would be surprising if nothing had evolved to counter them. for example, shields and helmets to absorb the blow of crushing weapons like the mace and battle-axe. We would expect the earliest defenses to not have been made of metal and so unlikely to have been preserved.
|
||||||
|
Some ethnographers report wooden and leather shields: ’The warriors are armed with shield and lances and lately with large forest knives. The circular shield, carved out of a single piece of soft and light wood, is about half as high as a man; the lance, made out of a thin, hard palm shaft (chonta) provided with a tip made out of bone or iron, is six to seven feet long or more.’
[1]
[1]: Reiss, W. (Wilhelm). 1880. “Visit Among The Jivaro Indians.", 13 |
||||||
|
The warriors are armed with shield and lances and lately with large forest knives. The circular shield, carved out of a single piece of soft and light wood, is about half as high as a man; the lance, made out of a thin, hard palm shaft (chonta) provided with a tip made out of bone or iron, is six to seven feet long or more.
[1]
[1]: Reiss, W. (Wilhelm). 1880. “Visit Among The Jivaro Indians.", 13 |
||||||
|
Poor men used as infantry carried shield and spear.
[1]
ET: Presumably this shield would have to have been made out of wood?
[1]: (Hooper and Bennett 1996, 13) Nicholas Hooper. Matthew Bennett. 1996. The Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare: The Middle Ages, 768-1487. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
For Abbasid Caliphate: Used for shields.
[1]
Reconstructing the exact military equipment of Muslim armies during the Abbasid Caliphate is problematic due to lack of artefactural evidence. As such, sources are primarily literary and focus largely on notable equipment of unusual rarity or value. In Muslim armies, a full equipage was rare, and body armour even more so. Coats of mail was available to the Caliphate armies, but only to a small number of elite military members. Besides mail there is some evidence of lamellar leggings and breastplates. Helmets and shields were more widely available. Shields were smaller than their European counterparts and made of leather and wood.
[1]: Kennedy, the Armies of the Caliphs pp. 168-178 |
||||||
|
Wooden shields
[1]
[1]: (Pemberton 2011, preview) Pemberton, John. 2011. Conquistadors: Searching for El Dorado: The Terrifying Spanish Conquest of the Aztec and Inca Empires. Canary Press eBooks Limited. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/3SI549GS |
||||||
|
Medieval armour was much like that worn by Germanic warriors in 100 CE still consisting of a shield, helmet and coat.
[1]
[1]: (Boulton 1995 67-68) Jonathan D Boulton. Armor And Weapons. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. 1995. Routledge Revivals: Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Routledge. Abingdon. |
||||||
|
Medieval armour was much like that worn by Germanic warriors in 100 CE still consisting of a shield, helmet and coat.
[1]
[1]: (Boulton 1995 67-68) Jonathan D Boulton. Armor And Weapons. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. 1995. Routledge Revivals: Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Routledge. Abingdon. |
||||||
|
According to one military historian (this data needs to be confirmed by a polity specialist): Mauryan infantry used a long narrow shield of raw oxhide over a wooden or wicker frame.
[1]
Inferred from continuity with Mauryan polity .
[2]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 219) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies Of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. [2]: (Roy 2016, 19) Kaushik Roy. 2016. Military Manpower, Armies and Warfare in South Asia. Routledge. Abingdon. |
||||||
|
According to the Chinese Nan chou i wu chih (A Record of Strange Things in the Southern Regions) written about 222-228 CE a volcanic country called ’Ge-ying’ (thought to be western Java) traded with the Malay Peninsula and imported horses from India. They were used by warriors.
[1]
It is likely they had some basic armour. Dewawarman I may have founded Salakanagara in west West Java 130 CE. He followed Aji Saka who may have introduced ’Buddhism, letters, calendar, etc.’) into Central and East Java 78 CE.
[2]
Indian military terms surviving in Javanese: "war, weapon, sword, lance, armour, shield, helmet, banner, battle, siege, fortress, soldier, officer, enemy, spy, etc."
[3]
[1]: (Miksic and Goh 2017, 215) John Norman Miksic. Geok Yian Goh. Routledge. 2017. Ancient Southeast Asia. London. p. 215 [2]: (Iguchi 2015) Masatoshi Iguchi. 2015. Java Essay: The History and Culture of a Southern Country. Troubador Publishing Ltd. [3]: (Kumara 2007, 161) Sasiprabha Kumara. 2007. Sanskrit Across Cultures. Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
inferred continuity with previous polities in region
|
||||||
|
The Borobudur reliefs depict armour but do not specify which kinds.
[1]
Old Mataram was a ’highly Indianized culture’ until it was replaced by an East Javanese one "that increasingly promoted various elements of the island’s older indigenous traditions."
[2]
Indian military terms surviving in Javanese include ’armour, shield, helmet’.
[3]
[1]: (Draeger 1972, 23) D F Draeger. 1972. Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia. Tuttle Publishing. [2]: (Unesco 2005, 233) Unesco. 2005. The Restoration of Borobudur. Unesco. [3]: (Kumara 2007, 161) Sasiprabha Kumara. 2007. Sanskrit Across Cultures. Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
"After the formation of the Majapahit Dynasty, however, weapons and warfare underwent significant changes. The military dress completely evolved from the Indian to the East Javanese fashion."
[1]
Indian military terms surviving in Javanese include ’armour, shield, helmet’.
[2]
The Borobudur reliefs depicted armour but do not specify which kinds.
[3]
[1]: (Powell 2002, 325) John Powell. 2002. Weapons & Warfare: Ancient and medieval weapons and warfare (to 1500). Salem Press. [2]: (Kumara 2007, 161) Sasiprabha Kumara. 2007. Sanskrit Across Cultures. Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. New Delhi. [3]: (Draeger 1972, 23) D F Draeger. 1972. Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia. Tuttle Publishing. |
||||||
|
Based on the fact that the Borobudur reliefs depict armour but do not specify which kinds.
[1]
Old Mataram was a ’highly Indianized culture’ until it was replaced by an East Javanese one "that increasingly promoted various elements of the island’s older indigenous traditions."
[2]
Indian military terms surviving in Javanese include ’armour, shield, helmet’.
[3]
[1]: (Draeger 1972, 23) D F Draeger. 1972. Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia. Tuttle Publishing. [2]: (Unesco 2005, 233) Unesco. 2005. The Restoration of Borobudur. Unesco. [3]: (Kumara 2007, 161) Sasiprabha Kumara. 2007. Sanskrit Across Cultures. Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
"On a pillar of the Amravati Tope, 300 years later than that at Sanchi, is portrayed the scene thus described. ... In Pl. LXIX. of the same work are represented men bearing narrow oblong shields apparently of wicker-work."
[1]
300 years later than the Bhilsa Tope monuments so possibly referring to 200 CE. According to a military historian (needs confirmation from a polity specialist) the earlier Maurayans carried shields made of raw oxhide stretched over a wood or wicker frame.
[2]
[1]: (Egerton 2002, 13) Wilbraham Egerton. 2002 (1880). Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour. Dover Publications, Inc. Mineola. [2]: (Gabriel 2002, 219) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group. |
||||||
|
Shields were made of bark or leather: ‘The walls and ceiling are hung with the family’s possessions - baskets, tools, cooking and eating utensils - and two or three bamboo poles suspended from ropes serve as racks to hold the family’s spare clothes and blankets when these are not in use. Pots containing threshed rice and other staples line one wall to the front, and pots of brewing rice beer stand at the back. Several low stools may be arranged around the wall, pushed out of the way when not in use. At least one old headhunting mil’am (sword) is stuck into the back wall of every house, and one or more shields may lean against the wall below the sword.’
[1]
‘The Garos have two kinds of shield. The sepi is made entirely of wood, or of flat lengths of wood bound together and covered with very thin strips of cane or bamboo, while the danil is made of bearskin or cowhide stretched on a wooden frame. Both kinds are of the same shape and size. They are about 3 feet long by 18 inches broad, roughly oblong, but with slightly concave sides, and with a gentle curve backwards over the hand. They are fitted with handles made of cane.’
[2]
[1]: Marak, Llewellyn R. 1995. “Arts, Architecture And Wood Carving”, 138 [2]: Playfair, Alan 1909. “Garos”, 32 |
||||||
|
A military historian states that the Maurayans carried shields made of raw oxhide stretched over a wood or wicker frame
[1]
- do Maurayan specialists agree? The Vakatakas were likely no less advanced in terms of their military technology.
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 219) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group. |
||||||
|
"In the seventh century the Arab Caliphate overran the Sāssānian Empire and, as far as we can tell, no great changes took place in the Persian equipment then or for a long time afterwards."
[1]
Used for shields by the preceding Abbasids
[2]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. [2]: Kennedy, the Armies of the Caliphs pp. 168-178 |
||||||
|
Reference for pre-colonial West Africa: at least until the introduction of firearms cavalry and infantry used shields which could be made from "hide, wood, and basketwork" and sometimes also covered in copper plate (Gold Coast region).
[1]
[1]: (Smith 1989, 79) Robert Sydney Smith. 1989. Warfare & Diplomacy in Pre-colonial West Africa. Second Edition. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison. |
||||||
|
Rhomboid wicker shield.
[1]
Wicker targes.
[2]
"From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[2]
[1]: (Farrokh 2007, 76) Farrokh, K. 2007. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. Osprey Publishing. [2]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
"In the seventh century the Arab Caliphate overran the Sāssānian Empire and, as far as we can tell, no great changes took place in the Persian equipment then or for a long time afterwards."
[1]
Used for shields by the preceding Abbasids
[2]
and the Buyids used shields.
[3]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. [2]: Kennedy, the Armies of the Caliphs pp. 168-178 [3]: Busse, H. 1975. Iran under the Būyids. In Frye, R. N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 4. The period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuq’s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.251 |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
’For personal defence, there were two kinds of shields: round ones ornamented with vegetal or flower motifs, and long ones ornamented on the top border. The latter could be grouped together to form a kind of rampart. Both were probably of wood and hide, with metal plaques. Although most warriors wore only a kind of short-sleeved jacket (sometimes resembling the quilted ’armour’ in use in Mesoamerica), many were protected by a cylindrical cuirass, often with one or two knives lashed over it for close combat.’
[1]
’The warrior could always extend his buckler with an addition (Fig 8.3) which might have been made of finely-woven rattan, as is clearly seen in type 10.’
[2]
[1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 185-186) [2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2007, p. 17) |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
Reference for pre-colonial West Africa: at least until the introduction of firearms cavalry and infantry used shields which could be made from "hide, wood, and basketwork" and sometimes also covered in copper plate (Gold Coast region).
[1]
[1]: (Smith 1989, 79) Robert Sydney Smith. 1989. Warfare & Diplomacy in Pre-colonial West Africa. Second Edition. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison. |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
Wooden shield - perhaps mercenaries.
|
||||||
|
Their archers “wore little if any armor”.
[1]
"The dearth of illustrative material for the greater part of six centuries is largely due to the wanton destruction caused by two savage invasions from the east and only such finds as the stucco figures from Kara-shar [Central Asian warrior, eighth to tenth century] tell us that in all this period there had been little change."
[2]
"... a fragment of a leather-covered circular wooden shield has survived, bearing a painting of a mounted warrior. This was found in the ruins of the castle of Mug, east of Samarkand, and with it were many documents dating the destruction of the place to the eighth century - when the Persian prince who held it rebelled against the local Arab ruler."
[2]
[1]: Başan, Aziz. The Great Seljuqs: A History. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010, p.161 [2]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
Almost certainly could be coded present if there is evidence the polity used the shield. At this time it is unlikely the warriors went into battle completely unarmoured. The Archaemenids used cane: "From ancient times the peoples of Persia favoured a light, tough shield made of withies or cane. As remarked on at the beginning of this chapter, Herodotus describes the soldiers of Xerxes who carry targes of wicker. Large and deeply convex shields built up of concentric rings of cane or withies are carried by the Sacae (Scythian) guards in the reliefs from the great staircase of the Achaemenid, from the Palace of Persepolis, now in the Berlin Museum. All but the caps of these guards are in the Persian fashion. The large shields are not those of nomadic horsemen, but are a foot soldier’s defence."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
"The dearth of illustrative material for the greater part of six centuries is largely due to the wanton destruction caused by two savage invasions from the east and only such finds as the stucco figures from Kara-shar [Central Asian warrior, eighth to tenth century] tell us that in all this period there had been little change."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
’For personal defence, there were two kinds of shields: round ones ornamented with vegetal or flower motifs, and long ones ornamented on the top border. The latter could be grouped together to form a kind of rampart. Both were probably of wood and hide, with metal plaques. Although most warriors wore only a kind of short-sleeved jacket (sometimes resembling the quilted ’armour’ in use in Mesoamerica), many were protected by a cylindrical cuirass, often with one or two knives lashed over it for close combat.’
[1]
’The warrior could always extend his buckler with an addition (Fig 8.3) which might have been made of finely-woven rattan, as is clearly seen in type 10.’
[2]
[1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 185-186) [2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2007, p. 17) |
||||||
|
’For personal defence, there were two kinds of shields: round ones ornamented with vegetal or flower motifs, and long ones ornamented on the top border. The latter could be grouped together to form a kind of rampart. Both were probably of wood and hide, with metal plaques. Although most warriors wore only a kind of short-sleeved jacket (sometimes resembling the quilted ’armour’ in use in Mesoamerica), many were protected by a cylindrical cuirass, often with one or two knives lashed over it for close combat.’
[1]
’The warrior could always extend his buckler with an addition (Fig 8.3) which might have been made of finely-woven rattan, as is clearly seen in type 10.’
[2]
[1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 185-186) [2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2007, p. 17) |
||||||
|
’For personal defence, there were two kinds of shields: round ones ornamented with vegetal or flower motifs, and long ones ornamented on the top border. The latter could be grouped together to form a kind of rampart. Both were probably of wood and hide, with metal plaques. Although most warriors wore only a kind of short-sleeved jacket (sometimes resembling the quilted ’armour’ in use in Mesoamerica), many were protected by a cylindrical cuirass, often with one or two knives lashed over it for close combat.’
[1]
’The warrior could always extend his buckler with an addition (Fig 8.3) which might have been made of finely-woven rattan, as is clearly seen in type 10.’
[2]
[1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 185-186) [2]: (Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2007, p. 17) |
||||||
|
’[...] protection, along with rainfall, is the sine qua non of peasant society: protection from enemies, from rival overlords, from the forces of nature. In recognition of this necessity, overlords in the time of Funan and throughout Cambodian history often included in their reign-names the suffix varman (originally "armour", hence, "protection").’
[1]
[1]: (Chandler 2008, p. 23) |
||||||
|
’[...] protection, along with rainfall, is the sine qua non of peasant society: protection from enemies, from rival overlords, from the forces of nature. In recognition of this necessity, overlords in the time of Funan and throughout Cambodian history often included in their reign-names the suffix varman (originally "armour", hence, "protection").’
[1]
[1]: (Chandler 2008, p. 23) |
||||||
|
The last Yuan emperor Toghon Temur returned to Mongolia and established the capital of his new Mongol state ("which extended from Manchuria to Kyrgystan") at Karakorum. At that time the MilTech codes would be the same as for the preceding Yuan China. Over the next decades the state lost territory and there was civil war at the start of the 15th century although in 1409 CE they still managed to rout a very large invading Ming army. The Ming attacked again but the Mongols were not conquered. Under an Oirat noble called Esen (1440-1455 CE) they invaded China in 1449 CE with 20,000 cavalry and captured the Ming emperor. In 1451 CE Esen overthrew the Mongol Khan but he wasn’t a direct descendent of Genghis Khan and was killed during a 1455 CE rebellion. His rule was followed by minor Khans who ruled a Mongolia in which the Khalkhas were one of three ’left-flank’ tumens (in addition to Chahars and Uriangqais). The state also had ’right-flank’ tumens (Ordos, Tumeds, Yunshebus) and the Oirats of western Mongolia. "These 6 tumens were major administrative units, often called ulus tumens (princedoms), comprising the 40 lesser tumens of the military-administrative type inherited from the Yuan period, each of which was reputedly composed of 10,000 cavalry troops ..."
[1]
The narrative suggests at least for 1400 CE and 1500 CE the army was cavalry based and in continuity with the preceding Yuan. The Yuan Dynasty is coded present for this armour.
[1]: (Ishjamts 2003, 208-211) N Ishjamts. 2003. The Mongols. Chahryar Adle. Irfan Habib. Karl M Baipakov. eds. History Of Civilizations Of Central Asia. Volume V. Development in contrast: from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century. UNESCO Publishing. Paris. |
||||||
|
Coded present due to the following in contemporary Chinese sources: "Even with strong crossbows that shoot far, and long halberds that hit at a distance, the Hsiung-nu would not be able to ward them off. If the armors are sturdy and the weapons sharp, if the repetition crossbows shot far, and the platoons advance together, the Hsiung-nu will not be able to withstand. If specially trained troops are quick to release (their bows) and the arrows in a single stream hit the target together, then the leather outfit and wooden shields of the Hsiung-nu will not be able to protect them. If they dismount and fight on foot, when swords and halberds clash as [the soldiers] come into close quarters, the Hsiung-nu, who lack infantry training, will not be able to cope."
[1]
[1]: Nicola Di Cosmo. 2002. Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, p. 203 |
||||||
|
Warriors protected their bodies with wooden shields: ’The Shield. The shield (beha or pere) is made of light wood, about ½ inch thick, strongly bound with narrow strips of cane to prevent splitting. The handle is a loop of stout rattan which passes through the wood. The shape of the shield-square cut above and pointed below-caused early observers to refer to it very appropriately as ‘Gothic’. It sometimes bears a device-in no manner heraldic but purely decorative-made by interlacing black strands among the yellow cane binding strips; and when this is well done the effect may be artistic and even dainty (Plate XIX)... Shields are used very adroitly in turning or intercepting missiles, and a broken spear-point buried in the wood is regarded as a trophy. Despite the fact that their serious use is over they are still very commonly kept in readiness-at least by the Aiga-and they always make a fracas possible. Like most other men the Orokaiva has no stomach for the plain spear, and he enjoys his inter-tribal brawl much more when he has a beha in his hand.’
[1]
[1]: Williams, F. E. (Francis Edgar), and Hubert Murray. 1930. “Orokaiva Society.”, 84 |
||||||
|
[NB: only in shields.] The Shield. The shield (beha or pere) is made of light wood, about ½ inch thick, strongly bound with narrow strips of cane to prevent splitting. The handle is a loop of stout rattan which passes through the wood. The shape of the shield-square cut above and pointed below-caused early observers to refer to it very appropriately as ‘Gothic’. It sometimes bears a device-in no manner heraldic but purely decorative-made by interlacing black strands among the yellow cane binding strips; and when this is well done the effect may be artistic and even dainty (Plate XIX)... Shields are used very adroitly in turning or intercepting missiles, and a broken spear-point buried in the wood is regarded as a trophy. Despite the fact that their serious use is over they are still very commonly kept in readiness-at least by the Aiga-and they always make a fracas possible. Like most other men the Orokaiva has no stomach for the plain spear, and he enjoys his inter-tribal brawl much more when he has a beha in his hand.
[1]
[1]: Williams, F. E. (Francis Edgar), and Hubert Murray. 1930. “Orokaiva Society.”, 84 |
||||||
|
The Indo-Greeks wore the muscles breastplate typical of Greek armament, made of metal scales and stripped with leather. The pasturage and access to the steppe horses provided sturdy mounts. There is also evidence that the horses were armored in iron in the central Asian fashion, at least in the initial period when the Indo-Greeks had access to the Bactrian-Greek trade networks.
[1]
The degree to which innovations from either the East or the West affected the equipment of the armies of the Indo-greeks is unknown.
[2]
[1]: Docherty, Paddy. The Khyber Pass: a history of empire and invasion. Union Square Press, 2008. pp.64 [2]: N. Sekunda: Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC. Vol. 1: The Seleucid Army under Antiochus IV Epiphanes., Stockport: Montvert, 1994. |
||||||
|
"The bark of white poplar ... was highly prized as a covering for shields."
[1]
"The Tatar foot-soldier carried a bow, an axe, a dagger, a sabre and a small round shield, wooden with an iron rim"
[2]
[1]: (Marozzi 2004, 67) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. [2]: (Marozzi 2004, 100) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. |
||||||
|
Used for shields.
[1]
Reconstructing the exact military equipment of Muslim armies during the period is problematic due to lack of artefactual evidence. As such, sources are scarce. In Muslim armies, a full equipage was rare, and body Armour even more so. Coats of mail was available to the Caliphate armies, but only to a small number of elite military members. Besides mail there is some evidence of lamellar leggings and breastplates. Helmets and shields were more widely available. Shields were smaller than their European counterparts and made of leather and wood. After the Sind gained independence, local resources resulted in less protective clothing. The usual equipment of a foot solider may have been as simple as a spear and cloth clothing.
[1]: Kennedy, the Armies of the Caliphs pp. 168-178 |
||||||
|
e.g. used for shields.
[1]
Reconstructing the exact military equipment of the Samma dynasty is problematic as there is very little evidence available. The Sind had reliable sources of iron and horses, but seemed to have largely avoided the major conquest affecting their neighbors. The usual equipment of a foot solider may have been as simple as a spear and cloth clothing. As such, the coding below is based on earlier access to equipment and the weapons available to there neighbors. The Gujarat armies are likely to have been the most comparable.
[1]: Kennedy, the Armies of the Caliphs pp. 168-178 |
||||||
|
Sources only mention shields
[1]
. It should be noted that sources that specifically describe the way the Illinois Confederation waged war are relatively rare. Shields made using some wood? 1000-1650 CE period but may not apply in Cahokia region: "Braves of some of eastern North American Indian nations wore wooden armor that worked well enough against arrows ... This wooden armor was quickly abandoned, along with the bows and arrows, once firearms were widely adopted in the 17th century."
[2]
[1]: Illinois State Museum, The Illinois, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/te_houses.html [2]: (Nolan 2006, 27) Cathal J Nolan. 2006. The Age of Wars of Religion, 1000-1650: An Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization. Volume 1 A - K. Greenwood Press. Westport. |
||||||
|
"Early reports suggest that a type of wooden slatted armour made of tied rods was used by the Huron and Iroquois."
[1]
"[T]he introduction of firearms and metal tipped weapons into native warfare forced the Iroquois to reconsider the way they approached combat. They discarded their wooden body armor and shields, which were only marginally effective against metal weapons and afforded no protection whatsoever against French guns. Moreover, continued use of wooden armor became impractical as Iroquois warriors learned to adapt their fighting style to the new weaponry. Shortly after the stunning debut of French firearms in the 1609 revolt of the Mohawks, Champlain recorded that the Iroquois had already learned to ’throw themselves on the ground when they hear the report’ of guns being fired. Wooden armor was too cumbersome for use in evolving Iroquois tactics, which also included hiding behind trees for protection until after the guns had fired. Armor and shields remained present in Iroquois society as teaching and protectice tools in the education of young warriors, but they no longer found a place in Iroquois wars."
[2]
[1]: (Johnson and Hook 22-23) Johnson, Michael G., and Richard Hook. 1990. American Woodland Indians. Men-at-Arms. Osprey. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/943RGM7A/itemKey/X87SHFX7 [2]: (Barr 2006, 28) Barr, Daniel P. 2006. Unconquered: The Iroquois League at War in Colonial America. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/943RGM7A/itemKey/KA4QX6HF |
||||||
|
Used for shields. Code inferred from Abbasid Caliphate
[1]
which occupied Yemen between 751-868 CE.
[1]: Hugh N Kennedy. 2001. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SGPPFNAZ/q/kennedy |
||||||
|
Used for shields. Code inferred from Abbasid Caliphate
[1]
which occupied Yemen between 751-868 CE.
[1]: Hugh N Kennedy. 2001. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SGPPFNAZ/q/kennedy |
||||||
|
Probably present for the Andronovo charioteers but by the 12th century BCE "mounted horsemen armed with bows and arrows replaced chariot drivers"
[1]
so we need to know what armour (if any) they wore. Tazabagyab culture is considered to have had its origin in Andronovo culture.
[2]
Andronovo culture (2000-900 BCE, Alakul phase 2100-1400 BCE, Fedorovo phase 1400-1200 BCE, Alekseyevka phase 1200-1000 BCE). Tazabagyab culture (15th - 11th), Suyarganskaya culture (11th - 9th), Amirabad culture (9th - 8th).
[1]: (Kuz’mina 2007, 138) Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. J P Mallory ed. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (Mallory 1997, 20-21) J P Mallory. Andronovo culture. J P Mallory. D Q Adams. eds. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. Chicago. |
||||||
|
"The dearth of illustrative material for the greater part of six centuries is largely due to the wanton destruction caused by two savage invasions from the east and only such finds as the stucco figures from Kara-shar [Central Asian warrior, eighth to tenth century] tell us that in all this period there had been little change."
[1]
"... a fragment of a leather-covered circular wooden shield has survived, bearing a painting of a mounted warrior. This was found in the ruins of the castle of Mug, east of Samarkand, and with it were many documents dating the destruction of the place to the eighth century - when the Persian prince who held it rebelled against the local Arab ruler."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
"... a fragment of a leather-covered circular wooden shield has survived, bearing a painting of a mounted warrior. This was found in the ruins of the castle of Mug, east of Samarkand, and with it were many documents dating the destruction of the place to the eighth century - when the Persian prince who held it rebelled against the local Arab ruler."
[1]
[1]: (Robinson 1967) Robinson, H. Russell. 1967. Oriental Armour. Walker and Co. New York. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time and code has yet to receive an expert check
|
||||||
|
Used for shields?
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
[It feels like the list is at the same time too detailed and not detailed enough. Thanks Axel and Arni Daniel- we will take this point up.]
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Sources
[1]
only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
|
||||||
|
No evidence to code.
|
||||||
|
Sources
[1]
only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
Sources
[1]
only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
Sources
[1]
only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
Sources
[1]
only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
Part-time urban militia men often used wooden buckler shields.
[1]
From about 1380 CE shield abandoned.
[2]
[1]: (Nicolle 2000, 15) David Nicolle. 2000. French Armies Of The Hundred Years War. Osprey Publishing. Oxford. [2]: (Boulton 1995, 124-127) W W Kibler. G A Zinn. 1995. Medieval France: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. |
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence
|
||||||
|
[It feels like the list is at the same time too detailed and not detailed enough.]
|
||||||
|
Evidence of armor made from organic materials has not been recovered from Mehrgarh.
|
||||||
|
Evidence of armor made from organic materials has not been recovered from Mehrgarh.
|
||||||
|
Evidence of armor made from organic materials has not been recovered from Mehrgarh.
|
||||||
|
Inferred from shields.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in Charney (2004) and more sophisticated armor is present.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No references in the literature.
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time and code has yet to receive an expert check
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Sources
[1]
only mention very little archaeological evidence for military technology for this period, and this does not include armour. However, armour made from wood and cloth have been documented for the later periods, so their absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
Relative to military technology used in this period, sources only mention the atlatl and spears.
[1]
However, armour made from wood and cloth has been documented for the later periods, so its absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
According to the Chinese Nan chou i wu chih (A Record of Strange Things in the Southern Regions) written about 222-228 CE a volcanic country called ’Ge-ying’ (thought to be western Java) traded with the Malay Peninsula and imported horses from India. They were used by warriors.
[1]
It is likely they had some basic armour. Dewawarman I may have founded Salakanagara in west West Java 130 CE. He followed Aji Saka who may have introduced ’Buddhism, letters, calendar, etc.’) into Central and East Java 78 CE.
[2]
Indian military terms surviving in Javanese: "war, weapon, sword, lance, armour, shield, helmet, banner, battle, siege, fortress, soldier, officer, enemy, spy, etc."
[3]
[1]: (Miksic and Goh 2017, 215) John Norman Miksic. Geok Yian Goh. Routledge. 2017. Ancient Southeast Asia. London. p. 215 [2]: (Iguchi 2015) Masatoshi Iguchi. 2015. Java Essay: The History and Culture of a Southern Country. Troubador Publishing Ltd. [3]: (Kumara 2007, 161) Sasiprabha Kumara. 2007. Sanskrit Across Cultures. Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
Relative to military technology used in this period, sources only mention the atlatl and spears.
[1]
However, armour made from wood and cloth has been documented for the later periods, so its absence in the archaeological record may be due to preservation bias.
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
we need expert input in order to code this variable
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
|
||||||
|
Evidence of armor made from organic materials has not been recovered from Mehrgarh.
|
||||||
|
not mentioned in literature
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
not mentioned in literature
|
||||||
|
NB: The following refers to a different era and place. Reference for Vedic-period India (mostly Ganges valley but may also be relevant further south): "No material evidence exists to prove the use of body-armour, helmets and shields by the people of the Indus valley. It has been suggested, however, that domed pieces of copper, each pierced by two holes, were stitched on to a piece of cloth and used as a coat of mail. And a few pictographs of the Indus script may represent men holding shields."
[1]
[1]: (Singh 1997, 91) Sarva Daman Singh. 1997 (1965). Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited. Delhi. |
||||||
|
We would expect the earliest defenses to not have been made of metal and so unlikely to have been preserved
|
||||||
|
If "the first archaeologically recognizable, large post-Indus urban settlements are not earlier than the fifth century BC ... solidly visible states ... appear in a sudden profusion in the late first millennium B.C."
[1]
- who was king Stabrobates of India who used war elephants against a queen of Assyria (considered Shammuramat?) in the 9th century BCE?
[2]
One could infer king Stabrobates, if not based there himself, must have subdued and controlled the Kachi Plain region in order to invade Mesopotamia from ’India’. (Another source says Assyria invaded India and were driven out of Pakistan and India).
[3]
Diodorus Siculus says this too, queen Semiramis was based in Bactra (Bactria?).
[4]
If king Stabrobates’s polity controlled the Kachi Plain then we must code the according to the military technology he possessed. This would have included armour. Note: one military historian estimates that the Assyrian army had a strategic range of 2000 km
[5]
which places the Indus region in reach of their forces.
[1]: (Ahmed 2014, 64) Mukhtar Ahmed. 2014. Ancient Pakistan - An Archaeological History: Volume V: The End of the Harappan Civilization, and the Aftermath. Foursome Group. [2]: (Mayor 2014, 289) Adrienne Mayor. Animals in Warfare. Gordon Lindsay Campbell. ed. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3]: (Kistler 2007, 18) John M Kistler. 2007. War Elephants. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln. [4]: Diodorus Siculus. Delphi Complete Works of Diodorus Siculus. Delphi Classics. [5]: (Gabriel 2002, 9) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
The Oneota are known solely from their material remains
[1]
, and things made out of wood do not tend to survive in the archaeological record.
[1]: (Hall 1997, 142) Hall, Robert L. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/8KH357GV. |
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
we would expect the earliest defenses to not have been made of metal and so unlikely to have been preserved.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No references identified in the literature. RA.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||