Monthly Archives: April 2014

The Mykonos Vase is one of the earliest depictions of the Trojan horse (Mykonos vase). Wheels on the legs are visible, as well has holes showing men’s heads to indicate the soldiers hiding inside.

The Trojan horse was used strategically in the Trojan War, which was waged between 1260 and 1240 B.C. between Troy and Greece. Our model of the Trojan horse, a large, hollow, wooden horse, provides room for about 30-40 men, has wheels, and has a door to allow soldiers to climb out of to attack.

The Trojan horse comes up in many sources, in pictures, and in text. One source describes the Trojan horse as “a horse-shaped contraption of lumber” in summarizing from Homer’s words in the Illiad (Franko 122). This points out the rough design and construct of the horse, merely giving it a general shape of a horse. Our model follows this with a basic horse structure.

In answer to the question of why the Trojan horse was chosen to be a horse, it made sense because “horses were of great value to Homer’s Greeks” (Held 330). It was an animal that was valuable and such a valuable offering would be graciously accepted into their enemy’s territory. This made entrance much easier.

The precise number of men inside the horse is not known. “Quintus Smyrnaeus gives the names of thirty [men], but says there were more” (Wikipedia contributors). However, it is generally agreed that there were around 30-40 men inside the horse.

To carry 30-40 men, it would have been large and heavy. Wheels made transportation easier. The “earliest representation is poorly preserved,” (Sparkes 55) which is the Boeotian fibula, dating back around 700 B.C. However, this creation and the Mykonos vase (another early artwork of the Trojan horse) both indicate that there were wheels attached to the feet of the horse. Our model also has a space for wheels. We included a cart for stability and made space for wheels on the cart.

The legs of the horse in these two representations are relatively skinny. Our model also has thinner legs in comparison with the body. Dimensions were determined by how much room would be needed to carry 30-40 men. The Mykonos vase showed how the horse’s legs were the same height as a man, but this was not plausible for holding so many people.

The Trojan horse was real and included the basic characteristics of a general horse shape on wheels with room enough for about 30-40 soldiers.

Alexander the Great of Macedon

Honors Blog 2 REDONE

15 April 2014

Alexander the Great: The Battle
Taken From Mount Albert Grammar School Website
http://www.mags.school.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=2456

Alexander III of Macedon, also known as Alexander the Great, was a king of the Greek kingdom of Macedon.  He was the son of a warrior king; making him air to a powerful thrown. His father was Philip of Macedon and his father was one of the first to unite Greece’s independent city states.  His father, wanting Alexander to be a great future ruler, brings Aristotle from Athens to teach young Alexander how to observe, think ahead and reason. According to Discovery Education, Aristotle’s lessons made Alexander the first great strategist in military history with Achilles also being Alexander’s role model. Discovery Channel Education even says that Alexander offered up prayers to Achilles, and even takes Achilles shield.

Going along with his father Philip he learned many things such as how to treat the men in his army. Soon the days of going along with his father ended as Philip was assassinated at the celebration of his daughter’s wedding. At only 21 years old, Alexander ascends the thrown. As he takes the thrown, many begin to question if he has the skills for a warrior.

Soon Alexander proves that he is suit for the throne. According to Wikipedia, Alexander responded quickly to the new of the states attempting to revolt. He is said to have marched toward Thebes and here is where he strikes ruthlessly. The news quickly spreads throughout the cities and Alexander soon is said to be “invincible.”

This is shown, as when he arrives in Athens, no one dares to oppose Alexander after the news they have heard. But instead of punishing all of his enemies, he offers up a proposition. If all of Greece joined together, and gave him ships, soldiers and other supplies then he would fulfill what they desired. Alexander told them that he would launch a war to liberate the Greek cities in areas occupied by the Persians

This great ruler was fierce and did not let anything get in his way. He even had a special line up formation that made his army a special fighting machine. This was called a phalanx, where the men would stand together in tightly knit blocks with long almost 18ft lances (according to Discovery Channel History) tipped in bronze, called sarisas. As each line would lower them down, it created a deadly sharp wall. Alexander would send them straight into the Persian lines, impaling rows and rows of Persians.

Whatever the terrain, from tropical to bitter cold, scorching desert to waterlogged marshland, Alexander met every challenge he was set and overcame every difficulty he encountered. He was smart, keen, and a great fighter. He even had kindness and mercy in his heart as well. Alexander treated his men well, and even showed mercy to some of his enemy’s. According to Discovery Education, Alexander even spared the coward Darius’s wife and daughter, and took them in. I think this truly shows a legendary mark he left in history.

Works Cited

Bosworth, A. B. (1996). Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Buhl, H. (2010). Alexander the Great & The Fall of the Roman Empire. Ancient History Pathfinder, 50-62.

Retrieved from http://hbl.gcc.edu/

Discovery Channel Education. Alexander the Great of Macedonia: Alexander Unifies the Greek City States

Discovery Education | Your Daily Learning Platform

Macedonian ships traveling traveling down Hydaspes and Indus rivers. History of Macedon. University of    California, Oxford. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/

Mount Albert Grammar School. Alexander the Great. Picture

http://www.mags.school.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=2456

Naiden, F. (2011). Alexander the Great. Journal of the History of Society, 1, 1-21.

Robinson, C. A. (1953). The History of Alexander the Great. Providence, Rhode Island: Indiana University Library.

Watkins, T. (2009, 06 12). Alexander of Macedonia . Retrieved from SJSU:http://www.sjsu.edu/

Wood, M. (2007). In the Footsteps of Alexander The Great: A Journey from Greece to Asia. San Diego: University of California Press, 1997.

The Trireme (triêrês or τριήρης – Three Rower) was an ancient battle ship primarily used by Mediterranean Empires including the Greeks, Persians, and Romans. This great technological advancement was first documented c. a. 535 BCE by Herodotus when he refers to a conflict between Samos and Egypt which states, “Polycrates selected those citizens who he suspected were most likely to revolt and sent them off in forty Triremes…” (Herodotus, III.44) Evolving from the Bireme, the Trireme quickly became the Greek Navy standard often replacing other ancient ships such as the much smaller Pentekonter which only consisted of 50 oarsmen contrasted to the Trireme’s approximate 170 oarsmen. (Wood, 2013) These massive ships served a major role in the Greek’s ability to hold off the Persians in The Battle of Salamis. To understand that role better, let’s first consider its design.

Depiction of a sailing Trireme based on the modern Trireme recreation Olympias (Perseus Project)(Wikpedia.org)

The basic architecture of the Trireme revolves around having three rows of rowers, as implied by the title, with one man per oar. The Engineers, through a process of trial and error, designed this warship to have adequate space to satisfy the large quantities of men required to operate it properly. As such, the dimensions of the sheds were approximately 37 meters long, 6 meters wide, and 4 meters tall. This provided just enough space for oarsmen to operate effectively or be altered to accommodate the rowers as necessary. The Trireme’s speed capability is approximated to have averaged around 5-8 knots (6-9 miles per hour) achieved by the use of sails, oars, and rudders to propel and direct its path. (Trireme, 2014) The oars were especially important in battle when great maneuverability and speed for ramming became vital, as the primary weapon utilized was a massive bronze ram heading the front of the ship near the surface of the water. The ram was the focus of Athenian Naval warfare because there was only little space for marines available, although they were carried in small quantities to defend the oarsmen who often could see very little while rowing. (Rankov, 2012)

The ships were constructed of available woods depending on location usually including: fir, Cedar, oak, and pine. These materials may have differed slightly from case to case as different areas constructed Triremes slightly different, but the basic design always remained constant. With the primary material being wood, the crews were required to beach the ships at night to ensure that the ship would not become waterlogged. The Trireme usually included around 200 men to operate, 170 of them being oarsmen, with a small crew and a few marines. (Trireme, 2014) This, again, indicates the importance of maneuverability as the Trireme required large quantities of man power to ram and sink enemy ships.

In The Battle of Salamis (c.a. 480 BCE), the Athenians utilized the Trireme and constricted waters to hold off The Persians. The Interesting thing about this battle is that The Persians and Greeks fought one another with similar technologies, the main material difference between the two was the volume of the fleets. (Lendering, 2008) Herodotus recorded the Athenians to have gathered 371 Triremes (Herodotus VIII,46), while the number of Persian ships is disputed, it is approximated to have been around 1200 triremes. The Persians relied on the Greeks being overwhelmed by their massive fleet, however the Greeks utilized the narrow strait between the island and mainland to effectively hold off the incoming fleet as they rammed and attacked, with a beneficial advancing breeze on their side (Taylor, 2012). By considering the Trireme’s remarkable design, The Persian’s inability to swim, and the geography of Salamis emphasizing Greek battle tactics, it is clear to see how the Greeks succeeded in effectively defending themselves in this great naval siege.

Bibliography:

“Battle of Salamis.” 5 February 2014. Wikipedia.org. Web. 6 February 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis&gt;.

Gabrielsen, V. 2012. Navies, Greek. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History

Greek Fleet of Galleys Based on Sources from The Perseus Project. 2008. Graphic. Wikipedia.org. Web. 6   Feb 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greek_Galleys.jpg&gt;.

Herodotus. Herodotus: The Histories. Trans. Robin Waterfield. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Book.

Lendering, Jona. “Naval Battle of Salamis (480BCE).” 17 July 2008. Livius.org. Web. 6 February 2014. <http://www.livius.org/saa-san/salamis/battle.html&gt;.

Rankov, B. 2012. Trireme. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History.

Taylor, M. C. 2012. Salamis, island and battle of. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History.

“Trireme.” 4 February 2014. Wikipedia.org. Web. 6 February 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trireme&gt;.

Wallinga, H. T. (1990). The Trireme and History. Mnemosyne, XLIII. Retrieved April 11, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4431893

Wood, Adrian K. Warships of the Ancient World: 5000-500 BC. Colchester: Osprey Publishing, 2013. Book.

The Greek cavalry, or hippeis, played a major role in the battlefields of the Peloponnesian War. It was an important characteristic that brought Sparta success. The war lasted from 431 to 404 BC. It took place in mainland Greece, Asia Minor, and Sicily.

Athens and Sparta both used cavalry.

Thucydides gave an explanation for the cause of the war. He believed “the growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta, made war inevitable” (Strassler 16).

The horses were very useful in combat. They made traveling easier, and soldiers became comfortably accustomed to riding them. During periods of resting time, they dismounted, and as soon as attacks rose up again, they would “leap easily upon their horses” (Worley 84).

One tactic the Athenian cavalry employed was the use of javelins. They threw javelins at the enemy, and controlled the movement of the whole army. They could throw the javelins while going forward or retreating.

Cavalry also fought in “close quarters” (Gaebel 96) to the enemy with lances and swords in addition to javelins for farther distances.

Some disadvantages came with the cavalry. Hands are occupied while riding a horse, so the rider is not able to carry as many weapons. They ran out of ammunition quickly. Also, throwing javelins from horseback decreases the efficacy of the shot. Accuracy and distance decline (Sidnell 58). The picture below shows the extensive length of the spear and how it cumbered the rider.

Their cavalry was well-used in observing and attacking when raids occurred. Unfortunately, they soon became overworked. Horses became lame and wounded, and had no time to rest in between battles (Worley 119).

The cavalry was powerful and made up for the times when others’ attempts failed. They stepped in and dominated. For example, the Chalcidians utilized their hoplites, light troops, and peltasts, and then the cavalry. They “at last caused a panic amongst them” (Strassler 137). Their strength in “riding up and charging them just as they pleased” provided victory against Athens.

Greek Cavalry—This picture shows a soldier using javelins, their common weapon (Shumate). The spears limited their ability to ride because one hand was too occupied. It also limited their ability to fight because they are such long, cumbersome weapons.

Bibliography

Gaebel, Robert E. Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World. University of Oklahoma Press, 2002.

Shumate, Johnny. Greek Cavalry. The Lost Treasure Chest.

Sidnell, Philip. Warhorse. New York: Hambledon Continuum, 2006. Print.

Strassler, Robert B., ed. The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. By Thucydides. 1996. New York: Free Press. Print.

Worley, Leslie J. Hippeis. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994. Print.

Tales From Herodotus XVI. The Battle of Salamis, 480 B.C.

Battle of Salamis

Greek Tactics/Organization 

     In the roaring waters near Salamis, the Greek fleet laid anchor, as the Persian fleet arrived and closed off the Greek retreat, keeping them in straights between Salamis and Attica.  At the same time, the Peloponnesians were building a wall to prevent the advance of the Persian army. A naval battle was soon fought between the Greek city-states and the Achaemenid Empire of Persia in September 480 BC.  As numerous ships trailed through the waters, the marking of the soon to be war was upon them as they lined up in preparation to see who would be victorious.

     As each side prepared for battle, different tactics and strategies engulfed the minds of each side. The number of ships is debated, but it is estimated that there were about 1200 Persian ships, but according to some modern historians, they reject this number and state that there may have been about 600-800 triremes. No matter what the number, the Greeks were still facing a disadvantage against the Persians due to this matter. Even though the Persians had a large numerical advantage, they still had some disadvantages as well. One of these was that they would have to attack the Greeks in the narrow straight rather than in the large, open sea because in confined spaces they could not outflank the smaller Greek force. The straights were so narrow that only half the Persian fleet could enter into it. The Persians, expecting an easy victory, were at a significant tactical advantage, outnumbering their allies.  Most of their marines carried a bow, which the Persians relied greatly on in their battles, which would most likely fail if their ship was boarded, as the bow would be negated due to the standoff range because it was not as good in hand to hand fighting.  Persians had ships with triremes being equipped with a ram at the bows, which would be used for ramming, which required skilled sailing, Persians were more likely to employ this technique.

     Led by Themistocles, the Greeks sailed there estimated 300 plus ships, (Herodotus reports that there were around 378 triremes) which were faster than the Persians, to battle. Being outnumbered by almost 3:1, the Greeks had the plan to counter this by fighting the Persians in a narrow space, as it would be favorable to the Greeks, as the leader, Themistocles, persuaded them to stay and fight the Persians in the narrows. Another tactic sought out by Themistocles was sending out a trusted slave to send a message to the Persian King that stated, “that the Greeks were about to flee.” Once the slave delivered the message, he returned telling the Greeks that the king had fallen for the trick and had ordered his captains to spend the night blocking all the escape routes that they had. As the Persians stood the whole at their ores, the Greeks slept soundly.

       Confident of their victory, the Persian king Xerxes, scoured up a hill to find a vantage point where he could watch the battle take place and by morning, all the Persians ships were in place. Some of the Persian ships blocked the Western straight while others packed the narrow waters of Salamis. This is where they waited for movement from the Greek fleet, but nothing came. Stunned, Xerxes was led to asking advice from his commanders who all told the king to attack, but one voice differed from the others. This voice came from the only woman commander, Queen Artemisia. Herodotus says, “Xerxes held a council with the Persian fleet at Phalerum.”  During this time, the Queen Artemisia tried to convince Xerxes to wait until the allies surrendered; adding that attacking was an unnecessary risk. Xeroxes ignored her advice.

        In the meanwhile, this was all beneficial for the Greeks, as they had a perfect night’s sleep and were prepared for battle. As another one of the Greeks tactics, the wind was now blowing south as they had hoped for, which began pushing all the Persian boats closer and closer to Themistocles. Finally, the Greek ships began to execute their well thought out plan. The Greeks felt confident knowing that the Persians would be exhausted and worn out after patrolling all night. Quickly the Persians realized this horrible mistake, the Greeks were nowhere close to fleeing, a battle was about to take place.

            The oarsman pulled and push like a powerful engine as they headed towards the Persians. Soon it all began as a Greek ship rammed a Persian ship, sending bodies into the waters. The maneuverable Greek ships soon brought havoc upon the Persians, as the Persians boats could not move as well. The stranded Persian ships with their exhausted men were almost like sitting ducks. Themistocles plan had worked.

          As the queen escaped, the scene over 200 Persian ships that were sunk was viewed. Many men were lost in the battle, even Xerxes brother. Xerxes left to Asia, leaving his army to carry on the battle, but he knew that when he didn’t have command of the sea, he would never control Greece. And so it was a defeat for the Persians.

Works Cited

Elayi, Josette. The Role of the Phoenician Kings at the Battle of Salamis (480 B.C.E.). Vol. 126. Paris: Journal of the American Oriental Society, 2006. Scholarly Journal.

Gabriel, Richard A. Battle of Salamis. Vol. 26. Military History, 2009. 28 January 2014. <http://web.a.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu/&gt;.

Rainey, William. Death of the Persian admiral at Salamis. The Stapleton Collection / The Bridgeman Art Library. Plutarch’s Lives for Boys and Girls’,. n.d. Colour Lithograph.PICTURE.

Rawlinson, George. Herodotus: The History. Vol. 4. New York Appleman & Company, 1885. Print.

Waterfield, Robin. Herodotus:The Histories. 2008. Book.

Wood, Adrian K. Warships of the World. 2012. Book.

Piece 60

My piece of the Bayeux tapestry at first glance doesn’t look like a very important piece.  It is just men on horses followed by a few archers.  But after studying this section of the Bayeux tapestry, I learned that it’s contents were actually a very important part of the story.

This piece is of the Norman soldiers charging the English.  The archers behind them are providing cover for the men charging on horses, archers usually were the last in the army.   The archers wore much less armor than the cavalry men, if any at all. One thing i noticed about the archers were that their clothes were all different colors.  They all had the same color scheme, but different items of clothing on them were different colors.   One archer is covered in full armor like the men on the horses, but the rest were armor less.  I found this odd because I am sure archers were just as likely to get hit by opposing arrows as cavalry men. Maybe they didn’t have enough armor to give to all the archers.  Spears seemed to be the weapon of choice for the warriors charging on horses.  Spears were long and could stab people easily while riding by them, they could also throw the spears to try to hit further targets.  Upon further research i found out that this piece is actually quite important, it  is important because it is a transition piece.  The horses in the pieces prior to my piece are walking and in my piece they move to a gallop. This is significant because the cavalry are increasing speed riding into battle.The caption of this plate is that the battle has begun. So even though this section of the tapestry might seem uneventful, it actually is quite the opposite, it is the start of the action.  The bottom border of my piece contains animals, but in the next piece the bottom borders are filled with dead soldiers and mangled body parts.  In the piece after, all of the dead English are seen with arrows sticking out of them, thanks to the archers in my piece most likely, this leads me to believe that in my piece they are still far away from the English. I don’t see any men dead from spears yet, so at this point there still must be some distance between the armies.

The Battle has Begun

Some more interesting things I found out about this piece were that the lower border and upper border contain animals that are thought to be fables.  I am not sure what specific fables they are suppose to represent, because some of the animals are unidentifiable, still to this very day nobody knows what some of the animals are. The archers in piece 60 are the first Norman warriors that are seen on foot. In all the pieces before where the Normans are traveling or marching to war, all have been on horseback, pr ships. I thought this was a significant piece because it is the last piece before combat, the war starts in the section after my section.  So piece 60 is a very important piece because it is a transition piece from non violence to violence.  Transitioning is a very important aspect in art, and I think they transitioned well in this tapestry.

The archers ready their arrows while behind the cavalry.

Work cited

“Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry.” (2000-2004): n. page. <http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/&gt;.

Hicks, Carola. The Bayeux Tapestry. London: Vintage, 2007. Print.

Wilson , David. The Bayeux Tapestry. New York, New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985. Print.

Plate 62 of the Bayeux Tapestry depicts a violent clash between armored soldiers on horses and foot. Below them, on the bottom border, lie fallen soldiers. Above the scene, in the upper border, are three birds and one bear-like animal (Wilson pl.62). There is no Latin text included in the panel. Apart of a series of panels depicting a battle, Panel 62 shows the Battle of Hastings, as William’s forces clash with Harold II’s English forces in 1066 in present-day England (History Learning Contributors). Clues about the historical meaning of the panel can be gathered from the details of armor of the soldiers. According to Wilson, the heavy armor of the men on the panel reveals it is a conflict between the aristocratic soldiers of both sides, “The whole scene must be interpreted as a conventionalized battle—a fight between the more aristocratic soldiers on each side. They are, with few exceptions, fully armed with mail-shirts and knightly armor” (Wilson 171). Additionally, it is important to note that all soldiers use spears, save one individual, who uses an arrow (Wilson, pl. 62). Thus, this panel is depicting soldiers not a part of the archery unit, supporting Wilson’s hypothesis that these forces are both aristocratic. Therefore, this part of the tapestry is indicating there was an aristocratic clash with both forces.

Plate 62, Wilson 171. Norman and English forces meeting in battle.

Additionally, it is important to note the inclusion of fallen soldiers, something not typical of Anglo-Saxon art. According to Wilson, “Dead soldiers are, however, rarely seen in Anglo-Saxon art” (Wilson, 171). This would support George Beech’s hypothesis that tapestry was not made in England, but rather, in France. Beech argues that according to the history in Historia Sancti Florenti Salmurensis, the tapestry was commissioned “by a certain Queen from over-seas” (Bloch 161). Thus, this evidence provided with the artistic style conflicting with the typical work of Anglo-Saxons, suggests the possibility that it was commissioned outside of England.
Panel 62 may also lend insight into military strategy of the time. While one interpretation of the panel leads to an exclusive illustration of the aristocratic portion of the armies, another reading suggests the single archer represented the full archery forces. Thus, the archers were protected by the fully-armed soldiers, who formed a line. Wilson’s also offers insights on this in his narration of the battle based on the tapestry, “The battle commences. The Norman calvary, backed by the archers, charge the English army, which consists of unmounted soldiers (including one archer who wears no armour) and which seems to be formed behind the legendary ‘shield-wall’” (Wilson).
Thus, the tapestry potentially reveals information about a perceived show-down between aristocratic forces in the battle, the origin of where it was made, as well as the battle strategies for both armies.

Bibliography
Bloch, H. (2007). Was the Bayeux Tapestry Made in France? The Case for Saint-Florent of Saumur by George Beech. Medieval Academy of America, 161.
Contributors. (2013). The Bayeux Tapestry. Retrieved from History Learning Site: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bayeux_tapestry.htm
Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Color. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1985. Print.

Figure 1: Panel 71 of the Bayeux Tapestry

In my panel of the Bayeux Tapestry, panel 71, King Harold is killed. This is determined through translating the Latin on the panel Hic Harold rex interfectus est, or “Here King Harold has been killed” (Wilson 173). The big controversy over this scene is which figure is really King Harold. David M. Wilson states that “the killing of Harold is one of the scenes in the Tapestry most difficult of interpretation” (Wilson 194). Brooks and Walker argue against C. H. Gibbs-Smith’s opinion of which figure in this panel is really King Harold. “Brooks and Walker argue that Harold is indeed killed by an arrow in his eye but that he is shown again lying on the ground being cut in the leg by a sword” (Wilson 194). C. H. Gibbs-Smith, as well as Sir Frank Stenton believe that King Harold is the figure at the end of the panel that is being ridden down by a horseman. Guy of Amiens, the French Bishop, believes that “Harold was downed by four knights: Eustace of Boulogne, a son of Count Guy of Ponthieu, Walter Giffard and Hugo of Montford” (Rud 87). Some researchers doubt that Harold was really struck with an arrow in the eye. “The arrow is a later addition following a period of repair” (Wikipedia Contributors). The makers of Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry website feel that he is shown twice “first plucking an arrow from his eye, and then being hacked down by a Norman knight” (Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry). It seems that no one can really agree on which figure is King Harold. Which figure in this scene is really King Harold? This mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry may never be resolved, but we can certainly conclude that this is the panel portraying Harold’s death

Figure 2: Possibly King Harold pulling an arrow out of his eye

Bibliography:

“Battle of Hastings”. Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry at the Museum of Reading. 8 April 2014. Web.

http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/Bayeux31.htm

Rud, Mogens. The Bayeux Tapestry And the Battle of Hastings 1066. 1st ed. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers Publishers, 2002. 87. Print.

Wikipedia Contributors. “Bayeux Tapestry.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 24 Mar 2014. Web. 8 Apr 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry&gt;.

Wilson, David. The Bayeux Tapestry. 1st. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd., 1985. 194-195. Print.

During the time of the Achaemenid Dynasty, Persians were able to conquer most of the known world.  Persian leaders, such as Cyrus, fought to conquer and control land and people from Ionia in Asia Minor, South to Egypt, and as far east as present day Afghanistan.  Instrumental in the Persian’s conquest were their weapons and battle tactics.  One of these lethal weapons was the Persian Bow.  With a range of around 500 feet—almost two football fields—the armies of the empire of Persia were able to rain down death from above.  Although they often took 18 months to manufacture, the Persian bow and the two major innovations it contained, was well worth the wait (“Iranian…”).

(Mshamma. Persian archers in ceremonial robe. The smaller size of their composite bows allowed for easier traveling.)

One of the contributors to the lethality of the Persian Bow was the fact that it was made of composite materials.  The bow had a wooden core.  Strips of horn were glued to the belly, while sinew was attached to the back.  Both of these measures were meant to reinforce the weapon. This technique was so effective, that it allowed the bows to have the same amount of power as much larger weapons of the same nature.  It packed a great amount of power in only a 48-inch frame (Dwyer and Khorasani 3-4).

Perhaps the best advantage to the Persian Bow was in its recurved design.  Traditional long bows of other periods were only a long, bent piece of wood.  The major drawback to this was the fact that the resistance was the same all the way through the draw.  Persian craftsmen bent the ends of their bows back towards the grip (as seen in the picture below). This, like its composite make-up, allowed the bow to pack more power than a traditional long bow.  More importantly, this innovation made it so that there was less resistance on the string the father back it was pulled. Tired archers were given a great psychological advantage and were allowed to stay deadly despite fatigue, because of this decrease in draw pressure (Dwyer and Khorasani 5).

(Dwyer and Khorasani. “Figure 1.”  The signature curve of the Ear (Guse) of the bow is what made it so easy to draw)

 Though the composite nature and the special curves of the bow gave it deadly capabilities, it would have been nothing without the arrows to go with it.  Perhaps the most important part of the weapon set, the shafts of the arrows were often made out of wood or reeds, the simplest of materials.  Reed material was preferred because it had great strength for how light it was (Dwyer and Khorasani 5).  The arrows were tipped with bronze or iron heads to pierce the armor of the Persian opponent (Shahbazi).  Together, the Persian Bow and its complementary arrows were a match made in military heaven. They truly were a destructive force that enemies both feared and respected throughout the Persian conquest.

Bibliography

Dwyer, Bede and Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani. “An Analysis of a Persian Archery     manuscript written by Kapur      Cand.” Revista De Artes Marciales Asiaticas 8.1 (Jan-June 2013):  1-12. EBSCO. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.

Shahbazi, A. Sh. “History of Iran:  Achaemenid Army.” Iran Chamber Society. Iran Chamber Society. 2014. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.

“Iranian Archer – Soldier Profile.” Military History Monthly. Current Publishing, 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.

Mshamma. “Persian warriors. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum.” Photograph. Wikipedia. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2014

Panel 70 of the Bayeux Tapestry can be seen as the epitome of what went on during the Battle of Hastings in 1066 (Wilson 194).  Bloodshed emanates from every inch of the cloth.  While it is clear that many men, as well as the British King Harold, are losing their lives, certain details still are not understood.  The basic who’s who in the tapestry can be discerned by historical hints based on weaponry and garb or by textual clues around the images.  Small events of the battle may still be unknown due to the lack of inscription or the loss of records.

(Plate 70, Wilson 194. Infantrymen and archers are dying all around.)

In the center of the panel is a man on horseback cutting down an enemy soldier.  Carnage envelops him on both sides.  The panel prior to the soldier shows him and his fellow cavalrymen charging the opposing infantry.  To highlight the butchery, it also contains an inscription reading, “Here the English and the French fell at the same time in the battle,” (Hicks 17).   The charge seems to be a synergistic attack between the cavalry and a group of archers.

In the bottom border, under the horseman, the archers have the angle of their bows held high, raining down arrows on their adversary in the next frame.  It seems that they have hit their mark in frame 71.  A man lies on the ground dying, while also having his leg hacked at by a horseman.  Next to him is his weapon, a battle-axe.  Also, the dead man seems to be wearing different, more vibrant colors than those around him.   This is a clue about his status.

Earlier in the tapestry Harold, Earl of East Anglia, is shown meeting with King Edward of England.  The man announcing Harold to the King is holding a battle-axe.  This is the first time that an Englishman is seen sporting an axe in the tapestry (Rud 55-56).  This sets a precedence in the coming panels of the piece in that a soldier seen wielding an axe is most likely an Englishman.  This allows the viewer to be able to discern who is who in the mass of soldiers in panel 70.  It also gives a great clue about the man dressed so fancily in the next panel.

It is known that in the final stages of the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror told his archers to aim high to rain down arrows on Harold (Rud 86).  This is interesting when one considers panel 70.  As said above, the archers in the bottom border were aiming high.  This is not a coincidence when one takes into account the man dying in panel 71.

Both the angle of the archers bows in panel 70 and the standout in color of the man’s clothes point to one thing.  The man dying in panel 71 is Harold, King of England.  One final thing that supports this is the inscription above this man.  It clearly says in Latin, “Here King Harold has been killed,” (Wilson 173).  Together, these three clues; be they text, coloring, or interpretation from earlier imagery, tell the viewer that panels 70 and 71 diagram the death of King Harold and many of his men.  Not all things in the Bayeux Tapestry are this easily deciphered though.

Detailed plate (pictured below) shows a Norman horseman cutting down an Englishman with a round shield.  The thing that makes it odd is that the man on horseback is sitting on the neck of his horse instead of in the saddle.  Seemingly all other cavalrymen in the tapestry are presented fighting firmly in their saddles.  This presentation is not a mistake.  It is most likely that this frame refers to a specific event during the course of the battle (Wilson 194-195).  Although this is reasonable to assume, the modern viewer cannot be sure whether this is the case, and if it is, which event is it.

(Detailed plate, Wilson 194. Notice the man is sitting on the neck of his horse)

The reason for this is that there is no known account of this specific event that survives (Wilson 195).  Perhaps it is sensible to infer that the audience at the time of the tapestry knew what this small abnormality meant.  However, today one cannot assume.  Certain details either are not transcribed or are lost in translation.  This is one of the constraints that one faces when trying to interpret classical and middle aged art.

The Bayeux Tapestry contains a world of information to the modern viewer.  Panel 70 gives a look into the final stages of the Battle of Hastings.  The archers narrowing in on King Harold and the carnage around them give the observer a look into the past.  While some things can be interpreted, others cannot.  The tapestry leaves modern man to wonder about things such as specific events that may have been known at the time.  Through both the known and the unknown, the Bayeux Tapestry has lent an air of excitement to scores of generations as well as many to come.

Works Cited

Hicks, Carola.  The Bayeux Tapestry:  The Life story of a Masterpiece.  London:  Vintage books, 2006. Print

Rud, Mogens.  The Bayeux Tapestry and the Battle of Hastings 1066.  Copenhagen:  Christian Ejlers, 2002. Print.

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry. London:  Thames and Husdon, 1985. Print.