Thearos wrote:But the issue will not go away: in the vases, used by Peter Connolly for his reconstruction, you can see that the cuirass is being wrapped around, and has stiff shoulder thingies that stick up in the air, before being bent into place--
Dan Howard wrote:Ty N. wrote:From the link you provided, it seems the article is saying Philip II's remains were at Tomb #1
Exactly. However, the iron cuirass came from Tomb #2, which was originally thought to belong to Philip II. A good case has been made for the last fifteen years that it was actually the tomb of Philip III, but the Greeks refused to acknowledge it. Now, with the new evidence from Tomb 1, it seems certain that Tomb 2 belonged to Phillip III, but the Greeks are still refusing to acknowledge it. The best rebuttal they seem to have these days is "nah ah, you are all poopy heads".
Thearos wrote:Yes, but it can't be a solid metal sheet, as on the Vergina cuirass-- when you open that, the iron does not spring back vertical.
Herbert wrote:Very interesting and definitely worth a thought.
But you did not really prove your point neither did you prove that the linen armour did not exist. You just opened the possibility for both without proving either.
So, where to go from here? Is there any conclusive evidence?
Return to Arms & Armour, History, Militaria, Archaeology, Art
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests