Step Into The Forge And Suit (Of Armor) Up! (or) Ready To Raid An Archive, Young Hoplite?

Its time.

For a while now I've been thinking about some sort of "fight book" about apologetics, the Armor of God, and such.  But, I'll start with some primer work, and a sort of "test run" as I fiddle with ideas.

First, the text:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.  Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.  In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.  Eph 6:10-20 (ESV)

While I trip through all of this I will be using St. Paul's metaphor as a springboard.  As always, what you read here is for consideration.  It's not "thus saith the Lord."  Rather, "thus saith Adam."

Remember the three rules of Biblical exegesis: Context; Context; Context.

So, how about some context.  Since the vast majority of us live in the modern world, suits of armor haven't existed for the better part of half a millennia.  Even the concept of a knight doesn't really exist anymore.  Except it does.  And armor does.

But, then again, the knight in shining armor isn't what Paul meant, since the concept as we think of it didn't exist yet for him.

So lets tip toe through the archives.  Up for it?

Who am I kidding, of course you are!  Bear with me, since we'll be having to start with some straight-up history.  (Yay!)

Armor has been used in warfare since someone figured out "if I wear this stuff, then those guys can't go stabbity stab stab on me."  It started with things like plates riveted or tied to cloaks, links of mail, treated leather, and even thick cloth.  The Greeks were among the earliest to start using metal as armor, at least in the West, so we'll start there.

(The Hoplite, in Spartan livery.)

The "average citizen" Greek soldier didn't have armor, just shield, maybe helmet, and weapons.  A lot of times these guys didn't stand in the phalanx, though.  The hoplites were the phalanx, and they had armor.  The armor (Greek word is panoply) of a hoplite weighed about 70 pounds.  The richest (middle class on up, that is) could afford bronze breastplates, though leather or linthorax (linen strip based, kinda like kevlar) was common.  Corinthian and Chalcidian helmet styles were the stereotype.  But we'll get to the Greeks in greater detail later (maybe, depending on how far I take this).

Lets move on to the guys who one-upped the Greeks.

("We. Are. The. Legion.")

The soldiers of Rome had a very sophisticated kit.  Heavily influenced by the Greeks, and by the army of Alexander the Great.  The Legions were the logical conclusion of a few millennia of city-state conflicts and near East imperial wars.

The Romans, at various times, used plate armor, segmented armor (lorica segmentata, the stereotype), scale armor, and mail.  Each had advantages, and disadvantages; were better for one type of combat or another; were easier to make or less expensive.

But it wasn't just the armor they wore, the legionnaire had substantial equipment and weapons.  Their shields were what made the phalanx a force to be reckoned with.  The weapons as well.  Spears for throwing, or for use in the line.  Short swords were the back-up weapon.  Think like how the average modern soldier carries a rifle (the hasta) and a sidearm (the spatha).  But, like the Greeks, we'll dig more into the Romans later, since they, and the Greeks, inspired the metaphor.

Moving onward in time, the Middle Ages, while rife with many types of warrior, was the era of armor warfare.

(The foundational Carolingian or Norman soldier of the 6th-9th century.)

(The classic Crusader of the 11th-13th century.  A Hospitaller, most likely.)

(The sophisticated knightly armor of the 14th-15th century.  A pinnacle of Medieval technology.)

Archers, pike-men, skirmishers, knights, templars, paladins, crusaders, jaegers, vikings.  If they could make a cameo in a Tolkien style work, they are here.  Warfare made substantial changes from the 5th century through the Renaissance.

Armor and weapons became more sophisticated, and costly.  Training was a necessity for all soldiers, not just the elite upperclass.  Conflicts grew from a couple of feudal lords arguing to full on nation verses nation.  If you want, there are plenty of resources on that era, but British presenter and historian Mike Loades has some of the best on the Medieval period, I think.  Check out some of his work here, here, and here.

When we hear "Armor of God," we think of either the crusader or the "knight classic."

(Ah, how I love the classics...)

It makes sense to use this as the "jumping off" point for, not only St. Paul's metaphor, but my tangents on it.  Especially since I'm hoping to stylize it like a Medieval manual on melee and martial matters.  And I will, in time, once I set us up correctly.  But bear with me a little bit longer, since to be able to backtrack to the proper "headspace," we need to examine the full history.

The introduction of firearms sparked the decline of armor.  But what really spelled the end of the classic era was national identity.  If the people were loyal to a nation, not a local lord or state, then they could build a larger power base than just a few dozen square miles.  Soon conflicts between kingdoms, nations, and empire were the norm.  Wars that lasted for a few years, and had fighting for most of that time.

For example, the Hundred Years War lasted just over 103 years, yet the total time of direct army-verses-army conflict was about three months.  Sure there were raids and skirmishes here and there, but the times when full-fledged armies lined up to do battle were rare.  That was the norm until the late Middle Ages.  At that point you have kingdoms and empires, like France and England, seeking greater influence than just their little corner.  The Age of Discover kicked off a paradigm shift.

This was across the board a good thing, don't get me wrong, but with tech advancing rapidly, new warfare styles arose.  The musket replaced the spear and bow.  The rapier replaced the longsword and shield, before the sword was dropped altogether.  It was less expensive, and more effective, to train a platoon of musketeers than equip and train a half-dozen knights.  Dragoons, uhlans, and hussars were better cavalrymen for this new warfare than knights, anyway.  Ships became actual weapons of war.  Cannon beat the trebuchet.  Mobile formation warfare was the tactic of choice from around the 15th century through the American Civil War in the late 19th century.

With the new emphasis in mobility and speed, armor was dropped.  Slowly at first.  Pieces dropped to aid in gaining speed or mobility.  Shields became smaller.  Helmets cut to give more visibility.  Soon the only armor seen was the curriass and helmets.  This combination never went away fully, though the vast majority of armor worn by soldiers from about 1700 through 1990 was just the helmet.

Specialized armor was available for certain situations.  Flak jackets for bomber gunners.  Padded suits for bomb-disposal techs.  Heavy cavalry still wore the breastplates through 1919.  And now personal armor is making a comeback, though protection from shrapnel is the main goal, and advanced cloths and plastics are the materials.

But the replacements for the soldier that started as the hoplite, became the legionnaire, then morphed into the knight are the fighter plane and the tank.  Neither of which work in this metaphor, though, neither does the modern soldier.

Why?  Too much kit.

You see, the soldier that St. Paul described wasn't a "heavy infantryman," but a "skirmisher."  A scout.  A messenger.  Someone tasked with running from the battlefield to proclaim "we have won."  (Passing out and dying after sprinting 26.1 miles in full armor optional.)

I'll explain more of what I mean once I dissect the Greco-Roman style of soldier.

Hopefully I'll get other aspects of this ironed out.  For example, I've been playing around with a "recognition card" for heresies, like how AA gunners would have "spotter cards" with aircraft silhouettes.  But, this is all a long term project, and likely to be disjointed and revisionist as I move onward and learn more.  Same with the whole armor motif I'm playing with.  Maybe I'll stick traditionally, or go back in time to the Greco-Roman version, or something completely different.  Whatever the case, hopefully you enjoy my efforts (even if I'm just flailing about in the dark) and learn something useful.