Now that’s what I call humor.
Does the book state that, or is it implied by the cover? I’m assuming the former. In suppport of your case I’ve seen many depictions of Greek warriors wearing helmet and breastplate but naked otherwise, except for sandals. The genitalia are clearly exposed. Were I to go into battle, I think that’s one of the first things I’d cover.
Yes, and the force of the blow was enough to drive some of the unbreakable, impenetrable links into Frodo’s flesh, which goes some way to explain why he wasn’t exactly laughing it off.
Yeah; even with the mithril, that spear was close to just driving the armor clear through Frodo! IIRC, it takes him a bit to recover fully in the books. He’s somewhat stunned for a few minutes and they carry him. I’d have to check that before signing my name to it, though.
The book states that – IIRC. I read it when I was 12 and have no copy to hand, only the Amazon link.
Thanks for all the replies. I appreciated the facts from a historical perspective that were advanced, but for me, this seems to sum it up for me:
Indeed.
Hooray for Hollywood!
Men with swords and no pants.
Hot. Oh yeah.
[Capt. Over]
Jimmy, do you like movies about Gladiators?
[/Capt.Over]
I’m a bit curious about the naked from the waist down bit, myself. I recall reading somewhere (the Bible, maybe?) about some king making his men shave off their beards and wear their hair short so that an enemy could not sieze them by it in battle. Wouldn’t it put one in at least as bad a situation to be siezed by the genitals? Covering up the dangly bits seems like a good idea to me.
[saturday night live “nude crusade” skit]
NUDE CRUSADER: Well, how about a crusade where the guys just didn’t wear any pants?
POPE: Somehow, that seems even worse than an all-nude crusade.
[/snl"nc"s]
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Berserkers were supposed to go into battle with erections high, which might explain pantsless warriors in those cases. But I haven’t been able to find any references to it in any sources, reliable or otherwise. Even a appeakl to the SDMB failed to turn anything up.
Just for the record, I’m not suggesting that battle is a way some Vikings, Greeks, or berserkers sublimated sexual desires. In some primates an erection is actually an intimidation display. Males protecting the edges of a group will display brightly-colored penises to something (especially rival groups) that threaten them. This may seem stupid and counterintuitive, but evolution follows its own logic. There’s no obvious relationship to sex in this. I wouldn’t be surprised in humans had some sort of similar reaction, although it certainly doesn’t seem to manifest itself today (Unless you count things like “I got your xxxx right here,” accompanied by a crotch grab.) That’s why I’m curious if things like pantsless Greek warriors and Berserkers with erections really did occur. and how frequently.
An erection would be an even more convenient handle for an enemy to grab.
I don’t know about that, but I have read (in How the Irish Saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill – http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385418493/qid=1137091119/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2924742-0975232?n=507846&s=books&v=glance – that in pre-Christian Ireland, warriors always went into battle completely naked. And they also tried to work themselves up into a “warp spasm” similar to a Norse berserker’s rage. No mention of erections, however.
I know, but try telling the baboons that.
Perhaps they counted on homophobia… 
I imagine after every battle. 
I’m very interested in learning more about these pantsless soldiers.
Any paintings and such depicting them would be interesting for my research as well.
Ohh! I read that book when I was in 4th grade! Turned me into the sword weilding freak that I am today! Even though this book is over 50 years old, much of the information still holds up.
It does indeed state " On the upper part of his body, he wears leather armor…That’s all the clothes he wore, the rest of him was naked" (p23 of the 1954 edition). Along with a picture of a “bare arsed homeric warrior.” :eek:
It’s worth noting that bronze was strong – stronger than iron for a long time after it had been eclipsed by iron. Certainly strong enough that it would not have been especially vulnerable to early iron weapons. Only advanced techniques and the discovery of steel made iron stronger.
If bronze was so strong, why was it replaced by iron?
Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, basically. Tin is rare, and in classical times was known at only a few sites. Trade in tin was important – tin was transported hundreds, maybe thousands, of miles, for alloying into bronze. Furthermore, bronze alloying was something of an art.
All this made bronze very expensive, and only the elites could be armed.
Iron is common – the most abundant metal on earth, and the tenth most common element in the universe, according to some estimates. 5% of the earth’s crust is iron, apparently.
Iron armies could therefore be MUCH larger than bronze-equipped armies. Even though iron was initially less hard than bronze, it wasn’t by orders of magnitude, and large armies beat small ones, generally speaking.
The reason iron-based technologies developed later is that iron bonds easily to other things (like oxygen, in the case of rust). It is somewaht inobvious in the ground, usually, and it requires smelting to extract it from the ore. Once people realized how to extract iron and work it, everyone could find iron nearby, instead of trading with foreign empires for it, and (relatively) cheaply equip lots of troops. The Iron Age was born.
Sailboat
Sailboat hit it on the head.
Bronze is a soft, but tough metal. Hit it, and it cn deform, but usually holds together. Iron is hard and brittle, and it will crack under the same pressure. Some kinds of hr ancient world were using bronze coats to ward off attack long after iron took over.
Bronze weapons were also soft (No “naked warrior” jokes, please!, which might have been more problematic. If your spear bends in the middle of a fight (Shush!), you have a very expensive staff (Ack!) which can’t stab anything (Ick!). Iron weapons may have been cheap enough that it was just easier to carry multiple iron weapons than risk expensive ones.