There are parts where the translator refers to other “knights” going to and fro on the battlefield, but thus far Nestor is the only named character I’ve noticed has this association.
That sounds like a general descriptor then, which 8th century audiences would likely have seen as class-related.
But this exclusivity on the other hand might mean that it was specific epithet like Martian Bigfoot hypothesized. So we might be dealing with multiple meanings and of course we might also be dealing with different words all being translated as “knight” that Homer ( or whoever ) intended to be quite distinct. And I’m afraid my own Homeric Greek is quite, ahem, rusty ;).
OK, let’s do this thing. From book IV:
The relevant word in Greek: ἱππῆας. That’s “horsemen”.
Another one, from book V:
Relevant phrase in Greek: κέντορες ἵππων. That’s “drivers/goaders of horses”. Seems like a collective epithet.
Hey, here’s a good one - another named character referred to as “knight”, from book XVI:
Word in Greek: ἱππεῦ. “Horseman.”
OK, one more “knights”, plural, book IV again:
Greek: ἱππεῦσι. Again, horsemen.
I’m actually not seeing that many more knights in this translation (but if anyone else wants to dick around with it, be my guest). They seem to cluster around books IV and V, mostly. And I don’t see how any of this shows anything other than 1) there are horsemen and charioteers in the war, and 2) “horseman” or “driver of horses” can be used as epithets. I’m not seeing any reference to class structure.
Or rather: I don’t mean that dudes with horses and chariots weren’t higher on the pecking order than poor schlubs on foot. I would assume that they were, it only stands to reason. But I don’t see it referencing a class here, as such, like the later Hippeis class. And I don’t see it having anything to do with more modern knights.
Is it me, or is “driver of horses” a much more evocative epithet than “knight”?
More literal translations give you that nice Bronze Age feel. You wouldn’t want to be reading the Bible and hear about Pharaoh’s knights drowning in the Red Sea, would you?
Oh I never thought it was explicit, just implied. Even the Mycenaean charioteers who weren’t royalty were as you say on a higher average economic pecking order than infantry dross. And any description would ( you would think ) imply class structure to 8th century readers simply by the fact of referring to them as horsemen. So, pretty much…
And that’s about the same context as a medieval European knight. One can be a knight and a king, or one can be a knight and own a few hundred acres. But there was always a certain economic threshold to get there.
Knight here when used generally would seem to just be generic for “well equipped horseman.”
ETA: Thanks for taking the time to poke into the Greek :).
Yeah, I think you’re right. An association with horses would imply aristocracy or nobility to the original audience in a way that doesn’t necessarily come across readily in a modern translation. So, I suppose that’s the reason for using a term like “knight”. Otherwise, the reader might miss that connotation. (I still don’t think “knight” is all that awesome a translation, though. I’ll work on it. ;))
Homer certainly isn’t calling Hector a farm hand on the ranch when he says (spoiler alert): “And so they buried Hector, the tamer of horses.” (Which, BTW, I think is just about the most beautiful and evocative little line I’ve ever read. Especially that particular translation. Maybe that’s just me, though.) There’s some nobility implied. Same with other horsey phrases.
Philip or Phílippos, “horse-loving”, is, of course, a Greek royal name. Alexander the Great’s dad was Philip II of Macedon, for instance. It implies “noble”.
OK, now I want a translation of The Iliad which renders κέντορες ἵππων and ἱππεῦ and so forth as “cowboys”.
“Hector, the cowboy”. I love it.
Why not call him a soldier ?
Well suppose I had a new recruit to my army. He’s from a distant farm, and that farm has been lost and his family dead, he wants revenge, he says. Suppose I had a spare suit of armour (leathers at the time), shield (leather on wood?) and set of sword,spear,dagger,hammer,etc
Do I just give the weapeons and armour ? Will that make him a knight ?
- he might just run away ,selll the weapons, and buy himself a farm , or “right” to work one, somewhere.
- Whats more important than a sword and a shiny suit ?
Knowledge and people skills. Ability to draw the mud map and talk about the plan…
Okay …
There are two guys on a chariot. The driver and the spear thrower. Known that for a while.
I had assumed that the spearman had the higher status. The driver was a tad above a generic foot soldier.
But I’m getting the sense that this is wrong. Is it?
Both, potentially.
We don’t know a great deal about how chariot armies actually fought at all. Extensive written records are pretty scarce during the era when chariots were heavily involved in warfare, and given the iffy accuracy of depictions of battles, it’s pretty unclear. Probably the best description we have was of the pre-Roman British tribes. In this case, the explanation for their fighting style implies that the guy throwing javelins, driving the chariot, and dismounting to rush into melee might all be the same guy. Much like a horse, you only needed one hand on the reins.
Not necessarily. It might be more toothsome than that.
More like the driver was also a noble, more like a squire - or at any rate, a named character. But yes, Achilles for one didn’t drive his own chariot.
Present, yes.
But not the watchman! They’re completely different jobs! And yes, the “old cripples” were given that job. Not “any old cripple they could find” because you’re making it sound as if a serious job was handled via the Beggar’s Guild. Being crippled doesn’t diminish someone except in physical ability: a man could be unable to do jobs requiring strength, both arms or two good legs and be perfectly capable of watching the horizon and raising an alert.
Do you expect the CEO to be watching camera feed?
In the meaning of lower noble caste, yes. As you say, not in the meaning of caballero en su caballo (horseman/rider atop his horse), nor were they knighted… but then, by that time the Spaniards didn’t get knighted either.
I’ve noticed some translations of Greek comedies will write the Spartan characters with southern hillbilly accents. I think it is supposed to suggest that the Spartans were foreign and a bunch of slack jawed yokels compared to the Athenians (who were the original audience). It is incredibly obnoxious to read precisely because it is so artificial.
Right, I’m sure the lord would pick only the finest cripples for his personal household guards. I guess this is part of the “medieval society was just like today and equal opportunity was totally a thing” fantasy. Ech. I’m done talking to you.
That’s not…all that unlikely. If you’ve got somebody who, through age or injury, can’t effectively fight on the battlefield anymore, he can still serve as a lookout in a watchtower.
From the visual depictions combined with what written accounts exist, it would appear that there were at least three different ways to fight using chariots - maybe more.
-
In most of the ME, chariots were basically platforms for nobles to shoot arrows from: the driver was definitely necessary - unlike a horse, you can’t really steer a chariot with leg-pressure, so you need a driver when shooting a bow.
-
Some charioteers appear to have used long lances to spear enemies.
-
Some used the throw javelins - leap off and engage on foot model.
I used to be a knight like you, but then I took a sling stone to the knee.
I can think of one more that doesn’t need a separate driver (post-Mycenaean, though).