Nice statue. The only thing it lacks is the typical figure 8 shaped shiled used by Myceanean warriors.
The Illad describes warfare between individual champions - sort of like the kiind of fighting that in the popular mind occurred in Medieval European battles. Classical Greek battles were between close formations of opposing troops in hoplite armour. Apparently the flick depicted individuals fighting each other in classical hoplite armor, not Mycenaean type armor.
The anachronisms present in the Illiad, which was written long after Mycenaean times, argue to the valid basis of the story.
Between the armor and the shield (which, IIRC, were multiple bullhides thick!), these guys must have been monsters. The Rock wouldn't have done them justice... No wonder they needed a chariot to get around.
Ancient Greek (Mycenaean) tactics seems to have had lightly armed and armored spear fodder supporting individual heroes who were nearly invulnerable to attacks by lesser troops. Tactics and strategery were apparently lacking - the Greeks were never able to properly besiege Troy. The Trojan Horse was apparently a major innovation: a siege tower that got the Greeks over the walls and into Troy.
A book I read recently about the Bronze Age pointed out that most warfare in that time was carried out via chariot. The aristocracy (people like the kings of Pylos, Mycenae, and Troy) were charioteers, or eqeta in Greek. But there is a lot of dispute about how chariots were used, particularly by the Greeks and the Hittites (the Trojans' neighbors, relatives, and sometime rulers.)
The Dendra armor is very heavy and doesn't look good for infantry battle (looks like a wearable garbage can). It looks like a plate-armor version of the long corselets that the Middle Eastern chariot warriors (mariyannu) wore.
There is a theory that the Hittites and Greeks used long lances from chariots, sort of like jousting, while the Egyptians and Canaanites used bows. On the other hand, Robert Drews thinks that chariot tactics were pretty much uniform across the region, with emphasis on the bow. (He mentions Odysseus's bow to make the point that early Greeks may not have had the Classical Greek bias agains the bow.)
The interesting part is this: why do the warriors in the Iliad ride chariots into battle and then dismount? Chariots were the Bronze Age equivalent of a tank or fighter plane in terms of cost, so you would think they would have been used more in battle than just as a battle-taxi. I think there were battle-taxi type vehicles in Assyria and Elam, but they were basically ox- or mule-drawn carts, not particularly fast or expensive.
On the other hand, there is clear evidence of Mycenaean weapons and tactics. Nestor talks about using chariots in battle "like in the old days," there there are references to "great shields" carried by warriors such as Ajax, like the figure eight or tower shields that are shown in Mycenaean art, there are references to silvered swords ("phasganon argyron", which is Myceneaean dialect) that resemble weapons found in Mycenaean tombs, and Odysseus wears a helmet decorated with boars' tusks like those found in Mycenaean tombs (and unlike the bronze helmets of Homer's Dark Age Greece.)
Here are a couple pictures of these "great shields" and boar's tusk helmets.
http://www.culture.gr/2/21/211/21121m/00/lk21m087.jpg
http://classics.unc.edu/courses/clar049/Th-fr1.JPG
On the other hand, there is an emphasis on infantry fighting in the Iliad, which may more reflect tactics of Homer's own time (c. 800-700 BC, the Greek Dark Ages, before hoplite warfare began).
But the Iliad may be about a raid on Troy VI or VIIa, toward the end of the Mycenaean period, and historian Robert Drews (in The End of the Bronze Age) makes the argument that the Trojan war 1) really happened and 2) was a seminal event in military history, precipitating the decline of chariot warfare and the growth in importance of infantry toward the beginning of the Iron Age.
Point 1 is relatively uncontroversial (see Michael Wood's In Search of the Trojan War). Point 2 is very radical and is accepted by almost no mainstream scholars, but is rather interesting to ponder.
According to Drews, the Iliad's focus on infantry battle may be based on the exploits of more primitive northern Greeks ("Achaeans") who fought primarily as mercenary infantry skirmishers for the chariot lords of Mycenae and Pylos, and developed infantry tactics to defeat chariot armies, and infantry weapons that are more suited for fast-moving offensive combat than defense (such as javelins or short thrusting spears vs. pikes, round shields vs. tower shields).
Another radical suggestion he makes is that these northern Greeks, together with other barbarians from modern-day Italy and Asia Minor, and maybe a few displaced Mycenaeans from southern Greece or Crete who had turned to raiding, made up the bulk of the so-called "Sea Peoples" who attacked cities in the Eastern Mediterranean about 1200 BC.
Here is a picture that may show "Achaeans" or something like them (the Warrior Vase of Mycenae)
http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/photos/photodb/Beasom/vasedetail2.jpg
It is noteworthy that the bulk of the "Sea People" mercenaries hired by a Libyan king to help him invade Egypt during the reign of the pharoah Merneptah were "Ekwesh" or "Akhaiwoi", in other words, Achaeans, and that this king may have hired them because of their success against the Trojan charioteers.
