Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I don't say that the aspis is *bad* in one-on-one or open-order combat. But I do stand by the contention that it isn't excellent at it. For all of our modern sparring, I think some deference is owed to the equipment decisions made by men whose lives depended on it.
And, certainly, some open-order fighters - ekdromoi, or shipboard marines - used the aspis during the Classical period. But I don't think it is an accident that loose-order specialists - peltasts, thureophoroi - used different shields with different grips.
The second century in particular, I think, speaks to the degree to which - once exposed - the Greeks were quite receptive to the idea of equipping a *lot* of men with center-grip Gallic style shields (=thureos). Thureophoroi are *everywhere* in late-3/early-2century BC Greece
They're all over Polybius (who distinguishes between thureophori generally and armored thureophoroi whom he calls thraokites, Plb 4.12; 10.29) and by Plutrach as the standard Greek (non-Macedonian) soldier from which a reformer (Cleom. 11.2; Philop. 9.1-3) might move away from.
I agree, but I think the decision to use the pelte is driven by a desire for mobility. This is one of these areas where experimental archaeology really helps. Even with the porpax up by my elbow, I have punched hard enough with the rim to knock my opponent senseless.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
