Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
At best Tyrtaios shows the same intermediate form of heavy infantry combat also evident in Hdt.'s account of the Persian Wars. It's easy to overemphasise either the density of his lines or the presence of light-armed; reality seems to have accomodated both (i.e. not a phalanx.)
This, I think, is actually the rub - this is frequently a debate over definition masquerading as a debate over facts. Is it a phalanx if you have a front line overlapping aspides, but some light armed guys in the back? How many light armed guys till it stops being a phalanx?
I agree definitions are important, but I've never seen anyone willing to argue that a heterogenous formation (light armed + hoplites) can count as a phalanx. Homogeneity & rank-and-file order are the litmus test.
Could that same criticism be extended to the late Macedonian Phalanx of Philip V when only the first few ranks were even armored?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
