Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Fair critiques. I'll correct the hoplon/hoplite point. Point on phalanx depth is fair, will change to 'eight(ish)' for standard hoplite phalanx and give a sense of greater variety in depth.
Going to beg to differ on points re: orthodoxy. Also on combined arms - I'm not saying they don't do combined arms, I'm saying they aren't very good at it. Lack of coordination and also Greek cavalry (Thessalians excepted) and light infantry (Cretans excepted) seems sub-par.
And the coordination is lack-luster. We can assume other arms in the penumbra around reported hoplite armies and sometimes the sources tell us so, but never anything to the complexity of Alexander's army, or a Roman consular army, or even a Persian royal army.
In any event, thank you for the critique! Honestly, I'm quite content that the original post comes out this well, given that it was a blog series written functionally in a fit of pique rather than a carefully researched academic article and Sparta is not my core specialty.
This is an unfair simplification. Just going by explicit source statements, there were also good light troops in Akarnania and Rhodes, and good cavalry in Syracuse, Taras, Magnesia, Thebes, Olynthos, Eretria, Kolophon, and even Sparta (eventually).
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
