For classics twitter consideration (@BretDevereaux @ProfPaul_J ) (without rendering my own opinion, which is worth little).https://www.academia.edu/45455304/The_battle_mechanics_of_the_Hoplite_Phalanx?fbclid=IwAR0qEj5KHMEj2JGOyzy8-1bgwKNdiQqS2CvlzKYp4qrZLIPCAi-aJIKrjNs …
For a paper aiming to "avoid the haze of later interpretation" there are a lot of points here balanced entirely on top of secondary source literature...and not always the best.
-
-
it certainly does start out that way.
-
It really feels like this is a project that would be better served in a longer (read: book) format. Again, I think a de novo look at hoplites is valuable, but it needs to be done in a space that doesn't need all of the archaeology intermediated by secondary source footnotes.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I could see value in a truly de novo approach to hoplites, trying to shed the baggage of the 'scholarly othismos' but this isn't that.
-
I'm not fond of how the mechanics of combat in the ranks are treated here. From fn48 to fn64 is a wall of secondary sources laying the interpretive foundation. "Field experiments conducted by the Koryvantes Association of Historical Studies" - good, neat, uh, footnote?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Ha! Me earlier, just reading the abstract:pic.twitter.com/GFgK3KO6ya
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
"The analogy with medieval knights is striking"pic.twitter.com/A0zmt3mGwa
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.