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.
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?
-
That paragraph (p9, second full graph) makes me nervous. "Pictures in pottery and sculpture" needs more than three figures to back it up and if the art *is* unanimous about the direction of shield overlap in synaspismos, my instinct is to believe the art.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.