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 …
-
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.
-
Just skimming along, but fn73, Xen. Lac. 11.6 doesn't say what they think it says? Xenophon is talking about the ease of setting a line thin or deep through Spartan file leaders giving orders, not the 'open format...combin[ing] low density with increased depth."
- 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.