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'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."
-
At least I read that passage as being about the number of ranks deep (e.g. 3, 4, 6, 8 men deep, whatever) not about spacing.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.