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 …
-
-
'Their kit was expensive' provided here isn't quite enough to make the analogy work. A lot of urban militias, *in the middle ages* had expensive kits. What made knights different was the possession of skills linked to a specific, skill-heavy style of combat.
-
At the very least, it ought to come with a proviso that the 'hoplite class' seems to have been far more extensive than the knightly class ever was. The Second Estate was c. 1.5% of pre-revolutionary France, for instance. Even the Spartiates are a bigger slice of the population.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I was thinking more in terms of medieval "phalanxes" being shieldless and the roll of the Swiss in reviving pike combat. Leaving the Byzantines to one side, long spears were a feature of Welsh, Scottish and Flemish armies for far longer, and they were often used with shields.
-
To add an additional thought, the spread of dismounted men-at-arms fighting with lances, which initially seems to be an English/Scottish trait that spread to France and Italy, is also an often overlooked factor in the revival of "pike" tactics. /1
- 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.