+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx (/showthread.php?tid=14696)
Re: Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx - PMBardunias - 09-02-2009
Quote:Personally, as I have indicated on another thread, I think Connolly ( and others) have it right......
Which image? He shows at least three different poses: side-on with the shield facing laterally as his son is in the Pydna paper, 3/4 as he is in the sarissa paper and simply standing up relatively squared to the fore in the group images of the same paper with the shield facing forward. It may be relevant that pole vaulters can run quite fast with an awkward, though lighter, pole held facing forward with the left arm across the chest.
My inclination is to believe the standard pose was someplace between the last two, with the side-on stance reserved for a static close order formation.
:wink: PADDLE...PADDLE....
Re: Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx - Sean Manning - 09-03-2009
Looking at Connolly's overhead view of a pike formation in his sarissa article (Figure 7 I think) I almost wonder if he drew them in the side-on stance because it was necessary to fit his figures in synapsimos? He could have copied the stance to his figures in wider order without thinking.
A standard fighting stance with one foot forward and the feet not in line seems to make the most sense. Its apparently what the surviving Medieval and Renaissance manuals teach, although medieval pikemen didn't carry a shield.
Re: Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx - PMBardunias - 09-03-2009
Quote: I almost wonder if he drew them in the side-on stance because it was necessary to fit his figures in synapsimos?
That makes sense to me. It must be very hard to advance in the stance above and the 1.5 foot spacing would have limited mobility.
Quote:A standard fighting stance with one foot forward and the feet not in line seems to make the most sense. Its apparently what the surviving Medieval and Renaissance manuals teach, although medieval pikemen didn't carry a shield.
The lack of shield may be a critical difference. If you have a shield it makes sense to face it towards the enemy.
Re: Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx - Paralus - 09-16-2009
Quote:PMBardunias:1zmwgi73 Wrote:Quote:Remember that they would have to use these shields with a sword at times, so a single grip at the edge would not be sufficient.
And why could they not fight with their swords with a shield suspended by a grip at the edge and a strap? We know that phalangites weren't very effective in close combat, and maybe this is one of the reasons why..
While it is possible that the shield was held via strap and an edge grip it is far more likely that a porpax, of some description, remained. Attestations of Alexander's phalangites in action where the sarisa was obviously not used speak to the troops being used in some form of "hoplite" manner: shield and spear. Coenus' "so-called" aesthetairoi at Tyre come to mind. Whilst in a phalanx melee a phalangite may have resorted to just the edge grip, in instances where the sarisa was not used it would make more sense to use a porpax.