07-22-2012, 11:55 AM
Sorry for my late reply..many stuff going around for me this time of year.
I was kidding about the friend part, it's okay.
I came here to learn, and to present some of my opinions on the subject. I am not a reenactor, though I done several experiments on my own. I find it being a plus sometimes because my judgment is not being influenced by anything other than fact. And I came across people, reenactors, who we so stubborn accepting even lambda on Spartan shields was a very late 5th BC practice, just because it would make them either redo their shields or simply accept they are not photorealistic hoplites from the past.But stick to the point of the topic…
Don't mind me asking, instead of what. What else did any of us do than interpret texts and pictures. And don't mind saying being very bias at occasions. What would be a ''fact'' concerning hoplite warfare other than the most well founded view, with the least or no gaping holes in it.
@Macedon. Well I stumbled upon some interpretation of his work, maybe by P.Bardunias(once in discussion I feel I can mention members individually)... I thought that Krentz deserved at lest a discussion like this so everyone could figure for himself.
I believe in argumented, not dogmatic approach, so I enjoy countering evidence with evidence, interpretation with interpretation..
THe point is misinterpretation is not a new concept among Hanson and others..It is not a modern invention, but hoplite deriving from hopla not hoplon is, today, much more common fact than what exactly is phalanx, othismos etc...Thinking like a 19th century historian, certainly isn’t a plus.
I agree, I did choose it since that is the most violated and unrightfully misinterpreted period of Greek history…often defined by copy-pasting late Classical and Hellenistic times.
But if your view is true, then why defining Archaic warfare at all, let’s call it unclear or not well defined…and we both know full well it is usually defined as tight order phalanx battle, especially from Chigi vase/or highly questionable Hysiae, onward rather than either protophalanx or fluid combat.
If we use same standards for later reconstructions, let's use them always...regardless of what the result might be. I almost never hear about uncertainties regarding ancient warfare, historians know exact picture, reenactors know exact picture, even BBC knows exact picture, but at the end everyone is speculating their a** off.
I choose that period exactly because it is foggy yet somehow clearly defined as Hellenistically dense order phalanx fighting with othismos shoving match(shoving match sometimes argued, but Hellenistically dense order never challenged).
I do seek a reasonable explanation why, next to the abundance of representations of open warfare, few close order(not seeing how are they close nor what close even means according to those paintings) representations became a Roseta stone of hoplite revolution/evolution. Why does Chigi vase represent cca 3 feet per man, and not 6?
Clarification. 550-470 BC is later Archaic with a decade of Classical…to me.
I am questioning extremely close order(shields touching but not close order in general) among archaic phalanxes or whatever we call them to differ them from Philip II..I am by no means advocating savage warfare without ranks or any formation or order, but not accepting Macedonian phalanx in 6th BC.
I am also arguing against othismos as a phase, as something all parts of line did on purpose at the same time as an exercised way of warfare,but a spontaneous answer to the stalemate situation or topography or naturall habit of bunching together etc...at some parts of the battle line,in some occasions. Even that is forcing the evidence, and can be a founded speculation at best. Othismos in sources being much more logically push of the shield as part of hoplomachia,not push en masse. And I think Krentz and others who said that before and after him, did show it.
And if we are to found our theories on interpretation of this terms alone than I agree, there is nothing we can definitely conclude, no fluid combat more similar to Homer than to Philip II, but no Hellenistic phalanx eiter - yet everyone accepts the second one more easily than the first,why?
If there are no definite proofs for either what made othismos stick so deeply into our minds today? What quote, what evidence?
I was kidding about the friend part, it's okay.
I came here to learn, and to present some of my opinions on the subject. I am not a reenactor, though I done several experiments on my own. I find it being a plus sometimes because my judgment is not being influenced by anything other than fact. And I came across people, reenactors, who we so stubborn accepting even lambda on Spartan shields was a very late 5th BC practice, just because it would make them either redo their shields or simply accept they are not photorealistic hoplites from the past.But stick to the point of the topic…Quote: Mr Krenz is full of theory based on his interpretations of texts.
Don't mind me asking, instead of what. What else did any of us do than interpret texts and pictures. And don't mind saying being very bias at occasions. What would be a ''fact'' concerning hoplite warfare other than the most well founded view, with the least or no gaping holes in it.
@Macedon. Well I stumbled upon some interpretation of his work, maybe by P.Bardunias(once in discussion I feel I can mention members individually)... I thought that Krentz deserved at lest a discussion like this so everyone could figure for himself.
I believe in argumented, not dogmatic approach, so I enjoy countering evidence with evidence, interpretation with interpretation..
Quote: I do not see the point here. The suggestion that the hoplite was thus named because of the hoplon shield has been handed over by Diodorus and I happen to disagree with it, but surely it is nothing invented in modern times
THe point is misinterpretation is not a new concept among Hanson and others..It is not a modern invention, but hoplite deriving from hopla not hoplon is, today, much more common fact than what exactly is phalanx, othismos etc...Thinking like a 19th century historian, certainly isn’t a plus.
Quote: ],,Hmm… you choose a period from which very little has survived in terms of literary evidence. To be frank, there is no proof that the Greeks did not fight on giant eagles too at that time… ......Of course, this means that the “open order” theory is (at least) as unsupported as any “close order” theory.''
I agree, I did choose it since that is the most violated and unrightfully misinterpreted period of Greek history…often defined by copy-pasting late Classical and Hellenistic times.
But if your view is true, then why defining Archaic warfare at all, let’s call it unclear or not well defined…and we both know full well it is usually defined as tight order phalanx battle, especially from Chigi vase/or highly questionable Hysiae, onward rather than either protophalanx or fluid combat.
If we use same standards for later reconstructions, let's use them always...regardless of what the result might be. I almost never hear about uncertainties regarding ancient warfare, historians know exact picture, reenactors know exact picture, even BBC knows exact picture, but at the end everyone is speculating their a** off.
I choose that period exactly because it is foggy yet somehow clearly defined as Hellenistically dense order phalanx fighting with othismos shoving match(shoving match sometimes argued, but Hellenistically dense order never challenged).
I do seek a reasonable explanation why, next to the abundance of representations of open warfare, few close order(not seeing how are they close nor what close even means according to those paintings) representations became a Roseta stone of hoplite revolution/evolution. Why does Chigi vase represent cca 3 feet per man, and not 6?
Quote: Could you clarify whether you want to discuss archaic and early classical (this also needs defining) phalanxes or hoplite warfare in general up to the point that the hoplites took up the sarissa?
Clarification. 550-470 BC is later Archaic with a decade of Classical…to me.
I am questioning extremely close order(shields touching but not close order in general) among archaic phalanxes or whatever we call them to differ them from Philip II..I am by no means advocating savage warfare without ranks or any formation or order, but not accepting Macedonian phalanx in 6th BC.
I am also arguing against othismos as a phase, as something all parts of line did on purpose at the same time as an exercised way of warfare,but a spontaneous answer to the stalemate situation or topography or naturall habit of bunching together etc...at some parts of the battle line,in some occasions. Even that is forcing the evidence, and can be a founded speculation at best. Othismos in sources being much more logically push of the shield as part of hoplomachia,not push en masse. And I think Krentz and others who said that before and after him, did show it.
And if we are to found our theories on interpretation of this terms alone than I agree, there is nothing we can definitely conclude, no fluid combat more similar to Homer than to Philip II, but no Hellenistic phalanx eiter - yet everyone accepts the second one more easily than the first,why?
If there are no definite proofs for either what made othismos stick so deeply into our minds today? What quote, what evidence?
Nikolas Gulan
