11-03-2007, 12:24 PM
LOL, I thought I would be accorded at least the deference to artistic style we accord ancient potters!
Yes, my D should look more like what Giannis described above, but I did not want to confuse the picture by skewing the figures- and evidently did so even more n the process. Rather than the position slanting the line into a slope, the overlap with a slant as shown by Giannis above translates into a built in rightward drift- which we know was a feature of hoplite combat.
I hoped to provide as little info as possible since the purpose of the poll is really to see how the various hypotheses of different authors have penetrated into the common perception, but I'll elaborate.
A) Represents the opened order espoused most recently by Van Wees, but earlier by Cawkwell and others.
B) Is a portrayal of "close order" but not the overlapping aspises we associate with othismos. In this order, side-long or squared forward is irrelevant since either stance does not effect the formation with this much space. The true side-long stance is a myth in any case since the right shoulder surely came forward in the strike.
C) Hanson and others who push for othismos describe a plan like this with the side-long stance and shoulders used in pushing. The men could be packed much tighter than this crude drawing suggests.
D) Is the scheme that I described recently. If you take a look at Johnny's excellent illustration in AW you'll see that I had him draw them this way.
Yes, my D should look more like what Giannis described above, but I did not want to confuse the picture by skewing the figures- and evidently did so even more n the process. Rather than the position slanting the line into a slope, the overlap with a slant as shown by Giannis above translates into a built in rightward drift- which we know was a feature of hoplite combat.
I hoped to provide as little info as possible since the purpose of the poll is really to see how the various hypotheses of different authors have penetrated into the common perception, but I'll elaborate.
A) Represents the opened order espoused most recently by Van Wees, but earlier by Cawkwell and others.
B) Is a portrayal of "close order" but not the overlapping aspises we associate with othismos. In this order, side-long or squared forward is irrelevant since either stance does not effect the formation with this much space. The true side-long stance is a myth in any case since the right shoulder surely came forward in the strike.
C) Hanson and others who push for othismos describe a plan like this with the side-long stance and shoulders used in pushing. The men could be packed much tighter than this crude drawing suggests.
D) Is the scheme that I described recently. If you take a look at Johnny's excellent illustration in AW you'll see that I had him draw them this way.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
