09-18-2010, 02:23 AM
By the way, Xenophon does not say "on the shoulder". You will commonly read something like: "as they rest against the shoulder they are a help in shoving" The actual phrase is: ??? ?????????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ????????????? ???? ???? ????? ?????. Obviously against the side of the shoulder is no more a valid rendering than against the front of the shoulder. The word in question actually has a primary meaning of:
Thus I have been told that it can also be rendered as "supported by resting on the shoulder and upper arm". This then would be a simple description of a shield with a porpax-type grip. The reason this is important is that in the next section we find out what Xenophon is juxtaposing with this:
They had to hold out their shields in their hands becuase of the single center grip. Thus the whole thing may not tell you they pushed form the side, or me they pushed from the front, but simply that they used a porpax-like double grip and were thus better made for pushing!
I agree with your reading of Arrian, but I am very wary of him as a source for the mechanics of a hoplite phalanx because he had first hand knowledge of a roman shield-wall of the type later called the fulcum. Since these shields had neither porpax, nor great depth, his opinion is probably worth less than yours, for you have the right shield. You'll note the line you cite is not in the earlier tactical manuals and is in fact found in a section of cavalry- which the fulcum was specifically formed to defend from.
Quote:???? , o(: (v. sub fin.):—
A. [select] the shoulder with the upper arm (????? being the lower), “????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ?????” Il.5.146, cf. 8.325, Hdt.4.62; “????????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????????” Il.5.41; “?????? ??? ???? ????????” 15.544; ???? ? ???????, ???? ???????, 5.400, 18.204; “??????” 3.210; “?????” 2.217; “???? ??????? ???? ?????” 11.527, cf. S.Fr.453; “??? ???? . . ??????” Od.10.170, cf. Isoc.19.39; “?????? ??? ????” Herod.3.61; ???? ???? ?????? ib.3; “??? ???? ?????? ????” S.Fr.373; “?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????” Pl.R.613c; “?????? ???????” Il.19.11; “???? . . ????? ???” 15.474; ??? or ??????? ?????, 14.376, 1.45, al.; ????? or ??? ????? ??????, S.Fr.454, Tr564; “????? ??? ??????? ???” Od.11.128, 23.275; “????? . . ???? ??? ?????????” E.IT1381; “??? ????? ??????” Id.Ba.755; “????? ??????? . . ????? ???????” A.Pr.350; ?????? ????? ?????? 'by the strength of mine arms', Hdt.2.106; ?????????? ??? ?. to dislocate it, Ar.Eq.263 (troch.); “? ?? ???? . . ????????” Id.Ra.30; “??? ???? ????????” Id.Fr.323: pl. for sg., “????? ???????????? ????????? ?????” E.Or.1471.
Thus I have been told that it can also be rendered as "supported by resting on the shoulder and upper arm". This then would be a simple description of a shield with a porpax-type grip. The reason this is important is that in the next section we find out what Xenophon is juxtaposing with this:
Quote:34] And because the Persians had to hold out their little shields clutched in their hands, they were unable to hold the line, but were forced back foot by foot, giving and taking blows, until they came up under cover of the moving towers.
They had to hold out their shields in their hands becuase of the single center grip. Thus the whole thing may not tell you they pushed form the side, or me they pushed from the front, but simply that they used a porpax-like double grip and were thus better made for pushing!
I agree with your reading of Arrian, but I am very wary of him as a source for the mechanics of a hoplite phalanx because he had first hand knowledge of a roman shield-wall of the type later called the fulcum. Since these shields had neither porpax, nor great depth, his opinion is probably worth less than yours, for you have the right shield. You'll note the line you cite is not in the earlier tactical manuals and is in fact found in a section of cavalry- which the fulcum was specifically formed to defend from.
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!"
