09-22-2010, 01:01 PM
Paul B,
We'll be having another go at this, and will do our best to have a camera and photographer on hand at the time.
One thing I would like to visit is the question of the geometry of packing. I do agree that chest to shield would represent the minimum pack in depth, but when it comes to the question of lateral packing, I think we should be able to agree that even if we disregard the classical sources which require maintenance of good order in the phalanx in order for it to be good at anything, there is a fundamental geometrical limitation on any lateral pack imposed by the presence of the aspis.
So, assuming the average man is about 8" thick at the chest and aspides 36" in diameter, and overlapping of shields from the left to right, and shields relatively square to the frontage:
A chest-to-chest side-on lateral pack which could produce dangerous pressures on the sternum would mean you would have to have two men packed against you in the distance from your chest to the outer edge of your aspsis. Of course, each of them would be bearing an aspis as well, so in order to be packed that tightly the man to the right's aspis would have be projecting about 10" past the left side of your arm, which is not really geometrically possible. In fact, its far enough that the man packed to your left's arm would also have to project through the plane of the shield.
In fact in order to laterally pack anywhere close to the point where there woul be the risk of lateral pressure, the aspides of the men to your left and right would have to be completely above or completely below the arm. Entertaining to consider, but not feasible, and certainly not something represented anywhere in the art.
So, as the arm represents a fundamental limitation on the pack of the aspides, assuming a maximum lateral pack where the rim of your neighbours' aspis is pressed against the inside of your left arm, and yours against the arm of the man on your left, every man has a 28" wide space to work in. The numbers don't change if you're side on or square to the front, as the arm is still in the way.
Now by angling the aspides out from the plane of the frontage of the phalanx, which is a frequently depicted shield guard in the art, you can make for a tighter lateral pack, but you are no longer in an effective pushing position, but you could dramatically increase the number of men fighting along a particularly piece of frontage.
This leads to an interesting outcome when you consider the classical sources that describe compacting the frontage of the phalanx to increase its effectivenessWhen we read about compressing the frontage. Proponents of mass-pushing like Luginbill have pointed to this as evidence that a mass-shove played an important role in hoplite warfare.
But as this fairly simple thought exercise shows, to truly compact your frontage you have to adopt a shield guard that is not well suited to pushing, but doubles or more the number of spear points at play on a particular point in the line while still leaving room to work.
That's a fairly interesting result.
Have fun,
We'll be having another go at this, and will do our best to have a camera and photographer on hand at the time.
One thing I would like to visit is the question of the geometry of packing. I do agree that chest to shield would represent the minimum pack in depth, but when it comes to the question of lateral packing, I think we should be able to agree that even if we disregard the classical sources which require maintenance of good order in the phalanx in order for it to be good at anything, there is a fundamental geometrical limitation on any lateral pack imposed by the presence of the aspis.
So, assuming the average man is about 8" thick at the chest and aspides 36" in diameter, and overlapping of shields from the left to right, and shields relatively square to the frontage:
A chest-to-chest side-on lateral pack which could produce dangerous pressures on the sternum would mean you would have to have two men packed against you in the distance from your chest to the outer edge of your aspsis. Of course, each of them would be bearing an aspis as well, so in order to be packed that tightly the man to the right's aspis would have be projecting about 10" past the left side of your arm, which is not really geometrically possible. In fact, its far enough that the man packed to your left's arm would also have to project through the plane of the shield.
In fact in order to laterally pack anywhere close to the point where there woul be the risk of lateral pressure, the aspides of the men to your left and right would have to be completely above or completely below the arm. Entertaining to consider, but not feasible, and certainly not something represented anywhere in the art.
So, as the arm represents a fundamental limitation on the pack of the aspides, assuming a maximum lateral pack where the rim of your neighbours' aspis is pressed against the inside of your left arm, and yours against the arm of the man on your left, every man has a 28" wide space to work in. The numbers don't change if you're side on or square to the front, as the arm is still in the way.
Now by angling the aspides out from the plane of the frontage of the phalanx, which is a frequently depicted shield guard in the art, you can make for a tighter lateral pack, but you are no longer in an effective pushing position, but you could dramatically increase the number of men fighting along a particularly piece of frontage.
This leads to an interesting outcome when you consider the classical sources that describe compacting the frontage of the phalanx to increase its effectivenessWhen we read about compressing the frontage. Proponents of mass-pushing like Luginbill have pointed to this as evidence that a mass-shove played an important role in hoplite warfare.
But as this fairly simple thought exercise shows, to truly compact your frontage you have to adopt a shield guard that is not well suited to pushing, but doubles or more the number of spear points at play on a particular point in the line while still leaving room to work.
That's a fairly interesting result.
Have fun,
Cole
