Posts: 1,829
Threads: 78
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
0
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....
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!"
Posts: 1,550
Threads: 81
Joined: Oct 2006
Reputation:
49
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.
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have
a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Posts: 1,829
Threads: 78
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
0
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.
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!"