04-05-2007, 09:25 PM
But, if one takes Homer's description of a battle seriously, shouldn't one take his description of the shield seriously?
Dan Howard has done a lot of work on this subject, with the view to a practical reconstruction of the beast. It clearly was not a hoplite's aspis. It is described as banging on the ankles and the neck, it is circular, and it is primarily made of hides. In size and material, it is closer to Mycenaean shields than Classical ones. It could not be used like a hoplite's aspis, or vice versa.
Polybius clearly describes a close order for Macedonian sarissas than typical of late Republican legionaries. It is worth pointing out than Macedonians did carry swords, and not purely thrusting ones either. It is also worth pointing out that the Romans did use close order formations - such as the foulkon, and as described by Arrian against the Alans. So a close formation can be used by a man with a cut and thrust sword - it just limits his combat options. He can still thrust, and he could cut downwards.
Dan Howard has done a lot of work on this subject, with the view to a practical reconstruction of the beast. It clearly was not a hoplite's aspis. It is described as banging on the ankles and the neck, it is circular, and it is primarily made of hides. In size and material, it is closer to Mycenaean shields than Classical ones. It could not be used like a hoplite's aspis, or vice versa.
Polybius clearly describes a close order for Macedonian sarissas than typical of late Republican legionaries. It is worth pointing out than Macedonians did carry swords, and not purely thrusting ones either. It is also worth pointing out that the Romans did use close order formations - such as the foulkon, and as described by Arrian against the Alans. So a close formation can be used by a man with a cut and thrust sword - it just limits his combat options. He can still thrust, and he could cut downwards.
Felix Wang
