07-22-2012, 12:20 PM
Quote: Where do these “6 feet apart” come from? Of course 6 feet apart is not even open formation… It means that each hoplite stands in the middle of a 14 feet opening! Regularly, when talking about densities, one speaks of the space occupied by a single warrior plus the distance from the one next to him. Anyways, I do not think that anyone disputes the existence of the open order. Discussing it surely does not rule out close order. Mixing light infantry with heavy infantry was very rare but not unheard of and is proposed in several later military manuals of armies that certainly drew up in close order AND could under circumstances fight in open order too. I do not see how any one of these arguments refutes close order.
The point exactly is how did a close order (and we should really not call it close but overlaping shields order)come to the piedestal in the first place so that it had to be challenged, which is always hard thing to do…
He is challinging that practice.If somehow more open order was in the place of overlapping shields it would be even harder if not impossible at all chalinging it in favor of the overlaping shield order.
I don’t have a text with me but he mentioned distances in the text, using later sources, but I think that is just an example not a definition.
He is arguing phalanx (I presume archaic) being in such a close order, stressing order, it was order, though not as close as for them to overlap shields,.order that was open enough for fluid combat and individual skills, opening or closing spontaneously due to the different factors, and in different parts of the battle line. In comparison with overlapping shields and 7 men on my back, 6 feet is extremely open, although I think Krentz calculated only distance from shield to shield not space occupied by man himself.
Quote: Nope… this discussion would be very long, if you really want to, we can embark on it.
No please do.I doubt discussion will be long since I am interested in hearing countering oppinions not making you change your mind. I do want to know why are these representations dismissed? And Chigi vase accepted as the only true depiction?
Quote: Yet, discussing othismos is not the same thing as discussing densities and you should keep that in mind. If in order to support an opinion, a loose ordered battle is necessary, you should first discuss that. And, a small mistake, of course there would be no Hellenistic phalanx in the 6th century, the term is reserved for the post-Alexander era.
Okay. I thought it did, since those are the two foundations of orthodox view on hoplite battle mechanic.
I am well aware of what Hellenistic is, I am deliberately using the term to denote the backward projection.
Thank you for a nice discussion, and taking time to answer.
Nikolas Gulan
