degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era

[PMBardunias]

I doubt you can do something like fulcum with hoplite shields.

The biggest obstacle to doing what Arrian and Maurice describe with 3 ranks of shields is that the aspis lacks a sheild boss. The second man's shield must rest on the boss of the man in front- who is probably kneeling or squatting. Also, the porpax makes reaching forward to overlap in this way for the thirst man difficult.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

But the 6 kg of the vatican shield are very comparable to the scuta! And surey nothing like the 9kg that are usually refered by most schollars when speaking about the aspis. And the vatican shield might have been on the heavy end of shields since it was bronze covered. Close reproduction with the same kind of wood by M.I. gave 4.5 kg for the wooden core. With this shield you can do anything without restrictions concerning the weight.
Paul,i'm not sure the boss is absolutely necessary to produce the formation. I think that the second man rests his shield on the top of the first man's rim.
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Paul,i'm not sure the boss is absolutely necessary to produce the formation. I think that the second man rests his shield on the top of the first man's rim.

You could do this, but the 4-5 cm overlap is clearly different from that of a fulcum, which provides a double thickness of scuta over much of the area.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Mmm,i didn't mean the rim overlap though.You can overlap shields successfully deeper than the width of the rim. This can be perhaps easier in such kind of formation than the "synaspismos"
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

You can overlap shields successfully deeper than the width of the rim

Remember we are talking up and down, not side to side. It would be very difficult to overlap on top of the man in front of you with your arm in a porpax- and you'd still have to hold up the weight of your shield the whole time. He would have to essentially hide in his shield and you'd have to lean over him. With a single grip scutum and a boss to rest on, this is far easier. It is the fact that you are essentially resting the shield on the one below and simply holding it in place that makes the fulkum efficient.

[Astiryu1]

This may be a strange question but "Could the the man with the raised shield prop up the weight with his spear?" As far as a static formation against missile fire it would work;but when engaging the opponent the problem is obvious!

[hoplite14gr]

We will try fulcum with reconstructed hoplite shields on 17th of August.
So I will talk with evidence and not speculation.
Kind regards

[Felix]

A very erudite and heated discussion.

I would like to add two comments. First, I would be wary of citing Machiavelli as a source; his Art of War was most definitely written with a deliberate policy goal in mind, and his comments have to be treated as those of an overtly biased observer. Other authors had biases, to be sure, whether it is to glorify a monarch, or extoll the virtues of their nation, but not a specifically pro-infantry, anti-cavalry agenda. Citing Machiavelli's Art of War is like citing Marx; the facts may be correct, but the conclusions are not academically neutral.

Second, one issue that hasn't been much discussed is horseflesh. Some comments have been made, mostly to point that horses are pretty much the same from one era to another. However, while I am not personally familiar with raising horses, it seems to me that some places have distinct advantages in raising good warhorses when compared to some other places and times. For example, the North China plain is in direct continuity with Inner Mongolia, and the Mongols have raised horses from time immemorial, but the Chinese never really had enough good horses or horsemen to cope with nomads themselves; and the Chinese went to great efforts to get horses from Central Asia (Ferghana in particular) to supplement whatever horses they raised themselves. I would suggest that keeping and breeding good quality horses is not a trivial task in land not favorable to horses; and this would likely include Macedonia, and much of medieval Europe. Consequently, good horses had to be continuously imported. If you have a warlike and wealthy aristocracy, they can do this readily enough. Perhaps the social changes of the Hellenistic Era had an adverse effect on the maintenance of a good stock of horses, and hence efffective horsemen. Thoughts?

[PMBardunias]

However, while I am not personally familiar with raising horses, it seems to me that some places have distinct advantages in raising good warhorses when compared to some other places and times.

While I am not an expert on horses, there is a general trend in the domestication of large animals that the first domesticated types are actually smaller than the wild types, then over time the size increases. This is easy to understand if you consider that smaller types are more manageable, and early in the development of animal husbandry this is a big plus. Also, the local varieties of animal in places where they were first domesticated may have been small due to local conditions. For example, wolves at lower latitudes are generally smaller than northern wolves. Modern cattle are still generally smaller than the Aurochs of europe (now extinct).

With horses there seems to be a marked trend towards larger and stronger horses. The horses known as Nisean to the Greeks, "Celestial" horses to the Chinese, were very big for their day, but they were less robust than the big european cold bloods that would either be ridden or mix into horse breeds ridden by knights.

[abou]

While I am not an expert on horses, there is a general trend in the domestication of large animals that the first domesticated types are actually smaller than the wild types, then over time the size increases. This is easy to understand if you consider that smaller types are more manageable, and early in the development of animal husbandry this is a big plus.

It isn't simply that they are more manageable. All the evolutionary precursors of horses have been quite small; utterly diminutive for the earliest. You work with what you can get, and clearly it took a long time of selective breeding to get larger horses. This was likely helped with the feeding of concentrates -- namely barley -- to offset the nutritional needs of these larger, working horses.

Also, the local varieties of animal in places where they were first domesticated may have been small due to local conditions. For example, wolves at lower latitudes are generally smaller than northern wolves. Modern cattle are still generally smaller than the Aurochs of europe (now extinct).

It isn't so much a north v. south comparison, but really the temperatures of the climates. The reason for larger and smaller body sizes is thermoregulation. A larger, heavier animal will have less surface area per unit weight than a smaller animal. This means less radiation of heat into the environment, which is a benefit in cooler climates and vise-versa in warmer climates. Therefore, since less energy is consumed for thermoregulation, more can be used for other activities.

[PMBardunias]

A larger, heavier animal will have less surface area per unit weight than a smaller animal.

This is correct, and occurs because the suraface area of a sphere is multiplied by the square of the radius (r2), while the internal area increases by the radius cubed (r3). So the bigger the animal, its radius, the more exagerrated the difference between internal volume and surface area. While not so important for this discussion, the other way they limit the surface area is to become more "sphere-like" by reducing the relative length of limbs and any external feature like ears.