04-17-2009, 10:26 AM
Paul MS,
When dealing with systemic disagreement such as we have here I always believe its important to start looking for the sources of the disagreement. I so think we're destined to disagree here because of viewpoint. The fact that my views on hoplite warfare tend to sources that question the evolution of hoplite warfare as you see it doesn't help either. My concern about the value of the interpretation of Boeotian is that we may actually gain some insight into what led to its demise (as I do believe it disappeared in Greece, we can argue the question of when at a later date
by doing so. But by arguing too strongly I believe you discourage experimentation just because you lie on the other side of the "may" divide. But that is like saying no to adding data points to our study of greek military history through. As it is rife with "mays", and there is room for a lot of disagreement, I believe it is better to take an encouraging position towards the "mays" to promote experimentation.
Also, I've found the Boardman article which originally sparked my belief that that it is reasonable to believe the Boeotian existed , when he took the opportunity to comment in his review of "The Galloping Majors" in the Classical Review vol 25 No 2:
"The general conclusion is one which becomes increasingly apparent in many departments of Greek art and life-that they were prepared to anachronize, archaize, mythologize behaviour, but not equipment-always 'in modern dress', except, rarely and not completely efficiently, in Homer when it comes to the use of bronze or tower shields which may have become set in the story long before and so do not affect the generalization as applied to later authors and artists. It becomes, then, increasingly difficult to believe that the 'Boeotian' shield is a solitary and incredibly long-lived and widespread exception."
Have fun!
Cole
When dealing with systemic disagreement such as we have here I always believe its important to start looking for the sources of the disagreement. I so think we're destined to disagree here because of viewpoint. The fact that my views on hoplite warfare tend to sources that question the evolution of hoplite warfare as you see it doesn't help either. My concern about the value of the interpretation of Boeotian is that we may actually gain some insight into what led to its demise (as I do believe it disappeared in Greece, we can argue the question of when at a later date
by doing so. But by arguing too strongly I believe you discourage experimentation just because you lie on the other side of the "may" divide. But that is like saying no to adding data points to our study of greek military history through. As it is rife with "mays", and there is room for a lot of disagreement, I believe it is better to take an encouraging position towards the "mays" to promote experimentation. Also, I've found the Boardman article which originally sparked my belief that that it is reasonable to believe the Boeotian existed , when he took the opportunity to comment in his review of "The Galloping Majors" in the Classical Review vol 25 No 2:
"The general conclusion is one which becomes increasingly apparent in many departments of Greek art and life-that they were prepared to anachronize, archaize, mythologize behaviour, but not equipment-always 'in modern dress', except, rarely and not completely efficiently, in Homer when it comes to the use of bronze or tower shields which may have become set in the story long before and so do not affect the generalization as applied to later authors and artists. It becomes, then, increasingly difficult to believe that the 'Boeotian' shield is a solitary and incredibly long-lived and widespread exception."
Have fun!
Cole
Cole
