On 9/17/06, Donald R. Oddy <donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I just don't see any evidence to support the idea that the typical
> citizen hoplite was much different from any other armoured spearman.
> They were the top military formation for a period of a few hundred
> years in small part of the world. At the time they were opposed
> almost exclusively by lightly or unarmoured soldiers who in many
> cases had little formal drill.
I'm honestly not sure what evidence could possibly persuade you that an armoured, shielded, spearman was not like other armoured, shielded spearmen? :)
I'm of the opinion that the comparatively greater professionalism of the Spartiates aided them against their less practiced contemporaries; I'm not making any claims about their effectiveness compared to, say, the Hapsburg tercio.
It's interesting to note that the hoplite did fairly badly, in the end, against the lighter-armoured less-drilled soldier - eventually being replaced by them in most Hellenistic cities.
Skweing rapidly off topic (unless people want to explain to me about Sanken and its "hoplites" - I'm wondering why they are not thureophoroi/thorakitai).
-- John Machin "Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All." - Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge.Received on Sun 17 Sep 2006 - 14:29:39 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed 18 Jul 2007 - 23:38:20 EEST