Wielding a sarissa overarm

[PMBardunias]

At the very most a reenactment shows what is possible, not what was.

Exactly. This is the one and only purpose.  Reenactment shows what cannot be done and shuts down avenues of unrealistic speculation (charging does not make a mass push stronger for example). It also shows what is possible.  The best example of this is looking at my work and that of Chris Mathew. Both of us sought clarification through reenactment. We both came up with schemes for hoplite combat that diverge completely, but both of our works presented views that were not the two rival camps on hoplite combat that were the product solely of thought experiments. Either, neither, or both of us in some part may be correct, but we have moved the ball from where it sat for a few decades.

[Patrick Waterson]

Once you have figured out what you, a human, can do, go back and compare this to vase imagery and text.  You will not suprisingly learn that variations on what is called the "Harmodios blow" from its use in vase imagery of Harmodios, work best. 

Anyone wondering what the 'Harmoduis blow' might be can se eit described and analysed here.

[PMBardunias]

Once you have figured out what you, a human, can do, go back and compare this to vase imagery and text.  You will not suprisingly learn that variations on what is called the "Harmodios blow" from its use in vase imagery of Harmodios, work best. 

Anyone wondering what the 'Harmoduis blow' might be can se eit described and analysed here.

If anyone is familiar with Meyer's longsword cuts, here is a comparison of images.  Thrusts are pretty much either high or low.  The high, arching over the shield into the side of the neck would have been particularly nasty when shield on shield.

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting.  And whether cutting or thrusting, high or low, the favourite target area seems to have been the neck.

[Justin Swanton]

There is another possibility, that I will throw out for the sake of discussion because it is something that  would never have occurred to me had i not seen it.  A friend of mine who makes the best aspides I have used showed me one day that he can use a spear two handed by slipping the porpax up past his elbow joint and resting it just above rather than just below the elbow. I laughed this off- silly noobs and their theories- until I found a vase image showing the same thing. Probably just chance and a bad vase artist, but worth a moments consideration because it changes everything if an ochane was a strap that fit above, not below the elbow.  You can do anything you wish with your arms at that point.

Interesting idea, but there is the difficulty of reconciling it with Plutarch:

"Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap instead of by a fixed handle." - δι᾽ ἀμφοτέρων καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα φορεῖν δι᾽᾽ ὀχάνης, μὴ διὰ πόρπακος.

Which would imply Cleomene's Spartans didn't use the propax at all.

[Erpingham]

Interesting.  And whether cutting or thrusting, high or low, the favourite target area seems to have been the neck.

If you think of the bit of hoplite above the aspis, it consists of a helmet with much of the face covered and a bare neck.  If you can reach without over exposing yourself, it seems an obvious target. 

[RichT]

Interesting idea, but there is the difficulty of reconciling it with Plutarch:

"Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap instead of by a fixed handle." - δι᾽ ἀμφοτέρων καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα φορεῖν δι᾽᾽ ὀχάνης, μὴ διὰ πόρπακος.

Which would imply Cleomene's Spartans didn't use the propax at all.

I feel we've been over this at least a thousand times, but memories are short (we aren't getting any younger) and there are lots of other things to remember. 'Ochane' doesn't mean 'strap', it means 'handle'. So a better translation would be "and to carry their shields by a handle instead of by an armband". Now what exactly a 'handle' is in this context is anyone's guess, and whether what Paul describes could be called a handle (rather than just an armband worn further up the arm) is open to debate. My pet theory (I have a growing menagerie) is that a 'handle' in this case is something like that, something that holds the shield further up the arm than the usual armband, and frees up the left hand to hold the sarissa. It's just a theory, but I like it.

[Justin Swanton]

Interesting idea, but there is the difficulty of reconciling it with Plutarch:

"Then he filled up the body of citizens with the most promising of the free provincials, and thus raised a body of four thousand men-at-arms, whom he taught to use a long pike, held in both hands, instead of a short spear, and to carry their shields by a strap instead of by a fixed handle." - δι᾽ ἀμφοτέρων καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα φορεῖν δι᾽᾽ ὀχάνης, μὴ διὰ πόρπακος.

Which would imply Cleomene's Spartans didn't use the propax at all.

I feel we've been over this at least a thousand times, but memories are short (we aren't getting any younger) and there are lots of other things to remember. 'Ochane' doesn't mean 'strap', it means 'handle'. So a better translation would be "and to carry their shields by a handle instead of by an armband". Now what exactly a 'handle' is in this context is anyone's guess, and whether what Paul describes could be called a handle (rather than just an armband worn further up the arm) is open to debate. My pet theory (I have a growing menagerie) is that a 'handle' in this case is something like that, something that holds the shield further up the arm than the usual armband, and frees up the left hand to hold the sarissa. It's just a theory, but I like it.

OK. Ochane doesn't have a definition in Perseus. In my Greek-English lexicon it is defined as 'the handle of a shield', derived from the verb ocheo, 'to carry', 'to convey' which also supplies the adjective 'ochos', 'that which carries or conveys'. So ochane is 'the thing which carries the shield.' All of which says strictly nothing about what an ochane looked liked or how it worked.

[Duncan Head]

We discussed ochane starting here; it appears to be unique to this passage but is probably a variant of ochanon, which is attested elsewhere.

[Justin Swanton]

We discussed ochane starting here; it appears to be unique to this passage but is probably a variant of ochanon, which is attested elsewhere.

Interesting Duncan, thanks.

[RichT]

That was a good thread. Next time these topics come up we should just link to that, since it had more light than heat.

[PMBardunias]

I feel we've been over this at least a thousand times, but memories are short (we aren't getting any younger) and there are lots of other things to remember. 'Ochane' doesn't mean 'strap', it means 'handle'. So a better translation would be "and to carry their shields by a handle instead of by an armband". Now what exactly a 'handle' is in this context is anyone's guess, and whether what Paul describes could be called a handle (rather than just an armband worn further up the arm) is open to debate. My pet theory (I have a growing menagerie) is that a 'handle' in this case is something like that, something that holds the shield further up the arm than the usual armband, and frees up the left hand to hold the sarissa. It's just a theory, but I like it.

I think the explanation, if this theory is correct, is that the porpax was a specific construction of bronze and wood that had to fit very tight on the forearm in order to allow fluid movement and keep the aspis from rotating up and down (I have likened it to the cuff on an artificial limb). To move it up reliably past the elbow joint, the ochane may have been simply a leather porpax. Much more simple and with enough give to slip past the swelling of the elbow.

Rich, if you would like to write something on this together, I would gladly join you and bring in my friend who first showed me for visuals.  I do not want to post the original video he sent me on here, but if you email me at pbardunias@fau.edu I will.  Watching him move- and with a full sized aspis- is a real game changer.

[Duncan Head]

I chanced today to notice that Julius Africanus uses the word ochanon - not ochane, which remains unique to Plutarch - to include the porpax of the hoplite shield. The passage includes one of our other favourite words as well:

For the Greeks are fond of heavy, full armour: they have a double helmet, a breastplate covered with scales, a concave bronze shield held by two handles (ochanois duo) (of which the one surrounding the forearm avails for shoving (eis othismon - for othismos!), while the other is grasped by the end of the hand), two greaves, a hand-held javelin, and a spear for hand-to-hand combat...

To Africanus, the porpax and antilabe are both ochana.

[RichT]

Ooh a double play - nice find Duncan! If you have the Greek in front of you, you couldn't give the Greek for 'a concave bronze shield' by any chance? I don't think there's a text online. Also what's the context?


Edit - scratch that request, Amazon view inside to the rescue  - aspis epichalkos koile

[Duncan Head]

Ooh a double play - nice find Duncan! If you have the Greek in front of you, you couldn't give the Greek for 'a concave bronze shield' by any chance? I don't think there's a text online. Also what's the context?

Actually, you can see for yourself using the "Look Inside" on amazon.co.uk (I just searched for "shield"). But "concave bronze shield" is "aspis epichalkos koile" - koile as in Coele-Syria, so perhaps "hollow" would be the more literal translation?

The context is "why can't the Romans beat the Persians like the Greeks did". It's a not very period-specific description of Greek weaponry and tactics, followed by a nod to the Macedonians and a list of Roman deficiencies some of which can be fixed by copying the good old Greeks. Doesn't seem to recognize that they're not the same Persians, apart from any other issues!

Edit: you beat me to it.