Can you compare this game with RTW : BI?

[honvedseg]

Just to confuse the physics even further, you have those few soldiers with the audacity to fall down, just because someone poked a hole in them or because they slipped and got trampled. That throws a whole new set of vectors and forces into the mix, along with the added uncertainty that the changed (and suddenly more slippery) footing creates.

The high percentage of casualties reported after battles includes the losses inflicted by the victor's cavalry on the fleeing infantry. Most sources seem to indicate that the losses up until the one side broke ranks were fairly light in comparison to those suffered afterwards. Once the panic began, it became a matter of "devil take the hindmost", and every man did his best not to be hindmost. In the case of the Persians in Greece, the routed troops also had to make their way back to a safe haven through hostile territory, and were probably fairly conspicuous among the inhabitants.

[pyros]

People...

This is not as simple as it sounds.... Nor this can be described with the simple Newton's laws (J=m x v)...

You should rather see this as an addition of waves or pulses...
As for the best possible physic model you should use knowledge from Matrix Analysis of Structures (found in advanced anti-seismic technology courses).

cheers,
Pyros

p.s if I ever find enough free time I will create you a model

[sol_invictus]

I sqeeked by with a D in Highschool physics; so this thread hurts my head. For you Euros, a D is not good at all. I think the main difficulty in modeling combat of any sort is trying to factor in the intangibles; such as Morale, Fatigue, and Fear. Who can say when and why the point comes when one side in a seemingly equal struggle finally has a complete breakdown.

[pyros]

Ahhh... This is a nice subject, but I don't have enough time...

Anyway, discipline and training are the two crucial factors.

The Spartans were the master in this job and they could win easily even biggest armies (always biggest armies).

In Greece we call this kind of battle mechanism as "mahi ek tou systadin meta othismou"...

The secret weapon for this kind of battle was nothing more, nothing less than their OPLON....(their special made shield)


Finally the Spartans were excellent dancers because this was part of their special trainning : Rythme and Discipline (this is french, or not? )

[efthimios]

Aspis is the shield, not oplon.

[adherbal]

While I was disappointed in RTW (compared to MTW it plays like a fantasy arcade game, especially in MP) I still think it's an excellent modding platform (I'm the guy who's making the Chivalry TW mod). The main reason why (R)TW is so popular among modders (unlike other RTS games) is because it is probably the most realistic real-time pre-gunpowder war simulator around. And that just allows for a huge variety of (fairly) realistic mods based on a huge time period.

[pyros]

Aspis is the shield, not oplon.

Efthimie,

You are also Greek,
But when was the last time you visited the History museum of Athens?


My friend the name Hoplite means the soldier who carries the Hoplon (or Oplon, as we refer it in Greek)

The Oplon (or Hoplon) is the name that the ancient Greeks were calling their big round SHIELD...

here is some copy/paste

The name peltast comes from the shield that the Thracian tribes used: the traditional pelte

The equipment of a hoplite.

The suit of armour of the Athenian hoplite was hardly any different from the hoplites of other Greek cities. This hoplite is wearing a good suit of armour, which we will call panoplia from now on. The costs of such is a panoplia were very high, it could be compared with buying a good new car in modern times. That is why the hoplites only consisted of nobility at first. Later on the costs were reduced because new construction techniques were used. This enabled the normal man to buy a decent panoplia. More and more people bought one as it not only improved their chance of survival on the battlefield, but it also raised their social status. At a certain time there were enough hoplites to form a phalanx, and since then was the Greek army superior to any other army for a very long time. The creation of the phalanx not only resulted in military superiority, it also had social results as we already know from the history chapter.

On the head of this hoplite we find a slightly obsolete bronze Corinthian helmet. The Corinthian helmet remained the most used helmet through the history of Hellas, but there were many types available. Examples of this are the Chalkidic and Illyrian helmets which were better than the Corinthian type as they gave better protection to the cheeks and neck, and they had openings for the ears so that the orders were heard better. The helmets were made by hitting a plate of bronze on a wooden pole. This was done until it fitted the head of the buyer exactly. Of course this took a lot of work, and that is why these very expensive helmets often passed from father to son. The helmets were often decorated with a crest of horsehair, and sometimes even with engraved drawings. The horsehair for the helmetcrest was placed in a block of wood, very much like a brush, and placed on the helmet. Horsehair is very difficult to paint, so the colours were normally the natural colours: black, white, and brown. Sculptures always show hoplites with a helmetcrest, but know from archaeological studies that it was often not present.

The body was protected by a cuirass. The most expensive type was the bronze jointed cuirass, but the most common one was a tunic with multiple layers of linen or canvas glued together to form a strong protection. This tunic was often reinforced with small metal plates or bronze rings as we see in the picture. The cuirass itself consisted of a part for the chest, and one for the shoulders. The part for the chest had openings for the arms, and at the bottom there were two rows of plates which were placed like roofing tiles, the so-called wings or pteruges. The cuirass was wrapped around the body and closed at the left side were it was protected by the shield. The part for the shoulders completed the cuirass. Different types were used: the wings which protected the shoulders were shaped differently, or they were removable. This type of cuirass replaced the older type armour which was shaped like a bell.

In his left hand he is holding the famous hoplon, or shield. The word hoplite is based on this hoplon, and certainly not without any reason: the hoplon was one of the cornerstones of the phalanx.
Basically it was a wooden bowl which was protected on the outside with bronze plates, while the inside was covered in leather. It was held with a handle for the lower arm and a grip. The part of the shield that rested against the arm was often protected with an additional plate of bronze. The size of the shield resulted in quite a heavy shield: about 8 kilograms. Sometimes a piece of leather was hung at the lower side of the shield to protect the legs of the hoplite for arrows. The hoplites picked the decoration on their shields by themselves, and often drawings of animals or mythological characters were chosen. Here you see the head of a Gorgon, and popular decoration for the shield.

The hoplon was not big enough to cover the legs, that is why they are protected by a pair of bronze greaves, which were shaped in such a way that they followed the muscles in the legs. This had a decorative purpose, but it also reinforced them and now they could be clamped around the legs instead of using straps. In earlier times the warriors also used plates for the thighs, arms and feet but at the time of the Persian wars they were not used anymore as they were to heavy and they decreased the manoeuvrability of the hoplite drastically. The hoplite was very well armoured nevertheless.

The main weapon was the long spear, which could vary in length from 2 to 3 metres. The iron point has a bronze counterbalance, for a better balance, but it also could be used during an attack. The spear was normally drilled overarm, and the grasp was entwined with a leather strap for better grip. The spear was not thrown as was the case with the spears in the time of Homer: they were only used for thrusting. The second weapon was a short sword, which was carried around in a wooden scabbard which was wrapped in leather. The blade of such a sword was made from iron and around the 60 centimetres long, while the remaining parts were normally constructed in bronze. It was used for cutting as well for thrusting.

p.s here is some teaching for the ancient Greek language:

In Greek we used to have 3 types of "O" :

1. Omikron with "psili" accent" and was pronounced as "O"
2. Omikron with "thasia" accent" and was pronounced as "Ho"
3. Omega which was pronounced as double "O" ... "O...O"

Today we don't use anymore the accents, their teaching was terminated when I was finishing the primary school (so I learned them).

Today we pronounce the same the Omega and Omikron.

cheers,
Pyros

[efthimios]

.......

First of all I am not from Athens! Imagine that!

Oplitis is not the one that carries the shield, if that was the case then all the infantry using shield in the greek world would be oplites. The name was given/taken not from the shield which was called aspis.
I don't know where you are quoting from but it is wrong.
Oplon means/meant weapon, in this case the spear. Still, the name could have been also given for the use of the sword for all that matters. I don't know why this notion that oplon is the shield has prevailed the last few years on the internet but it is wrong. I think in civilopedia (civilization games) also uses this, perhaps that is why many believe so now. :-p
It was more used for the one that carried the specific type of weaponry (that includes spear and shield of course)and fought in a "specific" way, and not for carrying a shield (aspis), or as you put it, the big round thingy. :-p
Thank you very much the for the "lesson" in grammar, no matter how irrelevant it was in this case.
Here is one of mine.
The mount Olympos (Olympus for the english speaking people here :-p ) was not given to the name of the gods, but the other way arround. Meaning pefotismenos, or enlightened in a way, was/is the true meaning/title of the gods. It makes you think, doesn't it?

[honvedseg]

The social aspect of the phalanx is also fundamental to its success. In other cultures and times, the nobility dominated the battlefield, fighting either in single ritual combat or in elite formations of charioteers, etc. The majority of the army and its performance hinged on the outcomes of these small clashes of the nobles, as morale and discipline were maintained only by the direct assertion of the nobles.

In the case of the Greek phalanx and the earlier Sumerian phalanx pictured on inscriptions, the next class of citizens were incorporated into the elite fighting formation, expanding it into a formidable sized military force which was relatively unbeatable either by the poorly equipped and untrained massed levies or by the tiny groups of nobles which it faced. This expansion of both the privileges and the duties of the citizens changed the character of Greek civilization, producing a large political body which voted, rather than a handful of individuals who ruled by decree.

The early Roman phalanx, and later the Legion, had some of the same character, with the increasing military and social status of the legionaires gradually eroding the position of the noble cavalry.

The threat of loss of face among one's peers helped to offset the effects of fear. This same principle was observed during the American Civil War, where units drawn from the same community would stand up in the face of withering fire and appalling losses, whereas similar units gathered from a larger area would break and run.

Later, professional Imperial Roman Legions were also bolstered by the threat of having a defeated unit disbanded. Since the Legion itself held the retirement funds (and a sizable portion of the back pay and personal assets) of its members, a disbanded unit's money reverted to the state.

[pyros]

.......

First of all I am not from Athens! Imagine that!

I know from where you are... You come from the capital of Macedonia, Thessaloniki... but in Athens you will see a very nice collection of the metal part of "Oplon".


Anyway, I am lazy ... so I called my mother in law (she is a professor in Greek literature) and she gave me the full definition of the ancient word:

(ΑΡΧΑΙΟ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟ ΛΕΞΙΚΟ ΣΤΑΜΑΤΑΚΟΥ)

1. The very first meaning of OPLON was : TOOL (every tool) for example Halkias tool was the bronze tools etc...
2. After this we have the word OPLA (pl.) which is all the tools for making war.
3. We also have the word OPLON which is the SHIELD that the heavy Greek Hoplite carried in battle.

I can give you hundreds of sites where you may check the above.

but here is one of the most respected Greek History site in Greece:

http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/04/en/economy/hoplites.html

http://www.fhw.gr/

Oplitis is not the one that carries the shield, if that was the case then all the infantry using shield in the greek world would be oplites. The name was given/taken not from the shield which was called aspis.

Finally what is the connection between Argyraspides, Peltastes and Oplites?
What is Peltastis and what argyraspides (Οπλίτες, Πελταστές, Χαλκάσπιδες, Αργυράσπιδες)?

I don't know where you are quoting from but it is wrong.

Open the dictionary STAMATAKOU which is the most respected dictionary among the Greek academic community... or just go to the nearest library and open any serious dictionary in the ancient Greek word "HOPLON".

ante geia,
Pyros

[efthimios]

I stand by what I said earlier.

Ante geia se sena.

[bodidley]

There are many misconceptions about phalanx battle. For one, flanking actions were actually quite common. Since the hoplite shield covers half of the shield bearer and half of the man to his left, everyone in a hoplite phalanx would be shoving to his right to get better coverage from his neighbor's shield. This meant that phalanxes usually veered right, resulting in both sides outflanking the others' left flank. The action on the flank certainly would have resulted in heavy casualties, but the push of men and spears also would have been quite deadly as well. I'm not a subscriber to the theory that most casualties were sustained by fleeing armies. A retreating soldier, rather than being helpless, is actually quite dangerous because of desperation. The cavalry of the day, lacking stirrups, (the Celts had four horned saddles, so their cavalry was exceptional) would not have been able to just plough through the enemy. Since retreating soldiers often would have jettisoned heavy shields and armor (I've heard that deserters in ancient Greece were refered to as ripaspis, "shield throwers") they would be able to outpace pursuing infantry. There are certainly notable examples of many men being killed in pursuit, but also of heavy losses being sustained by the pursuers. Most accounts of Greek battles include notable losses on the winning side as well as on the losing side. It just seems self-evident to me, that if phalanx battles were little more than pushing contests, with most of the victims killed in flight, then there would be no reason to spend a fortune on heavy armor when it would be more of a liability than an advantage. A large number of men pushing and stabbing is just plain dangerous.

With regards to game physics, I think a simplified model could implemented to simulate momentum in battle. Each man has a certain weight (uniform per unit for simplicity) and the weight of every man pushing behind him "chains" to created the mass part of the equation. The speed at which the men are advancing equals the velocity. The sum of the opposing momentums in a combat determines who pushes who, and what the advantage in the "kill zone" (the ranks where the men are in weapon range) is. The advantage of momentum can be simulated in three ways A. the side getting pushed back gets fewer attacks B. the side getting pushed gets a penalty in the strength of its attacks or C. the side getting pushed gets a defensive penalty. Angular collisions could be simplified to the effect that a charging force gets a momentum bonus from certain angles but not others, so that a collision from a 45 degree angle, while pushing one force in a different direction, generates the same advantages/disadvantages as a head on collision, while striking the enemy directly in a 90 degree angle will give them a momentum of zero.

Perhaps Pip can shed more light on game mechanics for all us unwashed.

By the way Pyros, other people can make links to sites that support their arguements too : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspis

[pipfromslitherine]

The physics (while relatively involved) isn't that complex. The complexity really comes from the fact that these aren't simply particles, but men. And more importantly (usually) trained men. So while we can model these interactions in a physical way, it really only deals with one element of the battle. The behaviour of squads doesn't lend itself very well to simple breakdowns (although I did/am consider using a spring system to model the desire to stay in formation).

And that aside from the desire for a fun and interesting battle. But I don't want to get into the game verses simulation discussion

Cheers

Pip

[pyros]

By the way Pyros, other people can make links to sites that support their arguements too : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspis

OMG...What ???? You present the wikipedia as a valid source??? LOL

Please search some more on the issue and perhaps read what the GREEK institute of GREEK HISTORY, LOCATED IN GREECE, HAVING RECEIVED AWARDS from the GREEK ACADEMY... is posting for the HOPLON

http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/04/en/economy/hoplites.html

The spirit characterizing the new reality of the Archaic period -as it is expressed through the institution of the polis- requires from the individual to function as an integral part of the city, in order to have a place in its political world. That is to say, the individual must cooperate and suffer along with the rest of the citizens. This attitude is also revealed through the new war method that is introduced in the 7th century BC, the hoplite phalanx. Earlier, battles had the form of clashes between nobles of opposing sides. Now, fighting ability of all warriors is indispensable, so that battle order remains unbreakable.

Since the beginning of the 7th century BC, armies of most cities, of Athens for example, were composed of hoplites who procured for themselves weapons and food, with the exception of Sparta, where the equipment was provided by the state. The military picture of the Archaic city was made up by the citizen-soldier who fought as a member of a team.

The hoplite was the standard infantryman of the Greek cities, as established from the 7th century until the 4th century BC.
He took his name from the most visible part of his defensive equipment, the concave -usually round shield- called hoplon. Its diameter was 1 metre approximately and it was made of copper, wood and leather.
The other parts of his equipment were the cuirass, the greaves and the helmet, all made of copper. For the attack he was equipped with two spears, while the sword was not a basic part of the hoplite armour; it was used only in emergency cases and it was clearly smaller and less important than in the Geometric period (Alcaeus, no 357 in Loeb I, Greek Lyric). The poet Tyrtaeus mentions that the participation of gymnetai -who fought with bows, arrows and slings- was occasionally acceptable in the hoplite tactics during the Archaic period. The bow and sling were used since the 7th century BC and did not constitute parts of the pre-hoplite period in Greece.
The characteristic feature of the hoplite phalanx was the soldiers' overall battle array, which definitely dates before the hoplite equipment appeared in the Greek communities. The different parts of the latter appeared gradually, between 720 BC and 650 BC approximately. Generally speaking, we can not refer to a systematic and full hoplite equipment before the second half of the 7th century BC.

Why people can't learn the easy way???

cheers,
Pyros

p.s Just to make you understand the validity of wikipedia as a scientific source....ask from Efthimios to translate you what the Greek section of Wikipedia is writting for the Hoplon (Oplon)...

Ασπίδα
Έφεραν ασπίδες μικρότερες απ??™τους νότιους Έλληνες οπλίτες (το όπλον), περίπου 60 εκ., κυρτότερες, χωρίς στεφάνη, την οποία αναρτούσαν στον ώμο αφήνοντας έτσι ελεύθερα τα δύο χέρια για να χειριστούν τη σάρισα.

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C%CE% ... E%B3%CE%B1

p.s Just to help you avoiding making wrong statements using as a source WIKIPEDIA just read the disclaimer of the Wikipedia site...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... disclaimer

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.

[lol]

lol Im back =) , hey , I have a question , I want to know your opinions my new friends=) ( I hope that you are my frieds) , I really want to onow your opinion , That had happened if the phalanxes of Alexander the Great had met Julio Cesar's legions???? lol , I think that Alexander ??? I think that phalanx is better (with a good commander like Alexander =) ) , lol poor Caesar , but that is my opinion

[sum1won]

I think that the Legion is a much better design against poorly organized enemies with little discipline or adaptibility, if that enemy relies heavily on infantry. It was usually butchered if an enemy commander had a good, fairly innovative battle plan and the right troops to carry it out with. The legion was designed to annihalate fools charging head on.

[bodidley]

Thanks for the reply, Pip.

You're resorting to the use of authority out of context pyros. The website that you have cited may be award winning because it is an excellent and educational site, but the article you have posted a link to is a brief summary of the hoplite, not a discussion of the etymology of the word hoplite or the word hoplon. Most military historians are not linguists, and if the site mistakenly attributed the word hoplite to the shield, then that wouldn't stop it from being award winning. I also have to question the importance of the fact that it is located in Greece and is award winning. For example, the Old North Bridge is not the best place to learn about the battle of the Old North Bridge, and Michel Moore won the Palme D'Or at Cannes, even though his film-making abilities are sub-par.

Also, just because Wiki is an almalgamation of contributed information which might not always be 100% accurate, that is not to say that any information posted on Wiki is inaccurate. If you don't like Wiki, there are a variety of other sites that address the issue of shields wielded by hoplites:

http://www.omnipelagos.com/entry?n=hoplite

http://www.larp.com/hoplite/hoplon.html


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=h&p=11

A site that has the etymology of English words. Says that the English word "hoplite" is derived from the ancient Greek word for "tool" or "weapon" and that the English word "asp", a kind of snake with a neck hoop is derived from the ancient Greek word "aspis" which means "shield"

http://eaglescc.org/htmlbible/STRGRK7.htm
http://eaglescc.org/htmlbible/STRGRK36.htm#53700

A dictionary of ancient Greek words. Item #785 aspis "a buckler (or round shield)" (buckler is an English word for a kind of round shield) Item #3696 hoplon "an implement or utensil or tool (literally or figuratively, especially, offensive for war):--armour, instrument, weapon."

On a side note, MY CAPS LOCK BUTTON BREAKS SOMETIMES TOO!!! Let's try to keep discussion friendly.

[sol_invictus]

lol, if the Legions were commanded by Caesar and the Phalanx army was commanded by Alexander, I would give the nod to Alex. All things being even; and they never are; I would bet on the Macedonian Phalanx eight times out of ten simply because the Macedonian Cavalry arm would certainly rout the Roman Cavalry and while the Phalanx pressed the Legion's front, leaving the Legion's flank and rear exposed ala Cannae.

[pyros]

Oh my God...

Bodidley: Just try to put this in your HEAD

Modern Greek term (Hoplon, Hopla) OPLON, OPLA = Weapon, Weapons

Modern Greek term ASPIDA, ASPIDES (Aspis) = Shield, Shields

Early Ancient Greek term (Hoplo-n) OPLO-n = Tool, instrument (Halkeas hoplo = Copper tool, even a fishing net was Oplo )

Later Ancient Greek term (Hoplon) OPLON = The shield (Aspis) carried by the heavy Infantry, the Hoplite (Hoplon).

Ancient Greek term (Hopla) OPLA = All the instruments (tools) for making war.

Ancient Greek term ASPIS = Shield

So, PLEASE.... open your mind and learn that the ASPIS (Shield) that the Hoplite carried in battle had the name of OPLON (Hoplon).

Bodidley this is important:

.....All Hoplon are Shields but, NOT all Shields are Hoplon...

I also have to question the importance of the fact that it is located in Greece and is award winning.

So, now you question the ACADEMIC community of Greece... LOL

The problem bodidley is that you don't know Greek and you don't know anything about the ancient Greek language and etymology.

So you present me with NON-ACADEMIC sources and you base you claims on "questionable" sites...

I saw in the links you provided me one "Online Bible Study and Bible Dictionary"... and one site "For the reenactor, living historian, or reconstructionist"...LOL ... BTW what are the ACADEMIC credentials of the persons involved in these sites.... NONE.

The first one don't even use accents for the Greek words... just a waste of time. (Not to mention that the terms used by Christians have a different meaning 4 BC - 1 AD)

Now you provided a THIRD ONE...the www.omnipelagos.com

http://www.omnipelagos.com/entry?n=hoplite

If you go to the bottom of that page will find this....

This article is from Wikipedia and is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

...LOL ... LOL

It seems that your sources are copying the world famous "Wikipedia"...LOL


Anyway to base your opinion on sites in the NET is not the best option you have... it is better that you go to a big library and search the dictionaries used for academic purposes...If you knew Greek I would suggest you the "STAMATAKOU" (they use it in Greek university)

just to show you how stupid is to use links from non-serious sites look the following (there are more than 15,000 sites which claim that Hoplon is a shield)

Hoplon
A circular shield of wood lined with leather and faced with bull??™s hide or bronze.

http://messagenet.com/myths/ppt/_h1004.html

What does the Greek panoply say about Greek culture? ???Come home carrying your shield (hoplon) or carried ON it.??? Therefore, a smaller chunk of this unit is the panoply. [See the powerpoint presentation here.]

The panoply consists of spears, short sword, helmet, greaves (shin guards), cuirass or chest armor, and hoplon (shield??“interesting that the soldier??“hoplite??“is named after his shield).

http://educationation.org/blog/?p=97

HOPLITE PANOPLY: Shield
A hoplite was defined by his shield, the hoplon. Soldiers with this sort of shield were hoplites. Those without were not.

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloy ... lshld.html

Greek hoplites were protected by a helmet, breastplate, and greaves, which covered the fighter??™s shins and calves. But the most likely piece of equipment to be abandoned by a soldier who found himself in trouble was his great shield, or hoplon, from which the hoplite soldier got his name. The shield was a rounded, concave piece of wood some three feet in diameter and covered on its face with a thin sheet of bronze. A warrior held the hoplon with his left arm, his hand clutching a grip near its rim, while his forearm passed through an armband attached to the shield??™s interior. The great weight of the hoplon was thus not borne by a soldier??™s hand and wrist alone, but was distributed along the length of his entire arm. The shield protected his left side, but did not extend to cover the hoplite on his right. This gave the bearer room to wield his offensive weapons??”a six- to eight-foot-long thrusting spear and a short sword??”with his right hand.

In the thick of fighting, the hoplon was essential. Hoplites were arrayed in a phalanx of variable width, usually eight or more rows deep, and advanced and fought as a unit, each man receiving some protection on his vulnerable right side from the left-most part of the shield of the hoplite to his right. Opposing phalanxes crashed into one another, the soldiers in the front ranks shoving and slashing at the enemy, trying to create a gap in their line. As long as a phalanx held, presenting an unbroken barrier of shields to the opposition, its hoplites were well protected by their equipment. It would have been unthinkable at this stage to drop the hoplon, despite its weight. But when a phalanx broke and its hoplites ran and were no longer a cohesive fighting force, the hoplon became a burden. The cumbersome shield now weighed down its bearer and made it far more likely that he would be overcome by the enemy and killed by a sword or spear thrust to the back.

It was best, in such circumstances, to discard the hoplon, and many soldiers did just that. In his description of the Athenians??™ defeat on the heights of Epipolae near Syracuse in 413, for example, Thucydides tells us that the panicked Athenians dropped their arms in great numbers, and surely what is meant in particular is the unwieldy hoplon: ???A large number of the Athenians and their allies died, but more arms were left behind than corresponded to the corpses, for the men were forced to jump down from the cliffs unarmed. Some died, and some were saved.??? The poet Archilochus, too, writing in the seventh century b.c., adopts the persona of someone who has thrown away his shield in order to save himself. The speaker of the poem does not appear to have regretted the decision:

Some Thracian delights in my shield now, which I left
behind, not wanting to, near a bush. A blameless piece
of equipment,
but I saved myself. Why should that shield matter to me?
Let it go. I will buy another one just as good.

But throwing away one??™s shield, an act the Greeks actually had a name for??”rhipsaspia??”was problematic. A hoplite who came home without his hoplon had lost a valuable piece of equipment that would need to be replaced. More important, he laid himself open to the charge that he had played the coward in battle, broke, and ran, impairing the fighting capacity of the phalanx and throwing away his shield in the process to best save his skin. For a Spartan, in particular, a citizen of the most military of Greek states, returning home without his shield would have meant disgrace. ???With it or on it,??? a Spartan mother is said to have admonished her son as she handed him his shield and sent him off to battle. Return with the shield, that is, or lying atop it as a corpse. For a Spartan, there was no honorable third course. In Athens, rhipsaspia was, in fact, a prosecutable offense. A man could lose his civic rights if he was convicted on the charge. And to say of someone that he had thrown away his shield was a serious insult. Indeed, to call a man a rhipsaspist was, itself, an actionable offense, an accusation one had better be ready to substantiate in court if one made the charge at all.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... eswar2.htm

http://lynnart.net/models/armor/hoplon.html

SHIELDS


The hoplite's distinctive gently convex round shield, or 'hoplon', was constructed of wood and reinforced with a bronze covering. Usually the shield diameter measured approximately one meter. A curtain of leather could be attached from the lower rim of the shield to protect the hoplite from arrows aimed at the legs. On the inside of the shield, a sturdy leather arm-strap, or 'porpax' was affixed to enable the hoplite to pass his left arm securely. In addition, a leather thong 'antilabe' that allowed the left hand to secure the shield, provided extra leverage. The eye-catching shield devices on each hoplite shield....

http://www.classics.und.ac.za/projects/ ... hields.htm

The reputation of the Spartan hoplite was well established. Their equipment was excellent, especially compared to that of non-Greeks. They had willpower and no fear of dying on the battlefield; to die in this way was the greatest honour a Spartan could hope for. At the back of every Spartan's mind, as he prepared for battle, lay the words of Spartan women ...that a Spartan hoplite should return home carrying his hoplon or being carried on it! When retreating, a hoplite discarded his hoplon (shield) as it was very cumbersome when attempting to run. To retreat was, for a Spartan, unthinkable. Hence the loss of a shield was considered cowardice. If a Spartan was killed in battle, his comrades carried his body on his hoplon back from battle for burial.

http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/s ... a_army.htm

In his left hand he is holding the famous hoplon, or shield. The word hoplite is based on this hoplon, and certainly not without any reason: the hoplon was one of the cornerstones of the phalanx

http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/ ... oplit.html

The first class could afford what seems to have amounted to a Greek panoply. These units fought in the traditional phalanx formation used since the end of Dark Age Greece. These units were armed with a Greek hoplon or round shield, helmet, Greek sword, greaves or leg protection, a cuirass and a long pike that was used in the defensive manner of the phalanx.

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Rome-weapons-armor.htm

Hoplon shield ??“ a circle of heavy wood, roughly 75-90cm in diameter, covered by leather and or bronze sheeting. This, in turn, was painted with a device representing the symbol of their city state (Sparta had the Lambda symbol) or individual choice such as a monster (to frighten the enemy) or gods??™ images (for protection and strength).


The shield was very heavy to resist the energy of an opponent??™s thrust or slash. So heavy that the shield was carried by a rope over the shoulder on the back when not in direct combat.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:c9SZ ... plon&hl=el


I can go like this for pages ... and pages...

You must understand that today in Greece we use the term Oplon for Weapon and the term Aspida (Aspis) for Shield....BUT the term HOPLON in ancient Greece meant the Aspis of Hoplite!!!!

The defensive armour consisted of four pieces: helmet (kranos), cuirass (thorax), shield (aspis) and greaves (knimis). A weapon is called hoplon from which panoply and hoplite (a man with weapons) is derived (initially the shield was called hoplon (όπλον) but today hoplon is a general name for weapon).

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Armor.htm


p.s Just to give something new to the discussion:

One of the ancinet Olympic events was the Hoplitiko-dromia: (Hoplitiko + dromos)

This was the race of hoplites wearing their defensive armament (including of course their "Hoplon" = shield) for a distance of one stade (200 meters).

[efthimios]

I don't have the time to say more, just that you are one arrogant person that it is not rare in the world.
You are still wrong though.
Have to go.