Luke argues > I have many questions to answer, some more factual (stright > translation problems), some more interprative. i will pose two to > start with: > [snip] > I would like to start with the infantry shield. > [snip] > It strikes me that the 1QM shield is much more likely to be this > 'normal' Jewish shield ['the thyreos' (sic!)] than a Roman shield, or any other nation's > shield unless we chose to say the 1QM infantry are entirely unrelated > to Hasmonean Jewish infantry as described by Josephus.
Answer: For we reject the fantastic consequence of giant (i.e. big) infantrymen above 6 ft., the shield is measured along its surface, thus alongside bent and high probably semi-rectangular or blunt-oval. That leads to chalkaspides (bronze shield-bearers) of 5 ft 6" on the average. Indeed, we have no circumstantial evidence for an underlying laminate flake construction or metal umbo (buckle) and/or spina that would clearly determine a Republican scutum. However, the pre-63 BC thureos is possible as well as the timeless Assyrian long-shield or one of the different auxiliary shields of the post 63 BC era. In any case, the metal tegmen causes an increase of the weight that is not to be underestimated. NB The 'sword' in 1QM is definitely a Palestinian long-dagger. When Yadin commentated 1QM he remarkably had forgotten his earlier investigations on 'warfare in biblical lands'. > At the risk of posting an overly long thread, for a second point, > >from my limited analysis of 1QM I can't see how it can be concluded > 1QM represents a four line Roman tactical infantry model. I can only > see three lines mentioned. > First there are the slingers who shoot and retreat, then there are > the javelinemen, who shoot and retreat, and then the close-fighting > infantry, who deliver the final blow. Answer. You have mentioned the three light arms of specialists that emit through the - by synaspismos (locked shields) tactics temporarily opened - gaps in the frontline according to their range of weaponry: (1) sphendonetai (slingers), (2) pezakontistai (javelineers), (3) peltophoroi (light swordsmen). That presupposes an already positioned phalanx of the infantry of the line, thus eventually but not necessarily semi-heavy (usually skirmishing) thureophoroi like the 'Cypriots' (i.e. Greek mercenaries) of 2Macc, and an advancing enemy frontline with equivalent width of the center: c. 600 ft. formed by the front chiliarchia; see col. v.3-4. > What is there in the text that supports a four line interpretation? Answer: 'formation' instead of 'line': col. vi.8-10a; ix.4 vs ix.3 Cheers big-ears! Dierk For private reply, e-mail to "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
