If it's historical accuracy you're striving for with this reconstruction, be prepared to wade through a huge amount of discussion and not find a satisfying conclusion. There is no real answer to your questions, unfortunately. The best you can do is examine the evidence and take a best guess.
For some of this discussion, consult any of these many threads over at the Roman Army Talk forums on reconstructing and debating the linothorax:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...lit=linothorax
As has been stated, it's probably a model issue. We know from excavated examples from Olympia and elsewhere that hoplite shields ranged from 80 cm to 1 m in diameter.Also, Having taken a look at the Linothorax recreations Ive notice that the reenactors have much larger Hoplons than the ones in EB. Their Hoplons are from the Knee to the chin. In EB, they are about from the Hip to the chin. Realizing that EB strives for Historical accuracy, I was skeptical about the photos that I saw, but I decided to ask the EB team why their Hoplites have smaller Hoplons.
At first I thought it was because it was as big as the engine would let you, but then I realized that the Roman scutum is bigger so that was out of the question. Anyways, Im in no way saying that what EB has is wrong, just wondering about it.
Bookmarks