A Question of the Illiad

[Spartan198]

I was cruising Wikipedia and stumbled onto the article for the battle of Plataea. There was a sidebar (where an image had been deleted from) saying something about a reference to a possible use of the phalanx by the Trojan army in it (please, all Brad Pitt movie jokes aside here). Do any of you know what that may be?

I'd look for it myself, but my copy of the Illiad was sadly destroyed by a vindictive family member upon the realization that the movie wasn't 100% faithful to said work of art. :no:

[Marshal Murat]

From my limited perusing of the Iliad (note the spelling), the battles were between heroes, with the corps of Greeks and Trojans standing back. They might have been in a fighting formation, and a phalanx would be the best description of it.

[rajpoot]

The weapons used, as I had understood when I read the book, were short swords and spears, bows and arrows. And ofcourse, the elites had chariots. The spears, cannot be the long pikes used in the phalanx formation, because many a tims, infact most of the times, they have been used as javelins insted of polearms.
And furthermore, the way the fighting is descibed, there is no mention of and sort of disciplined ranks that would be needed in the phalanx, it sounds more like it's raging all around the heros while they fight each other one to one.
Ofcourse, the fact that they say the heros came forward out of their lines to fight each other, can be used to say that the soldiers stood in ranks and files, but still, I doubt the phalanx thingy was used.

[Spartan198]

The phalanx isn't distinctive to phalangites with pikes, though. So the idea of a Trojan or Mycenaean phalanx wouldn't necessarily match the syntagma formation used by Macedonian and Diadochi pezhetairoi.

*title error acknowledged*

[rajpoot]

Yet, any formation of the phalanx type will need to be rigid, and nowhere in the book are such formations mentioned. Infact the books does not speak of the lower ranks at all, all it tells of are the heros ~:( so all we can do is speculate, and considering that the heros are using the spears more like javelins than melee weapons, and the general effect one gets when reading about combat, I don't think there were any rigid formations at all, which ofcourse seems weird, because unit formations have been used since ages, Trojans and Greeks flooding the field in an ill disciplined manner too unlikly......I'm confused now.

[Spartan198]

So, then, maybe it's safe to assume that if they did use rigid formations, Homer may not have viewed it as important enough to mention.

I agree how unlikely it would be that they fought in anything but rank and file, though.

[CBR]

There is nothing spectacular about the use of word "phalanx". It does not tell anything about what weapon was used or how trained they were or whatever. All it means is battle line, main group of soldiers etc.

Although a lot of combat at the time of the Iliad most likely was based on individuals and/or small groups of men throwing javelins at each other, and occasionally engaging in melee, the phalanx was most likely where most men gathered at some distance to the enemy. Its only natural for soldiers to gather close to feel safe. It has been seen and photographed when tribes went to battle in New Guinea.

One difference between the times of the Iliad and the later use of phalanx would be that units tried to stay and fight in the phalanx group. But no new word came in to use for that formation.


CBR

[Spartan198]

To further what asj_india stated, though, rank and file formations have, indeed, been used for ages.

The earliest known depiction of a phalanx-like formation occurs in a Sumerian stele from 2450 BC. Here the troops seem to have been equipped with spears, helmets, and large shields covering the whole body. Ancient Egyptian infantry were known to have employed similar formations.

https://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm97/SpartanWarrior198/Stele_of_Vultures_detail_01a.jpg
And this bit on Homer's usage of the word "phalanx" --

The first usage of the term phalanx comes from Homer's "(φαλαγξ)", used to describe hoplites fighting in an organized battle line. Homer used the term to differentiate the formation-based combat from the individual duels so often found in his poems.

(Though I have no clue what that word in Greek translates to as the article provides no link, but I have a feeling the above quote might be related to a supposed "Trojan phalanx).

Anyway, I plan on getting myself another copy of the Iliad (and keeping it away from said family member referenced in post # 1), so I think it's safe to say that reading it again will most likely provide the definite answer.

[Jaume]

The word "phalanx", and its derivatives like "phalagx" or "phalaggo", mean "squadron" or "battalion" of infantry.

[CBR]

I searched a bit in the Iliad and found the following:


1. Homer. Iliad (English) [ Hom. Il. book 4 line 422 ]

on the beach when the west wind has lashed it into fury at sea [pontos]- it has reared its head afar and now comes crashing down on the shore; it bows its arching crest high over the jagged rocks and spews its salt foam in all directions- even so did the serried phalanxes of the Danaans march steadfastly to battle. The chiefs gave orders each to his own people, but the men said never a word; no man would think it, for huge as the host was, it seemed as though there was not a tongue among them, so silent were they in their obedience; and as they marched the



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Homer. Iliad (English) [ Hom. Il. book 5 line 85 ]

like a winter torrent that has burst its barrier in full flood; no dikes, no walls of fruitful vineyards can embank it when it is swollen with rain from heaven, but in a moment it comes tearing onward, and lays many a field waste that many a strong man hand has reclaimed- even so were the dense phalanxes of the Trojans driven in rout by the son of Tydeus, and many though they were, they dared not abide his onslaught. Now when the son of Lykaon saw him scouring the plain and driving the Trojans pell-mell before him, he aimed an arrow



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Homer. Iliad (English) [ Hom. Il. book 17 line 280 ]

quickly rallied them and made towards the front like a wild boar upon the mountains when he stands at bay in the forest glades and routs the hounds and lusty youths that have attacked him- even so did Ajax son of Telamon passing easily in among the phalanxes of the Trojans, disperse those who had bestridden Patroklos and were most bent on winning glory by dragging him off to their city. At this moment Hippothoos brave son of the Pelasgian Lethus, in his zeal for Hektor and the Trojans, was dragging the body off by the foot through the press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Homer. Iliad (English) [ Hom. Il. book 6 line 5 ]

over the plain as they aimed their bronze-shod spears at one another between the streams of Simoeis and Xanthos. First, Ajax son of Telamon, tower of strength to the Achaeans, broke a phalanx of the Trojans, and came to the assistance of his comrades by killing Akamas son of Eussoros, the best man among the Thracians, being both brave and of great stature. The spear struck the projecting peak of his helmet: its bronze point then went through his forehead into the brain, and


I only bothered to check two of them for the Greek word used but in both cases it was phalanx. I have seen one English translation of 6:5 use "ranks" but the Greek text had phalanx.

Jaume: The Greeks had various terms for specific unit sizes but Phalanx is not one of them. It is a generic term as "line of battle" or "battle-array" and thats it.


CBR

[rajpoot]

I've never read this translation, I've read both prose and verse versions of the book, and the word phalanx wasn't even used in there; Must be different translators. Who is the translator of this version?

Anyhow, from these extracts it one can clearly see that phalanx can more likely refer to small groups of soldiers in ranks and file than the large units of pikemen.

[CBR]

For searching: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/PERSEUS/greek.html and for the list of various texts in both English and Greek: http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/citeindex.pl?dbname=greekbeta


CBR

[Tamur]

I plan on getting myself another copy of the Iliad (and keeping it away from said family member referenced in post # 1)

You can't be serious... someone actually destroyed the Iliad due to movie scriptwriting? Obviously the world is in even worse shape than they report on the evening news.

[Spartan198]

You can't be serious... someone actually destroyed the Iliad due to movie scriptwriting? Obviously the world is in even worse shape than they report on the evening news.
Yep, it's true. And sad, too. That's the last time I tell a Brad Pitt fan that Hollywood is the wrong place to go for historical accuracy.

Hollywood wrong? Who'd have thunk it, huh? :dizzy2:

[Incongruous]

You can be certain that in Latimore's translation, there are clear signs of organised battle formations, especially within the Trojan army.
What an interesting duscussion would be is, how well does the Illiad reflect Bronze age warfare? If at all.

[Spartan198]

...but my copy of the Illiad was sadly destroyed by a vindictive family member upon the realization that the movie wasn't 100% faithful to said work of art. :no:
Wait, I rephrase my statement:
...but my copy of the Iliad was sadly destroyed by a vindictive family member upon realization that said work of art wasn't 100% faithful to the movie. :no:

[Spartan198]

You can be certain that in Latimore's translation, there are clear signs of organised battle formations, especially within the Trojan army.
What an interesting duscussion would be is, how well does the Illiad reflect Bronze age warfare? If at all.
That's an interesting topic.

If simply going by the context of the story, it really doesn't reflect it at all, or at least not intentionally. IMHO, the real message is the horror of war. I think that's the reason it's told from the point of view of the Trojans, who are forced to fight and die simply so Paris can have Helen. The fact that liberating one woman from her suffering is the direct cause of the suffering and death of countless husbands, wives, sons, and daughters of Troy.
All because Paris can have Helen.

[rajpoot]

Actually, I never really understand that is the book trying to tell a story, give a message or simply trying to glorify the heroes........what we can call the plot, is nice enough considering the time it supposedly was written in, but nothing very impressive, the message is old as the mountains, and the glorification of the heroes can be termed as exaggeration.
For example, Odysseus, who is nothing more than a minor charecter in Illiad, and does not seem to rise to much importance within the book's scope (unless we assume that there were some parts lost over time) has a full sequel about him.
Not that I am saying I don't like it, the books are excellent reading; I love the part where Diomed fights the Gods, I even find those long descriptions of the battle lines, Achillies' lament and all interesting. But what could have been the original point of writing such a book?

[CountArach]

I can tell people with a fair degree of certainty that the phalanx was not in common use in Greece until ca. 650 BC (With 655 BC being the earliest date that can be successfully argued). Representations of the Greek phalanx on art prior to this often take the form of duels between two warriors, who would appear to be stepping out of the formation.

However, the Hoplite panoply was in a state of use prior to this, commonly by the early 7th century (certainly before the phalanx formation). In fact the panoply was probably in use around 720-700BC in order to ensure a greater degree of protection in hand-to-hand combats.

The first evidence we have for the phalanx formation comes from a painting from Rhodes dated to the mid 7th century that shows several armies marching at one another, and is taken as one side appears to be dying. However, this is was simply the first effort to paint such a phalanx, and a far better effort is the Chigi Vase, dated to ca. 640BC (See below for link). It shows two armies marching towards each other in what could be described as a phalanx formation (Certainly the flautist behind the lines implies the need to keep a formation).

However, it is not a phalanx in the traditional sense of the word. Two figures are shown donning their armour, and each one of them has two spears with him. One spear is shorter than the other and it is theorised that this one would be used for throwing, whereas the other, longer spear is probably meant for thrusting. In fact, it is possible (It is still a scholarly point of contention) that the two armies are not in fact about to clash, they are instead throwing their javelins at each other.

All of the earlier vases and evidence that we have show only one on one combats between two people, often dressed in the hoplite panoply (though not always) and sometimes using swords instead of spears. This indicates that the adoption of phalanx warfare occurred over many phases (First the gradual adoption of the panoply, then the changing of tactics, and finally the adoption of the phalanx in the sense we know it as).

I can write more stuff if people want. its getting a bit late now. I wrote an essay for my archaeology Uni course on it, so I can refer to that and my sources if you want. I might even copy.paste some of it.



Sources
J. Salmon - Political Hoplites? in The Journal of Hellenic Studies 97 1977.
A. Snodgrass - The Hoplite Reform and History in The Journal of Hellenic Studies 97 1965.
H. Wees - Greek Warfare - Myths and Realties 2004
Chigi Vase - http://www.utexas.edu/courses/introtogreece/lect10/img10chigivase.html

[Spartan198]

Yeah, I'd definitely like to read some of it. Please do post something from it.

[CountArach]

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, I won't put it up here until I get it back. If you want me to send it to you please PM me.

[Spartan198]

Interesting paper, Count. Very well-written, too. :2thumbsup:

May I inquire as to what your grade on it was, if you don't mind?

[CountArach]

I still haven't got it back. Another reason for me to re-word it.

[Incongruous]

I don't think anyone who has studied classical history would contend that the Greeks of Homer's world used a phalnx formation. But homer clearly gives the Trojans the look of a well organised army. Homer also talks about what could be termed as elite units, such as the Dardanians, frontmen as they are called.

I believe that the use of chariots in the Illiad is most likely not to have been a Bronze age convention, they were I believe used more like the massed units of chariots in the east during that era.

What is I believe most interesting about the bronze age world in relation to Homer are the terms, Wanax and Basilieus. The Wanax is both leader in millitary and relgious matters, the Basilieus is merley an under ruler, tribal leader. What does this mean about the development of late bronze age and dark age society? What happened to the Wanax? Is this an indication of civil war among the members of the loose federation under the Wanax?
Is the Agammemnon of homer the heroic memory of an historic Wanax?

[Jaume]

Jaume: The Greeks had various terms for specific unit sizes but Phalanx is not one of them. It is a generic term as "line of battle" or "battle-array" and thats it.


My Ancient Greek Dictionary made by a professor of Greek language and literature doesn't think so.

[CBR]

My Ancient Greek Dictionary made by a professor of Greek language and literature doesn't think so.
If we go by "Greece and Rome at war" by Peter Connolly (who bases it on Xenophon)

3 files (of 12 men each) per Enomotia
2 Enomotia per Pentekostys which again was doubled up to form a Lochos. 4 Lochoi formed a Mora which was the largest unit.

IIRC Thucydides has slightly different structure but same names.

But by all means check the sources yourself as the links I provided has the Greek language versions too and an easy translation tool for the words you want to look up.


CBR

[rotorgun]

According to Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World 3000 BC - 500 AD, a project book, edited by Charles Catton, Published by Dunne Books, NY,copyright 2002:


The phalanx, a body of infantry fighting in close order with pikes or thrusting spears, is one of the oldest formations in warfare. The word is Greek, meaning "roller", and the phalanx is associated closely with the Armies of Classical Greece and Alexander the Great. However, phalanxes were used 2000 years before, in the armies of the city-states of southern Mesopotamia, established around 3000 BC.
The "Vulture Stele" - named because it depicts the bodies of the vanquished being eaten by vultures, a common motif of the time - records a victory of King Eannatum of Lagesh between 2500 and 2400 BC. It depicts two types of infantry, the first clearly being a Phalanx. We cannot see whether the troops in this phalanx are wearing armour because they are hidden behind large, oblong shields stretching from shoulder to ankle, but they wear bronze helmets covering the head down to the neck, with noseguards, similar to the Corinthian style worn by Greek hoplites 2000 years later. The shields overlap into a wall, and with spears couched underarm, they present a dense thicket of bronze spearpoints, suggesting a reliance on mass and forward momentum. The sound-box of a lyre from Ur, dating from around the same time, depicts phalanx troops wearing helmets similar to those on the Vulture Stele, as well as what appear to be ankle-length, leather cloaks reinforced with bronze studs. They also carry two-handed pikes, possibly foreshortened for artistic license. The other type of infantry depicted on the Vulture Stele are unarmoured, except for helmets similar to the phalangites', and carry spears and round-bladed axes. Catton, pg 9

This is clear evidence of the existence of phalanx tactics during the early bronze age. It stands to reason that the Early Greeks and Trojans would have been aware of such technologies and practices in 1200 BC, the alleged time of the Illiad's battles. This would also be the case for Chariot warfare, which is predominate among the champions of both armies in the story. Again I quote from my source.


Chariots were used by the Sumerian armies, but they do not appear to have been the main strike arm. It is likely that they were transport for commanders or for champions who dismounted to fight other champions or lead assaults. The ultimate expression of the warrior ethic, the champion was an important part of this period, often being mythologized to indoctrinate later generations. Catton, pg 9

This is what I think the Illiad was. A poem that was a sort of historical based fiction, used to teach the young about the ways of hoplite warfare, and to inspire them with its romantic vision of combat. It was also a rousing tale of romance to tell around a campfire or at a family gathering. On page 17 of the source I am looking at, it claims that:


Hoplites came from a malitia of propertied citizens, with a personal stake in the outcome of most battles, and intensley indoctrinated through nationalist propoganda (stretching it a bit here I think) and heroic myth. Therefore, the Greek national epic, the Illiad, with its detailed account of heroic single combat, is of less use as a record of military history than an insight into the Classical Greek military mind. Catton, pg 17

So friends, what do you think? Here are some scholarly opinions of the subject at hand. It makes sense to me then that the phalanx had to be known by the ancient world during the time of Homer. It stands to reason that the mythical enemies could have fought in such a way.

[CBR]

Since its part of basic human instinct to move close together in case of danger, I'd say that close formations has always been part of warfare. The trick is to maintain such a formation when going into combat as that requires some discipline and most likely some dedicated file closers.

One might even argue that the Spartans were the only army that really managed that in the early days of Greek warfare.

But I'm sure it would have been used earlier as in the case of Mesopotamia. Although I would say that not only the overlapping shield but also height/size of the shield could suggest a formation meant for protection against enemy missiles. Perhaps working a bit like the Italian militias who had pavise equipped spearmen in front and crossbows behind.


CBR

[rotorgun]

Since its part of basic human instinct to move close together in case of danger, I'd say that close formations has always been part of warfare. The trick is to maintain such a formation when going into combat as that requires some discipline and most likely some dedicated file closers.

One might even argue that the Spartans were the only army that really managed that in the early days of Greek warfare.

But I'm sure it would have been used earlier as in the case of Mesopotamia. Although I would say that not only the overlapping shield but also height/size of the shield could suggest a formation meant for protection against enemy missiles. Perhaps working a bit like the Italian militias who had pavise equipped spearmen in front and crossbows behind.

CBR

All good points CBR. I saw some depictions of the Assyrian army during a seige working in such a manner. Depicted were Archers, behind large wicker shields being protected by a line of spear-men, also behind such shields as well. Still in an open field battle, the issue must be contested by the closing of the infantry main lines at some point. Regardless of what the missile troops and chariot arms do in the battle, the infantry lines have to advance as they are the queen of battles. There is no better way of moving such a line than a phalanx. I tend to think that they would have to advance in open order until within missile range, than close to overlap shields, finally moving slowly towards the charge distance. Than came the shock, followed by the push, than proceeding to the collapse, and finally the rout. That was how most heavy infantry battles went during ancient times.

[Incongruous]

Another possible historical grounding for Homers epic, is the name Akiawa, which appears in Hittite tablets of the Mycenean period and refers to a war being fought.

[CBR]

I tend to think that they would have to advance in open order until within missile range, than close to overlap shields, finally moving slowly towards the charge distance. Than came the shock, followed by the push, than proceeding to the collapse, and finally the rout. That was how most heavy infantry battles went during ancient times.
They might have done that but IIRC there are descriptions of how the Persians fought against the Greeks: they could build a wall of wicker shields that took some effort for the Greeks to penetrate, but the actual melee done was as individuals or small groups which of course did not stand much chance against the better equipped Spartans that also kept their formation.

The Spartans were noted for their ability to slowly advance and thereby maintain their formation whereas many other Greek Hoplites seems to have charged from much further away.

Even Victor D Hanson (and if there is anyone who believes in Greek uberness in shock combat and the Othismos as one big rugby scrum its him) mentions only a few cases of interlocking shields and that was more in a defensive stationary formation IIRC.

Hans van Wees in his "Greek Warfare - Myth and Realities" even suggests Hoplites fought with individual spacing of 6 feet per man. Although I think thats too much space, the point is that is there is actually very little information on how they fought.

Now we have some details of spacing for the Macedonian phalanx, and it is certainly interesting to note that Diodorus Siculus saw the warriors of Troy with their interlocked shields as the inspiration to Philip, when he created his new army. Even Polybius compared it to Homer's "jostling crowds". Why were such authors more interested in mentioning Homer than the much more recent Hoplite fighting experience? Could it be that Hoplites simply didnt fight in as close formation compared to the new Sarissa armed Phalanx?

IIRC the Macedonian Phalanx operated with 3 different spacings: open, normal and close(interlocking shields) If Hoplites used same system then their normal combat spacing would not have been using interlocking shields.

As we had a long and tiring discussion a few years back on what Othismos really meant, Im not really inclined to go into that in much detail but lets just say I dont agree with the "Than came the shock, followed by the push, than proceeding to the collapse, and finally the rout. That was how most heavy infantry battles went during ancient times" bit. The few more or less detailed descriptions we have of combat shows a much more varied melee than that and the pushing bit just smells too much of Victor D Hanson heh.


CBR

[Jaume]

Ok, here are the definitions:

falagc -aggos h: rolling pin, formation in order of battle; troop formed in line of combat, battalion, squadron, fleet of combat aligned; front of troop [with four lines of profundity], line of battle (agein epi falaggos, to advance in front line, to form the square of combat; eis falagga katasthsai to form a troop in line); especially: line of battle of teban infantry o macedonic, phalanx; army, centre of an army, army in march, army camped, camp, some kind of spider.

I'm sorry if anyone can't see the greek letters.

[rotorgun]

They might have done that but IIRC there are descriptions of how the Persians fought against the Greeks: they could build a wall of wicker shields that took some effort for the Greeks to penetrate, but the actual melee done was as individuals or small groups which of course did not stand much chance against the better equipped Spartans that also kept their formation.

I agree, as that is how the Persian sparabara (which means shield, or pavise bearer) line is described: essentially a line of spear-men protected by large wicker shields with another line of archers behind. Naturally, they would be at a disadvantage to the more heavily armed Greeks.

The Spartans were noted for their ability to slowly advance and thereby maintain their formation whereas many other Greek Hoplites seems to have charged from much further away.
You are correct. According to Herodotus, if one can believe him with his tendency to exaggerate a bit, this was how the Athenians attacked.
"the Athenians....charged the invaders at a run....When the Persians saw the Athenians running toward them....they thought [they] must be mad....because they could see how few they were' - Herodotus


Even Victor D Hanson (and if there is anyone who believes in Greek uberness in shock combat and the Othismos as one big rugby scrum its him) mentions only a few cases of interlocking shields and that was more in a defensive stationary formation IIRC.
Agreed, even the Macedonians are described as using the "locked shields" as a defensive formation once, when they were attacked by Elephants at the battle of Hydaspes.

Hans van Wees in his "Greek Warfare - Myth and Realities" even suggests Hoplites fought with individual spacing of 6 feet per man. Although I think thats too much space, the point is that is there is actually very little information on how they fought.

I think that three feet would be a more normal fighting space.

Now we have some details of spacing for the Macedonian phalanx, and it is certainly interesting to note that Diodorus Siculus saw the warriors of Troy with their interlocked shields as the inspiration to Philip, when he created his new army. Even Polybius compared it to Homer's "jostling crowds". Why were such authors more interested in mentioning Homer than the much more recent Hoplite fighting experience? Could it be that Hoplites simply didnt fight in as close formation compared to the new Sarissa armed Phalanx?

That is interesting....I have never heard this before, but rather that Phillip was influenced by his time with the Thebans as a young man.


IIRC the Macedonian Phalanx operated with 3 different spacings: open, normal and close(interlocking shields) If Hoplites used same system then their normal combat spacing would not have been using interlocking shields.

Interestingly enough, modern armies use these same spacings in close order drill. We are told to fall in at a normal interval of one arm's distance from each other, or at double arm interval of two arms distance, or at the close interval of one's elbow as it extends if one places one's hand on their hip. These correspond to roughly 3, 6, and 1.5 feet of space between each soldier. As we are spaced at one arm's distance from front to back, this would make for about 3 feet of fighting space for each soldier when we are fallen in at normal interval...much like the Romans fought. Of course we no longer fight in such ways, but the concept is still in use to teach discipline, cohesion, timing and teamwork.

As we had a long and tiring discussion a few years back on what Othismos really meant, Im not really inclined to go into that in much detail but lets just say I dont agree with the "Than came the shock, followed by the push, than proceeding to the collapse, and finally the rout. That was how most heavy infantry battles went during ancient times" bit. The few more or less detailed descriptions we have of combat shows a much more varied melee than that and the pushing bit just smells too much of Victor D Hanson heh. CBR
I should have said that this is more like what might have happened between two Hoplite equipped formations. I got the idea from a wargame rulebook that I read for Great Battles of Alexander-GBOH series. Perhaps the writer got the idea from Victor D. Hanson as he was listed in the bibliography. It is likely that the early Greeks and Trojans fought in a less cohesive way. It was just something I wanted to throw out as a possibility.