Hoplitai too weak ? [Archive] - Page 2

Pages : 1 [2]

ARCHIPPOS

06-30-2009, 22:13

QUOTED FROM WIKI (COPYPASTA!!!)
Several stages in hoplite combat can be defined:

A)Ephodos: The hoplites stop singing their paeanes (battle hymns) and move towards the enemy, gradually picking up pace and momentum. In the instants before impact war cries would be made.
B)Krousis: The opposing phalanxes meet each other almost simultaneously along their front. The promachoe (the front-liners) had to be physically and psychologically fit to sustain and survive the clash.
C)Doratismos: Repeated, rapid spear thrusts in order to disrupt the enemy formation.
D)Othismos: Literally "pushing" after most spears have been broken, the hoplites begin to push with their large shields and use their secondary weapon, the sword. This could be the longest phase.
E)Pararrhexis: "Breaching" the opposing phalanx, the enemy formation shatters and the battle ends.

some logical assumptions...
1)the running charge offered considerable benefits when facing a better drilled/trained opponent... if you're not that good with your spear and hoplon you might want to make up for this with a ferocious charge... it's the old skill vs raw power debate...
2)the running charge reduces exposure to missiles...
3)the othismos benefited deeper hoplite formations ... in this case the deeper phalanx would look forward to the pushing effect rather than avoid it...
4) within the fluid ,chaotic context of phalanx standout after the initial impact , phases C,D &E were probably overlaping and not that easily to distinguish... some spears might have broken but not all... some guys would push while using their copis against the enemy, others would try to skewer him in the face and so on... also at some point of the battleline breaches would have been formed whereas at the other side they could be still pushing eachother...

i don't think that our movies, reenactements or video games are that able to grasp and "recreate" the fluid ,and violent nature of this type of warfare...

antisocialmunky

06-30-2009, 22:17

The thing I've always seen with running charges over distance is that not everyone runs at the same speed.

ARCHIPPOS

06-30-2009, 22:24

supposedly though that would be the final hundreds of meters that they ran... surely a fairly fit, trained group of soldiers can do that ... at least the Athenians being draftees managed to pull it out at Marathon...

Watchman

06-30-2009, 22:44

The whole purpose of *that*, however, was to get through the killzone of Persian archery ASAP and into hand-to-hand range. That the hoplites were certified to be somewhat out of breath, and their formation screwed up six ways to Sunday, at the point of contact was an acceptable tradeoff.

It would be reasonable to assume the charge would normally be done from a *much* shorter distance, and the speed probably gradually built up from a slow jog or somesuch, both to conserve endurance and avoid distrupting the formation overmuch.

Phalanx300

06-30-2009, 22:47

I've seen this guy on TWC say that at Marathon the Hoplites would charge and then reform in front of the enemy, might be what the charging is all about mainly to defend against missle attacks. Otherwise its just a waste of Phalanx cohesion to waste it running at an enemy who doesn't do that and keeps their density.

ARCHIPPOS

06-30-2009, 22:53

Watchman

06-30-2009, 22:54

Oh yeah, him. Ignore that nonsense.

Put this way - if the Athenians & Co. *did* pull short right in front of the main Persian line, they'd be pretty much sitting ducks. Out of breath, out of formation with the slower fellows still stumbling into the rear ranks, and within spitting distance of the enemy who might just as well decide to get audacious and charge *themselves*. No point. Better drive home all the way then, and make virtue of the sheer momentum gathered during the long and no doubt rather terrifying hundred-meter dash to crash into the waiting shieldwall and hopefully break it. (Greek chroniclers AFAIK note that Persians could fight holites fairly equally as long as their spara wall held, but were in trouble if and when the hoplites managed to break through it; Athenians ought to have been aware of this from Ionian Revolt experience.)

Plus, I'm anything but convinced the level of discipline and drill present in the Athenian army at the period would have allowed for that kind of fancy-pants trickery in any case. After a shock infantryman has ran a hundred meters through a rain of arrows and finally starts getting close to the enemy, he needs to be *very* disciplined indeed to slow down and reform rather than just single-mindedly follow through straight into the enemy ranks just to get things over with.

Phalanx300

06-30-2009, 23:00

abt the formation being screwed up...
is it so important though to make contact from one side of the line to the other simulteniously??? i mean the important thing was having a continuous battleline shoulder to shoulder not a parade-like straight formation... they lost some cohesion sure and even some stamina but on the other hand they gained some momentum,no???

anyway i'm just making logical assumptions here , i'm no expert...

In Hoplite warfare when you have good cohesion it will help in the Phalanx warfare, running for a while with all your men makes you lose some cohesion.

And I never think of an Hoplite line as straight, well yes initially but afterwards I'd like to see it as the waves on a roch, bending and changing shape to paths of less resistance. Something like that.:sweatdrop:

Oh yeah, him. Ignore that nonsense.

And ignore his crap while you're at it.

Parallel Pain

07-01-2009, 07:24

Then please show me who in this tread posted sources? No one did, every one here has thus far just posted his opinion and records and experiences.
If you had bothered to read it:

Now you're just talking out of your arse, mate. Go read. (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html)And many well sourced wiki articles. On top of that some indirect sourcing of ancient authors (book #, etc).

And ignore his crap while you're at it.
His crap is supported by scholarship and historians and at least a well sourced wiki article.

When the Athenian line was ready, according to one source, the simple signal to advance was given by Miltiades: "At them".[45] Herodotus implies the Athenians ran the whole distance to the Persian lines, shouting their ululating war cry, "Ελελευ! Ελελευ!" ("Eleleu! Eleleu!").[72] It is doubtful that the Athenians ran the whole distance; in full armour this would be very difficult.[78] More likely, they marched until they reached the limit of the archers' effectiveness, the "beaten zone", (roughly 200 meters), and then broke into a run towards their enemy.[78] Herodotus suggests that this was the first time a Greek army ran into battle in this way; this was probably because it was the first time that a Greek army had faced an enemy composed primarily of missile troops.[78]

A Very Super Market

07-01-2009, 07:58

I haven't read the whole thread yet, I must say that you're likely missing the point.

Parallel Pain

07-01-2009, 08:24

I have

Geticus

07-01-2009, 08:39

1. Hoplitai fought with spears, spears are most effective at the sharp end. Basically you want to keep your opponent at a distance where your spearpoint can reach him, your spear is your primary weapon, so no need to immediately ditch it and move in to dagger distance.

2. In a press of people, you cannot move. Seriously, consider the implication of this. All of us have been in a press of people where we have been penned in, arm and leg movement restricted, your long nice spear useless if you had one (why have it then?), as is your shield wielded offensively- you need room for that as well. Now imagine that while people are trying to kill you. And as you are not wearing full medieval plate you have vulnerable points where you can actually be killed or severely injured. I have tried such situations (try searching for "Wolin" on Youtube) and it is suicide (especially at Wolin where the battle pins Russians and Poles hating each other against each other- there are serious injuries every year).

3. Fighting like that is extremely exhausting, especially in the temperatures one can get around the Mediterenean. Unless relieved, no one can do that for much more than half an hour. The consensus today is that ancient and medieval armies would clash- seperate- clash- seperate, not fight continuosly. The ones doing the actual fighting would simply pass out from overheating, dehydration and exhaustion (the two first being in my experience the worst). Again, recall when you have been in a press of people, did you sweat and get overheated? Did you have to drink lots water to avoid dehydration?

These are my reasons for saying, "No Phalanx300, Hoplite/Phalanx combat did not, as a rule, take place at 10- 20 cm". However, I have no doubt that it sometimes happened, my point is that the smart commander would try to avoid it.

Instead I suggest that we interpret the push as happening at spear point length (which it can, I have seen it often) and only in rare cases getting close, and never at 10- 20 cm, which is what I originally opposed. I suggest Phalanx300 that you line up a few of your friends, equip them with broomsticks and move in so close to each other, I am fairly certain you will understand my point then. 10- 20 cm is very close, too close to do anything defensively and effectively too close for even a short sword like the kopis or the infamous and nasty Gladius Hispanensis to be very effective.

Anyway, my general point is that though "Rugby Scrums" could happen, it was best to avoid them for the reasons above. Though of course hemming in the enemy and pressing them was desirable.
Will you guys buy this? Or perhaps Geticus can elaborate to a new interpretation from which we can actually build an understanding?

Now I will go and use my own pike and sword- shield ;-)

Agreed with what Archippos cited about the fluid phases of hoplite phalanx battle.

Othismos did ultimately reach shield on shield pressure. Classical Hellenic hoplites had no uniform station or skill level, their skill with their spears could vary greatly, with the Spartans on average having the highest skill with point weapons and the Boiotians including the Thebans having a reputation for being agrarian rustics who emphasized raw bodily strength. So in 5th and 4th century battles up through Charonea you are likely to see a fluid dynamic with othismos *often* being the final and decisive phase of battle.

You have to consider that the Classical hoplite was very heavily armored and to this we must add the well documented tendency of the classical hoplite to move slightly to his right so that the shield of the man to his right offers him better protection. This was a tightly packed formation. Now when the opposed armies meet different things can happen, and the lethality of the spearplay can delay or totally prevent othismos entirely. If the enemy routes on contact by melee casualties no press of shields takes place. But othismos press did occur, and this is the degeneration of hoplite battle to its most brutish and clumsy form.

In an othismos the phalanx degrades into a massed human battering ram. Each successive row of men presses his shield into the back of the man in front of him, and the front row presses shield to the shield of the enemy. The pressure in this situation is extreme as you very well envision, and this is precisely why classical sources allude to men urinating or even defecating in battle under the extreme crushing pressure of the othismos. The goal of the othismos was similar to a group tug of war, but in this case it was a push of war, with the goal being to propel the enemy formation backward, make them lose their footing, collapse to the ground, turn in flight and terror from the sheer brute violence and crushing pressure. Those who lost their footing, grew faint and exhausted, or otherwise fell to the ground were trampled and the rear ranks of the victorious phalanx would spearbutt them to death as they trod over them. Generally when an phalanx line ruptured extensively and turned in route then the victorious phalanx would only pursue for a moderate distance, in part due to exhaustion.

So you say that it seems unbearable and exhausting, and I believe that was the entire point. Many free Greeks had the wealth to buy a hoplite panoply, but not all free men had the time, or skill, to become puissant spearmen, the aikhmetes (point warrior) of Homer. This is to say that they owned the weapons and armor, but weren't all that good with them, many of them being basically freeholder farmers, so they had brute force and endurance, and patriotism and they got by with that, so this is why the battles often devolved to othismos.

The greatest example of this is the battle of Leuctra which ended Spartan hegemony in Hellas and signalled the definitive decline of Spartan power. The Spartan phalanx, undefeated in hoplite combat in 200 years, was finally beaten not by spearmanship but by the sheer brute grunt power of Theban hoplites massed 50 deep on the left. The Theban general Epaminondas did this because he knew that if he could crush the small force of true Spartiate hoplites on the Lacedaemonian right, the morale of the rest would subsequently fail. And it worked. Epaminondas did not mass his left 50 deep to have extra spear fodder to feed to the Spartans, and obviously not merely for morale, he did it to create an overwhelming human battering ram that no small force of spartans could withstand, and it worked.

So that's how it worked, the battle descriptions by Thukudides, Herodotos, Xenophon et al. are not consistently minutely detailed enough to let us know precisely what percentage of battles were decided by shield press and rupture, vs. spearmanship as you envision. But the descriptions are clear enough that clumsy human battering ram effect of othismos did rupture and route enemy phalanxes under conditions of exhaustion and morale collapse.

antisocialmunky

07-01-2009, 14:13

By all accounts, the Spartans managed to hold out for a time against that ridiculous man-ram. 50 thick was probably pretty bad for the guys up from because of all the pushing force that gets added up when you get up to the first couple ranks.

Watchman

07-01-2009, 19:41

antisocialmunky

07-02-2009, 01:35

Was the left formed as a single phalanx or 3-5 phalanxes? I'd have to conclude hte latter since otherwise its just horribly inefficient.

Geticus

07-02-2009, 08:53

I for one *sincerely* doubt the very deep Theban column had anything to do with "push weight" - it would appear to me as physically impossible for even a fraction of the depth to contribute their "weight" to the match, nevermind now without flatly crushing the front-rank guys.

Overly focusing on the hoplite column also entirely misses the importance of the contribution the Theban cavalry made by variously distrupting the Spartan ranks and harrying their flanks and rear.

Rather, it would appear to me that the point of the exercise was to leave rather major chunk of the Theban hoplites in the flank of the Spartan line after the immediate resistance was routed - and in excellent position to roll up the whole thing from the side. After all, consider the tactical situation this left the remaining Spartans in - not only were they facing fresh and unengaged, if rather thin, hoplite line to their front, but also had a veritable army (including the the Sacred Band, the Thebans' hardcore shock troops) right in their side and busily wheeling around towards them...
"So tell me... do you feel lucky, punk ?"

Xenophon was a contemporary of Leuctra and I think he outranks all other historians to write on this matter, due to his superior military experience as strategos of the 10,000 in Asia etc., and his text is clear that othismos of the 50 shield deep Theban mass broke the Spartan phalanx.

Xen. Hellenica 6.4.12-15

[12] Such, then, was the cavalry on either side. Coming now to the infantry, it was said that the Lacedaemonians led each half-company three files abreast, and that this resulted in the phalanx being not more than twelve men deep. The Thebans, however, were massed not less than fifty shields deep, calculating that if they conquered that part of the army which was around the king, all the rest of it would be easy to overcome. [13]

Now when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time. [14] But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus,7 the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass, while those who were on the left wing of the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that the right wing was being pushed back, gave way. Yet despite the fact that many had fallen and that they were defeated, after they had crossed the trench which chanced to be in front of their camp they grounded their arms at the spot from which they had set forth. The camp, to be sure, was not on ground which was altogether level, but rather on the slope of a hill. After the disaster some of the Lacedaemonians, thinking it unendurable, said that they ought to prevent the enemy from setting up their trophy and to try to recover the bodies of the dead, not by means of a truce, but by fighting. [15] The polemarchs, however, seeing that of the whole number of the Lacedaemonians almost a thousand had been killed; seeing, further, that among the Spartiatae themselves, of whom there were some seven hundred there, about four hundred had fallen; and perceiving that the allies were one and all without heart for fighting, while some of them were not even displeased at what had taken place, gathered together the most important personages and deliberated about what they should do. And as all thought it best to recover the bodies of the dead by a truce, they finally sent a herald to ask for a truce. After this, then, the Thebans set up a trophy and gave back the bodies under a truce.

The critical passage 6.4.14 in Greek reads:

14] ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἀπέθανε Δείνων τε ὁ πολέμαρχος καὶ Σφοδρίας τῶν περὶ δαμοσίαν καὶ Κλεώνυμος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ οἱ †μὲν ἵπποι καὶ οἱ συμφορεῖς τοῦ πολεμάρχου καλούμενοι οἵ τε ἄλλοι ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ὠθούμενοι ἀνεχώρουν, οἱ δὲ τοῦ εὐωνύμου ὄντες τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ὡς ἑώρων τὸ δεξιὸν ὠθούμενον, ἐνέκλιναν

The Greek is more explicit as to othismos because it uses the present participle of the verb Otheo in both instances to describe the action. The above translation is not my own, but taken straight from the Perseus website, a more literal translation of the first emboldened passage would be:

upo tou oxlou othoumenoi anexoroun
being pushed by the throng [the Spartans] fell back

and the second passage

os eoron to dexion othoumenon, eneklinan
as they saw the [Spartan] right being pushed back, they [the Lakedaimonian allied left] gave way

Sorry I don't type in Greek, but this passage is perfectly clear, the oxlos [throng] of the Thebans pushed back and broke the Spartan right, causing a chainroute down the whole Lakedaimonian line. I trust that you will concede that when Xenophon refers to the Theban oxlos (throng) he is referring to the previously mentioned 50 man deep mass cited in 6.4.12, and not some partial 12 man phalanx that you propose, which would never have dared to presume that they could have alone routed the hitherto invincible Spartiate phalanx led personally by a Spartan King. It took a military genius (Epaminondas), revolutionary strategy (oblique attack to the left) and unprecedented mass (50 shields deep).

Phalanx300

07-02-2009, 09:00

If you had bothered to read it:

And many well sourced wiki articles. On top of that some indirect sourcing of ancient authors (book #, etc).

I see, when he post something supported he's right, when I do it I'm just being ignorant? :wall:

His crap is supported by scholarship and historians and at least a well sourced wiki article.

My crap as well. :juggle2: Do you really think I just make everything up on what I said at Hoplites?:laugh4:

Satyros

07-02-2009, 09:06

Xenophon was a contemporary of Leuctra and I think he outranks all other historians to write on this matter, due to his superior military experience as strategos of the 10,000 in Asia etc., and his text is clear that othismos of the 50 shield deep Theban mass broke the Spartan phalanx.

Xen. Hellenica 6.4.12-15

[12] Such, then, was the cavalry on either side. Coming now to the infantry, it was said that the Lacedaemonians led each half-company three files abreast, and that this resulted in the phalanx being not more than twelve men deep. The Thebans, however, were massed not less than fifty shields deep, calculating that if they conquered that part of the army which was around the king, all the rest of it would be easy to overcome. [13]

Now when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time. [14] But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus,7 the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass, while those who were on the left wing of the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that the right wing was being pushed back, gave way. Yet despite the fact that many had fallen and that they were defeated, after they had crossed the trench which chanced to be in front of their camp they grounded their arms at the spot from which they had set forth. The camp, to be sure, was not on ground which was altogether level, but rather on the slope of a hill. After the disaster some of the Lacedaemonians, thinking it unendurable, said that they ought to prevent the enemy from setting up their trophy and to try to recover the bodies of the dead, not by means of a truce, but by fighting. [15] The polemarchs, however, seeing that of the whole number of the Lacedaemonians almost a thousand had been killed; seeing, further, that among the Spartiatae themselves, of whom there were some seven hundred there, about four hundred had fallen; and perceiving that the allies were one and all without heart for fighting, while some of them were not even displeased at what had taken place, gathered together the most important personages and deliberated about what they should do. And as all thought it best to recover the bodies of the dead by a truce, they finally sent a herald to ask for a truce. After this, then, the Thebans set up a trophy and gave back the bodies under a truce.

The critical passage 6.4.14 in Greek reads:

14] ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἀπέθανε Δείνων τε ὁ πολέμαρχος καὶ Σφοδρίας τῶν περὶ δαμοσίαν καὶ Κλεώνυμος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ οἱ †μὲν ἵπποι καὶ οἱ συμφορεῖς τοῦ πολεμάρχου καλούμενοι οἵ τε ἄλλοι ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ὠθούμενοι ἀνεχώρουν, οἱ δὲ τοῦ εὐωνύμου ὄντες τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ὡς ἑώρων τὸ δεξιὸν ὠθούμενον, ἐνέκλιναν

The Greek is more explicit as to othismos because it uses the present participle of the verb Otheo in both instances to describe the action. The above translation is not my own, but taken straight from the Perseus website, a more literal translation of the first emboldened passage would be:

upo tou oxlou othoumenoi anexoroun
being pushed by the throng [the Spartans] fell back

and the second passage

os eoron to dexion othoumenon, eneklinan
as they saw the [Spartan] right being pushed back, they [the Lakedaimonian allied left] gave way

Sorry I don't type in Greek, but this passage is perfectly clear, the oxlos [throng] of the Thebans pushed back and broke the Spartan right, causing a chainroute down the whole Lakedaimonian line. I trust that you will concede that when Xenophon refers to the Theban oxlos (throng) he is referring to the previously mentioned 50 man deep mass cited in 6.4.12, and not some partial 12 man phalanx that you propose, which would never have dared to presume that they could have alone routed the hitherto invincible Spartiate phalanx led personally by a Spartan King. It took a military genius (Epaminondas), revolutionary strategy (oblique attack to the left) and unprecedented mass.

Bravo !

Good job mate .

Satyros

Dutchhoplite

07-02-2009, 09:12

It took a military genius (Epaminondas), revolutionary strategy (oblique attack to the left) and unprecedented mass (50 shields deep).

Errrr..Epaminondas basicly used the same methods first used by Pagondas at Delium only somewhat further developed. It wasn't that revolutionary.

Geticus

07-02-2009, 09:37

Errrr..Epaminondas basicly used the same methods first used by Pagondas at Delium only somewhat further developed. It wasn't that revolutionary.

Point conceded, I didn't know (or had long since forgotten not being much of a Peloponnesian War buff) about that one. Do you know if the attack there was oblique with the deep Theban right leading ahead of the others? On cursory inspection it is not clear.

ARCHIPPOS

07-02-2009, 14:08

bc the hoplites fought holding their shield with their left arm and their spear with their right , the battleline's right flank was considered exposed and thus "weaker"... bc it presented a shieldless undefended far edge ... right flank=hoplite battleline's weakest point...

to make up for this "right-wing weakness" commanders would deploy their better trained,armoured hoplite contigents on the right , thus reducing the risk of the right flank collapsing (=major screwup)... for example when fighting along with their allies , the Spartans would typicaly assume the right ...

however BOTH battlelines would typicaly have their elites deployed on their respective right flanks... in battle after the initial stages and when OTHISMOS(=the push effect) kicked in it was very common for the rightflanker "badasses" to respectively push the less reliable hoplites standing on the enemy battleline's left (confused yet???better check the below sketch)

https://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/boreborebore_2009/HOPLITEBATTLE1.jpg?t=1246539673

so the clashing hoplite battlelines would start to "rotate" around their centres... in an "anti-clockwise" movement (as shown in phase III of the scheme)...how long could this rotation last was a question of both leftflankers' ability to maintain their cohesion against the elites...
if the left-flankers broke they would be hunted down for a while and then the pursuing elites would turn and manouveur themselves against the enemy centre eventualy ripping the enemy battleline apart...

it was also very typical for hoplitebattles for both rightflankers (say Atheneans and Spartans) to push through against the enemy left... the battle then became a question of who would rip through the enemy battleline first...

Epaminondas simply capitulated on the "rotation" angle... he must have realised that the battleline's ability to absorb "othismos" pressure and rotate (instead of breaking) was limited ... that is the underlying principle of Epaminonda's "oblique formation"https://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/boreborebore_2009/?action=view&current=HOPLITEBATTLE1.jpg

Celtic_Punk

07-02-2009, 14:33

Almost like the Kiwi's push tactic in rugby!

ARCHIPPOS

07-02-2009, 14:38

i wouldn't now man i come from a "football" not a "rugby" country :yes:

Celtic_Punk

07-02-2009, 14:52

all forms of football (with the exception of the gaelic derivative) blow hard. American football sucks because of all the start and stopping ( WHY DO YOU STOP AFTER THE TACKLE!!! THE GAME IS JUST BEGINNING! RUCK OVER THAT!!!!) And footy... well lets just say when you watch grown men kick each other in the shins and they all cry for twenty minutes and then all of a sudden they hop up and are ready for the free kick... no amount of Italians head butting each other makes up for that kind of shiite.

tls5669

07-02-2009, 15:28

Well , my point isn't exactly that the hoplite phalanx should beat any and all infantry formations just that we don't get to see them push much as already mentioned earlier .

If enveloped , they would be cut down I suppose , since they would have to use shortswords against ferocious longsword wielding Celts .

Satyros

Thats why I love the Massilian Hoplite.

Dutchhoplite

07-02-2009, 19:28

Point conceded, I didn't know (or had long since forgotten not being much of a Peloponnesian War buff) about that one. Do you know if the attack there was oblique with the deep Theban right leading ahead of the others? On cursory inspection it is not clear.

When i read de description of Delium would'nt say that the Theban right is leading. Almost from the beginning there is fighting along the whole front line and this would'nt be the case if Pagondas would have held his weak left back.

Parallel Pain

07-02-2009, 19:36

I see, when he post something supported he's right, when I do it I'm just being ignorant?

Do you really think I just make everything up on what I said at Hoplites?

I do actually. And I will continue to think so until you post those sources.