Hoplites... spears or pikes?

[Oberiko]

When reading on the Greek army, I see alternating descriptions.

Some sources say that hoplites, fighting in a phalanx formation, will use successively larger pikes for combat (some being well over twice as long as the user).

Other sources show hoplites fighting with 6-8 foot spears.

I'm just curious as to which way it was.

Edit: Alright, apparantly they did fight with both. What threw me off is that both troops (who would fight quite differently I'd assume) are called hoplites. Is there any specific names to differentiate the two?

[Hakonarson]

They were both - at various times

Like most other nations the basic infantry changed over time.

A simple summary:

In 400BC all "normal" Greek infantry were Hoplites - armed with a 8-10 foot spear wielded in one hand.

About 350-ish Phillip II of Macedon armed his tribesmen with very long spears and invented the Macedonian phlanx of pikemen. His infantry had not previusly ben hoplites tho - they were apparently mainly tribal javelinmen.

some ppl think that the pike was thus Phillip's attmept to make his inferior infantry able to stand up to hoplites in open battle without actually bvecoming hoplites.

After Philip came Alexander the Great, who conquered the Persian empire.

During Alexander's time Greek infantry was still mainly hoplite, although ther ewere increasing numbers of lighter types - pletasts and thureophoroi - light spearmen or maybe heavy skirmishers.

After Alexander's death his generals split up his empire and fought a series of wars for about the next 20 years.

During this time the, successors as these generals weer known, emphasised pike phalanxes, but they still used hoplites wher ethese weer available.

During the 200's most Grek states abandoned the hoplite as a troop type, and moved to thureophoroi (many in the 270's) and/or pikemen - eg I think Sparta went striaght from Hoplites to pike in the 220's.

[Hakonarson]

They weer not all called hoplites - hoplites weer only those troops armed with the hoplon, a large shield that could not be used with a pike.

Pikemen weer known by various terms, but never as hoplites.

they DID however all fight in a phalanx - but that is generaly taken these days to mean nothing more than fighting in a solid formation shoulder to shoulder or similar close order.

So you might have a hoplite phalanx or a pike phalanx.

the word phalanx means nothign more than wall IIRC, and in ancient times it described any formation in a line - even open order infantry occasionally.

[Oberiko]

Thanks Hakonarson, that clears it up.

[Heraclius]

Damn Why does Hakonarson always beat me to the good topics. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Very good post though. The only thing I can possibly add was that the pike of Phillip and Alexander's time was called a sarissa so maybe you could have hoplite phalanxes and sarissa phalanxes, which kind of sounds better than the pike version. Not sure if you want to do this though, just a thought.

[Hakonarson]

Oh all right then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Heraclius is right - to the extent that some mounted scouts troops carrying the Sarrissa were sometimes known ans sarrisaphoroi

However the correct Macedonian term for the pikemen was pezetairoi - "Foot Companions" - the Companions being the elite noble cavalry, and there foot formation is sometiems referred to as a "pezetairoi phalanx" by historical writers

the most common modern term for pikemen is "phalangite" - ie someone who fights in a phalanx.

confused yet?? I could go on some more if you want....;)

[spmetla]

Seeing as the greeks used pikes at this early date, were there any pikes running around, or being used fairly common by anyone in the early medieval era or just in the late medieval era?

[Herodotus]

The Hoplite Phalanx was a fascinating formation; 5 rows of Spear heads would protrude from the front of the formation. The job of the first line was to kill the enemy at his spears length, the job of the fifth line was to kill any enemy who had managed to get close to the first line. The other lines covered the space inbetween.

[Captain Fishpants]

There are Hoplites and Phalangites/Phalangists. Hoplites are the earlier type who are named for the hoplon shield they carried, and were armed with 8-10 foot thrusting spears.

Phalangists/Phalangites (depending on the exact period) were a tactical evolution of fighting style from the Hoplites. They used a longer sarissa "pike", some 18-20 feet in length. As a result, the shield they carried became smaller because they needed two hands to control the long pike.

In a phalanx formation the main purpose of the rear ranks of Hoplites was to add mass and "push" to the unit. Given the length of their spears only the first 3 ranks at most could have engaged the enemy.

With phalangites the position is different. Up to 5 ranks can use their spears to drive into an enemy unit; deeper than that and the rear ranks are replacements and for mass again. There's also some evidence that troops further back pointed their spears into the air over the heads of the front ranks to break up incoming barrages of arrows a bit.

MikeB ~ CA

[Catiline]

Quote[/b] ]There are Hoplites and Phalangites/Phalangists. Hoplites are the earlier type who are named for the hoplon shield they carried, and were armed with 8-10 foot thrusting spears.

The Captain's mostly right, but the hoplon is named for the hoplite rather htan the other way around. The term hoplon is a modern invention to describe the shield born by the hoplite, which in Greek means something along the lines heavily armed man.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ April 01 2003,00:16)]Seeing as the greeks used pikes at this early date, were there any pikes running around, or being used fairly common by anyone in the early medieval era or just in the late medieval era?
Oh yes - famously the Swiss of course

But long spears were the common weapon in Scotland and the Low countries too - particularly by Lowlanders and Flemings respectively. Over time those spears got longer and shields got smaller or weer discarded entirely and they became pikemen - as defined by using a long spear 2 handed in close formation.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ April 01 2003,11:27)]....the hoplon is named for the hoplite rather htan the other way around. The term hoplon is a modern invention to describe the shield born by the hoplite, which in Greek means something along the lines heavily armed man.
Hoplon is not a modern word

It became the word for the hoplite shield about the 5th century BC - in the 40's, so maybe 100 yrs after the shield itself came into use.

The generic Greek term for a shield is "aspis" - hence "Hypaspists" as "Shield bearers" - and was commonly used for shield including hoplons even after "hoplon".

[Catiline]

LOL, this always causes an argument. i ought to stop pointing it out. Replace with me hoplon anywhere in an ancient text that means shield. i believe in the new testament it can mean 'a piece of military equipment' but it's use specifically to describe a shield is modern. You're right, the greeks used aspis for that...

[Dimeola]

The standard Macedonian phalanx unit was the syntagma....16 by 16 and 256 strong. The phalangite carried a 15 foot sarissa (longass spear). In close order each man would have a 3 foot frontage and depth. The pikes of the first 5 ranks were levelled staright front. In defensive formation they went to a 18" front and depth. Each man rested his shield (generally smaller than the hoplon and attached to left arm with a strap from around the neck and shoulders) on the man in front and pushed. Officers and the front ranks having betterarmor than the rear. I highly recommend `Warfare in the Classical World` from StMartin`s Press.
If I remember rightly the job of the Phalanx was to holdfast in defense and pin the enemy so the cav could strike a decisive blow.....anyone tell me more on that?
Dimeolas

[Hakonarson]

I've done a bit of research overnight on this hoplon thing....by way of posting a question to a mailing list that a couple of historians read http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

A chap by the name of Duncan Head (OK - so I'm a name dropper&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif tells me that the use of "Hoplon" (plur Hopla) for eth shield comes from a passage in Diodorus that says "the troops had been called hoplites because of their aspides" - (mixing a bit of Greek & English there - note that he uses "aspis for "shield"). Duncan is author of "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" - which you should really get if you don't have it already - among other works.

So it occurs to me that the usage of Hoplon for the Hoplite shield (specifically) was probably well known in ancient times, even if it isn't written much - there is apparently a bit in Xenophon where he writes of equipping both horse and foot with hopla.

This would be in much the same way we refer to heavy armoured fighting vehicles as things to carry water around in (tank) for example. Or a M-16 is a rifle, a firearm, an assualt rifle, a personal weapon, etc.

Certainly the practice of naming troops after their shields is well known - peltast (pelta), Skutatoi (Scuta), Argyraspides (silver shields), Hypaspsits (shield bearers).

and lastly, of course, the shield WAS the defining item of equipment for the Hoplite - he was a hoplite if had a hoplite's shield - the spear, helmet, greaves and all that stuff were secondary to holding a place in the phalanx - which was a shield wall of ....hopla ta daaaa...:D

So for me there's enough circumstantia evidence so I don't have to feel guilty saying that Hoplites are named afer their shield http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[LadyAnn]

I would like to add to an already well documented topic.

The Spartans already use a somewhat short pike but somewhat long spear as main infantry formation. The Spartans did bring some innovations to Greek warfare (only list a few related to spears/pikes here):

1. They form a close rank/deep formation;

2. They practice moving straight forward instead of the tendency of formation movement of the day to lurch to the right. Without proper training, each man in the formation is trying to seek cover from the shield of his neighbor, making the group move slightly to the right. This makes the Spartans "auto-flank" their opponents if they move straight forward.

3. The longer spears means they can use it to break arrow volleys. It is hard to immagine, but the spears actually form a protective cover and arrows' impacts are lessen considerably. Coupled with raised shields, the closed rank formation would be actually safer from arrows than lose rank formation.

Annie

[Rosacrux]

Holy banana The first time I can see a topic about Greek warfare and I haven't much (if anything&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif to add And I am considered quite a smartass, so that's really something... Good job people

Oh, wait I have to add something after all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Philipos has not only equipped the phalanx with sarissas, he also vastly changed the engagement rules.

He did so partly inspired by the Theban tacticians (before his reign to power he lived a long period in Thebes, as a "royal hostage" to ensure that Macedon would "behave") and especially by Epaminonda's "Loxi phalanga", also known as "Theban phalanx" - a formation with standard hoplites but a)48-50 ranks deep http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif in it's "strong" left wing, and b)engaging in a "progressive" way in battle, not with a standard battle line approach. The Theban phalanx was considered the greatest evolution in the phalanx formation, before the introduction of the macedonian phalanx.

So, here I managed to add something at least.

[Hakonarson]

Ann that was teh Macedonians, not the Spartans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Hakonarson]

I found the text from Diodorous -

Diodorus Siculus, Library book 15, chapter 44, section 3
After a trial of the new shield its easy manipulation secured its adoption, and the infantry who had formerly been called "hoplites" because of their heavy shield, then had their name changed to "peltasts" from the light pelta they carried. (3.18)

This is in the section where Diodorous describes the reforms Iphicrates introduced - including lengthening the spear and sword and describing the boots he invented.

Perseus is a wonderful tool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Catiline]

Perseus is indeed the business, even if it does come up with some archaic translations that are nearly as old as the texts themselves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. I'm not totally convinced by hte argument of inference from hte passage of Diodorus. It's still not a specific use of hoplon to mean shield. You're right that other troops were named after their shields, but those shields are also refered to explicitly by their different names. There are enough opportunities in the ancient sources for hoplon to occur if it was really used as a name for the shield, and yet still aspis is used.