WHAT DID I SEE!!!! [Archive]

frogbeastegg

11-11-2003, 20:11

The 'evening gown' effect, or dress as I call it can probably be attributed to a combination of two effects. Firstly there is a ongoing split in the academic comunity over how the Spartans fought at this time, or more accurately what they wore when they were in battle. Some believe they were wearing little more than a tunic and a helmet, others belive they were totally naked except the helmet and the cloak. Of course a game full of nude Spartans wouldn't go down too well with the ratings people and RTW would get 18 or banned.

The second effect is the technology, or lack thereof. Proper cloaks are hard to animate it has only really been done properly in CGI films like star wars. The cloak needs to keep the Spartan covered up to remove the possibility of seeing something you shouldn't as they charge This means they have to make the cloak act like a dress.

Bit of a double edged sword - if they give the Spartans armour they will be criticised by some for inaccuracy, if they nude Spartans the game is not likely to reach a wide audience. The compromise has cross dressing Spartans. Honestly I do feel rather sorry for CA at the moment, it can't have been an easy decision. At the same time I must wonder why not stick them in a normal Greek tunic like the javelin lobbing skirmishers?

In light of the cross dressing it is probably a good thing that high heel shoes and nail varnish had not been invented at the time Imagine your charge breaking up because someones heel broke and the devestating effects on morale caused by chipped nail varnish Doesn't bear thinking about

Teutonic Knight

11-11-2003, 20:36

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Nov. 11 2003,05:39)]See how wrong one can be? The most feared warriors of the antiquity were actually drag queens topped with a pudding bowl http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
oh you funny Balkan man http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

drag queen.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

DojoRat

11-11-2003, 21:43

The Wizard

11-11-2003, 23:18

... Spartans wore armor. How else do you explain their military prowess against the Athenians and the rest of the Greek world before the rise of the Thebans and the Hellenism? Three-hundred Spartans could never have held off tens of thousands of Persians without armor either

I don't know about the helmet, but armor... how could they not? Given, Spartans were not really Greeks (their culture was so much different), but they just had to wear armor.. or else historians have had the wrong opinion of them for years http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

hellenes

11-11-2003, 23:28

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Nov. 11 2003,22:18)]Given, Spartans were not really Greeks (their culture was so much different), but they just had to wear armor.. or else historians have had the wrong opinion of them for years http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
I will displease you saying that the culture alone doesnt make you smth its the selfunderstanding thats identifys you and Spartans WERE MORE GREEK THAN ALL THE GREEKS TOGETHER
Hellenes is one thing and Hellenised other

Hellenes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

frogbeastegg

11-11-2003, 23:51

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Nov. 11 2003,22:18)]I don't know about the helmet, but armor... how could they not? Given, Spartans were not really Greeks (their culture was so much different), but they just had to wear armor.. or else historians have had the wrong opinion of them for years http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Well to cut short a very long explanation short they wore armour up till around the 5th century BC. At some point in the 5th century tactical conditions changed and the Spartans discarded armour in favour of mobility. They kept the hoplon shield and the helmet (usually the pilos type or other open helmet) but threw out the cuirass, greaves and other supplimentry armour. There is very little evidence for them wearing full hoplite armour during this period and at the same time there is plenty of evidence for the lighter hoplite style. Other city-states followed Sparta's lead as per usual and body armour becomes more uncommon accross Greece. Then around 360 BC evidence for body armour appears again and the heavy hoplite reappears.

The Spartans have always been considered Greeks, while they may be at the opposite end of the spectrum to the Athenians they were undoubtably Greek. In history societies and cultures are grouped by various categories of similaririties like pottery, relgion, language, ideals, technology and so on. The Spartans fit the Greek grouping in enough categories to be called Greek.

rasoforos

11-12-2003, 00:01

[quote=Wizzy,Nov. 11 2003,16:18]don't know about the helmet, but armor... how could they not? Given, Spartans were not really Greeks (their culture was so much different), but they just had to wear armor.. or else historians have had the wrong opinion of them for years

quote]
they were speeking greek , had the greek religion , were dorians , participated in the olympics, how much mroe greek than that can you get?

Aditionally it will surprise you to know that they were the last greeks to ever fall to the byzantines since some of them stayed out of byzantine influence and retained the greek religion up to 900 AD in the mountains of Mani. It doesnt get more greek than that my friend http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Spino

11-12-2003, 00:19

Quote[/b] ]Aditionally it will surprise you to know that they were the last greeks to ever fall to the byzantines since some of them stayed out of byzantine influence and retained the greek religion up to 900 AD in the mountains of Mani. It doesnt get more greek than that my friend.

Hah My Mother's side of the family can trace its roots back to Mani.

Quote[/b] ]Well to cut short a very long explanation short they wore armour up till around the 5th century BC. At some point in the 5th century tactical conditions changed and the Spartans discarded armour in favour of mobility. They kept the hoplon shield and the helmet (usually the pilos type or other open helmet) but threw out the cuirass, greaves and other supplimentry armour. There is very little evidence for them wearing full hoplite armour during this period and at the same time there is plenty of evidence for the lighter hoplite style. Other city-states followed Sparta's lead as per usual and body armour becomes more uncommon accross Greece. Then around 360 BC evidence for body armour appears again and the heavy hoplite reappears.

Well considering RTW is going to span the years between 300 B.C. and 14 A.D. then there is no reason for any of us to think CA took away the standard hoplite arms and armor from the Spartan warriors. Maybe all the alarmists here are completely wrong. Just because the Spartan hoplites are depicted as having their cloak cover their entire person doesn't mean they're not wearing standard hoplite armor underneath it. Were these Spartans wearing greaves at all?

Leet Eriksson

11-12-2003, 01:16

all i want is,spartans kicking the crap outta those who opposed them,much like they did at thermopylea(sp?) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Fearless

11-12-2003, 10:37

Thanks guys for the explanations on the spartan armour. I can accept the robe but please CA lets have some bloody decent helmets I don't care if they aren't historically correct give me spartans that look like warriors and not................well what do they look like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

frogbeastegg

11-12-2003, 12:20

Quote[/b] (Spino @ Nov. 11 2003,23:19)]
Quote[/b] ]Aditionally it will surprise you to know that they were the last greeks to ever fall to the byzantines since some of them stayed out of byzantine influence and retained the greek religion up to 900 AD in the mountains of Mani. It doesnt get more greek than that my friend.

Hah My Mother's side of the family can trace its roots back to Mani.

Quote[/b] ]Well to cut short a very long explanation short they wore armour up till around the 5th century BC. At some point in the 5th century tactical conditions changed and the Spartans discarded armour in favour of mobility. They kept the hoplon shield and the helmet (usually the pilos type or other open helmet) but threw out the cuirass, greaves and other supplimentry armour. There is very little evidence for them wearing full hoplite armour during this period and at the same time there is plenty of evidence for the lighter hoplite style. Other city-states followed Sparta's lead as per usual and body armour becomes more uncommon accross Greece. Then around 360 BC evidence for body armour appears again and the heavy hoplite reappears.

Well considering RTW is going to span the years between 300 B.C. and 14 A.D. then there is no reason for any of us to think CA took away the standard hoplite arms and armor from the Spartan warriors. Maybe all the alarmists here are completely wrong. Just because the Spartan hoplites are depicted as having their cloak cover their entire person doesn't mean they're not wearing standard hoplite armor underneath it. Were these Spartans wearing greaves at all?
Well this discussion is on the Spartans shown in time commanders and as the battle of Lucetra took place in 371BC the Spartans could be wearing armour or not wearing armour since we don't know the exact year armour reappeared, but probably no armour. As far as RTW goes I say "bring back the armour"

Anyway you couldn't see any greaves becasue the Spartans were covered by the cloak from shoulder to ankle like they are in many ancient sources. This does allow you to imagine what you want, therefore the TC Spartans had no armour and the same model appearing in RTW has armour. At least as far as I am concerned.

Tempiic

11-12-2003, 12:42

http://www.bladenet.de/assets/images/spartan.jpg
http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/historical_periods/greece/greek_world/s_hoplit.gif
This is what i imagine the spartan elite hoplites look like... Their red cloaks and the unique crest styling is their trade mark... Most hoplite helms had the crest 90 degrees turned.

Tempiic

11-12-2003, 12:51

http://public.srce.hr/husar/Greek%20Hoplite%205th%20Cent%20BC.jpg

Spartan (and/or allied) non-elite hoplite... Notice the crest difference... The upturned V is the symbol of sparta. Btw ignore the red half-cloak http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Rosacrux

11-12-2003, 12:53

A couple of observations on Spartans and armor etc.

The Spartans were actually the first who introduced the full (body armor, greaves) heavy hoplite armour in the 7th century BC. They were also one of the first who abandoned the heavy, bronze armor, in favor of light (usually linen enforced with metal straps or leather likewise enforced with metal straps) armour that allowed for greater mobility in the battelefield.

That development occured a bit before the Pelloponesian war, when a great number of Thracian Peltasts worked as mercenaries for various city states, the same city-states adopted en masse the peltast armament for quite a number of their soldiers (cheaper to maintain than the extremely expensive hoplite armament) and by the same time the hellenic world witnessed the rise of the northern Greek kingdoms (Macedon, Thessaly, Hepirus) who were rich in mobile forces and cavarly.

The introduction of those new elements, called for a lighter, more mobile hoplite. In extreme cases (see "ekdromos hoplites") the hoplite would wear no armour at all, and the only defensive gear would be the aspis. The Ifikratian hoplites (or peltasts) did abandon the aspis too, in favor of a smaller, lighter shield too, but they wore linen armour.

Those evolutions applied to all Greek city-states, not only the Spartans.

Also, the Spartans in said period seem to have abandoned their trade-mark Korinthian helmet, in favor of the lighter Boeotian or the Pilos and also a couple other designs. But they continued using the earlier (unweildy, for sure) Korinthian helmets as well.

As for the red cloack goes... it did not look like a bloody dress but like a cloack, and the Spartan hoplites did not look like a bunch of drag queens... that would be tough anyway with their nether areas exposed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Tempiic

11-12-2003, 12:58

As for the armour, its hard to say indeed... There were times when hoplites were heavily armoured, and there were times when they were more lighter armoured or not armoured at all... I agree completely with rosacrux

hellenes

11-12-2003, 15:06

Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ Nov. 12 2003,11:51)]http://public.srce.hr/husar/Greek%20Hoplite%205th%20Cent%20BC.jpg

Spartan (and/or allied) non-elite hoplite... Notice the crest difference... The upturned V is the symbol of sparta. Btw ignore the red half-cloak http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The "upturnesd V" is the greek L. Wich stands for the first letter of the name of Spartans: Lakedaimonioi (spelled Lakedemonii) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Hellenes

Cebei

11-12-2003, 15:13

1-Can a Spartan Hoplite beat a Legionaire?

2-Can a Spartan Elite beat a Praetorian?

Time allowed is 3 minutes, good luck.

Kraxis

11-12-2003, 15:46

I thought the Spartans retained the linnen cuirass all the way down to the time they took up the pike.
They at least used that cuirass against the Persians at Thermopylae.

Btw, it was the Argives that invented the heavy Hoplite. Remember the aspis is also called an Argive shield.

Cebei.

1. Yes, I believe a Spartan hoplite would win. He lived for war and battle, the Roman legionary was only a citizen warrior (if we talk within the game). The Spartan would also have the better reach with his spear and would have a good chance of striking down at the Legionary (over the shield).

2. Tough one. The Elites you mention must be the Hippeis that acted as bodyguards of the Spartan kings. But since the Hippeis were only elected warriors, they were not special troops like the Praetorians.
But much the same advantages of the other fight applies here.

Cebei

11-12-2003, 15:54

Though Praetorian too, carried a spear. Wrong?

The Wizard

11-12-2003, 16:24

People, I didn't mean the Spartans were not Greeks... of course they were But their society was ordered so much differently from the other Greeks that they were almost Spartan isntead of Greek

I didn't know that Spartans and other Greeks didn't wear armor in the 5th Century BC up until 360 BC, but the fact remains that RTW is from 264 BC... so Spartans were wearing armor

However, it does mean Spartans didn't wear armor in the Persian Wars, nor did they wear armor in the Peloponessian wars..

If so, that means the Athenians didn't wear armor either... but that's impossible All historical sources of the time (Herodotus most notably) say that the Greek charge against the Persian central line defeated the Persians, and note that the hoplites that carried out the charge were armoured in the usual hoplite armor, together with the hoplon, spear, greaves and arm protectors..

If that's not true, then my lifetime view of hoplites in the age that the Athenians (and thus Greeks) were at their zenith will be turned completely upside down and will be shaken to death http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Fearless

11-12-2003, 16:54

Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Nov. 12 2003,08:06)]
Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ Nov. 12 2003,11:51)]http://public.srce.hr/husar/Greek%20Hoplite%205th%20Cent%20BC.jpg

Spartan (and/or allied) non-elite hoplite... Notice the crest difference... The upturned V is the symbol of sparta. Btw ignore the red half-cloak http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The "upturnesd V" is the greek L. Wich stands for the first letter of the name of Spartans: Lakedaimonioi (spelled Lakedemonii) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Hellenes
AT LAST pics of spartans as they should be HOORAY...........CA please take note http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

shingenmitch2

11-12-2003, 17:47

CA please ignore this gibberish If the descript at the top is correct, then they designers got it right for a change

That pic of yours Fearless is a misconception of the spartan army. Later Spartans wore a red chamois and had a PILOS helmet -- conical --- designed after the felt pilos cap

Go to this link to see an accurate pic:

http://www.amazon.com/gp....er-page (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1855326590/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8907123-1602568#reader-page)

if that link doesn't work, go to Amazon.com and type in book search: Osprey Spartan

The book will pop up and you can "look inside" and see a large picture of the cover.

shingenmitch2

11-12-2003, 17:51

Tempiic --

The "90 degree crest turn" aka, transverse crest , was usually to denote an officer. The Roman Centurions wore their crests similarly.

Tempiic

11-12-2003, 19:45

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 12 2003,17:51)]Tempiic --

The "90 degree crest turn" aka, transverse crest , was usually to denote an officer. The Roman Centurions wore their crests similarly.
For roman army alone, yet that I believe is true...

For the greek I dunno exactly... The few references with the transverse crest in combintion with officer I have seen always included 'may'

It gets harder since at any time there was only one kind of roman army, while each greek city state's army had its own hmm specific things...

Mind you im telling this 'by heart'so I can be easily mistaken

shingenmitch2

11-12-2003, 19:52

An interesting side note on "Greekness":

The archaic Greeks (of the Mycenean period circa 1400 B.C.) of the fabled stories such as the Iliad, were actually different from the Classical Greeks of Marathon & the Pelopenesian war.

In about 1200 B.C. the northern (from Thracia or possibly even further north) Dorian "barbarians" invaded Greece. Every city state except Athens fell to them. They settled among the peoples and their cultures mixed, but primarily the the Dorians melded into the Greek culture.

The spartan ruling class were the remnants of the Dorian invaision. The "native" greeks of Lakdemonia were enslaved by the Dorians as helots and continued to be slaves right through the classical greek period.

Thus Athens was perhaps the only city-state that could claim total "Greekness" right down from the archaic Mycene period -- though undoubtedly there was much intermarriage with the other Doricized Greeks over the centuries. While the ruling class of Sparta were the closest thing to Dorians.

shingenmitch2

11-12-2003, 20:44

Hehe Tempiic,

Just about everything to do with ancient studies has a "may" in front of it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Just the same, my understanding is that more often than not the transverse crests were reserved for officers. Of course most Greeks supplied their own armor and helmets so its possible that it was pot luck and wearer's choice.

Kraxis

11-13-2003, 05:05

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 12 2003,10:51)]The "90 degree crest turn" aka, transverse crest , was usually to denote an officer. The Roman Centurions wore their crests similarly.
As Tempiic said, it was so for the Romans, the Greeks used a special sash bound on the lower cheast to the front.

I don't know if they used the crest as well, but that would seem to make the sash redundant, and since Alexander used the sash too I think that it meant the sash was what they used.

Kraxis

11-13-2003, 05:10

Oh and about the armour.

Since the Persian 'Applebearers' were more or less professional unarmoured hoplites, I find it hard to believe that an equally unarmoured bunch of citizensoldiers turned mercenaries could defeat them so easily when Cyrus the Younger desided to grab for the Persian throne (Xenophon's Anabasis).
They had to have some sort of advantage (the Applebearers actually had a reach advantage because of the counterweight on their spears)...

Kraxis

11-13-2003, 05:13

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 12 2003,12:52)]An interesting side note on "Greekness":

The archaic Greeks (of the Mycenean period circa 1400 B.C.) of the fabled stories such as the Iliad, were actually different from the Classical Greeks of Marathon & the Pelopenesian war.

In about 1200 B.C. the northern (from Thracia or possibly even further north) Dorian "barbarians" invaded Greece. Every city state except Athens fell to them. They settled among the peoples and their cultures mixed, but primarily the the Dorians melded into the Greek culture.
Yeah, it has even been put forth that the Homeric heroes went to Troy and fought their little war and returned to find the Dorians in control of their homes.

Call that irony

shingenmitch2

11-13-2003, 16:46

Krax ---

almost positive the Spartans had their officers use transverse crest. I was speaking about the rest of greece in general when I said I was uncertain about it for all officers. Macedonia and traditional Greece were very different in their army structure--so comparisons are sketchy at best.

Spartans lessened their personal body armor over the centuries. The Spartans of 700 B.C. looked different from those of 400 B.C. But as to the defeat of the Persains, the primary advantage was the shield, not body armor. The heavy aspis was significantly better than the wicker gehhron and provided more than enough body coverage -- see an "old style" phalanx from the front. With the argive shields locked and soldiers wearing helmets, practically their entire body is protected, even if the soldiers are flat-out naked. The only portions exposed are their shins and eyes. (and shins could be partially protected by a simple shield apron even if greaves weren't worn.)

Large body-shields add far more to protection than any other single piece of personal protection. Second in importance is the helmet. A good example of this is when Roman legionaires had to lighten themselves for battle they would discard their body armor and keep their helmet and shield--they offered decent protection on their own. So, yes Spartans (and many greeks) would go into battle without body armor.

Kraxis

11-13-2003, 18:33

It is true that the aspis was stronger, but it didn't cover a larger part of the body, as the Applebearers had a large square shield that actually covered about as much as the Roman scutum.

Now a wickershield can be penetrated, but you really need a good thrust. And you simply can't do it with an overhand thrust. In the Anabasis Xenophon and his pals fight some hilltribes with large wickershields and have some trouble with them. Apparently thay stand up to the Greeks.
Remember the story of Achilleus and Hector? They both used wickershields but it was considered impressive that Achilleus managed to penetrate Hector's shield.

I know that the armour became less and less pronounced, and the helmets went from the beautiful Corinthian style to the cap like style. Gone were the arm protectors and greaves. But the Hoplites with Xenophon seems to have had at least bodyarmour, and that is 401-399BC. I seem to remember a passage where they have to quickly put on their armour. And many of those hoplites were Spartans, as well as Xenophon was Spartanophile. If the Spartan 'fashion' of the time was nude he would have mentioned it.

shingenmitch2

11-13-2003, 19:47

Hehe Krax u are correct, but misunderstood me

I didn't say that the Spartans under Leonidas who faced the Persians were unarmored. I was making the point that it was their shield/tight phalanx formation that was their big difference over the Persians (who wore decent cuirasses of their own), not the Greeks use of a linothorax or bell cuirass. The overlapping aspis in phalanx formation was a leap in battlefield superiority over gehrron/archer/spearman tactics of the persains.

(you really can't use a wicker shield in a phalanx as it needs to be held away from the body, since spear tips will penetrate a ways through it. And thus the shield limited the Persain fighting tactics. Where as the phalanx formation, made possible by the aspis gave greater protection and a much tighter formation--and therefore mass--adding yet another benefit to the Greeks)

I did add that the later Spartans had abandoned much of their body armor. And that many greeks throughout the ages often fought relatively unarmored and merely tried to explain why this was not as much of problem as one might think. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The Wizard

11-13-2003, 19:50

Well, there goes my lifetime view of hoplites... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Kraxis

11-13-2003, 20:28

Ahhh... good now I know the reason for the easy defeat of the Applebearers (who were supposed to tackle the Greek hoplites). I always thought that they lost because they couldn't do damage to the heavier Greeks while they themselves could be killed with relative ease. Well it seems that is the case, just not exactly the one I thought.

I agree that the phalanx became lighter all the time. But I have a hard time understanding the reason behind discarding the bodyarmour. Phalanx battles were afterall very close affairs, shield against shield. In such situations the first few rows will have contac with their weapons (as I'm sure you know), but my point is that they will all aim their weapons down over the shield. A helmet is good, but not enough, something needs to protect the shoulders and the upper body from attacks from above.

So if a force entered battle unarmoured, they must have been very confident they would win within a very short timespan. Or else losses will mount too fast.

Tempiic

11-13-2003, 21:09

warfare in the classical times tells you why hoplites became lighter armoured... fraid I have lended out my copy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

shingenmitch2

11-13-2003, 22:35

At least one of the reasons for the lessening of armor was experience of fighting the Thracians. Although the Thracians could never handle a phalanx in the open field, what they could do is run around and harrass the darn thing so bad that the Greeks would slowly attrit down to nothing (ala the Romans -- being harried by the parthians).

The problem was that the heavy armored Greek would always be outrun by the virutally unarmored Thracian so they could never get to grips with them. Thus the Greeks started lessening the armor of some soldiers for them to become "outrunners" who could chase down those pesky Thracians.

About the shoulders -- yes they were a bit vulnerable, but remember that the argive shield actually sits over the left shoulder -- thus it is completely covered -- and then the shield has an additional lip rising up beyond that. (most illustrations don't accurately show just how much curve and depth there is to the shield and how it can rest on the shoulder. The center bowls out considerably. see http://www.larp.com/hoplite/index.html ) In phalanx formation one's body is turned to the left so it is very difficult to find an angle to get at the right shoulder or even chest. My surmise is that the most vulnerable part is actually the left knee and below and the face/top of the head.

My understanding about Thermopalyae (spelling off i'm sure) is that those Spartans were armored, and I certainly think their greaves and cuirass helped and added to their advantage, it just wasn't the main thing.

Temp --- Warfare in the Classical World is a great book http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Kraxis

11-14-2003, 03:41

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 13 2003,15:35)]At least one of the reasons for the lessening of armor was experience of fighting the Thracians. Although the Thracians could never handle a phalanx in the open field, what they could do is run around and harrass the darn thing so bad that the Greeks would slowly attrit down to nothing (ala the Romans -- being harried by the parthians).

The problem was that the heavy armored Greek would always be outrun by the virutally unarmored Thracian so they could never get to grips with them. Thus the Greeks started lessening the armor of some soldiers for them to become "outrunners" who could chase down those pesky Thracians.
The point is understood... But honestly, the 'outrunners' would need to discard their shield to have any chance of catching those Thracians, and that would leave them at a disadvantage when they would come to grips with them (they would have their small skirmishers shields). So honestly it doesn't really add up.

If I had to change my perfectly good troops to something else completely to get at one enemy, well then I would prefer to get some other troops to do the job for me.
And the Greeks knew very well that cavalry was great for running down skirmishers, so it seems odd if they were to change their proven equipment when better alternatives were around.

What I understand is the reason for getting lower on equipment is because greaves, armguards and bell cuirasses are heavy, very heavy You get tired quite fast when going around with that on, and even more so when you have to give all you have pushing the enemy (who naturally pushes back) while trying to stab him with your spear. As you correctly have pointed out the shield protects very well, and so chances are neither of us (me and my opponent) will get to strike the other in any serious way as long as our bodies are protected. So when he tired out due to his much heavier equipment, I could force him back and cause disruption in the formation, which would hopefully cause a rout.

Quote[/b] ]About the shoulders -- yes they were a bit vulnerable, but remember that the argive shield actually sits over the left shoulder -- thus it is completely covered -- and then the shield has an additional lip rising up beyond that. (most illustrations don't accurately show just how much curve and depth there is to the shield and how it can rest on the shoulder. The center bowls out considerably. see http://www.larp.com/hoplite/index.html ) In phalanx formation one's body is turned to the left so it is very difficult to find an angle to get at the right shoulder or even chest. My surmise is that the most vulnerable part is actually the left knee and below and the face/top of the head.

I know how the shield is formed, or else it would be impossible to keep high enough for long (some early vases have the hoplites using a dual handgrip and a neckstrap).
But in turning my body I present a vulnerable back to my enemy (my back is to my left, the same direction my enemy's weapon will strike from). Also if my enemy were to strike with a crossbody strike he could hit my upperbody easily over the shield lock.
In fact he might stike my neighbour instead as that gives him an even better angle of attack towards the body. Who he attacks is pointless, but in any case the body is vulnerable. The linnen cuirass grants great protection from semi-glancing hits from a spearpoint.
The knee is only vulnerable in the charge (though I'm still not convinced they charged with their spears in an underarm fashion) and if my direct opponent has broken his spear and is using his sword.

Quote[/b] ]My understanding about Thermopalyae (spelling off i'm sure) is that those Spartans were armored, and I certainly think their greaves and cuirass helped and added to their advantage, it just wasn't the main thing.

Thermopylae http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Well from what I have read the Persians didn't have any armour that could even be compared to the linnen cuirass or bell cuirass (which I doubt was used in this time), and they didn't have any unit that fought like one. It was only later they tried to adopt the hoplite phalanx with the Applebearers (and hopelessly failed).
So it was a mix of not being able to hurt the enemy as well as getting a whole lot of hurt themselves that forced the issue. It is not wise attacking a shieldwall shieldless yourself, or only using a small shield.

shingenmitch2

11-14-2003, 04:46

Hi Krax http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

In a phalanx my left side faces the enemy, my back is covered by the soldier of the file behind me and part of my front is covered by the shield of the soldier from the file to my front. All our shields overlap presenting a solid wall, no one can get at our backs.

The only part vulnerable is the back of the soldier in the last file. It is part of the reason that phalanxes had a habbit of rotating to the right in battle as every soldier kept pushing up to the file to his front.

As for the lightening of the soldier, apparently enough speed was gained by dropping the body armor alone that they could catch up to the thracians. (That's dropping something in the neighborhood of 20-30 lbs., depending on the armor, and if you've every carried a 25 lbs. sack of sand you see how significant that is) Then when the Greeks actually caught up with them, their heavier shield provided an advantage in hand-to-hand fighting.

The Greeks also did start using more "combined arms" armies with mercenaries used to ward off the Thracian types. But like I mentioned earlier, the guys losing the body armor could still work perfectly as part of the phalanx, so they were not changing all that much.

"What I understand is the reason for getting lower on equipment is because greaves, armguards and bell cuirasses are heavy, very heavy You get tired quite fast when going around with that on, and even more so when you have to give all you have pushing the enemy (who naturally pushes back) while trying to stab him with your spear. As you correctly have pointed out the shield protects very well, and so chances are neither of us (me and my opponent) will get to strike the other in any serious way as long as our bodies are protected. So when he tired out due to his much heavier equipment, I could force him back and cause disruption in the formation, which would hopefully cause a rout."

This sounds reasonable to me and I'm sure it contributed to the elmination of some body armor. Also purely the overall mobility factor. Lighter troops could march further and faster. They also get to the battlefield fresher.

Also about light phalanxes and phalanx evolution, check out information on the Athenian Iphicrates and his reforms. They were one of the precursors to the Macedonian phalanx development -- kind of halfway between classic phalanx and the Mac one.

"The knee is only vulnerable in the charge (though I'm still not convinced they charged with their spears in an underarm fashion) and if my direct opponent has broken his spear and is using his sword."

You are right. I'm convinced they charged with the spears up and overhand --- had to to clear the shields as they were all locked together. It is a reason that getting at the feet would be near impossible after the lines closed and why leg greaves weren't all that important for that phalanx clash. (and why not having this piece of body armor isn't crucial). Yet if things got disordered and into a more 1v1 situation, the legs/feet is where peeps would likely stab.

The Persians at Marathon 490 had an armored leather or linen vest with metal plates sewn in. Depicted in art it wouldn't looke like armor necessarily. It was supposedly similar to the medieval leather jack or brigantine. At Thermopylae many Persians wore scale shirts covered by a tunic. Headgear was not up to the Greek equivalent.

Hmmm. Home now, and just checked another book: Apparently the Persians had shorter spears than the Greeks, which would have been a major problem as well. This would have been huge.

Rosacrux

11-14-2003, 10:04

Very decent discussion about hoplite warfare lads... and fairly accurate too. Goody http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Fearless

11-14-2003, 12:06

Nice to see this topic I started getting a very good informative discussion. You guys certainly know your history Some of you should be military advisors to CA. Me I just read the books engrosed in Christian Jacq and his book "Ramses" at the moment. Off to Madeira next week taking the books with me hope to see this topic still going

Tempiic

11-15-2003, 17:16

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 13 2003,22:35)]Temp --- Warfare in the Classical World is a great book http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Obviously my copy is a local translation of it, and I was not sure how it was called originally http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Oaty

11-16-2003, 06:33

Quote[/b] ]See how wrong one can be? The most feared warriors of the antiquity were actually drag queens topped with a pudding bowl

Just so ya know homosexuality was promoted in the spartan army so much that they werent allowed to see there wife's face until they hit the age of 30. They went under the theory that fighting next to yourboyfriend would not make you so eager to get back home to your wife

hellenes

11-16-2003, 12:15

Quote[/b] (oaty @ Nov. 16 2003,05:33)]
Quote[/b] ]See how wrong one can be? The most feared warriors of the antiquity were actually drag queens topped with a pudding bowl

Just so ya know homosexuality was promoted in the spartan army so much that they werent allowed to see there wife's face until they hit the age of 30. They went under the theory that fighting next to yourboyfriend would not make you so eager to get back home to your wife
Again the whole story of all-ancient-greeks-were-homosexuals comes to surface... for the greek speaking of the forum there is a book: http://www.eleftheriskepsis.gr/grdetails.asp?book=1831
that will change some stereotype views on this topic...i dont know if there is an english translation but ill try to find one...the name of the book: "Homosexuality in Ancient Geece the myth collapses"...

Hellenes

Leet Eriksson

11-16-2003, 14:24

At last,and thank god,i always knew that the ancient greek society(particularily the spartan)were not homosexuals,i tried once explaining that in the .com boards,but got slapped in the face.

hellenes

11-16-2003, 15:03

Quote[/b] (faisal @ Nov. 16 2003,13:24)]At last,and thank god,i always knew that the ancient greek society(particularily the spartan)were not homosexuals,i tried once explaining that in the .com boards,but got slapped in the face.
Yes faisal the narrow minded view of the people towards the ancient greece is VERY difficult to change...

Hellenes

Frankymole

11-16-2003, 17:29

Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Nov. 16 2003,11:15)]Again the whole story of all-ancient-greeks-were-homosexuals comes to surface... for the greek speaking of the forum there is a book: http://www.eleftheriskepsis.gr/grdetails.asp?book=1831
that will change some stereotype views on this topic...i dont know if there is an english translation but ill try to find one...the name of the book: "Homosexuality in Ancient Geece the myth collapses"...

Hellenes
Although in last week's episode, the Theban Sacred Band elite troops were specifically said by the expert (Nus?) to be in couples (homosexual partners) to ensure they were more ferocious as a unit - each man fighting alongside their lover. This was stated as a matter of historical fact.

A.Saturnus

11-16-2003, 18:22

Well, several philosophers metion the pleasures with boys, so it seems homosexuality was at least widely accepted.

Osbot

11-16-2003, 20:38

There is *ALOT* of literature that states that the Spartans were homosexual. One book stating otherwise doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong. Especially when it is a greek book (I presume since you said you're not sure if it is in any other languages). Obviously, in recent years homosexuality has been accepted more, however it is still not THAT widely accepted. Now, since I don't read greek I obviously havent been able to read this book and judge it on its merits alone. That said, when almost every piece of work on the Spartans suggests that they practiced homosexuality (Im sure the reasons behind this have been speculated on ad nausim), and one greek book is saying "no no you're all wrong its just a myth" I have to say, I am inclined to take everyone elses word for it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that ancient greece was one giant homosexual orgy. However, with what we know about the culture, it is hard to refute that homosexuality was widely accepted. When some of the most famous philosophers of the time are saying things like "Girls are for babies, boys are for pleasure". It is pretty hard to refute that homosexuality wasnt frowned on, and that it was likely considered normal.

Leet Eriksson

11-17-2003, 00:18

lets assume it is widely accepted,it still does'nt mean most of the greeks(including spartans)were homoesexuals,also would'nt that have made them extinct becuase lack of breeding?

Prodigy

11-17-2003, 01:49

Thats exactly what happened I dont mean to offend any one but Spartans Military tradition made them the gayest of all greeks. Spartans were short of babies and adultry was actualy encouraged. By the time Athens fell to Sparta, slaves greatly outnumbered true spartans. Spartan War machine was simply out of steam by the time of war with Thebs.

Rosacrux

11-17-2003, 11:22

The Ancient Greek approach to "homosexuality" has absolutely nothing to do with what we call tody homosexuality.

Ancient Greeks were not "gay". At worst, we'd label their society a "pleasure-seeking" one. Thous, that would make them "bisexual" - and not all of them.

If you read ancient writers, you'd understand that a standard homosexual relationship as we anticipate it today (between concending adults) would be extremely grotesque for most ancient Greek societies. Athenian and a few other societies didn't mind the occasional "erastes - eromenos" relationship between an old bugger and a youngster, but many frowned upon those "pederastes".

Not to mention that the occasional gang-bang between men wasn't a greek-only thing. Even though historians tend to look the other way when someone mentions that all nations of the antiquity that practiced extensive warring, did tolerate homosexual pleasures - how else would soldiers find some comfort being away from home all that time they wandered into foreign land?

The Spartans eclipsed not because they were fags (they weren't. if you know anything about the social structure of Sparta, you'd know that. homosexual relationship was discouraged, at least in public), but because they kept their ruling class small (using social and racial - "blood" - criteria) and at the same time denied to accept in their society any other than those who fully deserved it according to their tradition. Add to this the constant fighting (and the inability to replenish the demographic hole, because of their inability to incorporate even the "perioikoi" in their social system) and you'd understand why the Spartan power decreased so dramatically.

Not to mention that Spartan hoplites were the most sought-after mercenaries - another factor that contributed to the inability of Sparta to replenish it's losses.

The Wizard

11-17-2003, 15:41

Quote[/b] (Frankymole @ Nov. 16 2003,16:29)]
Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Nov. 16 2003,11:15)]Again the whole story of all-ancient-greeks-were-homosexuals comes to surface... for the greek speaking of the forum there is a book: http://www.eleftheriskepsis.gr/grdetails.asp?book=1831
that will change some stereotype views on this topic...i dont know if there is an english translation but ill try to find one...the name of the book: "Homosexuality in Ancient Geece the myth collapses"...

Hellenes
Although in last week's episode, the Theban Sacred Band elite troops were specifically said by the expert (Nus?) to be in couples (homosexual partners) to ensure they were more ferocious as a unit - each man fighting alongside their lover. This was stated as a matter of historical fact.
Yes, but the Sacred Band was an unicum in the Greek world. It existed out of 150 couples, and only gay men were allowed -- if im correct. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

komninos

11-17-2003, 19:55

Hi all,

Well the image they have in RTW is more or less OK. That would be a Spartan while resting in winter ... though Greece gets a good 40 deg C in summer
Now usually when resting the cloak was brought forward but when in battle it was pushed to the back over the shoulders. The specific crest was the officers crest the others would have a normal (as all Hoplites) crest or none.

Now, there are other problems to the Spartans in RTW. After the Peloponnesian war the Spartan society was nearly destroyed. Many families have disappeared. Un like the Athenians. There way of life and their lows made excellent warriors but it was really difficult to refill the ranks. The truth was that by the time of the battle of Lefctra the true Spartans (homii) were just the officers the rest were from lesser classes and had nothing to do with the Spartans of the Persian Wars or Peloponnesian war. After Leftra and the disaster that followed Sparta the Spartans would never be get the power they had. Their society transformed from militaristic to agrigaltural (on hylots any more). Sparta it self was burned by Philip and Alexander more than once.

So no the Spartans of 300BC where just hoplites as any other Greek city. The Athenians might have been a much tougher force at the time due to its economic growth and better tactic

For a Spartan image check this (http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/army/s_hoplit.html)out. And don't let me hear things like "Spartans were not Greeks" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Kraxis

11-17-2003, 19:57

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Nov. 17 2003,08:41)]Yes, but the Sacred Band was an unicum in the Greek world. It existed out of 150 couples, and only gay men were allowed -- if im correct. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
That is true, but they were the ones that were different.
They were truly homosexuals. It was thought that if you fought alongside your lover and beloved you would fight harder so as not to dishonour him and to make sure he survived. And that was only one of the reasons.
Entirely valid observations when it comes to such warmongering societies as the Ancient Greek.

But there was a public outcry when the two Athenian assassins, who had killed the king who had just retaken Athens from the Democrats (around 500BC), were known to have been active homosexuals. Such was it.

Kraxis

11-17-2003, 20:40

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 13 2003,21:46)]Hi Krax http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hi right back to you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Quote[/b] ]In a phalanx my left side faces the enemy, my back is covered by the soldier of the file behind me and part of my front is covered by the shield of the soldier from the file to my front. All our shields overlap presenting a solid wall, no one can get at our backs.

No, if you tilt a little to the left with your body the guy right behibd you can't get up close behind you, and your neck and back will be vulnerable as it is your right side that will get the next guy's shield pressed against it. If you only tilt slightly, then the tilt is not enough to protect you from direct frontal attacks.

Lets consider the case where we are standing at tull tilt with our right arms behind us (more or less), as that is the most powerful stance to absorb and give pushes. We can then only poke with our spears, not really thrust as we have to keep our body turned. If we try to thrust our spear with power we have to use our body as well, then will turn us towards a frontal stance again and the guy behind us will close that gap and we can't return to the tilted stance.
So we can only poke towards the neck and right back of our enemy. If he has no armour even a glancing strike from a poke will be dangerous as it will enter the body or rip open a long gash. The victim will naturally react to it eventhough it is far from lethal, and his power in your struggle will fall so you can step forwards a little.
If he had a linnen cuirass, the armour would shrug off my feeble pokes with ease.

Better than thinking and wondering on this I actually tried this with a friend here at my dorm. We took two pillows to act as shields and imagined we had shields while using poles about 2 meters in length to poke at each other. In just 20 seconds of showing and pushing he had managed to give me several bruises down my right back and I had to give up when he struck my kidney. He also mentioned several rather tough hits down his back. I had only told him he had to push and showe pretending to have shields and helmets. We both asumed the natural fairly bent tilted stance.
I think this says more than any other argument I have made. At least my back thinks so. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]As for the lightening of the soldier, apparently enough speed was gained by dropping the body armor alone that they could catch up to the thracians. (That's dropping something in the neighborhood of 20-30 lbs., depending on the armor, and if you've every carried a 25 lbs. sack of sand you see how significant that is) Then when the Greeks actually caught up with them, their heavier shield provided an advantage in hand-to-hand fighting.

Since the aspis weighted about 9 kilos (almost 20 lbs), I find it hard to imagine hoplites running down Thracian peltasts that were used to run and run fast.

Quote[/b] ]The Greeks also did start using more "combined arms" armies with mercenaries used to ward off the Thracian types. But like I mentioned earlier, the guys losing the body armor could still work perfectly as part of the phalanx, so they were not changing all that much.

Well, it wasn't like I didn't know they began to adop more styles, I was just presenting an argument. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
What I meant by it was, lets keep at what we are good at. Just like Xenophon does in the Anabasis.
If the hoplites had been so light as to be able to chase down peltasts, then he surely would have mentioned it as most of what they face are just such troops.

Quote[/b] ]This sounds reasonable to me and I'm sure it contributed to the elmination of some body armor. Also purely the overall mobility factor. Lighter troops could march further and faster. They also get to the battlefield fresher.

Can't disagree that the troops would be fresher, but a linnen cuirass is actually not that heavy. It is significantly lighter than the bronze cuirass (but ok that is very heavy and most likely the reason it was abandoned fairly early). But even the Spartans had 'servants' with them in the field at all times, 1 helot wasn't it? That helot was supposed to carry the provisions for them both and other stuff. It is not unlikely he carried the cuirass and spare weapons, perhaps even the shield (though it seems to have been an item of affection for the hoplites) and had the food on a carriage (for such things they did have), a helot would be hard pressed to carry more than three weeks of provisions on his back, and plenty operations lasted much longer than that.

Quote[/b] ]Also about light phalanxes and phalanx evolution, check out information on the Athenian Iphicrates and his reforms. They were one of the precursors to the Macedonian phalanx development -- kind of halfway between classic phalanx and the Mac one.

Interesting, might have a look at it. You know if there is anything on the net about it, any dedicated pages?

Quote[/b] ]You are right. I'm convinced they charged with the spears up and overhand --- had to to clear the shields as they were all locked together. It is a reason that getting at the feet would be near impossible after the lines closed and why leg greaves weren't all that important for that phalanx clash. (and why not having this piece of body armor isn't crucial). Yet if things got disordered and into a more 1v1 situation, the legs/feet is where peeps would likely stab.

YEY, I'm not alone anymore http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I believe that the greaves were a cultural leftover from the Dark Age 1v1 fights where nobles duked it out. The first hoplite clashes were overlapping those noble fights, and naturally wellarmoured would be the point and fashion.

Quote[/b] ]The Persians at Marathon 490 had an armored leather or linen vest with metal plates sewn in. Depicted in art it wouldn't looke like armor necessarily. It was supposedly similar to the medieval leather jack or brigantine. At Thermopylae many Persians wore scale shirts covered by a tunic. Headgear was not up to the Greek equivalent.

Hm, never knew that the common troops carried armour. I thought it was only the elite. And while the troops at Marathon were a selected force, they can hardly have been an elite.

Quote[/b] ]Hmmm. Home now, and just checked another book: Apparently the Persians had shorter spears than the Greeks, which would have been a major problem as well. This would have been huge.

Yes, all depictions of the Immortals have them using a short spear about the hight of themselves, about half a meter (just less of 2 feet) shorter than the hoplites' spears. I can hardly imagine any other troops being better armed and no records of them survived.
But in all that was part of my point of them not being able to hurt the Hoplites. Though it is important to remember that in an overhand fashion the spears are shortened to about half length, so the difference would naturally be half of the total difference and thus not impossible to overcome. But if your hardfought opening does not grant you a kill because your opponent has superior armour it is not going to please you at all.

komninos

11-17-2003, 20:45

Nooooooo,

The Sacred Band were Thebians ... not Spartans

Greeks were active bisexuals. They loved the human body that is any human body that approached excellence would be admired no matter to whom it belonged. The strength of a yang mans athletic body was a thing to prise. In the Sacred Band the men were active lovers. This was part of strengthening the phalanx. The thing that held the formation together was proportional to the sense of duty the men felt and dishonour if they would flee. They would place member of the same family or nationhood on the same rank to prevent someone deserting. The Thebians took that a step further since no one would desert a lover.

Kraxis

11-17-2003, 21:02

Quote[/b] (komninos @ Nov. 17 2003,13:45)]Nooooooo,

The Sacred Band were Thebians ... not Spartans
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

And where is it stated otherwise?

Quote[/b] ]In the Sacred Band the men were active lovers. This was part of strengthening the phalanx. The thing that held the formation together was proportional to the sense of duty the men felt and dishonour if they would flee. They would place member of the same family or nationhood on the same rank to prevent someone deserting. The Thebians took that a step further since no one would desert a lover.

Basically what I said, but a little more elaborate.

shingenmitch2

11-17-2003, 22:37

Hi Krax, but GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

"No, if you tilt a little to the left with your body the guy right behibd you can't get up close behind you, and your neck and back will be vulnerable as it is your right side that will get the next guy's shield pressed against it. If you only tilt slightly, then the tilt is not enough to protect you from direct frontal attacks."

You're not understanding. The soldiers are not fighting by themselves or just at the front of a row of soldiers. They are fighting as part of a phalanx -- each row (file) of soldiers is touching each other. The shields overlap. They are all pressed tightly together.

http://www.hat.com/Curr/Curr8045.html

Now the only thing that the picture needs is more lines of soldiers behind each of those at the front. More guys protecting them The only soldier that an enemy could attack his back is the guy in the last row (at the end of the phalanx)... everyone else is covered by his buddy's shield.

Look at the guys in the middle of that picture of the phalanx. Does it matter if they are wearing armor or not? No. All they really need is that shield and their helmet -- and maybe the leg greave for their left leg. In fact it looks to me that the soldier third from the right end is only wearing a brown/tan tunic. He is unarmored, but guess what. It doesn't matter because the formation protects him.

Here is another great site. Scroll down the page past the Celts, it shows Romans vs. both the ancient Greek Phalanx and the Macedonian phalanx. Illustrations are looking directly down on top of the formations. Notice how the shields overlap.

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/enemies-of-rome.html

------
About catching the Thracians... you don't have to believe me, just read about it. It's not my "supposition" it is asserted by numerous historians.

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

Kominos ---

That is the early version of the Spartan hoplite, they evolved to look like this...

http://www.amazon.com/gp....er-page (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1855326590/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8907123-1602568#reader-page)

for my further comments read my earlier posts

Kraxis

11-18-2003, 01:28

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 17 2003,15:37)]Hi Krax, but GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

You're not understanding. The soldiers are not fighting by themselves or just at the front of a row of soldiers. They are fighting as part of a phalanx -- each row (file) of soldiers is touching each other. The shields overlap. They are all pressed tightly together.

http://www.hat.com/Curr/Curr8045.html

Now the only thing that the picture needs is more lines of soldiers behind each of those at the front. More guys protecting them The only soldier that an enemy could attack his back is the guy in the last row (at the end of the phalanx)... everyone else is covered by his buddy's shield.

Look at the guys in the middle of that picture of the phalanx. Does it matter if they are wearing armor or not? No. All they really need is that shield and their helmet -- and maybe the leg greave for their left leg. In fact it looks to me that the soldier third from the right end is only wearing a brown/tan tunic. He is unarmored, but guess what. It doesn't matter because the formation protects him.
Ah, but that is exactly how my friend and I performed our test. Yes it was a 1v1, but take these guys and pit them against another hoplite phalanx and you will see the two sides pressing their shields together. The next ranks pressing against the ranks in front to create preassure. A logical development. But the protection the guy behind them provide is only in term of harassing with their spears, they don't actually contribute any physical cover to the front ranks.

Take that picture of that one-lined phalanx.
If we have an opposing phalanx pressed up against it they would be bent down a little to get more preassure into the showe. And they would stab downwards at the guy in front of them, going over the interlocking shields in front of them. And hoplites can't really lift up the shield as it is an important part of the showingmatch.
So as it is very visible to me, those hoplites shoulders and backs are very vulnerable to attack from the top down from an opposing right (the angle an attacking hoplite would attack). But only if they are unarmoured. Can you see now that it is actually you who has misunderstood me?
Yes the buddies could be protecting their pal here by trying to stab at me while I attacked but that would only leave them more open to enemy attacks. It actually work more towards my point if it worked like that as the angle of attack would shift more towards left of each hoplite and thus getting a larger target to hit (the back of the next hoplite in the line would almost perpendicular to the angle of attack of my spear).

Who has said the unarmoured hoplites could run down peltasts, and which hoplites? I don't know. If it only the Spartans then it can be argued that it is because they were perhaps the fittests of all warriors back then.
Also I still have to bring in the Anabasis, but to make a point I have already made. The Spartans certainly didn't seem to have discarded their armour. They couldn't run down light infantry, in fact so much that the Ten Thousand had to create their own light infantry out of Rhodian, Cretan and Ionian hoplites as well as a cavalry corps under the command of Xenophon. He mention several times that the hoplites didn't stand a chance in chasing down the enemy peltasts.
So at 400BC the hoplites were still armoured, but at Leuctra they should have discarded it? And how many battles did the Spartans win after that? Not many I seem to remember, not even against their former helots.

The numbers of Spartans are irrellevant as at Leuctra the Spartan allied force was larger and that it was in fact only Spartans that got involved in real fighting. And again at Mantinea. So the unarmoures hoplites doesn't have all that creat a record so far as I can understand it.

komninos

11-18-2003, 04:26

The unarmoured hoplite became a reality in the later years. They are also depicted in several drawings. They would use just the hoplon and helmet. These forces were really fast and consisted of the youngest hoplites in the army. The peltast also in teh later period became heavier taking the form slowly to become like the legionaries so there speed came down. The Ekdromi are fast units capable of flanking and flank cover actions. Chasing peltast was not there forte but they would keep them away from the main body.

Rosacrux

11-18-2003, 15:08

Ifikratian reform of the traditional hoplite

Ifikrates created a hybrid of hoplites and peltasts. Actually, most ancient sources seem to talk about them as "peltasts", even though we are talking about a time (when those pieces about them were written, around mid-3rd century B.C.) when all non-hoplite infantry of the classical world was remembered as "peltasts".

The "Ifikratian hoplite", as modern specialists seem to call Ifikrate's creation, wore only linen armour, sometimes enforced with metal straps. They carried a smallish shield (larger though than that of the Macedonian phalanx a few years later) that was round and had a strap to be attached to the shoulder.

That was necessary because the spear they weilded was actually a 4+ m. long pike. And a heavy one, too. So, it was unweildy one-handed and they had to use both hands.

The also never wore greaves, and instead adopted some quite sturdy footwear the peltasts of the same era were using. They carried a long knife too, similar to the one the hoplites were using. It has been reported that they even used a javelin or two, allthough not in all the engagements they took part.

According to the reports about their action, they were used in three completely different ways. As traditional phalanx (the long spear gave them an advantage, negating usually the disadvantages of the smaller shield and lack of metal armour), as open-rank medium infantry (I don't really know how pikers could do that, but that's what the military historians say) and as (surprise&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif marines. The great reach provided by the 4m. spear, would give them tremendous advantages in naval battles, so much that some tend to believe that Ifikrates created his "peltast" having the naval battles in mind, to create some sort of early "marines" that could fight effectively as heavy infantry, ran down any hoplite phalanx (they were definitely more mobile) and provide an effective force to capture enemy ships in a close naval encounter.

I don't have any Internet sources on Ifikrates "peltasts" but if you google a bit I guess you'll find something.

BTW, the Ifikratian "peltast" inspired Phillipos to create a few years later the phalangites (later "pezeteroi"), allthough the tactics he used were depicted by the genious of Theba, Epaminondas.

Kraxis

11-18-2003, 19:50

What I have managed to seek out about the Ifikratian hoplites is that they abandoned the heavier armour in favour of light linnen cuirasses. As I understand they lightened the normal linnen cuirass as the bronze bell cuirass was almost already abandoned by the time Xerxes invaded.

But in reality I can't see much of a difference between the Ifikratian hoplite and the phalangite. The shields aren't all that different, size is even about the same and carried the same way. The pike might be slightly shorter, but the Alexandrian phalangites didn't have very long pikes, most likely only about 4.8 meters.
In fact the only major difference I can see is that the Macedonian phalangites returned to wearing greaves.

Well that is only if they fought like the phalangites... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

But in all cases, I think this underlines my oppinion that 'naked' hoplites weren't all that popular as it is mentioned several times that the Ifikratian hoplite was lighter than the normal hoplites despite having armour.

shingenmitch2

11-19-2003, 03:36

Hi Krax,

In a phalanx, the soldier behind one is not the important guy in terms of my protection -- it is the guy to one's left and right in the phalanx. I understand rear rankers press foward and that makes the frontline guy have difficulty with his spear, but this same pressure is happening to his enemy who's being crushed backward into his men. I'm confident that the guy on the "opposing right" won't be attacking the guy to his diagonal as he will have to be fully concentrating on the man in front of him who is trying his best to kill him.

The best arguement that I can say is that it is in the historical record that many Greek phalanx men fought unarmored (possible even naked) -- but always with a shield and usually helmet. That they did so is a testament to the fact that the phalanx tactic + argive shield was "good enough" protection in battle. That can't be argued around. Now am I saying that not wearing armor was popular? No. I'm saying that it wasn't as much of a problem to lose the armor as one might expect -- and that it did occur.

No offense, but I'll be impressed with your experiment when you do it with at (the very) least 10 on 10 men with all using an accurate approximation of a hoplite's shield. (in both area covered, depth of the bowl, and how it straps to the arm) along with 8' poles. That is the only way you can claim any legitimacy to your experiment and draw any type of conclusions from it.

The Ifikratian hoplite was lighter specifically because he wore less armor and what armor he did wear was less substantial than the traditional metal/linen cuirass. Again, he could wear less because the length of his spear/pike and his shield were providing an adequate level of protection.

Many of your comments ignore most historical books I've read and most of the specific work I've dug up on the actual employment of phalanx tactics and the "lightening" of the hoplite. I don't know what to say if you don't believe the historians.

Last thing about the "out runners" and weight. Here's the equation:
18 lbs. shield + 20-30 lbs. (say 25) armor + 5 lbs. helmet = 48 lbs i'm burdened, slow and I don't catch the thracian.

18 lbs. shield + 5 lbs. helmet = 23lbs. I'm not so burdened, quick enough and I catch the thracian and beat him because of a better shield.

Kraxis

11-19-2003, 17:52

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Nov. 18 2003,20:36)]The best arguement that I can say is that it is in the historical record that many Greek phalanx men fought unarmored (possible even naked) -- but always with a shield and usually helmet. That they did so is a testament to the fact that the phalanx tactic + argive shield was "good enough" protection in battle. That can't be argued around. Now am I saying that not wearing armor was popular? No. I'm saying that it wasn't as much of a problem to lose the armor as one might expect -- and that it did occur.
Well, in that case we must be in agreement, I didn't mean to imply that no hoplites had no armour. I just meant that only the best hoplites had anything to win by it, and that it can't have been a majority that had no armour.

Quote[/b] ]The Ifikratian hoplite was lighter specifically because he wore less armor and what armor he did wear was less substantial than the traditional metal/linen cuirass. Again, he could wear less because the length of his spear/pike and his shield were providing an adequate level of protection.

In all honesty, he doesn't seem all that lighter than a hoplite with a linnen cuirass. In fact compared to such a hoplite the main lightening is the shield.
That is of course only if the picture at this page is true enough. Ifikratian hoplite (http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/army/i_hoplit.html)
Give that man an aspis and a shorter spear and we have the hoplite I take as the best combination of protection and speed (and I can't ever get over those great Thracian helmets, they look so damn cool).

Quote[/b] ]Many of your comments ignore most historical books I've read and most of the specific work I've dug up on the actual employment of phalanx tactics and the "lightening" of the hoplite. I don't know what to say if you don't believe the historians.

Of course I believe historians. But when a contemporary source doesn't mention the said ability of being able to catch the lighter troops, when that is their main enemy. Well, then I doubt the widespread lack of armour, event with the Spartans.
Now we might consider comporary sources unreliable in numbers, but in this case there is no gain for him to lie and make the hoplites 'slower'. They most likely were too slow.

Quote[/b] ]Last thing about the "out runners" and weight. Here's the equation:
18 lbs. shield + 20-30 lbs. (say 25) armor + 5 lbs. helmet = 48 lbs i'm burdened, slow and I don't catch the thracian.

18 lbs. shield + 5 lbs. helmet = 23lbs. I'm not so burdened, quick enough and I catch the thracian and beat him because of a better shield.

A linnen cuirass is supposed to weigh the same as a chain mail? I doubt it. I would say a linnen cuirass would weigh about 13-15 lbs at most. But ok, if that is what replicas weight then I have to bow down.

By the way, I took the liberty after my classes yesterday to try to look up the Spartan book you presented earlier. I didn't find it, but I found a Men-At-Arms book about the Thracians in the timeperiod we talk about. It shed some light on this issue, as it became clear that the Thracians were much more than what we consider peltasts. They had their own spearmen and 'hoplites', even swordsmen, whos main problem might lie in the fact they only had peltas or other smaller shields. And it could be that it was those soldiers the more athletic Greek hoplites caught as they must have been a good deal slower than the light footed peltasts (they were not used to running as much as the peltasts and they had heavier equipment).
The confusion could come from the Greeks themselves as they basically called everybody else barbarians and all other infantry troops, but hoplites with big shields, peltasts.