Iphikrate's Hoplite- A load of nonsense?

[Ano2]

I have just started a superb campaign as the Hellenes, after losing as the Arverni soley to the naked Gaestae (Balance issue me thinks).

Anyway I've noticed the Hoplite's are based on the supposed Iphicrate's reform. This reminded me of a disscussion I posted on the issue a while ago found here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=37665. In it Conan394 put forward an extremely convincing argument dismissing the relevance of this so called reform:


"Iphicrates hoplites are a new type of hoplite that (is often asserted to have) emerged during the forth century B.C. Supposedly Iphicrates (a rather successful Athenian general of the era) changed hoplite equipment in the following manor: equipped them with longer swords, smaller shields (perhaps a pelta or maybe a pro-Macedonian style shield), a longer spear (depending on what you what this myth to support anywhere from a bit longer than a regular hoplite spear to practically a sarissa…), and lightened their armor. Various claims are made for exactly how widely this ‘reform’ was accepted just at Athens or across the Greek world.

Now the problem with the whole concept of an Iphicrates reform or phalanx is that the whole edifice depends on only 2 late sources Diodorus and C. Nepos, neither of whom can really be considered to be in the first rank on ancient historians. To add injury to insult, the two are not consistent on the specifics of the ‘reform’. More importantly this supposed reform has left absolutely no footprint in actual period sources. Neither Xenophon nor the Oxyrhynchus historian (Hell Oxy or P) appear to be aware of any substantial change in hoplite gear. Plutarch (frankly a more thoughtful and careful author then either Nepos or Diodorus) provides evidence to counter the whole ideal of a hoplite reform. His text suggests that A: At best Iphicrates might be connected to Athens deploying citizen ‘heavy’ peltasts; and B: the foremost general of the era (Epaminondas) was not overly impressed with ability of these new style peltasts or thier ability counter his traditional hoplites. Finally there is simply not a single period artistic or textual reference to a new style of hoplite. No joke in a period drama, nor text about new and old style spears in a record from Athens or some other democracy, no vase painting, no battle field remains of an butt-spike or spear point that suggest a significantly different spear length (until Philip’s sarissa’s of course).

A couple of popular variants to the Iphicates hoplite are either he only reformed Athenian marines and inspired Philip II, and or he reformed peltasts into a more effective medium infantry. The first case (prominent on the web) fails to address the fact that Athenian marines were hoplites and provided their own equipment. Since the Athenian state did not generally start supplying arms to hoplites until some 60 or 70 years after Iphicrates’ supposed reform it’s hard to see how this works. That is how or where Ipicrates would have gotten the authority fro such actions.

The reformed peltast ideal is also a bit weak, if your interested check out J G P Best “Thracian peltasts and their influence on Greek Warfare” for a comprehensive dismantlement of the ideal of an Iphicratean reform."


I find this argument veryt convincing and I was wondering how the EB historians who decided on the Iphicrate's hoplite will respond.

Also as for the overhand animation EB has introduced, I could not get t to work properly on normal hoplites as their spears face the wrong way (Always a problem when you edit the javelinman one). fs_fast_javelinman works well on units with shorter spears but not on ones with longer spears. fs_fast_javelinman_big did also not work properly. Any suggestions guys?

[O'ETAIPOS]

Nobody seems to answer historical about Greeks. Maybe theyre experts have gone to some distant, remote place.:sadg:
Yesterday I asked about ap for sarissai - nobody answered.

I could only say I support your point - it's very hard to wield even 3m spear with one hand, especially in phalanx, as the spear has to be hold in the point of gravity so it means 1,5m space both in front and behind is needed. This means you just can't make one hand spear longer without loosening formation.

It seems that Iphicrates had to use (and created) some kind of heavy peltast while fighting in Egypt - he had only peltasts and needed some unit to counter persian cav and heavy inf.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'm here to answer questions about their history, locations, buildings, traits, characters, etc. But I'm not a military historian and leave the units to others. I've already asked for someone who handles these issues to post here when they get a chance, but don't get too impatient. I am around here most of the time but a lot of our members aren't on the boards as much.

[VandalCarthage]

To quote Diodorus in reference to Iphikrates:

"He made the spears half as long again, the length of the swords almost doubled."

Diodorus also goes on to describe some light, easy-to-tie boots that had been named after the man himself, and mention off-hand that his reforms were too numerous to name. Nepos, in his own works says largely the same thing, though in his works the spear is fully doubled in length, and body armor replaced with linens.

While Plutarch's evidence against him is easy to give credance (though beyond his writing on Alexander, he was hardly a military historian), Diodorus (and by extension, Ephorus) and Nepos are very clear in their descriptions - and either a very clear change occured (though it might not have permeated the established militaries of the area), or they (and their sources, again by extension) are just liars. So, even if the specifics are in debate, I find it very difficult to imagine that nothing in fact occured. I must concede that Ephorus (as Diodorus' main source) did go to some lengths to positively appraise Iphicrates himself, in order to (in all likelihood, properly) remove the blame from him, for the failure of his combined forces in Egypt - so exaggeration is possible.

[Ranika]

I have just started a superb campaign as the Hellenes, after losing as the Arverni soley to the naked Gaestae (Balance issue me thinks).

No one fights the Gaesatae realistically; everyone seems to mob them with infantry and then get surprised when they get maimed. Which is exactly what they're supposed to kill. The only balance issue may be how common they are; however, the unit stats and abilities are fine-tuned. I may push for higher unit costs and I definitely want them less common among rebels. However, as a unit, they are balanced specifically to utterly destroy infantry, and for good reason. Like in history, they really did. Fighting Gaesatae took special tactics because they were drugged so heavily they didn't realize they were wounded or should die. To fight them, my recommendation is to pelt them with javelins from a distance, and then use cavalry to strike their flanks while they charge your infantry. They lower infantry morale, but not cavalry morale, so the use of cavalry is very important. They have two hitpoints due to the drugs, so you need to soften them up with javelins; their armor is surprisingly low, though they have high defense in a melee (because they are very agile), but they are actually pretty vulnerable at a distance; it's just hard to tell because they have two hitpoints. However, you will notice a difference if you precede your cavalry charge with plenty of javelins. Check here for more;

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1018008&postcount=24

[Divinus Arma]

I found the gestatae to be fine. I pin them down with infantry and then smother them with fire from peltasts. Then I finish 'em off with a couple of cavalry charges to their backside. They rout without question. I don't see what all the fuss is about. They die rather easily when the player uses the correct tools against them.

They may kick butt against infantry, but they are a bunch of babies when faced with sustained javelin fire and a cavalry charge or two.

[Ano2]

I'm here to answer questions about their history, locations, buildings, traits, characters, etc. But I'm not a military historian and leave the units to others. I've already asked for someone who handles these issues to post here when they get a chance, but don't get too impatient. I am around here most of the time but a lot of our members aren't on the boards as much.

Cheers, appreciate it :)


To quote Diodorus in reference to Iphikrates:

"He made the spears half as long again, the length of the swords almost doubled."

Diodorus also goes on to describe some light, easy-to-tie boots that had been named after the man himself, and mention off-hand that his reforms were too numerous to name.



Now the problem with the whole concept of an Iphicrates reform or phalanx is that the whole edifice depends on only 2 late sources Diodorus and C. Nepos, neither of whom can really be considered to be in the first rank on ancient historians.



Nepos, in his own works says largely the same thing, though in his works the spear is fully doubled in length, and body armor replaced with linens.

While Plutarch's evidence against him is easy to give credance (though beyond his writing on Alexander, he was hardly a military historian), Diodorus (and by extension, Ephorus) and Nepos are very clear in their descriptions - and either a very clear change occured (though it might not have permeated the established militaries of the area), or they (and their sources, again by extension) are just liars.



Call me a pessimist but I'm entitled to go with the later. This is because as you rightly put:



So, even if the specifics are in debate, I find it very difficult to imagine that nothing in fact occured. I must concede that Ephorus (as Diodorus' main source) did go to some lengths to positively appraise Iphicrates himself, in order to (in all likelihood, properly) remove the blame from him, for the failure of his combined forces in Egypt - so exaggeration is possible.

Two sources that disagree on the issue, one being possibly based on a bias source is all the evidence that there appears to be for the reform.

Now lets think about this in logical steps.

1) Since practically no evidence on the Greek manner of warfare exists from this period the whole issue is obviously in doubt.

2) These sources were discredited by Plutarch, a very reliable historian imo.

3) Hoplites payed for their own equiptment. Whilst it is of course possible that they would have purchased new equiptment that ran along polis guidlines I find this unlikely. Hoplites were only a citizen militia and therefore a change of equiptment as suggested would have been expensive and would also have required a change of tactics.

4) Hoplites were by no means inferior to the Macedon phalanx as suggested by certain others. I believe the Thebes/Athenian phalanx almost broke the Macedonian phalanx almost broke the Macedonian centre at the Battle of Khaironeia. It was only Phillip's cavalry charge that bought victory to the Macedonians. If the reform was meant to give the Greeks an advantage over the Macedonians then any stategist would have realised that the weakness lay in the Greek cavalry and flanks, not the phalanx itself.

5) How did the Iphicrate's phalanx actualy fight? If there spears were lengthened to allow them to beat the Macedonian phalanx, how would this possibly have helped? The idea of the Greek phalanx was to close with the enemy as fast as possible and 'push' the enemy. Longer spears would only encumber this, since at close quarters a shorter spear would be more useful. Also why would the spear be used underhand? The pike's were lowered to torso level and trying to beat a 21" pike with a 12" spear in a simple "poking" match is just silly. The RTW animation has them moving slowly which goes against the idea of the Greek phalanx which relied on an all out charge. If the RTW formation is to be believed then why not just adopt a pike phalanx, as was later done by the Greek states?

Since the evidence is unreliable and logic points the other way, I believe that the classical phalanx still existed. Certain reforms may have happened, such as armour, boots etc but the hoplite itself and the way it fought remained the same.

[O'ETAIPOS]

4) Hoplites were by no means inferior to the Macedon phalanx as suggested by certain others. I believe the Thebes/Athenian phalanx almost broke the Macedonian phalanx almost broke the Macedonian centre at the Battle of Khaironeia. It was only Phillip's cavalry charge that bought victory to the Macedonians. If the reform was meant to give the Greeks an advantage over the Macedonians then any stategist would have realised that the weakness lay in the Greek cavalry and flanks, not the phalanx itself.


Those bunch of untrained ond overeager guys?
At least athenians were rubbish soliders at this time, and you state they almost did what was impossible to tough, hardened mercenaries if steep river bank wasn't protecting them?

1)Makedonian phalanx was well trained - only Sacred Band was better
2)Makedonian phalanx was better equipped - hoplites couldnt reach them, and Mak's were able to push through shields and armour
3)Mak's were listening to orders while Athenians charged agains them trying to reach small unit that Philippos had sent in the sole purpose to draw them from the line.
4)Mak's were able to march 40km a day - only little less than Romans contrary to greek citizen levy.
5)Mak phalanx was flexible on battlefield while only Spartans were able to march in battle line for significant distance.
6)Mak's had one servant per ten man, Greeks had as much as they like, at least one per one man - so Mak's were more mobile.

Early mak phalanx was greately different from late degenerated Hellenistic formation that use the same name.

I hope this small disagreement won't hide the fact that we have same enemy - Iphicratean hoplite. ~:) ~:)

[Randal]

I readily admit I know little of this subject... but I had the impression that professional mercenary hoplite phalanxes, like those Alexander faced in Persia, were about as good as the Macedonian phalanx. Those certainly would not suffer from the weaknesses of a citizen militia like the Athenian hoplites. Does that make sense?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The nice thing is that we have a lot of different hoplite types for the KH. Plus we don't even have our spartiates or our base traditional hoplite in the game yet. So if you don't like the iphikrates ones, you can easily just recruit "around" them. :grin:

[Urnamma]

Diadorus, Nepos, and others speak of the reforms, but there is a larger issue, and that is of practicality. The Greek form of warfare was by no means stagnant, it kept evolving. Many of our 'hoplites' in the iphikratean style might have been called peltasts or other things by some ancient writers. Remember, the Romans misidentified most everything with a big oval shield as some kind of legionary copy, when the greeks actually borrowed from the celts to create the thureophoroi. Same concept.

[Ano2]

Diadorus, Nepos, and others speak of the reforms, but there is a larger issue, and that is of practicality. The Greek form of warfare was by no means stagnant, it kept evolving. Many of our 'hoplites' in the iphikratean style might have been called peltasts or other things by some ancient writers. Remember, the Romans misidentified most everything with a big oval shield as some kind of legionary copy, when the greeks actually borrowed from the celts to create the thureophoroi. Same concept.

Err hate to say it but didn't you just sidestep round every single one of my points? :laugh4:


The nice thing is that we have a lot of different hoplite types for the KH. Plus we don't even have our spartiates or our base traditional hoplite in the game yet. So if you don't like the iphikrates ones, you can easily just recruit "around" them. :grin:

Not really. The runners are not as good, the militia and heavier hoplites fight in the same fashion. Plus you fail to argue against any of my points. I am not trying to be harsh here but SOME justification of why you made certain changes would not go amiss. :)


Those bunch of untrained ond overeager guys?
At least athenians were rubbish soliders at this time, and you state they almost did what was impossible to tough, hardened mercenaries if steep river bank wasn't protecting them?

1)Makedonian phalanx was well trained - only Sacred Band was better
2)Makedonian phalanx was better equipped - hoplites couldnt reach them, and Mak's were able to push through shields and armour
3)Mak's were listening to orders while Athenians charged agains them trying to reach small unit that Philippos had sent in the sole purpose to draw them from the line.
4)Mak's were able to march 40km a day - only little less than Romans contrary to greek citizen levy.
5)Mak phalanx was flexible on battlefield while only Spartans were able to march in battle line for significant distance.
6)Mak's had one servant per ten man, Greeks had as much as they like, at least one per one man - so Mak's were more mobile.

Early mak phalanx was greately different from late degenerated Hellenistic formation that use the same name.

I hope this small disagreement won't hide the fact that we have same enemy - Iphicratean hoplite. ~:) ~:)

Fair enough, maybe i choose a bad example but still I would not say the classical phalanx was poor. Good to see I'm not a lone crusader on this issue :)

So EB dudes, any responses to my points?

[silencio]

I must admit I also find the depiction and stats of the Iphicratean hoplites in EB somewhat dubious. On the other hand both Philip and Alexander seemed to have had a healthy respect for the abilities of Greek Hoplites. Chaeronea was won mainly due to superior organisation, better tactics and combined arms, not because the Macedonians were able to run over the Greek hoplites.

Alexander in his Persian campaign avoided direct clash with the Greek mercenaries, prefering instead to crush the Perisan troops and then surround the Greeks. When he went after Darius, fearing his remaining Greek mercenaries, Alexander mounted a battalion of his Phalangites and took them along with his Companions. Apparently, although the Persians were broken, Alexander had no intention to charge the Greek hoplites with his Companios, sarissas or not.

[Urnamma]

Guys, give me a little bit of time to formulate a proper response. I researched this stuff in October of 2004. It is hard to recall every little detail without re-reading a significant amount of text. I'm not trying to sidestep you, and I appreciate the challenge you present :-)

[Ano2]

Lol sorry, I look forward to it. Till then I'm going to enjoy amubhsing the armies of Briton with the Casse!

[Ano2]

Bump.

[Kampfduck]

more information about the subject:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html

[VandalCarthage]

Thank you for posting that link Kampfduck; it's a very accurate source that I've had occassion to refer to myself in the past.

Taken from that site, this paragraphi very simply explains any source problems:


Because Iphikrates' reformed troops carried the pelta, there has been an unfortunate tendency to call them 'peltasts', as indeed Diodoros himself does. While this may literally be correct, it carries with it, certainly in modern times at least, connotations of troops being able to skirmish with the enemy at a distance, as Iphikrates' own peltasts had done so successfully in 390 BC against the Spartans near Corinth.4 This is one reason for the debate being somewhat confused, since people tend to assume every time they read about a 'peltast' it refers to a lightly-armed skirmisher. It is true that previously peltasts, such as those that served in the Peloponnesian war, are always described as skirmishers, fighting at a distance with their javelins, but this applies only to Greek peltasts: Thracian peltasts are recorded as being able to fight to a limited degree in a close combat.5

In fact Nepos and Diodoros make it clear that the troops given the new equipment were hoplites, not peltasts, and it would probably be better to refer to these troops not as modern commentators tend to do, as 'Iphikratean peltats' but rather as 'Iphikratean hoplites'. With a long spear rather than javelins they would lack the equipment to fight in the traditional peltast manner, but would be able to fight as a hoplite, a spearman in a phalanx, albeit one with lighter equipment; the longer spear would be partial compensation for the weakening of their defensive equipment.


This is a very reasonable explanation, which has precedant elsewhere, as the same mistake occurs with the Antigonids - whose elite soldiers were recorded as 'Peltasts.'


5) How did the Iphicrate's phalanx actualy fight? If there spears were lengthened to allow them to beat the Macedonian phalanx, how would this possibly have helped? The idea of the Greek phalanx was to close with the enemy as fast as possible and 'push' the enemy. Longer spears would only encumber this, since at close quarters a shorter spear would be more useful. Also why would the spear be used underhand? The pike's were lowered to torso level and trying to beat a 21" pike with a 12" spear in a simple "poking" match is just silly.

That's not really the case. While longer spears certainly encumber mobility, shorter spears don't give you an advantage in a direct assault against them. The Hoplite Phalanx would have had to maneuver between an enormous amount of spear points before their own would even have a chance to come in to play. With both phalanxes in motion, each using the same tactic, moving forward as a body, shorter spears would leave one at a disadvantage to the other. The point being, as useful as a shorter spear would be in close quarters, they wouldn't be able to get their as effectively. In addition, the whole point of the phalanx (no pun intended) was to have a multi-pronged defense (again, no pun intended), with layers of successive spears in front of the first rank, put forward by all the ranks who've lowered their sarissas. So, when a Hoplite gets into closer quarters, their spear lengths become irrelevant - the only difference is the amount of spears presented by the sarissa-armed phalanx reaches past more ranks in the Hoplite formation.

[Urnamma]

more information about the subject:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html

He's well read (mainly easy-to-get primary sources and wargaming magazines), but doesn't read Greek or Latin. There have been thorough refutations of that before, and I see no need to post another.

[Urnamma]

Ok, here we go. Much of the (scanty) evidence we have from the period of 300 B.C. onward about how the mainland Greeks fought seems to indicate that individual city-states chose to react to the new developments in warfare in different ways. Some (like Corinth) chose to progressively abandon the phalanx and eventually looked not much different from a Roman legionary, though the development was different (Thorakitai).

Others, like Athens, chose a different route. Since they could not match the mobility of the Macedonian 'combined arms' (use of Thracians and Celts as heavy infantry along with the pike line), they chose a sort of intermediate soldier.

While it gets credited to Iphikrates (and much credit does indeed go to him) by Nepos and Diadoros, the information they present is not wrong.

The Greeks did start using longer spears, and they did start using them underhand. (unless there was a giant conspiracy by relief artists).

Also, we know for sure that armor lightened to the point where it became indistinguishable from Macedonian armor. This happened for many reasons, but the largest of which was the inexpensive nature of linen armor when compared to bronze. Equipping all your troops in bronze fielded you 8,000, in linen 18,000. Not much of a contest when you're facing 15,000 enemies. (numbers are abstract, but you get my point).

The use of the thureos means that many of them got classified as 'peltasts'. Later Greeks tended to classify soldiers by shield type, even when they fought in roles peculiar to what their names indicate. When 'Peltasts' are holding the center of a line and described (or shown) as fighting in a long stable phalanx line, we can be damn sure they're not skirmishers.

Granted, some states remained conservative, and many chose to keep some vestiges of the old equipment. EB will have that, we just haven't made it yet. You will see semi-classical hoplite-esque soldiers.

I'm not understanding why people don't realize that the ancient Greeks were pretty damn smart folks. When the form of warfare became more mobile and the flanks of these men who'd fought only one another for quite some time were suddenly in danger, they started to improvise solutions to keep some parity in the fight.

The Thureos was lighter and larger, and the celtic shields it was adopted from were very available for copy right after the victory outside Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, you can see row after row of relief carvings depicting men wielding thureoi and holding long spears (not pikes, but long spears).

This type of relief is plain for the world to see, in its respective museums. The textual evidence is also there. If you search through Arrian, Diadoros, and even Polybius, you will see that certain troop types that today we might be tempted to classify and forget, fight in ways contrary to what the name may imply.

It isn't so much of a leap (and indeed is quite well suported) to have more than just 500 B.C. hoplites.

[Ano2]

Because Iphikrates' reformed troops carried the pelta, there has been an unfortunate tendency to call them 'peltasts', as indeed Diodoros himself does. While this may literally be correct, it carries with it, certainly in modern times at least, connotations of troops being able to skirmish with the enemy at a distance, as Iphikrates' own peltasts had done so successfully in 390 BC against the Spartans near Corinth.4 This is one reason for the debate being somewhat confused, since people tend to assume every time they read about a 'peltast' it refers to a lightly-armed skirmisher. It is true that previously peltasts, such as those that served in the Peloponnesian war, are always described as skirmishers, fighting at a distance with their javelins, but this applies only to Greek peltasts: Thracian peltasts are recorded as being able to fight to a limited degree in a close combat.5

In fact Nepos and Diodoros make it clear that the troops given the new equipment were hoplites, not peltasts, and it would probably be better to refer to these troops not as modern commentators tend to do, as 'Iphikratean peltats' but rather as 'Iphikratean hoplites'. With a long spear rather than javelins they would lack the equipment to fight in the traditional peltast manner, but would be able to fight as a hoplite, a spearman in a phalanx, albeit one with lighter equipment; the longer spear would be partial compensation for the weakening of their defensive equipment. [/QUOTE]

Err this was never in doubt, I already stated that the two Historians you reference did believe in the Iphicrate's reform, and believed the hoplites were reformed. This doesn't really bring any new info to the discussion, but thanks anyway :)



That's not really the case. While longer spears certainly encumber mobility, shorter spears don't give you an advantage in a direct assault against them. The Hoplite Phalanx would have had to maneuver between an enormous amount of spear points before their own would even have a chance to come in to play.

Damn it we really could use a good source on the exact nature of how Hoplites fought pikes. You say they would have to weave amongst the pikes, however I believe that the idea of the hoplite phalanx would have been to charge full on in to them, using their larger shields to knock the pikes away. If you are right then longer spears would be useful. However if I am right then they probably wouldn't have helped.




With both phalanxes in motion, each using the same tactic, moving forward as a body, shorter spears would leave one at a disadvantage to the other. The point being, as useful as a shorter spear would be in close quarters, they wouldn't be able to get their as effectively.

I have no doubt it would have taken more time but they would have got through. Also a note, if they have to cut through pikes then heavier armour and the traditional hoplon would have been much more useful than linen armour and small shields.[/QUOTE]



In addition, the whole point of the phalanx (no pun intended) was to have a multi-pronged defense (again, no pun intended), with layers of successive spears in front of the first rank, put forward by all the ranks who've lowered their sarissas. So, when a Hoplite gets into closer quarters, their spear lengths become irrelevant - the only difference is the amount of spears presented by the sarissa-armed phalanx reaches past more ranks in the Hoplite formation.

This is true however the hoplite formation was not meant to equal the number of spears presented, indeed their would be no point in trying. The idea would have been to break through the spear ranks and form some kind of shield wall so that they could stab over their shields. Now stabbing overhand would require a shorter spear as your enemy is next to you, a longer spear would make this impossible. Now an underhand stab is of course possible, however again, at close quarters a longer spear would have been cumbersome.

Your argument suggests that the hoplite phalanx was reformed to allow the Hoplites to engage in a poking match against the Macedonian phalanx. This idea is credible if we assume that the Greeks were dumb (Which they sure as Hell ain't). You don't have to be a military genius to see that a 12" spear versus a 21" spear is going to end only one way.

Now if the Greeks stuck to their orignal idea of breaking through the pikes and engaging up close then I imagine they would do a lot better. The Greeks were far superior up close than the Pikemen, and this would have been used to their advantage.

If the Greeks reformed their phalanx according to the ideas suggested then why didn't they just adopt pikemen straight off (As later happened)? A poking match with the Mac's could only end one way.



Ok, here we go. Much of the (scanty) evidence we have from the period of 300 B.C. onward about how the mainland Greeks fought seems to indicate that individual city-states chose to react to the new developments in warfare in different ways. Some (like Corinth) chose to progressively abandon the phalanx and eventually looked not much different from a Roman legionary, though the development was different (Thorakitai).



Interesting, though how can you progressively abandon it? Any evidence as to how they went about doing so?



Others, like Athens, chose a different route. Since they could not match the mobility of the Macedonian 'combined arms' (use of Thracians and Celts as heavy infantry along with the pike line), they chose a sort of intermediate soldier.


BTW I have a massive classics library at my disposal so could you post some evidence :) Also does this evidence specifically state the Iphicrates hoplite or is it vague?




While it gets credited to Iphikrates (and much credit does indeed go to him) by Nepos and Diadoros, the information they present is not wrong.

The Greeks did start using longer spears, and they did start using them underhand. (unless there was a giant conspiracy by relief artists).



What reliefs? Also does that mean the only written soruces on the issue are those two?




Also, we know for sure that armor lightened to the point where it became indistinguishable from Macedonian armor. This happened for many reasons, but the largest of which was the inexpensive nature of linen armor when compared to bronze. Equipping all your troops in bronze fielded you 8,000, in linen 18,000. Not much of a contest when you're facing 15,000 enemies. (numbers are abstract, but you get my point).



I'm not gunna dispute the armour point, though when did the states start paying for hoplite armour? Didn't the soldiers pay for it themselves? Also if your gunna attack a wall of pikes, surely heavier armour is more useful?




The use of the thureos means that many of them got classified as 'peltasts'. Later Greeks tended to classify soldiers by shield type, even when they fought in roles peculiar to what their names indicate. When 'Peltasts' are holding the center of a line and described (or shown) as fighting in a long stable phalanx line, we can be damn sure they're not skirmishers.



Interesting this suggests that the hoplite shield changed. Don't see why. Whats that extra mobility gunna do when your charging a wall of pikes?



I'm not understanding why people don't realize that the ancient Greeks were pretty damn smart folks. When the form of warfare became more mobile and the flanks of these men who'd fought only one another for quite some time were suddenly in danger, they started to improvise solutions to keep some parity in the fight.

So they had mobile hoplites on the flanks? What about the centre? This suggests specialise troops.




The Thureos was lighter and larger, and the celtic shields it was adopted from were very available for copy right after the victory outside Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, you can see row after row of relief carvings depicting men wielding thureoi and holding long spears (not pikes, but long spears).

This type of relief is plain for the world to see, in its respective museums. The textual evidence is also there. If you search through Arrian, Diadoros, and even Polybius, you will see that certain troop types that today we might be tempted to classify and forget, fight in ways contrary to what the name may imply.

It isn't so much of a leap (and indeed is quite well suported) to have more than just 500 B.C. hoplites.

Okay so say you were right, how would the Hoplites have fought? Poking match? Also why would the troops on the flanks have changed equiptment? Surely a change of tactic would be more needed?

I'm not thoroughly convinced by your argument and the lack of sources is the killer, not to mention the lack of anyone stating real world application of the new hoplite that makes sense.

Good argument tho, lets keep it going!

[Urnamma]

Interesting, though how can you progressively abandon it? Any evidence as to how they went about doing so?

You experiment until you get something better? First adopt new helmets, then new shields and spears?


BTW I have a massive classics library at my disposal so could you post some evidence :) Also does this evidence specifically state the Iphicrates hoplite or is it vague?

The vagueness comes from nobody saying 'these are reformed hoplites of iphikrates yay!' You have to interpret information given. Most of the sources are modern, but convincingly so.



What reliefs? Also does that mean the only written soruces on the issue are those two?

No, they are not the only written sources. I believe I mentioned Polybius? Also Arrian.




I'm not gunna dispute the armour point, though when did the states start paying for hoplite armour? Didn't the soldiers pay for it themselves? Also if your gunna attack a wall of pikes, surely heavier armour is more useful?

It didn't. Only a certain group of men can afford bronze armor. If you widen it (combined with the other reasons mentioned) more citizens can afford linen. Economics, my friend.



Interesting this suggests that the hoplite shield changed. Don't see why. Whats that extra mobility gunna do when your charging a wall of pikes?

Because Macedon fields other troops than just pikemen?


So they had mobile hoplites on the flanks? What about the centre? This suggests specialise troops.

I never said they weren't used in conjunction with other troop types, only that they existed ;)


Okay so say you were right, how would the Hoplites have fought? Poking match? Also why would the troops on the flanks have changed equiptment? Surely a change of tactic would be more needed?

A fight with spears is harldy a poking match. The larger shields allow them to get under the pike line and close distance. If you don't think this is possible, read up on celtic tactics against the macedonians. They would also have fought against thracians and celtic (Scordisci) mercenaries constantly employed by Macedon, so not just Macedonians (pikes, cavalry, light troops, peltasts, specialist troops).


I'm not thoroughly convinced by your argument and the lack of sources is the killer, not to mention the lack of anyone stating real world application of the new hoplite that makes sense.

The sources are there, Arrian, Diadoros, Nepos, etc. To me, the visual evidence is more stimulating. The problem with finding it on the internet for you is that when you try to search for it, 9.3 billion little plastic miniatures show up, and no real photos.


Good argument tho, lets keep it going!

Sounds good to me!

[O'ETAIPOS]

Got a few questions;

My lecturer referring to those hellenistic figurines and reliefs showing thureos keep saying those were "thureophoroi" and fighted like thureohproi that already are in EB.

Are there any evidence that Iphicratean reform was long lasting and wasn't forgotten between Iphicrate's death and Mak phalanx appearance?

Arrian mentions Aleksandros peltlasts forming phalanx to attack thrakian camp - does he mean hypaspistai? He seems to had seen the difference between those two units.

[QwertyMIDX]

My lecturer referring to those hellenistic figurines and reliefs showing thureos keep saying those were "thureophoroi" and fighted like thureohproi that already are in EB.

Odd considering that they're holding long underhanding spears.

[Ano2]

Well the argument has been fun but I have been outclassed in evidence. Thankyou Urnamma for showing it, you are the first believe me. I am going to give in to this argument since I have reached a stage where I am satisfied iwth the Iphicrates hoplite. If I find evidence to the contrary i will say, but currently the evidence is like 10-1 in your favour.

I still am not 100% convinced and i imagine I never will be, but thats okay. If anyone wants to add anything, feel free!

[O'ETAIPOS]

Odd considering that they're holding long underhanding spears.

Most of those I was shown had no weapon (broken), others had rather javelins or short spears.

[conon394]

Urammon

I have to admit to being a bit confused by your reply to Ano, you seem to responding to several different questions without to my mind really getting at the original one the existence of the supposed ‘Iphicrates Reform’. Now give my arguments were cited by Ano I suppose I don’t need to restate that I think there was no such event in the earth 4th century. However I don’t think rejecting the ‘Iphicrates Reform’ needs to be taken as also rejecting evolution in hoplite kit during the Classical and Hellenistic Era, nor also that novel styles of infantry equipment did come into service during the Hellenistic era (post 300 BC). Nor do I think the evidence really points to the ‘Classical’ hoplite (in its 4th century form not from 500 BC) being rendered obsolete.

So first off the Iphicrates Reform

The deafening silence in period sources with respect to a significant alteration in hoplite equipment either sword, spears of other gear.

While an argument from silence is certainly not strong, I do think it worth noting that no period author (Xenophon for example) mentions this supposed rather substantial change to hoplite equipment. The literary sources that do are comparativiley late. It seems just as easy to imagine Diodorus and Plutarch as over-inflating some one off stratagem used by Iphicrates in Egypt, than to image a broad new reform. So that would be a no VandalCarthage I don’t think Diodorus and Plutarch are lying, just very likely confused.
Plus I think Best presents a rather comprehensive argument that Thracian peltasts armed with spears (and thus able to fend off cavalry and even heavy infantry occasionally) were a well established fact before Iphicrates.

Impracticability.

At a minimum the spear the sources suggest is a 12ft spear (and on up to what 14 or 16 feet) for the reform, I just don’t accept that as a practical weapon to be wielded with one hand. 9ft is often considered relatively the longest spear on could wield one handed (Snodgrass ‘Arms and Armor of the Greeks’) Too dredge up and old debate even W. W. Tarn and his short cubit (which lead to a 13 ft Macedonian sarissa) still felt the weapon required two hands. Beyond this, to be effective and since the longer spear would be wielded rather clumsily (as was the sarissa) presumably this Iphicratian phalanx would depend on presenting something of a passive wall of spear points (mini-sarissa phalanx if you will). At 12ft plus I also suspect you would require a two piece weapon, rather closer to the 13lbs of the 15ft sarissa than the 2 or 3 lbs of the 7-8 ft hoplite spear, sure maybe they had a lighter shield but they would seem to be carrying a larger sword and spear; where is the mobility gain?

The long spears would also require a significant increase in training and drill and training something not really observed at Athens where this supposed reform occurred (rather at Athens while training was increased it seems mostly designed to add peltast and archer skills to the hoplite corps). It seems to me the Iphicratian phalanx would also inherit all of the relative mobility-less issues of the sarissa phalanx, and thus end up being rather worse off than the hoplites phalanx it was replacing in terms of mobility.

If anything what Iphicrates and Callias (and ultimately Epaminodndas) really demonstrate is the useless of the lighter but still heavy infantry ideal. The Spartans were (if you believe Osprey or J K Anderson) the first real proponents of a light heavy infantry line. Since they supposedly had abandoned armor by the late stages of the Peloponnesian War and were equipping the hoplites with only shield and a felt pilos cap…. But what happened? They lost repeatedly to traditional hoplites (Athenian or Theban – see Plutarch saying of kings and commanders for what Epaminondas had to say about new style equipment) who were coupled with well handled light infantry or cavalry or both. The lighter Spartan hoplites were a failure; they seem to have gained no practical mobility advantage. During the famous vitory by Iphicrates they could not catch the peltasts and in fact ended up being rather more vulnerable than their earlier counterparts had been to missles (just like the ten thousand in Persia), nor once tired could they face the traditional hoplites of Athens commanded by Callias.

As Response to Macedonia and the sarissa.

I find this aspect highly illogical. In the first case the hoplite was hardly rendered obsolete by the Macedonian systems; Issus, the Athenian success in the Lamian war and the continued use of the Athenian Epilektoi corps by Demetrius all attest against the ideal. Second if it (the Macedonian system) did in fact render hoplites obsolete why would the Ipricatean hoplite be any better? It seems to me the development of the Hellenistic sarissa phalanx shows the more logical reaction to a Macedonian phalanx was deploy your own version with longer spear and or better training. The supposed Iphicratian hoplite has all the vulnerabilities of the Sarissa phalanx few of its advantages and lost most of the benefits of either the hoplite of the spear armed peltast.

The lack of Archeology or period Inscriptional evidence.

At a twelve foot minimum it seems likely the Iphicratian spear would require a join clasp and significantly different head and butt that a typical hoplite spear, but I’m unaware of any evidence to that effect. In contrast Philip’s sarissa has a very definite archeological footprint.

The longer sword is also something of a mystery, why exactly would this be practical or useful? To me it rather suggest a mishmash of ideals jammed into shape by Diodorus or Plutarch and flies in the face the continued use of short swords by hoplites, Macedonians, and Romans… Again I am unaware of any period archeology for this point as well.


Other points…

Evolution of Hoplite Equipment:

You seem to be indicating that rejecting an Iphicratian reform is the equivalent to asserting the hoplite of 300 BC looked just like the hoplite of the late 6th century. I don’t think that is true, rather hoplite gear seems to have been evolving well before Iphicrates and to have been a continuous process, not a revolutionary one. The linothrorax and the Spolas of Xenophon appear well before either the Hellenistic era or Iphicrates. Similarly more open helmets than the Corinthian type and the abandonment of much of the archaic era body armor (except for greaves and breastplate) can also be seen in the 5th century.


Also, we know for sure that armor lightened to the point where it became indistinguishable from Macedonian armor. This happened for many reasons, but the largest of which was the inexpensive nature of linen armor when compared to bronze. Equipping all your troops in bronze fielded you 8,000, in linen 18,000. Not much of a contest when you're facing 15,000 enemies. (numbers are abstract, but you get my point).

The linothorax (or at least what we call the linothorax) pre-dates the Hellenistic Era and the 4th century B.C. A dichotomy of Hoplite = bronze cuirass and Macedonian or Hellenistic infantry = linen cuirass is simply untenable. I am also not convinced that the linothorax must be less expensive. The work involved in gluing the layers and adding the often depicted metal scales or plates seems to suggest that the issue is not so cut and dry. The Macedonians appear rather to have differentiated between unarmored sarisa troops and armored hoplite-like soldiers (that is with a cuirass), not bronze vs. linen.


The Thyreos


The Thureos was lighter and larger

Lighter perhaps, but larger, I ‘m not convinced. The evidence from Hellenistic terracottas shows the thyreos to be a rather almond shaped shield, an improved pelta but not a cousin of the scutum or replacement for the aspis. The literary sources provide some support; the reform of the Achaean army by Philopoemen as reported by Pausanias and Plutarch. According to both authors the Achaeans failed to field successful armies (against the Macedonians) because the thyreos armed troops that comprised their infantry (under Aratus?) while perhaps good at light infantry tactics could not really hold the line in a set piece battle. Philopoemen advocated adopting both greaves and cuirass and (depending on the source) either a Macedonian style sarissa armed phalanx or an aspis armed hoplite one. In particular Plutarch notes the thyreos was comparatively narrow and not suited for ‘heavy infantry’.

Overall with respect to the Hellenistic Era, you will get no augment from me that the period saw many new infantry types of infantry in Greek and Macedonia warfare. But I think there is a substantial body of evidence that shows that hoplites (similar to those of the 4th century, not bell cuirass armored, bronze clad, Corinthian helmet wearing icons of 600 BC) continued to be effective on the battlefield and used during the Hellenistic period. Minor M. Markle has in several articles traced the continued use of the aspis by Macedonians right down to final liquidation of the Macedonian state by Rome. It seems to me that the evidence supports the continued effectiveness of the hoplite without the strained logic needed to create an Iphicratian hoplite (or his descendants) in the Hellenistic era.

[Ano2]

Thats what I was trying to say ;P

Cheers for coming to the rescue Conan394, I had the belief but not the knowledge, where as you have both.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Great article Conan394!

But ... (there is always but in history) Neither we have evidence that sarissa was made from two pieces of wood nor that it had big spearhead.

In fact we have sources on sarissahead being small and made of iron (Arrian, some roman poet). The huge Andronicos type head (some made of iron but more made of bronze) connected to sarissa is more probably officer's badge of rank or signalling tool.

Remember also that in modern period English, who have problems with wood didn't tried to make two pieces pike, but rather bribed Spanish officials to import shafts from there (even during a war). So king of Makedonia, who had plenty of wood wouldn't do this strange thing, as two pieces pike would have only weakneses.

Philippos and Aleksandros phalanx wasn't clumsy at all. They were always attacking - later in hellenistic kingdoms recuits were ill trained so the phalanx became clumsy.

[Ano2]

Bump!

[Urnamma]

Sorry, been busy directing skinners and modelers so that you guys will have more units to critique. :wall:

Actually, I just hadn't seen this thread. Allow me a bit, because I'm extremely busy. If I get too busy to answer for a while, I'll sticky the thread until I do. Sound good, guys?

[Ano2]

yYeah that be would be great, I know your busy so thanks for taking the time with this. I just feel it is a very important issue to sort out.

[Ano2]

hey guys its been like over a month or two so you got an answer yet? This is basically just a reimnder that this ain't dead :D

[Ano2]

Bump and sticky request until answered plz.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Well, the answer will not be soon i suppose. As Urnamma said we are working hard to make the patch, then next full relase. And Urnamma is one of the most hardworking guys.

maybe try thinking about IH's as representation of fight style, not a unit. Just like Pheraspidai - Hypaspistai this is basicaly the same unit but divided (because RTW engine limits) to show unit that could throw jav, fight in phalanx, advance fast, fight inf or cav. IH's are part of a system with Thureophoroi, and Thureoph. cav (if it will ever be made) - standard hirable unit of greek cities that could patrol borders, fight skirmish in rough terrain or form phalanx in big battle.
This is not EB official explanation, it is my own, used to reason for unit I do not like ~;)

[Urnamma]

Stuck.

[Avicenna]

Also why would the spear be used underhand?

Obviously, underhand presents a huge number of advantages. I will show the advantages and disadvantages of the overarm grip:
1) More accurate.
2) More powerful.
Disadvantages of the overarm grip:
1) Your whole right arm is exposed to enemy spears.
2) You effectively destroy the whole point of the spear: a long weapon. You do this by gripping it overarm, which requires you to hold it in the middle, the center of gravity.
3) You show your enemy exactly what you are doing (ie where you want to hit them). This allows them to defend easily. You do not do this when holding it underarm, because the shield blocks your opponents' vision.
4) You could easily hit and knock out the person behind you when pulling your spear out of the dead opponent.
5) Obviously, it is much more tiring to hold your spear overarm.

Also, the two advantages that overarm offers are both practically useless. If you hold your spear underarm, and your arm is protected by your hoplon, it is far more likely that your opponent:
a) cannot guess where you will stab them, therefore you are more likely to kill them
b) cannot spear your arm. No matter how accurate and powerful your overarm thrust would be, your opponent could simply spear your arm and you wouldn't be able to strike them.

[conon394]

Tiberius

I don’t know that I find your points to be self evident:


2) You effectively destroy the whole point of the spear: a long weapon. You do this by gripping it overarm, which requires you to hold it in the middle, the center of gravity.

This is true only if you assume that the point and butt-spike of the spear to be the same weight. I can make no claim to encyclopedic mastery of the extent evidence, but from the examples I have come across that is not the case. The spike seems to be heavier, implying a center of gravity closer to the spike (butt end).



3) You show your enemy exactly what you are doing (ie where you want to hit them). This allows them to defend easily. You do not do this when holding it underarm, because the shield blocks your opponents' vision.


Only to your left, an opponent on the right would still see what you were doing with your spear, as the aspis could not really be swung around to your opposite side.



4) You could easily hit and knock out the person behind you when pulling your spear out of the dead opponent.

This would seem to be a risk with either grip, and at least with the over arm grip your spear butt is angled up and so less likely to stab a rear ranker while fighting.


More to the point: over or under arm is not really important (if you are right than I expect hoplites of any kind used the under-arm thrust) but rather the question, is there any reason to link infantry development of the Hellenistic era to the so called Iphicrates hoplite that resulted from the supposed reforms of said general (and in any case switching from over to under arm is not one of the things that is credited to Iphicrates).


O'ETAIPOS


maybe try thinking about IH's as representation of fight style, not a unit. Just like Pheraspidai - Hypaspistai this is basicaly the same unit but divided (because RTW engine limits) to show unit that could throw jav, fight in phalanx, advance fast, fight inf or cav. IH's are part of a system with Thureophoroi, and Thureoph. cav (if it will ever be made) - standard hirable unit of greek cities that could patrol borders, fight skirmish in rough terrain or form phalanx in big battle.

Good explanation, the problem I have is still the connection of Hellenistic troop types with non-units from the fourth century. I never replied, but thanks for the reminder of medieval and later pike warfare. I have been doing my best to track down source for pike weight and construction from those later eras, but it is slow going.

[Avicenna]

Only to your left, an opponent on the right would still see what you were doing with your spear, as the aspis could not really be swung around to your opposite side.



Of course, the person on your right would have the other half of you covered by HIS shield. This was why the shield was the most important piece of armour: if you lost it, you endanger not only yourself but the person next to you.

[nikolai1962]

Seems obvious to me that after their defeat by the macedonians at least some of the greek city states would have tried to learn from their mistakes. I also don't see any reason why the two greek writers named should have made up what iphikrate's did. The moot point seems to me the extent of the *reform*. At the minimum end it might have been an experiment that happened on one campaign, at the maximum it may have been a reform that started in one city and was gradually adopted over Greece. Logically however:

1) The main advantage of a spear as a weapon comapared to a sword, axe etc is not the length but the fact it is, a) cheap and easy to produce, and b) because it is a thrusting weapon it allows soldiers to stand close together and get mutual protection from their shields.

2) There is a functional distinction between a pike and a spear that is more important than the length. The spear is designed for a formation where the front ranks fight as individuals while the pike is designed as a mass weapon. One man with a pike is useless.

It seems to me that both the macedonian pike phalanx and the greek hoplite spear formation were effective heavy infantry but as the greeks lost (not neccessarily because of the infantry) they would have thought about why. If you think about the options the greeks could have come up with the ones that occur to me are:

a) Copy the macedonians and switch to the pike (weapon and formation). Different cities may have experimented with different lengths of pikes and equipment. Some of these experiments would have been failures. I am sure there is an optimum length of pike given average height and strength of the men at the time but that doesn't mean people didn't try and fail with below par options.

b) Assume the defeat was not due to the pike phalanx in itself but rather to the macedonian combined arms. In this case they'd stick with the hoplite but try to improve the proportions of other troop types in their armies, heavy peltasts etc.

c) Counter the reliance of both the macedonian and hoplite formations for level, open ground by lightening the hoplite to make them more manouvreable. That way they could fight places where the pike phalanx unsuited.

There may be others i haven't thought of but i would be prepared to bet that at least one of the independent greek cities tried each of the the options in my list, and some may have tried all three at different times or at once.

[oudysseos]

Don't know a lot of detail about Iphicrates and I can't really weigh into the technical debate of pike/spear construction and use- but it does occur to me (from the little I have read about Iphicrates) that his major contibution or 'reform' may not have been in specific equipment so much as in the application of discipline and drill to light/medium troops.
Much that I have read suggests that skirmishers in the fourth century were not 'professional' or even 'military' troops in even the very loose sense that the hoplites of the various cities were, but rather semi-mercenary hunters/farmers with specific skills (sling, bow, javelin) from what John Keegan calls 'below the military horizon' operating as irregulars. A forceful general training men like these up into disciplined troops could develop a formidable force, as Iphicrates' success in the generation before Alexander attests.
I doubt that military commanders 2 or three generations later ever said 'bring up the Iphicrates-style Hoplites on the left flank' or anything like that, but that doesn't mean that the unit is ahistorical or doesn't belong in EB. What we can never do in-game is improvise or innovate. I can never order my legionaries to jab their pila at the faces of the attacking cavalry rather than throw them; I can never dismount my cataphracts to fight as heavy infantry; I can never stretch rope between trees or tent-pegs to trip up horses. Any unit that represents that kind of improvisation adds (IMO) a great deal to the game. If the Iphicrates Hoplite doesn't fit your fighting style then don't use them, eh?

[Ano2]

If the Iphicrates Hoplite doesn't fit your fighting style then don't use them, eh?

This isn't the issue at all this a thread for diciding whether they existed. Plus if you didn't use them as the greeks what would you use? :P

[oudysseos]

Hmmm I thought the point of the thread was not so much if Iphicrates' reforms took place and changed the nature of Hoplite warfare (not something that I think we can ever establish beyond doubt either way), but rather whether 'Iphicrates Hoplites' belong in this game. What I am trying to say is I think they do even if we can't be sure that they actually happened. To my way of thinking the very parameters of the game result in a situation where the simulation itself can never be a completely accurate representation of reality, but (and this is a sticky but important distinction) the experience can be accurate. That is to say, the details of game play/sarissa length/unit nomenclature are important only so far as they contribute to a gameplay experience that allows us to experience what it might have been like to be there. Thus, to me, Iphicrates' Hoplites represent more than the sum of their parts. Obviously the same can be said for flaming pigs- I'm not saying that historical veracity isn't important, just that it can't be the only factor.

[Ano2]

Fair point but classical hoplites can be represented just as they are with other units that use overhand and a tight formation. EB is for 100% historical accuracy in terms of units names etc, not simulation. Hope that made sense :S

[Urnamma]

Classical hoplites will soon be ready anyway. I'll talk to you guys about this issue again very, very soon. There'll be plenty more greek units ready soon!

[Ano2]

Ah sweet, can't wait to see whats going on.