Greek Phalanx (not Macedonian) After Alexander and during the Roman invasion

[The Spartan (Returns)]

how was the greek phalanx after Alexander and during the Roman invasion?
did they stick to the overarm phalanx with xystons?
or converted to the sarissa?

[rotorgun]

While not conclusive, this excerpt from an article about the Battle of Heraclea between the Romans and King Phyrrus of Epirus, who thought of himself as an "Alexander" is revealing.

The phalanx was a deep formation of heavy infantrymen fighting with long spears, pikes and swords. The equipment constituted of helmet, big round shield called hoplon (from which the infantry took the name hoplites), grieves and different kinds of body armor. Some of the soldiers were rich enough to buy a metal armor, the others wore armor made form leather or several layers of linen. The history witnessed many smaller and bigger adjustments in hoplites' outfit. In the end, the trend of lengthening the pike up to unbelievable seven meters prevailed! Up to four ranks of spear points could stick out through the front of the unit. The enemies using shorter weapons were no threat when fighting the phalangites from the front. However, manipulation with such a long pike (sarissa) was very difficult and thus the phalanx became almost immobile, unable to maneuver and react. Many times, the enemies got around the phalanx and attacked from the vulnerable flank or rear. Most of the time, hoplites were formed in a march-order square 16x16 men unit (syntagma). Just before the crash with enemy unit, the hoplites 'locked shieldes', i.e. the phalanx closed to 8 ranks deep formation. This tight formation made phalanx almost unbeatable from front, but very ponderous to move and maneuver (Heraclea 280 BC, The Battle, Before and After-Micheal Pisko)

I surmise from this that the success of the Macedonian Phalanx led the Greeks to attempt to emulate it. As I said, it is not definitive proof by any means that the Greeks used the Macedonian tactics during the Roman invasion. The Phalanx was, after all, a cultural choice of making war. The Greeks may have indeed held on to thier particular practices long after they had been proved obsolete. Conservatism is still a hallmark of military thinking even today in modern times.

In any case, here is the link in case you want to read it in its entirety. I found it quite interesting.

Regards,

http://games.mantikora.com/articles/heracleabaf.php4

Post Script edit: The Roman invasion of Greece took place during the Macedonian Wars. Even though Greeks may have been involved in the fighting, it was led by Macedonian generals using Macedonian tactics. While still not a conclusive answer, it leads me to think that the Phalanx was equipped in the Macedonian panoply.

Post Post Script edit: Changed King Epirus of Greece to King Phyrrus of Epirus. Thanks Reenk Roink for politely not pointing out my obvious error.

[Reenk Roink]

Well, like rotorgun pointed out, the Epirotes under Pyrrhus fought in the Macedonian manner and Pyrrhos was a commander in the Hellenistic tradition.

As for the Greeks themselves, though predictably at first, change in the old hoplite tradition was resisted, but it happened. In the mid-third century BC, Boeotia adopted the Macedonian style phalanx, and Sparta and the Achaean League followed.

[rotorgun]

As for the Greeks themselves, though predictably at first, change in the old hoplite tradition was resisted, but it happened. In the mid-third century BC, Boeotia adopted the Macedonian style phalanx, and Sparta and the Achaean League followed.

It's interseting that you mention Boeotia, as it was to the Boeotian city of Thebes that Phillip II of Macedonia was sent as a young man to learn under the tutelage of Eppamonidas, the famous Theben general who developed the tactic of the refused flank. Was it at the battle of Luectra? He also thickened the size of the phalanx on the attacking wing (the left by the way) which allowed him to defeat the Spartans strong flank. I find it ironic that the Boeotians would later adopt Phillip's innovation of the lighter armored Phalangite equipped with a longer pike, and the 16 rank formation of the Taxis.

Rergards,

[conon394]

Rotorgun


The Phalanx was, after all, a cultural choice of making war. The Greeks may have indeed held on to thier particular practices long after they had been proved obsolete. Conservatism is still a hallmark of military thinking even today in modern times.

I not clear which phalanx do you think was obsolete the Macedonian sarissa armed one or the Hoplite one? In any case I would argue neither was. The Macedonian one was ill-served at the hands of the successors vs. the Romans as it was always intended as a holding unit designed by Philip to fix the hoplite phalanx and allow the Macedonian cavalry to play a decisive role. How was the hoplite 4th century or later hoplite obsolete? He was not some lumbering corinthian-helmeted, bell cuirass-wearing Archaic era trooper; but rather a relatively nimble heavy infantry man who could best the Carthaginians at swordplay, defeat the sarissa Phalanx in rough terrain (Issis) and score about even otherwise on neutral situations (Lamian war)….

Reenk Roink

The evidence is not quite as clear with respect to what heavy infantry phalanx the Achaeans adopted under Philopoemon – the sources lean more toward hoplites than sarissar/Macedonian style.

[rotorgun]

Rotorgun



I not clear which phalanx do you think was obsolete the Macedonian sarissa armed one or the Hoplite one? In any case I would argue neither was. The Macedonian one was ill-served at the hands of the successors vs. the Romans as it was always intended as a holding unit designed by Philip to fix the hoplite phalanx and allow the Macedonian cavalry to play a decisive role. How was the hoplite 4th century or later hoplite obsolete? He was not some lumbering corinthian-helmeted, bell cuirass-wearing Archaic era trooper; but rather a relatively nimble heavy infantry man who could best the Carthaginians at swordplay, defeat the sarissa Phalanx in rough terrain (Issis) and score about even otherwise on neutral situations (Lamian war)….

Reenk Roink

The evidence is not quite as clear with respect to what heavy infantry phalanx the Achaeans adopted under Philopoemon – the sources lean more toward hoplites than sarissar/Macedonian style.

I can see why you might have gotten confused by my poor writing. I was referring to the older style Hoplite "Greek" phalanx being made obsolete, after a fashion, by the "Macedonian" phalanx due to increased length of the Sarissa over the Xyston of the Hoplite warriors. Those Greek citiy-states who did not adopt the newer form of tactics and equipment would have been outclassed in a contest between the two.

Your point about the disadvantages of the Sarissa eqquipped phalanx operating on uneven terrain is well taken. This was often one of the factors in any defeat suffered by them. It is also true that it is not conclusive that all the Greek armies adopted the newer methods. I only meant to bring out the possibility that if they fought under the Macedonians against the Romans, it was likely that they used their style of fighting.

Good question,

[Atilius]

It's quite clear that the hoplite-style phalanx continued in use for more than a century after the Macedonian victory at Chaeronea in 338 BC. This was not due to conservatism, but because it remained an effective weapon.

The strengths of the Macedonian phalanx were its depth (typically 16 ranks) and its long spears. These two characteristics also made the phalanx extremely vulnerable at the flanks: it reduced the formation's frontage so the flanks were easier for an enemy to reach, and the phalangites had much more difficulty maneuvering their long weapons to counter a threat from the side. In a contest between a Macedonian and a hoplite phalanx of equal numbers, the hoplites will tend to suffer from the greater reach of the sarissa, but will able to outflank the Macedonians.

Philip and Alexander protected one flank of the Macedonian phalanx with Hypaspists who seem to have been armed like hoplites (though this is controversial) and must have fought in the same way. So the hoplite phalanx survived in miniature within the Macedonian and Hellenistic armies.

Aside from this, the hoplite phalanx certainly survived in the armies of the Achaean League and Sparta. At the battle of Sellasia in 222 BC, Polybius distinguishes 3000 "picked infantry" of the League from 1000 Megalopolitans by the fact that the latter were armed by Antigonus "in the Macedonian manner". (The Megalopolitans had been surprised by a night attack on their city and forced to flee without their own hoplite arms.) Of the 15,000 Spartan heavy infantry, about 11,000 were armed hoplite-style; Plutarch's life of Cleomenes mentions that 4,000 perioikoi were trained to use the sarissa in about 227 BC.

There also doesn't seem to be much evidence that the Macedonian phalanx was markedly superior to the hoplite phalanx.

At Chaeronea, Diodorus says:
The battle was hotly contested for a long time and many fell on both sides, so that for a while the struggle permitted hopes of victory to both. According to Polyaenus, the battle was decided when Philip feigned retreat with the Macedonian right wing: the Athenians surged forward in pursuit, opening a gap between themselves and the Thebans. Alexander's cavalry surged through the gap and took the Thebans from behind. Up to that point, the hoplite phalanx had fought the Macedonian to a draw. Had the Athenians been better disciplined or led, the result may very well have been different.

In the contest between phalanxes at Sellasia, the Macedonians were able to form in double depth (32 ranks) without endangering their flanks in the constricted terrain. Even so, the outnumbered Spartans (without the perioikoi) charged the sarissa-wielding Macedonians and initially forced them back before the depth of the Macedonians reversed the situation. Here the victory is more due to greater numbers and the advantage the terrain gave to the Macedonian phalanx than any intrinsic quality of the formation.

[Conqueror]

I've always though that the greatest advantage of the Macedonian style phalanx was that the phalangites were effective despite being comparatively poorly equipped. The hoplites generally were well armored and carried big shields, which was expensive. They had to buy their own equipment, which limited their "recruitment base" to the wealthier citizens of the poleis. Macedonia had a rather short supply of such people, and couldn't compete with southern Hellas in hoplite warfare. But the sarissa-armed phalangites could be provided cheap equipment by the king, so they could be recruited from the not-so wealthy portions of the population. And they still managed to at least hold their own against the hoplites frontally.

[rotorgun]

Both of those last two posts were very informative, especially the one from
Atilius. It can be deduced form your sources, although few, that the Hoplite way of war existed for many years after the creation of the Macedonian style of Phalanx was introduced. It does seem to convey a certain sense that the Greeks were aware of the tactical advantages of both systems, and utilized them themselves, when required.

The points made by Conqueror were also very relevant to this discussion too. I had really never given it much thought in that way, but it seems very apt. The adoption of the Sarissa, coupled with the deeper formations, made up in some ways for the inferiority of their armor and shields.
Are there any parallels in modern times?

Great discussion,

[Atilius]

I've always though that the greatest advantage of the Macedonian style phalanx was that the phalangites were effective despite being comparatively poorly equipped...

Hans Delbrueck speculates in his Warfare in Antiquity that Philip chose to use a deep phalanx and long spears because his infantry was inexperienced and he could not afford to provide them all with a complete hoplite panoply. The depth would allow the phalanx to maintain an advance against seasoned hoplites, while the long spears made it much more difficult for an enemy to close with the comparatively lightly armored phalangites.

[CBR]

AFAIK hoplite and phalangite units similar depths. 16 rank hoplite formations are mentioned by Xenophon as the standard IIRC.


CBR

[Atilius]

AFAIK hoplite and phalangite units similar depths. 16 rank hoplite formations are mentioned by Xenophon as the standard IIRC.
The passage you're thinking of refers to the Thebans only, who were unusual among the Greeks for using a very deep phalanx.

Of course the hoplite phalanx had no fixed depth. In Xenophon's Hellenica, he mentions that before the Battle of Nemea (394 BC), the commanders of the force led by the Thebans and Athenians discussed the proper disposition for the approaching battle:


Then, again, what was the proper depth of line to be given to the different army corps? for if any particular state or states gave too great a depth to their battle line they would enable the enemy to turn their flank.

In the Hellenica, Xenophon mentions specific depths in several places. Discounting the single mention of a confrontation inside the city of Athens (where a very deep formation may have been the only option) we have the following:
[Correction: "inside the city of Athens" should be "inside the agora of the Piraeus".]

403 BC: Fighting Pausanias' Spartans during the struggle against The Thirty, the Athenian Thrasybulus forms his heavy infantry 8 men deep.

397 BC: The Spartan commander Dercylidas forms a Hellenic force 8 deep when confronting the Persian satraps Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus.

394 BC: At Nemea, Xenophon says:
The Boeotians, in the first place, abandoning the rule of sixteen deep, chose to give their division the fullest possible depth.
I assume that this is the passage CBR remembered. What their actual depth was we don't know, but it appears the Theban standard was 16 ranks, though Thucydides reports that they used a depth of 25 at Delium.

373 BC: Besieging Corcyra, the Spartan commander Mnasippus has his phalanx drawn up in 8 ranks to repel a sortie from the city.

371 BC: At Leuctra, the Spartans are formed "not more than 12 deep" and the Thebans in 50 ranks.

370BC: Outside of Mantinea, the Spartan king Agesilaus deploys his troops "nine or ten shields deep".


So in the Hellenica we have mention of the Athenians in 8 ranks, the Spartans in 8-12 ranks (8 is mentioned twice), and the Thebans 16+ ranks. Except for the Thebans, a phalanx 8 ranks deep can be considered fairly standard.

Philip used the 16 rank Theban "rule" for his own infantry, probably because he had become familiar with it while a hostage in Boeotia. This would have been during the time of Theban supremacy under Epaminondas between the battles of Leuctra (371 BC) and Mantinea (362 BC).

[CBR]

4.2.13 says Thebans and Athenians were discussing what depth to use. 4.2.18 says Thebans then disregarded the 16 rank formation and went deeper.

That certainly looks like the whole line was supposed to use 16 ranks. With 24k hoplites a 8 rank line would be nearly 3 km wide which is an extreme line to advance with.

The Syracusans used 16 ranks v the Athenians 8 ranks but half of the Athenian army was deployed in a square to protect against cavalry.

Although 8 ranks might be mentioned more than deeper formations I find it to be more about size of army than 8 being a standard. But 8 ranks might be considered a more or less minimum for a stable line, although fewer ranks are mentioned a times too. Afterall Romans used 6-8 ranks for their battlelines and still felt a need to have multiple lines.

The Macedonian style phalanx was generally used in big numbers so it can easily be compared with how hoplites formed up in similar sized battles.

At the battle of Pergamum 190 BC Antiochus deployed his Argyraspides in half depth. They were of course also of the best quality.


CBR

[Atilius]

4.2.13 says Thebans and Athenians were discussing what depth to use. 4.2.18 says Thebans then disregarded the 16 rank formation and went deeper.

That certainly looks like the whole line was supposed to use 16 ranks.
I'm going to reproduce the quote here for clarity:


Then, again, what was the proper depth of line to be given to the different army corps? for if any particular state or states gave too great a depth to their battle line they would enable the enemy to turn their flank.

Since there were large Argive, Corinthian, and Euboean forces present (the Argives contributed more troops than the Athenians or Thebans), I read this as an argument over what the depth of each of the allied contingent's should be, not over what depth the entire army should adopt. The depth of each contingent obviously affected the length of the allied line.


With 24k hoplites a 8 rank line would be nearly 3 km wide which is an extreme line to advance with.
Point well taken, sir.



The Syracusans used 16 ranks v the Athenians 8 ranks but half of the Athenian army was deployed in a square to protect against cavalry.

But again, the Athenian hoplites in the hollow square were 8 ranks deep.

Two more points:

Thucydides says that the Athenians were formed 8 ranks deep at Delium, the Thebans were formed 25 deep and "the rest as they pleased". He also says the number of hoplites on both sides was equal. This means that the Theban allies must have formed much thinner ranks than the Thebans, or the Athenian line would have been 3 times longer than the Theban line.

While calculating the number of Spartiates present at Mantinea (418 BC), Thucydides says (5.68.3) that the Spartans "generally ranged eight deep".


To summarize my argument, in the Hellenica and Peloponnesian War:

Every mention (3) of the depth of the Athenian phalanx is 8 ranks.
The Spartans are twice mentioned arranged in 8 ranks and twice mentioned in 9-12 ranks. In addition, Thucydides states that the Spartans were generally formed 8 ranks deep.
We have one mention the the Syracusans using 16 ranks.
The Thebans are always mentioned (3 times) arranged in more than 16 ranks. However, in order to prevent the army from being outflanked, their allies must have deployed in much fewer ranks.


I conclude from these points that the greek hoplite phalanx normally formed 8 ranks deep. The Thebans were a notable and extreme exception to this tendency.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

yes, yes! post in my thread!
i guess the correct title for this thread should have been:
The Hellenstic Age etc. etc.

[rotorgun]

After a scanning of Polybius, I could find very little describing the depth of the Greek infantry lines during any of the battles he wrote of during the Roman wars with the Achean League. This is the time frame we are discussung isn't it? While he mentions numbers involved, he makes little attempt to describe how these forces fought. One must assume that each city state that provided troops for these battles fought in whatever manner they were accustomed to, modified by each Strategos as the situation demanded.

Are there any other sourses that could provide us with more insight? It is also important to define which time-frame we are speaking of, i.e. the Macedonian Wars of the Achean Wars which followed.

Cordially,

[Pannonian]

In the Hellenica, Xenophon mentions specific depths in several places. Discounting the single mention of a confrontation inside the city of Athens (where a very deep formation may have been the only option) we have the following:
[Correction: "inside the city of Athens" should be "inside the agora of the Piraeus".]

At last, historical evidence that the ancients fought in the city square to utilise the unbreakable morale. :)

[Atilius]

After a scanning of Polybius, I could find very little describing the depth of the Greek infantry lines...

I believe the last place where he clearly mentions a unit that must be a greek phalanx is at Sellasia (222 BC). After this point, it becomes difficult to tell if the hoplite phalanx continued in use.

At Cynoscephalae (197 BC), any greek heavy infantry who were in Philip's army were armed in the Macedonian manner. The same is probably true for Perseus' army at Pydna (168 BC), though a detachment of 500 Aetolians and Boeotians and another of 500 greeks under a Spartan commander are reported.



Are there any other sourses that could provide us with more insight?

Titus Livius' books 31-40 deal in great detail with the Roman wars in Greece and Macedonia from 201 BC to 167 BC.



At last, historical evidence that the ancients fought in the city square to utilise the unbreakable morale. :)

I'm too embarrassed to say how long it took me to get the joke, but it was worth the wait.

[CBR]

To summarize my argument, in the Hellenica and Peloponnesian War:

Every mention (3) of the depth of the Athenian phalanx is 8 ranks.
The Spartans are twice mentioned arranged in 8 ranks and twice mentioned in 9-12 ranks. In addition, Thucydides states that the Spartans were generally formed 8 ranks deep.
We have one mention the the Syracusans using 16 ranks.
The Thebans are always mentioned (3 times) arranged in more than 16 ranks. However, in order to prevent the army from being outflanked, their allies must have deployed in much fewer ranks.


I conclude from these points that the greek hoplite phalanx normally formed 8 ranks deep. The Thebans were a notable and extreme exception to this tendency.

The 3 times we know Athenians used 8 ranks were Delium (424 BC), Syracuse (415 BC) and Piraeus (403 BC). The numbers of Hoplites were 7000, 5000 and perhaps only around 1000 at Piraeus. At Piraeus we are also told that "There he formed an extremely deep phalanx and led the charge against the Athenians." when Pausanias sends his Spartan and allied forces against the Athenians.

The Spartans had 8-9K at Mantinea (418 BC) and their numbers at Corcyra (373 BC) does not appear to have been big. But we are also told that the formation hitting the Spartan side was "in mass formation attacked those who were at the extreme end of the line. These latter, who were drawn up only eight deep, thinking that the outer end of the phalanx was too weak, undertook to swing it around upon itself"

The 12 rank formation is mentioned at Leuctra with a force of around 10K.

Now if we look at Nemea (394 BC) we only have 16 ranks mentioned and that could of course be only what the Thebans had planned to use. If we are to trust Xenophon on the numbers involved we have 13.5K for the Spartan side and 24K on the Athenian/Theban side.

Now there might be small distances between the different contingents of course, but I will just do it the simple way and look at how many files of men that could have been involved, with the numbers that Xenophon gives us.

If the Spartan side deployed in 8 ranks that would be an overall line of 1687 files (each file would be around 3 feet wide) If we assume the Athenian side decided to do an overall depth of 16 ranks for all contingents that would have been 1500 files wide.

That would have given the Spartan side a slight overlap of around 150 files but IMO that is acceptable and would not necessarily have given a side a big advantage with such a small overlap. Especially not when the other side had twice the depth.

From Xenophon we know the Athenians (who faced the Spartans with about an equal force of 6k Hoplites) ended up with only 6 out of their 10 "tribes" facing the Spartan forces, as both sides had shifted to their respective right. If we assume the Spartans were half the depth that would leave 7 out of 10 Spartan companies to do the outflanking. 4200 men in 8 ranks would be around 525 files who had no one to face them so they could maneuver and turn the Athenian flank.

Now lets go back to the Thebans. They had 5k men and were supposed to have been in 16 ranks but "they made their phalanx exceedingly deep" so we dont know how deep. IMO it could easily be 50 ranks. But we know "they also veered to the right in leading the advance, in order to outflank the enemy with their wing"

It wouldnt make much sense for them to go right to outflank a formation that they already had outflanked if the overall line was much wider than the Spartan side.

But what about the remaining soldiers? That is 19k soldiers and they would have a width of 1187 files. I will assume the Thebans were indeed succesful in their attempt to outflank, as well as the remaining army more or less followed them and managed to align with the Spartan army, so they were pinned and left the Thebans time and room to turn and deploy their troops.

So if the 19k hoplites of 1187 files managed to frontally engage the Spartan + allies army of 13.5k (1687 files) that would mean 500 files of the spartan side was unopposed. That certainly is close to the 525 files of Spartans that managed to bypass the Athenians.

Now there are several variables in my example so I certainly wont say that is any kind of proof. But IMO is shows that using 16 ranks fits with Xenophons description of the battle. IMO there cant have been that many contingents on the Theban side who used a more shallow formation.


My point is that the descriptions we have of 8 ranks comes from battles that involved relatively small numbers. From the really big battles like Nemea or Coronea we have only limited information with 16 ranks as the only depth mentioned.

I also see no problem with formations in 12 or 16 ranks depth as 8 ranks IMO can only considered an acceptable depth. As the Greeks didnt have multiple lines the only way to strengthen the army would be to use a deeper line.

I find it very plausible that Hoplite armies used more than 8 ranks whenever they had the men for it as it would give more stability to the line. And too wide a formation would also make the army too difficult to form up and control in an advance.


CBR

[hoom]

Certainly seems like 8 is a minimum with 16 (or more) often preferred (at least after the Theban ascendancy).

What I'd like to know is when the last known fight between aproximately 'traditional' hoplites and any other foe was?
At some point the Greek region was Romanised since certainly during Roman Empire & Byzantine times they fought in the Roman manner, but when did that transition happen?

It bugs me that eg RTR uses the traditional hoplite style without some sort of reform, though EB seems to use more of the Thorakitai type units which is a lot closer to the Roman style.

[rotorgun]

Perhaps the real answer is that the depth of the formation was not standardized at 8 ranks, but could be changed due to several factors, dictated by the exingencies of the moment. If a smaller force did not wish to be out flanked they must have had to resort to a thinning out of the ranks. If an attacker wished to gain a local advantage of numbers he could deploy a part of his Phalanx in greater depth while thinning out the rest of the line, such as the Thebans at Luektra. This would indicate that the commanders had a nascient knowledge of "economy of force", one of the rules of military strategy.

Were the vaunted Spartans defeated because they were too hide-bound to tradition? Sun Tzu warns about using the same tactics in every encounter with an enemy. The Spartans had become too predictable in using the same drills. The Thebans, and Athenians after them, were more able to adapt their tactics to defeat them-the classic case of free thinking being superior to closed-mindedness.

Thoughtfully,

[Atilius]

Terrific post CBR.



Now there are several variables in my example so I certainly wont say that is any kind of proof. But IMO is shows that using 16 ranks fits with Xenophons description of the battle...

You've made an excellent argument that the entire Athenian-Theban-etc line was roughly 16 at Nemea.



My point is that the descriptions we have of 8 ranks comes from battles that involved relatively small numbers.


I would emphasize that the overwhelming majority of hoplite battles involved "relatively small numbers" by this definition.


From the really big battles like Nemea or Coronea we have only limited information with 16 ranks as the only depth mentioned.

Where did you find numbers and ranks for Coronea? Are you inferring numbers from the fact that the participating city-states are about the same ones at Nemea?



I find it very plausible that Hoplite armies used more than 8 ranks whenever they had the men for it as it would give more stability to the line. And too wide a formation would also make the army too difficult to form up and control in an advance.


I'm not sure what "whenever they had the men for it" would mean, but you've made a convincing argument that the line would tend to form more deeply in cases where the line would otherwise become so long that it would be difficult to control.

[rotorgun]

From this place he marched two stages--ten parasangs--to Thymbrium, a populous city. Here, by the side of the road, is the spring of Midas, the king of Phrygia, as it is called, where Midas, as the story goes, caught the satyr by drugging the spring with wine. From this place he marched two stages--ten parasangs--to Tyriaeum, a populous city. Here he halted three days; and the Cilician queen, according to the popular account, begged Cyrus to exhibit his armament for her amusement. The latter being only too glad to make such an exhibition, held a review of the Hellenes and barbarians in the plain. He ordered the Hellenes to draw up their lines and post themselves in their customary battle order, each general marshalling his own battalion. Accordingly they drew up four-deep. The right was held by Menon and those with him; the 15 left by Clearchus and his men; the centre by the remaining generals with theirs. Cyrus first inspected the barbarians, who marched past in troops of horses and companies of infantry. He then inspected the Hellenes; driving past them in his chariot, with the queen in her carriage. And they all had brass helmets and purple tunics, and greaves, and their shields uncovered[9].

[9] I.e. ready for action, c.f. "bayonets fixed". (Anabasis, Book I, Chapter 2)

I found this interesting tidbit from the Anabasis. While this speaks of a different time period then the "Roman Invasion", it is revealing in that the use of a four deep formation is mentioned as being "customary battle order" by the Hellenes. Armies even today still use four ranks as a normal depth during formations. Perhaps the tradition goes as far back as this. I hope this adds to this already rich discussion.

Does anyone give much credit to the order of battle for the Persian/Hellenic force of Cyrus during the Battle of Kunaxa? I can hardly believe the numbers mentined for the Persian side.

[Atilius]

Rotorgun,

I'm aware of this passage. I chose not to mention it in the discussion earlier because it wasn't a combat or a potential combat situation. It's also possible that the greeks used a shallower formation against the Persians, who probably wouldn't have been as heavily armed or deployed in closed order.

Later on in the work (Book VII), the greek troops are mentioned lining up in ranks 8 deep while making an appeal to Xenophon:


But the men themselves, by a species of self-marshalling, fell into rank, and were soon formed, the heavy infantry eight deep, while the light infantry had run up to cover either wing.

Again, this isn't clearly a combat situation, so I ignored it.


Does anyone give much credit to the order of battle for the Persian/Hellenic force of Cyrus during the Battle of Kunaxa? I can hardly believe the nimbers mentined for the Persian side.

Except for the greeks, the numbers aren't reasonable.

[King of Atlantis]

Thank you to all the participators of this debate. I am not knowledgable enough in the classics to really contribute to this debate, however I am a very happy observer. Very informative stuff, keep it up!

~:cheers:

[CBR]

Terrific post CBR.
:bow:


I would emphasize that the overwhelming majority of hoplite battles involved "relatively small numbers" by this definition.
Yes certainly. But if we are to compare how Macedonia style phalanxes operated, when using numbers much higher than the Hoplite battles of earlier times, it would be fair to look at how Hoplites operated when using similar numbers.


Where did you find numbers and ranks for Coronea? Are you inferring numbers from the fact that the participating city-states are about the same ones at Nemea?
Ah yes I should have put it differently. There are no information on ranks used at Coronea and numbers have to be guesswork I think. AFAIK historians have put numbers at Coronea to be around same level as Nemea. I mentioned it merely to show that for large sized battles we either have no information on ranks or the 16 ranks mentioned at Nemea.

There is Chaeronea (338 BC) that also has limited information on numbers but AFAIK also nothing about a clear difference in the width of the two armies. Either they were heavily outnumbered, or the difference in width somehow did not give them much advantage, or they used similar depth.

There is one interesting piece of info Xenophon gives for Nemea: it actually took just about as long for 6K Spartans (more than half of them outflanking) to kill/rout 3600 Athenians than it took for the remaining 2400 Athenians to rout the Tegeans they were facing. When the Spartans advanced forward, they did not encounter the remaining Athenians as they were off pursuing. The rest of the Athenian allies were not as lucky and were cut down by the Spartans.

An impressive feat when considering that at that moment the 6K Spartans (minus losses from combat) were facing around 19K. Just goes to show how powerful formed troops are against disordered enemies.

But it also shows that the 8 rank line didnt last very long. Although it is not easy to tell how long in actual minutes, it at least tells us that outflanking an enemy still can take a considerable amount of time compared to how long one could expect a line to hold in frontal fighting. The actual process of moving the march column into position, and then advance to engage could have taken maybe 10 minutes with perhaps another 10 minutes of fighting and routing the Athenians and then redressing ranks to continue the advance. Although that is guesswork.

Now I have no doubt that high quality units could fight for a long time. But I do find it interesting how the Macedonian phalanx was supposed to have 16 ranks and the Roman (Polybian) legions either 15 or 19 ranks total (4200 man legion using 6+6+3 ranks for Hastati, Princepes and Triarii and 8+8+3 for the 5000 man legion) When we then hear of 16 ranks at Nemea and 12 ranks at Leuctra (and thats even the legendary Spartans) I am certainly tempted to see a pattern there.


CBR

[Sirex1]

I agree with Kiong of Atlantis, very intresting debate people!

[rotorgun]

I took your advice,Atilus, and looked at Titus Livius' texts. While I could not find any direct mention of how the Greek heavy infantry phalanxes fought under Greek commanders against the Romans, I was able to find some references as to how, when under Macedonian command, the heavy infantry fought in the "Macedonian" style. The battle of Cynosephalae was one example. Another example, the Battle of Magnesia, was fought under Antiochus, also of Macedonian descent. While his army had a distinctly eastern makeup, being that most of his recruits were from the conquered Persian lands, the heavy infantry was still armed and trained in the Macedonian way. It is interesting to note the use of 32 ranks during this battle.


[37.40]The king's army was a motley force drawn from many nations and presented the greatest dissimilarity both in the men and their equipment. There were 16,000 infantry in the Macedonian fashion. known as the "phalanx." These formed the centre, and their front consisted of ten divisions; between each division stood two elephants. They were thirty-two ranks deep. This was the main strength of the king's army and it presented a most formidable appearance, especially with the elephants towering high above the men. The effect was heightened by the frontlets and crests on the animals, and the towers on their backs on which stood the drivers, each accompanied by four soldiers. On the right of the phalanx Antiochus stationed 1500 Gallograeci infantry, and with them were linked up 3000 cavalry, clad in mail armour and known as "cataphracti." These were supported by the "agema," another body of cavalry numbering about 1000; they were a select force, consisting of Medes and men drawn from many tribes in that part of the world. Behind these in support were sixteen elephants. The line was continued by the royal cohort called "argyraspides" from the kind of shield they carried. Then came the Dahae, mounted archers, 1200 strong; then 3ooo light infantry, half of them Cretans and half Tralles. Beyond these again were 2500 Mysian bowmen, and at the end of the line a mixed force of Cyrtian slingers and Elymaean archers.

On the left of the phalanx were 1500 Gallograeci infantry and 2000 Cappadocian, similarly armed and sent by Ariarathes, next to whom were posted a miscellaneous force numbering 2700. Then came 3000 cataphracti and the king's personal cavalry, 1000 strong, with somewhat slighter protection for themselves and their horses, but otherwise closely resembling the cataphracti, made up mostly of Syrians with an admixture of Phrygians and Lydians. In front of this mass of cavalry were scythe chariots and the camels which they call dromedaries. Seated on these were Arabian archers provided with narrow swords four cubits long so that they could reach the enemy from the height on which they were perched. Beyond them again a mass of troops corresponding to those on the right wing, first Tarentines, then 2500 Gallograeci cavalry, 1000 newly enlisted Cretans, 1500 Carians and Cilicians similarly armed, and the same number of Tralles. Then came 4000 caetrati, Pisidians, Pamphylians and Lydians, next to these Cyrtian and Elymaean troops equal in number to those on the right wing, and finally sixteen elephants a short distance away. (Livius, book 37, vs 40)

I am not trying to completely refute the notion that the Greeks could not have used their traditional methods during or after the Macedonian wars. Rather, I am making the case that under Macedonian commanders, any heavy infantry recruited by them, be they Greek or Persian, would have fought using their tactics and equipment. Their is just not enough actual evidence to say for sure how Hellenes fought the Romans after the defeat of Macedon. They didn't put up too much of a struggle in any case, there being so few battles recorded between them and Rome.

Sincerly,