Did the Spartan really become phallanx? I always thought they were too traditionalist to conform to that new trend. I know how to change it so they can be normal but i was just wondering about the historical accuracy of this.
Printable View
Did the Spartan really become phallanx? I always thought they were too traditionalist to conform to that new trend. I know how to change it so they can be normal but i was just wondering about the historical accuracy of this.
As far as my limited knowledge goes, the phalanx wasn't a new idea at the time period of the game - it'd been around for a few hundred years.
The Spartans used Hoplites, so i'm guessing these were used in Phalanx formation - which i'm pretty sure is why they were so effective at Thermopolii (spelling, sorry). Well, that and being well 'ard.
The Phalanx was invented in Beotea by the thebans. It's only about as old as Alexander's father, Phillip. So not quite hundreds of years.
Hoplite just means weapon bearer(I should know, I speak greek). Phalanx was definetly not used at Thermopylai. Spartans used the old style with short spears. Since they were traditionalists though i'm not so sure the game is right in making them in a phalanx formation.
Ok, we have to set up the definitions.
There are two versions of the phalanx. The old hoplite phalanx and the newer Macedonian phalanx. The only thing they have in common is the name and their relative unflexibility. And neither was invented by the Thebans, they still used the old hoplite phalanx when they faced off with Phillip and later with Alexander. The inventors have been said to be Pheidon of Argos (hoplite phalanx) and Iphicrates and/or Phillip of Macedon (Macedonain Phalanx).
The hoplite phalanx was a defensive construction where each man got protection from his buddies to the right and left. Especially to the right as his own shield was centered on his left elbow, making a bit of his right side open to attack, but at the same time the shield would also stretch out to the left and protect the next guy's right side. The weapons carried was the spear and sword. The spear was 'short' about 2.5 meters and carried overhand (some, it seems, did carry it underhand).
The Macedonain phalanx is the most like the one we see in the game, but it was based on an offensive outline where the men were protected by pikepoints rather than by shields. This demanded longer spears (pikes) and smaller shields strapped to the forearm. The pike was wielded twohanded and low.
The reason the hoplites use a onehanded underhand grip is because CA came to the conclusion that the overhand style was problematic (if you watch TC Adrianople you will see the Auxiliaries use the overhand style), the same is true for the twohanded grip of the Macedonian phalanx.
But to answer the original question. Yes the Spartans adopted the Macedonian phalanx, but much later than most others. It was around 220 BC.
I'm pretty sure (like 90%) that the macedonian phalanx formation was first used by the Thebans (maybe by the Sacred Band, I'm not quite sure about that).
My sources are, amongst others, "The Ancient Greeks" (Osprey), "The Lion of Macedon" (fantasy book, but with correct historical background), and "Alexandre et la Macédoine".
Anyway, the game's way to depict both Phalanx and Hoplites is kinda screwed up, so you'd better not make your mind with it.
Meneldil is right. Don't get your knickers in a twist about this. The whole game is built around artistic licence and convenience.
Though it would have been interesting to see the Spartans as a non-phalanx, elite infantry unit, I like them the way they are. Well, I like them with the "Decisive Battles" mod. No more nightmares of Obi-Wan Kenobis fighting off Roman legions!
Assuming the Thebans had known of the "Macedonian" phalanx before the Macedonians, they sure seem to have gotten turned into mincemeat when they faced it on the battlefield... not that the rest of the Greek hoplites did much better.
That'd be a slightly weird developement is all I'm saying. Far as I know phalanx vs. phalanx fights mostly resembled the "push of pikes" the European pikemen engaged in over a millenia later. Phalanx vs. hoplite fights likely turned into the sort of frightening slaughter you got whenever about anything got in the front of a phalanx...
And by what I've read the "hoplite" phalanx (I prefer to call it "hoplite shieldwall" for the sake of clarity) probably originated in Mesopotamia, assuming some wall reliefs mean what they seem to show.
Phillip got the Macedonian phallanx when he was a prisoner in Thebae. I don't think the Thebans had their pikes THAT long, I think that was Phillip's engenuity.
I seem to remember a slight scoop out of the shield that seemed to allow the pike to move through, do I remember this or is the mind playing tricks again?
I think I remember this from Decisive Battles, Marathon and Thermopylae, when they show the actors in full gear to give a more detailed view of the soldiers and armament..... Seems like it would help make the pike easier to use.
If the Thebans didn't have their pikes "that long" then was it really a Macedonian style phalanx? The Theban specialty was a very deep phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx was not so deep, the two are not the same. So I question whether or not Menledil's sources are saying what he is interpeting them to say, or if they *are* saying that what is their basis? You have Iphicrates, Epaminondas, and Philip all involved in some fundamental changes all within a few decades. Iphicrates adopted longer spears ~3-3.6 m, smaller shields, and lighter gear to create a light hoplite with greater reach and mobility (some time after 390 BC.) Leuctra was in 371 BC, Philip came to power only 12 years later, but his phalanx differed in spear/pike length. The original hoplite spear length was about 1.5 - 2.5 m. The sarissa was defininitely a two handed weapon ~6-7 m long. So did the Thebans use a full sarissa, or Iphicrates' intermediate spear length? (And was Iphicrates' spear used two handed?) Did the Thebans use a two handed weapon? I don't think there are any definitive sources to say so. Claiming that Macedon took the idea from Thebes is mere supposition unless there are some contemporary descriptions of Thebes using the sarissa before Macedon.
I agree that the Spartans used the Wall of Shields phalanx, and I hear that the Macedonians invented the Wall of Spears phalanx to keep the Spartans at bay. :)
Combat set in the days of the old phalanx would be fascinating, I long to see hoplites charge one another!
Hoplite battles were actually kind of boring. You had two groups lined up slowly advancing towards each other, constantly stopping to redress the lines, and quite often at least parts of the lines would flee before the enemy even got into close combat. The Spartans could often chase off an army by their fierce reputation and professional maneuvering alone.
When the hoplites finally got around to charging, there'd be vast clouds of dust, a huge crash when the lines met, and usually one side broke and ran after rather brief hand-to-hand combat. Serious "fight to the death" situations only happened rarely, usually when a wing of an army got isolated by the rest of the troops routing and was surrounded.
Remember, these were quite literally "sunday soldiers".
The Macedonian phalangites, incidentally, had small shields hung from their necks to offer a measure of protection; they needed both hands to handle the sarissa (the RTW pikemen waving theirs around one-handed, with a big mighty shield strapped to the other arm, look somewhat amusing).
Uhm, so I take it that a hoplon is a weapon then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
Well, one could try and wack someone with it I suppose...
Could it be that a hoplon is in fact a giant frisbee, not a weapon? I don't know. I don't speak Greek....
Now don't get it too deep in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Indeed the phalangites had the shield strapped around the neck and shoulder (like a shoulderbag would be), but it was also strapped to the left forearm, the arm gripping the pike furthest forward. That means that the shield was somewhat maneauverable, most certainly in melee. But it also helped in a more physical way, it helped the phalangite keep the pike up by sending the weight up to his neck and shoulder. That way he could fight a much longer time and with better control.
The way you said it, it sounded like the shield just dangled down from the neck like a loose bellybag.
The hoplite phalanx had been around in Corinth, Sparta, and Argos since around 700 BC. So you must be referring to the Macedonian phalanx. Since Thermopylae was well over 100 years before the appearance of the Macedonian phalanx, it is indeed safe to say the Spartans did not use a Macedonian style phalanx there. Either that or perhaps you are suggesting they had really, really short spears less than 6 feet long (darts, anyone?) ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
Phallanx is not just long spears. They have to be all positioned forward forming a sort of wall of spears. The macedonian phalanx is just longer then the normal one.
People back then were much shorter then today so a 6 foot long spear would not be a dart. IT woudl in fact be a spear. If you look at any ancient greek aggio you'll see that the spears they used were long at all. Not anywhere near to form a desent wall anyway. they were kind of like the Triarii in the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well, on the other hand, there are no sources mentionning that Macedonians didn't took the idea from Thebans. Your arguments isn't a valid one IMO
The Thebans used a formation they called Phalanx, which was 25 ranks deep, using Sarissas that were 6-7 m long. Philip of Macedon studied this weapons while he was prisonner in Thebes and decided to use it once he became king of Macedon, probably with the help of Parmenion.
From what I remember, he made some changes to the original formation, and Macedonian phalanx was only 16 ranks deep, while each soldier was using a Sarrissas that was about 5-6 m long.
Now, if you don't want to believe that, not my problem, I don't care at all :-) (I might be wrong aswell, but that's not what I've read)
My mistake about refering to The Ancient Greeks as one of my sources, because after reading it once more, I haven't found anything about Macedonians or Thebans Phalanx. I'm sure I read that in an english book. Just have to find it.
thougt i could fix this fast but it was pretty hard if someone wants spartans that were like those in history you've got to delete the phalanx word in descr_unit scroll but there is a major drawback you cant attack if you attack the game will crash to deskop :furious3:
*shrug* the description I read on the subject certainly made it sound like it. Be that as it may, the shield was there and provided and extra layer of wood for any incoming things to go through, which is of course the main thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Uh... Meneldil ? By what you describe, it sounds a whole lot like the Thebans would've had an advantage in a "push of pikes" with the Macedonians - longer pikes, and more spare ranks. Yet all the (few) descriptions of Philip's career I've come across suggest the Macedonians chewed the Thebans up without particularly more trouble than they had against other Greeks...
Mind you, I'm perfectly willing to believe the Macedonians picked up the phalanx from somewhere and refined it; that's how many a succesful conqueror has gotten that special edge they needed to get started. I'm also half convinced the Macedonians picked the idea of heavy shock cavalry from the nearby steppe peoples, though the proto-feudal system they developed for raising the Companions was probably an original idea.
That is terribly flawed logic. What you have just said is that if you can't prove it didn't happen, then it is true. Why don't we just attribute the Macedonian phalanx to Argos or Athens or Corinth then? There are no contemporary sources saying that the Macedonians didn't take the idea from them either are there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
And much more importantly, the Athenian general Iphicrates had reformed his mercenary hoplites in 376 BC before the Theban phalanx destroyed the Spartans at Leuctra (and he had been using lighter armed forces for years before that.) What I've read suggests Philip took his inspiration from a number of sources and that Iphicrates and Epaminondas were likely among them.
Leuctra was a very important defeat of the spartan hoplite phalanx. Why do we have descriptions of an extra deep Theban phalanx and of their deployment, but not longer pikes as well? It seems that this would be something worth noting by historians if they used such weapons, yet it wasn't. Why? It seems one could make a very strong case that their weapons were not fundamentally changed, but rather their *deployment* was.
Source? Is there a contemporary source or artifact finds saying/showing the Thebans used long sarissas? If so then the argument has merit. Otherwise it falls apart and is supposition. In that case it might or might not be true, but stating it as historical fact would be a misrepresentation.Quote:
The Thebans used a formation they called Phalanx, which was 25 ranks deep, using Sarissas that were 6-7 m long.
He was a hostage, not a prisoner, and only from 368 to 365 BC. From what I've read, normal depth was 16 for the Macedonian phalanx, and 32 for "double-depth."Quote:
Philip of Macedon studied this weapons while he was prisonner in Thebes and decided to use it once he became king of Macedon, probably with the help of Parmenion.
From what I remember, he made some changes to the original formation, and Macedonian phalanx was only 16 ranks deep, while each soldier was using a Sarrissas that was about 5-6 m long.
We do know that Philip of Macedon used the sarissa and what came to be known as the Macedonian phalanx. We don't know the exact origins of it or if it was employed before. There is no doubt that he adopted many things from Thebes. How much is the question. If you could travel back to watch the Thebans at Leuctra would you see what appeared to be a double depth+ Macedonian phalanx, or simply a very deep hoplite phalanx?
Are we next going to say Philip's Companions cavalry with sarissa came from Thebes as well?
The cavalry lance was called xyston and was only about four meters in lenght, AFAIK.
Hoplite formations *were* phalanx formations, but not pike phalanx formations. 6 foot spears were normal for hoplites. Earlier you were implying that they were shorter than that, which would indeed be quite short for a spear, hence my reference to it as a dart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince
Your original topic implies that the Spartans did not even fight in hoplite phalanx order. That is certainly untrue. Hoplites did not have the same spearwall as the Macedonian phalanx. Hoplites had the combination spear/shield wall with shields of about twice the area, but about half the density of spear points at the front of the formation (or less) and of course, much less reach.
Hoplite spears were single handed weapons. The Macedonian phalanx weapons were two handed. I'm not sure that there is agreement on whether Iphicrates' hoplites used their longer spears as single handed or as two handed weapons. There is even some debate as to whether hoplites relied solely on upperhand thrusts, or underhand thrusts. There are some depictions of them charging/marching to contact underhand, and fighting overhand.
While RTW depicts the hoplite phalangites unrealistically with spears too far forward (hence at least one extra spear point at the front of the formation) it does show some relative length differences. It also does not show any overhand thrusts for the hoplites once melee begins, but that is another matter.
You would probably have to add a spearman skeleton/animation to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
It would be less historically accurate if they didn't fight in phalanx, but whatever...
I'm behind Red here... I have only read about the Thebans using longer spears/pikes from modern authors, and not even very good ones. I have seen no real sources that say that they did.
The main source on Leuctra is Xenophon, he found it important to mention the deep phalanx but not any longer weapons as Red said. It might be an omission of course, unlikely but possible... If not for his Anabasis. When the Ten Thousand had marched across Asia Minor they came to the coast again, and then the trek west began. After while they sumbled into a war between two tribes and chose to help one for supplies in return. He then proceeds to say that these warriors (can't remember which side, but I think it was their allies) fought in shallow lines, if not completely open (Hollywood style), but more importantly he mentions that their spear were very long, at least 4 meters.
The same is true for the Egyptians the Ten Thousand face at Cunaxa earlier. They are described as in rather deep lines with very long spears (I think he mentions it has something to with boarding actions at sea) but that their formation isn't as dense as the greek force.
Now why would he mention very long spears in these two instances whre he also mention the general formation, but only mention the formation at Leuctra?
are you now talking about the immortal then thousandQuote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
(they were called so because they ranks were filled up to 10,000 when taking casualties)
na, he is talking about the ten thousand greek hoplites who backed a loosing Persian contender to the empire during a civil war. After their man was killed in battle the ten thousand had to walk back home from the center of a very hostile persian empire.
ha thalassa! ha thalassa!
Yup... And what a trek they made. It is interesting to see how many cultures they pass on their way and how they deal with hostile mountaintribes (I guess we would all be hostile if an army of 10-13 thousand would march pillaging through our rather poor country).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zizka
The worst part of it all is that after they backed a rival in Thrace for the throne and Xenophon leaves, the last 6-8000 goes to Persia once again and are defeated in a battle, from there they go back to Greece and hire themselves out to Thebes I think, where they once again are defeated. Bad luck was their game.