phalangites or pezethairoi

whats the difference and who's better. i really want to know it.

Don't beat me if i'm wrong, but if i understood our hellenic guys right, then Pezhetairoi describes a social status, while Phalangnites describes the Weaponry and Equipment, so basically Phalangnites can be Pezhetairoi and Pezhetairo can be Phalangnites but both don't have to be. Hope thats right ~;)

That's about it.

so why does EB has phalangites and pezethairoi

Phalangites are any troop using the Macedonian phalanx formation, which may include Pezthetairoi, Machimoi phalangites, African phalangites, pandatopoi phalangites and many more, whereas the Pezthetairoi are the main Macedonian phalangites, and are mostly recruited from Macedonians or Greeks as opposed to other types of phalanxes, who can be Libyan, Jewish, Kurdish or whatever.

Phalangite describes a method of warfare and a formation, like a swordsman or spearman, whereas Pezthetairoi is a distinct kind of phalangite. At least that's what think it is, maybe the EB team would know more.

Pezethairoi are phalangitai that are members of the warrior class (military settlers in the eastern greek factions mostly) while our phalangitai (Machiomi and Pantodapoi) are non-greek levies equiped to fight in the makedonian pike phalanx.

Quote:

---

Phalangites are any troop using the Macedonian phalanx formation, which may include Pezthetairoi, Machimoi phalangites, African phalangites, pandatopoi phalangites and many more, whereas the Pezthetairoi are the main Macedonian phalangites, and are mostly recruited from Macedonians or Greeks as opposed to other types of phalanxes, who can be Libyan, Jewish, Kurdish or whatever.

---

IIRC, there were Greek soldiers and officers in the Macedonian army, but the ranks of the phalangites were exclusively reserved for Macedonian natives.

O_Stratigos :bow:

Edit: I hope no argument here..

to make it simple:
All pikemen are Phalangites. Pezhetairoi is a specific class of pikemen/phalangites.

phalangites->pezhetairoi is like four leg->chair

every chair has four legs. but not everythign wiht four legs is a chair. is this clearer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o_megas

IIRC, there never were any Greeks in the Macedonian phalanges, only Macedonians.

O_Stratigos :bow:

---

Premptive pleading, can we please not start this arguement again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o_megas

IIRC, there never were any Greeks in the Macedonian phalanges, only Macedonians.

O_Stratigos :bow:

---

eh i didnt thought so. atleast in the ptolemaic and seleucid pezhetairoi there were. and i thought also in alexanders phalanx. cuz the macedonians wanted to be more than farmerpeople and barbarians in the eyes of the civilised greeks

jerby, thanx. its clearer now

Quote:

---

IIRC, there were Greek soldiers and officers in the Macedonian army, but the ranks of the phalangites were exclusively reserved for Macedonian natives.

---

I meant the pezthetairoi of successor states might be recruited from Greeks, but I'm certainly not an expert on the matter, just an amateur wannabe historian. ~:) I meant "Macedonian" as in based on the specific Macedonian style of foot companions as opposed to militia pike levy, not the actual Macedonian army, sorry if I was unclear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

jerby, thanx. its clearer now

---

Its form my father. when i was young he we argued:
[dutch] elke rechthoek is een vierkant, maar niet elke vierkant een rechthoek[/dutch]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

[dutch] elke rechthoek is een vierkant, maar niet elke vierkant een rechthoek[/dutch]

---

Ehm... Isn't it the other way around? Elk vierkant is een rechthoek, maar niet elke rechthoek is een vierkant?

wellthats was the 'arguement'

thsi is my interpretation:every Vierkant(square) has 4 sides. a 'rechthoek' also has 4 sides. but of different lengths.
so all 'rechthoeken' have 4 sides (thus: square) but not a all squares have sides of different lengths (thus: not always 'rechthoek')

sorry, i dont know the engisl word for 'rechthoek' its this:
____
| |
---- ( _ has a length of 1, why | has a length of >1 or < 1)

I always thought that, since squares always have four straight corners (90°), that automatically makes them a 'rechthoek' too. However, in 'rechthoeken' not all sides are neccesarily the same length, so not every 'rechthoek' is a square...

seems like pretty basic geometry to me.

Quote:

---

sorry, i dont know the engisl word for 'rechthoek' its this:

---

I believe the word for 'rechthoek' that you are looking for, is "rectangle or "parallelogram" ~:)

O_Stratigos :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebus

I always thought that, since squares always have four straight corners (90°), that automatically makes them a 'rechthoek' too. However, in 'rechthoeken' not all sides are neccesarily the same length, so not every 'rechthoek' is a square...

seems like pretty basic geometry to me.

---

actually squares dont implie it has four corners or 90 degrees: a parralellogram* is still considered a square. Square just implements it has 4 sides.

what it comes down is: square is the household name. teh common name, like phalangites. and rectangels are more specific: like Pezhetairoi

*parralellogram:
-___
/ /
----

jerby please check your PMs regarding the limits on the size of pictures in your signature.

A square has 4 equal sides and 4 90 degree angles. The catch all word you want is quadrilateral, which is any shape with 4 sides (square, rectangle, rhombus, parallelogram, trapezoid, any funny shaped 4 side thing, etc).

by saying: 4 90 deg. angels your not right. it hsoudl be: all angels accumulated is 360 deg. a parrallelogram does not have 4 90deg. angels..

ok, 1 more try
1: every rectangle is a square, but not square's are rectangels.
2: every chair has 4 legs. But not everything with four legs is a chair

when comparing these two, i see that Rectangles/chair are specific, a sub-group. But squares and everything-with-four-legs are global.

~;) this is very pointless and silly...i like it!

Does that mean all pezhetairoi fight in square formations? :D

everything with four legs is a square, but not all rectangels are chairs !;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

by saying: 4 90 deg. angels your not right. it hsoudl be: all angels accumulated is 360 deg. a parrallelogram does not have 4 90deg. angels..

ok, 1 more try
1: every rectangle is a square, but not square's are rectangels.
2: every chair has 4 legs. But not everything with four legs is a chair

when comparing these two, i see that Rectangles/chair are specific, a sub-group. But squares and everything-with-four-legs are global.

~;) this is very pointless and silly...i like it!

---

That's why he said "square". Squares are composed of four equal sides, therefore, all angles MUST be 90 degrees, since the total sum of the degrees of the angles must equal 360.

Thanks NeonGod, yeah like I said all Squares have 4 90 degree angles and 4 sides. All Quadrilaterals have 4 sides and 4 vertices, a square is a very specific type of quadrilateral (which by the way is a type of polygon).

Here is a nice diagram (oh man this is fun, I love draggin out off topic nonesense)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._hierarchy.png

If you guys are good I might might a similar one digraming the phalangitai/pezethairoi issue ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Thanks NeonGod, yeah like I said all Squares have 4 90 degree angles and 4 sides. All Quadrilaterals have 4 sides and 4 vertices, a square is a very specific type of quadrilateral (which by the way is a type of polygon).

---

you lost me there, but what i do follow is this
global->specific
quadrilateral->squares->rectangle

so every rectangle is a square (specific->global) but not all squares are rectangles. right??

this is the weirdest off-topic yet..from pezetairoi to geometry

Since this off-topic does not fit the use of tasteless sex jokes, my interest has decayed enormously.

:juggle2:

Ehm.. Jerby, in the world of mathematics a sqaure is defined as a 2D shape that has 4 equal sides and thus 4 90degree corners.
A rectangle is defined as a 2D shape that has 2 times 2 parralel sides and 4 corners of 90degrees.
A parralellogram iirc is defined as a 2D shape that has 2 times 2 parralel sides.

Thus a square is a rectangle.
A rectangle is a parralellogram.
And thus a square is also a parralellogram.
But not every parralellogram is a recangle and not every recangle is a square (and not ever parralellogram is a square).

I hope I didn't make any mistakes....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spacemonk

Ehm.. Jerby, in the world of mathematics a sqaure is defined as a 2D shape that has 4 equal sides and thus 4 90degree corners.
A rectangle is defined as a 2D shape that has 2 times 2 parralel sides and 4 corners of 90degrees.
A parralellogram iirc is defined as a 2D shape that has 2 times 2 parralel sides.

Thus a square is a rectangle.
A rectangle is a parralellogram.
And thus a square is also a parralellogram.
But not every parralellogram is a recangle and not every recangle is a square (and not ever parralellogram is a square).

I hope I didn't make any mistakes....

---

Nope. This is all a case of confusion.

I'd never seen the term "trapezium" before. They were always called trapezoids, in my experience. "-zoid" is a much more fun sound anyway.

@Dux: Get creative. I've already thought of two.

I thought my pretty diagram was pretty clear, but anyway all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, all rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are rectrangles. That's the short of it, I will hold of the long ~;).