Something i don't understand... (Greek history question)

Well... This Iphrikates(sp) is supposed to have reformed the Greek army, done away with the 'old fashioned' Greek hoplite armour and weapons and introduced new, lighter bling... But what i don't get is... Why give hoplites light equipment? They are going to be slow even if they went into battle naked and without a shield because of their complicated formation and way of fighting, so why not load them up with the heaviest of everything?

I mean, look... These Iphrikates Hoplitai with the light shield, light armour and no greaves... They go into battle against Macedonian phalangites... They approach the Macedonian phalangites... They get within thrusting range of the Macedonian phalangites... And then smack... Long sharp Macedonian phalangite spear straight through your thin wooden shield, straight through your light hardened leather armour and straight through your stomach...

What was Iphrikates thinking? Lightly equipped hoplites would get butchered by Macedonian phalangites head on anyday of the week, and a hoplites job is to fight head on right against the front of the enemy line isn't it...? Silly if you ask me...

In my view, the Greeks would have been better off sticking with the old fashioned gear... Muscled armour, hoplon shield layered with bronze or other hard metals, grieves and the traditional hoplite spear... Wouldn't this at least give them a chance to get within poking range of the phalangite line? Later on the large(ish) hoplon shield could have been scrapped for a smaller Macedonian-like shield and the short spear replaced with the very long two handed one to counter the Macedonian phalangites... It doesn't take a genious to think what i have just said... As i've just proved. :sweatdrop:

Scenario: I'm a Greek general and i'm going to do battle with the Macedonians tomorrow... A scout comes to me and tells me the Macedonians have a similar number of infantry phalanxes as i but they are using spears twice as long as the ones our guys have... So what do you think to yourself? I have to engage these phalangites head on with my own hoplites... I KNOW! LETS GIVE THEM A LIGHT SHIELD AND LIGHT ARMOUR! :idea2: :2thumbsup:

iphikrates was very efective agaibgst 'old' hoplites..he made good use out of skirmishers.. he decimated some spartans iirc..
the trade-ff was lighter armor in favor of longer spears (and javs??) and more stamina.
the macedonians took it a step further. gettign an even smaller shield with bigger, 2handed, pikes...

The Iphrikates reforms were made mostly to deal with the growing popularity of the Peltast-style of warfare of the late 5th, early 4th century BC. The lighter equipment gave them more of a chance to catch up with the more agile peltasts. The reform did not happen with the Macedonian phalanx in mind. When finally faced with the Macedonian phalanx, you see the development of the chain-mailed and other heavily armored hoplites as well as other changes.

So all your ramblings about how the Iphrakates reforms were pointless against the Macedonian phalanx are moot. They were not made in counter the Macedonian phalanx, as it was not in use at the time.

Iphrikates reforms also made hoplites cheaper. You have to remember that each hoplite paid for his own equipment, and at the time of the reforms the balance of wealth within Greece was becoming more and more polarised. This meant that you had a lot of low class citizens who could only afford militia grade equipment, and a very small core of very rich citizens providing elite hoplites, but nearly no middle class. In classical times, the Greek middle class was the part of society that was rich enough to buy half decent equipment and large enough to form an army from. By the time of Iphrikates reforms the middle class made up a much smaller percentage of the Greek population, so the Greeks needed an alternate style of hoplite to the classical version, which was cheaper, but which could also hold the line like a classical hoplite.

However, richer Greek citizens would not have been affected by Iphrikates reforms as they could still afford the traditional equipment, and many of the Greek colonies and certain city states would not have suffered the polarisation of wealth that hit most of the Greek mainland, and thus would not have had any pressing need to switch over to the Iphrikates hoplite. Why EB decided to cut classical hoplites (and by classical I mean shorter spear, heavy armour and a hoplon, I know that certain classical items like the Corinthian helm where no longer used by the time of EB) altogether is a mystery to me. I would much rather see the option to train classical hoplites than more city specific hoplites.

Peltasts ~;)

We intend to have "classical" hoplites as well available in some places, and honestly not really good. Keep in mind that the mod is actually not finished yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

We intend to have "classical" hoplites as well available in some places, and honestly not really good. Keep in mind that the mod is actually not finished yet.

---

I love that fact. It just makes me feel oh-so-good everytime I realize that the mod is not even complete, yet I'm doing what I'm doing in it, and seeing what I'm seeing. *happy sigh*

Oh and, what kind of classical hoplites are we talking about? I know this won't be the case due to the timeframe, but are we looking at any corinthian helms?

Corinthian helmuts weren't used any longer because you could barely hear anything while wearing them, let alone any battlefield orders. If I recall correctly from my last game the generals in EB are still wearing them (even sillier), but I expect that will be corrected in the upcoming versions...

In my own uneducated opinion, I agree with the original poster. I'd feel a lot more comfortable charging into a forest of spear points using an argive shield and some decent (metalic) armour, then lighter equipment with a slightly longer spear (wich is still about 8 feet shorter then the enemy's)

I'd guess that Greek commanders of the time used lighter hoplites to pull of some tactical manouvering as they'd have no chance against a pike phalanx head on, while using their heavier hoplites to engage head on and tie them up.

They certainly would have a chance against a Makedonian phalanx. Even head-on, though they would be at a disadvantage. Remember, that shield is more than capable of stopping a spear thrust, especially by big, heavy, unwieldy sarissas. Note that the Makedonian phalanx was not an offensive formation, but a defensive one (tactically speaking, I mean). It was created to be the anvil on which the cavalry sledgehammer will break the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laundreu

They certainly would have a chance against a Makedonian phalanx. Even head-on, though they would be at a disadvantage. Remember, that shield is more than capable of stopping a spear thrust, especially by big, heavy, unwieldy sarissas. Note that the Makedonian phalanx was not an offensive formation, but a defensive one (tactically speaking, I mean). It was created to be the anvil on which the cavalry sledgehammer will break the enemy.

---

Very good post! People should all remember that the Makedonian phalanx wasn't supposed to operate alone, it worked in conjunction with the cavalry and that is why it was so effective; the continual undermining of the heavy cavalry in the successor states gradually enfeebled their armed forces. This is one of the reasons the Romans were able to defeat them with the relative ease that they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Very good post! People should all remember that the Makedonian phalanx wasn't supposed to operate alone, it worked in conjunction with the cavalry and that is why it was so effective; the continual undermining of the heavy cavalry in the successor states gradually enfeebled their armed forces. This is one of the reasons the Romans were able to defeat them with the relative ease that they did.

---

Why thank you! This era has been an interest of mine, with regards to military history, though I tended to avoid the Successor states out of a sense of disappointment - phalanx versus phalanx battles are probably the most boring, even to read about, ever. Two pointy brick walls march into one another! Wait six hours or until one side or another hits its opponent with a cavalry charge! Rout! Wash, rinse, repeat! Admittedly this is because, if I remember, the various states had quite a bit of trouble affording large formations of non-phalangite units, but hey! Maybe they should have stopped building insane oar-powered dreadnaughts in favor of outfitting more cavalry.

If it weren't for the fact I can't make heads nor tails of the RTW modding scene, I'd look into hopping on board, or even doing some modding of my own.

EB is always looking for people to write descriptions (of buildings, traits, ancils, etc.). If you're interested there's plenty of work for you that doesn't ever invole touching a RTW file.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

EB is always looking for people to write descriptions (of buildings, traits, ancils, etc.). If you're interested there's plenty of work for you that doesn't ever invole touching a RTW file.

---

Perhaps. I'll send a private message!

My big limiters are twofold - A) I'm currently an undergraduate college student...B) in middle Georgia. What sources I can get are pretty dingy, until I get to Atlanta come September. Until that, it's mostly Osprey books. And the internet, but the internet does not equal a good source.

When was the huge spear, small shield method of war developed? What date roughly? I too would love to learn more about greek history, the succesor states, carthage, all the factions of EB... Especially Rome, but the best i can do is online sources because unfortunately the library here in my town is utterly crap when it comes to history research type books... For an example not too long ago i went in to look for a book by Adrian Goldsworthy which i think was entitled simply: Rome, they didn't have it so i went to the desk and asked if they could order it from another library, and she told me no books by Adrian Goldsworthy were on their computer at all... Some library huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

When was the huge spear, small shield method of war developed? What date roughly? I too would love to learn more about greek history, the succesor states, carthage, all the factions of EB... Especially Rome, but the best i can do is online sources because unfortunately the library here in my town is utterly crap when it comes to history research type books... For an example not too long ago i went in to look for a book by Adrian Goldsworthy which i think was entitled simply: Rome, they didn't have it so i went to the desk and asked if they could order it from another library, and she told me no books by Adrian Goldsworthy were on their computer at all... Some library huh?

---

The huge spear/small shield Makedonian phalanx, you mean? Sometime in the early 350s to late 340s BCE, I think - given time I can probably get you a more accurate date.

If you mean the Makedonian phalanx, which I think is what you're getting at. Sometime shortly after 359 BC, the ascension of Phillip II to the throne of Makedon. He is credited with having devloped that style of warfare, although it was likely not something a single man did the period of it's evolution can be pretty well centered during the early portion of his regin, with some elements likely having come earlier and some changes being made both late in his reign and during the campaigns of Alexander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laundreu

They certainly would have a chance against a Makedonian phalanx. Even head-on, though they would be at a disadvantage. Remember, that shield is more than capable of stopping a spear thrust, especially by big, heavy, unwieldy sarissas. Note that the Makedonian phalanx was not an offensive formation, but a defensive one (tactically speaking, I mean). It was created to be the anvil on which the cavalry sledgehammer will break the enemy.

---

A xyston spear wouldn't be able to penetrate a shield, true. A 2 handed sarrissa could do that however, Roman scutums are known to have been penetrated.
An argive shield with a layer of bronze (the classical hoplon shield) would fare better I think, but the whole point is that by the EB time it had been largely phased out in favour of lighter shields.

Regarding the defensive nature of the Macedonian phalanx: as qwerty said, Macedon started relying more and more on their phalanx to steamroll over the enemy by the time the Romans fought them, and they ended up failing miserably. At the battle of Pydna, the phalanx was initially succesful, pushed the Romans back, and the Romans took some losses. What happened?

The Romans fell back.

The phalanx pressed forward and in doing so encountered uneven terrain, causing gaps in the line. The legionaires moved in between them, and cut down the phalangites with little problems.
The problem here according to my interpretation was that
A) when moving over longer distances, you have more chance of running into unfavourable terrain that will break up the phalanx. Hence a Macedonian phalanx would be better off sitting defensively.
B) the Macedonians could not force the engagement. The maneaverable Roman legionaires simply fell back when they realised they couldn't fight on favourable terms, and when the pike phalanx moved forward and got disrupted they saw their chance. But a pike phalanx wouldn't have the same problem when dealing with a (light or heavy) hoplite phalanx.

Now if you have two phalanxes. One is lightly equiped, but has huge 18 foot long pikes.
The other one is lightly equiped to, with a spear of only 12 foot long. Maybe with better and larger shields, but still not much protection against the thrust of a two handed pike.
Plus what hasn't been mentioned yet: the 18 foot spear is weilded 2 handed. You can utilise almost the entire lenght of the pike.
The 12 foot spear is 1 handed. Since you can't hold a spear horizontally at the end single handed (*cough stupid vanilla RTW cough*), you need to hold it roughly in the middle as to counterweigh both hands. The net result is you can only project your spearpoint 6 feet forward.
My expectation would be that the pike phalanx would roll over the hoplites.

You're failing to apply your own logic, the lighter greek hoplites were also more mobile than the Makedonian variety and were able to do things similar to the romans (although obviously they were not quite as mobile). The major issue in deciding victory between Greek and Makedonian armies was cavalry, which ever side had convinced the Thessalians to support them (almost always Makedon) was the side that usally won the day.

The current depiction has them fighting just like Macedonian Pikemen. I doubt they were anywhere near as flexible as Roman troops, as they too fought in a phalanx, a tight block of men advancing against an enemy in a head on attack. True they could fight much better individually, though their tactics were very similar to those of the Macedonians.

that the Soutern-Penisuela Greeks couldn't convience teh thessalans doesn't surprise me.
in some ways I got the impression athenans/Spartans/etc thought of the Thessalians as barely capable of walking on hind legs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ano2

The current depiction has them fighting just like Macedonian Pikemen. I doubt they were anywhere near as flexible as Roman troops, as they too fought in a phalanx, a tight block of men advancing against an enemy in a head on attack. True they could fight much better individually, though their tactics were very similar to those of the Macedonians.

---

Not just like it, the size of the Makedonian itself was much bigger and thus more inflexible. The very nature of the 18 foot pike made it that way (more ranks were needed to utilize the pike). As such the smaller greek phalanx was more mobile, though obviously nowhere near as mobile as the romans. Too bad RTW can't really handle that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Not just like it, the size of the Makedonian itself was much bigger and thus more inflexible. The very nature of the 18 foot pike made it that way (more ranks were needed to utilize the pike). As such the smaller greek phalanx was more mobile, though obviously nowhere near as mobile as the romans. Too bad RTW can't really handle that.

---

True but BI can in the form of a shieldwall. This could be adapted for Greeks as it was very similar. It can also allow men to charge, something that could be put to good use since charge values are fixed in BI and 1.5.

Just a note, shieldwalls can't be used in 1.5, the can only be used in BI (I've tried!).

Yeah, sheildwall is better for the classical phalanx than the one we're talking about though.

True but the only disadvantage for current hoplites is the lack of a big spear. Anyway to change this?

They're stated somewhat differently as well.

Ah yeah, but would you say its more accurate than the current depiction?

Probably not.

Hmm well it would still be cool for classical hoplites. Would give players a new type of fighting. Make classical hoplites quite desirable me thinks.

Back to the original post, I thought Iphikrates' hoplites were designed to be cheaper and more mobile. Presumably, if you're using them to charge the enemy head-on you're using them incorrectly. They'd be more desirable when used to outflank a larger, slower phalanx or classic hoplite formation. The wouldn't and shouldn't need to face the front.

As was stated by Laundreu, the strength of the Macedonian phalanx wasn't its infantry, but the fact that it could hold the enemy in place for a devastating surgical cavalry strike. This is something never fully realised by the various Successor states, that while a phalanx is strong it cannot win without the necessary cavalry support; the long sarissas don't make the Macedonian style phalanx very wieldy and rather vulnerable to quick manoeuvering.

Hmm but the Iphikrate's formation lends itself to pinning the enemy. Wouldn't be much good on the flanks.