Rosacrux redux, a fascinating article and a worthy addition to the monastery. It's a great in-depth essay on the evolution of a phalanx' mechanisms, and a good read aswell; looking forward to the third part!
Printable View
Rosacrux redux, a fascinating article and a worthy addition to the monastery. It's a great in-depth essay on the evolution of a phalanx' mechanisms, and a good read aswell; looking forward to the third part!
I'm speaking directly to you, not anyone else at this point. So yes, I will use the appropriate pronoun.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
If you want to go off on a tangent, open a new thread. Otherwise, you are simply being a jerk.
Actually Sparta was well on her way to conquer Asia Minor prior to Leuktra and after the Pellopponesian war. But as with most other cases, troubled brewed up at home and forced the king to retreat home. Persian gold... Persian gold...
Quite impressive in my mind that a simple, not too big city-state was on the verge of beatingthe crap out of Persia. The resulting peaceagreement had the Persian king agree to never bring the royal army into Asia Minor (and he never did until Alexander, just prior to Issus).
No, no great! Well...I copied into Word. I'll read it when I have more time. I'm sure it's good, though. It looks goodQuote:
Hmm... not a single comment? Is it so lousy? has anyone even read it?
Can we at least have the courtesy of honouring Rosacrux redux's request to stay on topic? He's going out of his way to share some of his work with us - something he doesn't have to do. He obviously respects the opinions of his fellow Monastery patrons. Let's show a little respect towards him in return. Thank you.
Thank you Greg and all thank you to all those who've read this article so far. Please provide with more input, if you feel like it.
A great article Rosacrux, very informative!
I think what's interesting about the spear-and-sword-and-shield-wall form of fighting is that we find it all over history. If we believe the Illiad, the Achaens and Trojans were using primitive forms of it during that war, and we can see it in use during the European Dark Ages and beyond.
I would say that one major reason for this is the flexibility of the model. It's an ideal way to must heavy infantry forces in a less organized, feudal environment-- put the elite- with their superior armor and shields and martial skill, up front, and let the rest of the mass fall in behind. It also has a number of tactical strengths which are only amplified when applied in a more methodical, disciplined way-- as the Spartans-- at least-- demonstrated amply.
A skillfully-wielded spear provides superior hitting range on the thrust, and can even be thrown to take out the enemy at longer ranges. Rear ranks can support the front ranks by thrusting over their comrades' shoulders, throwing their spears, or simply passing their spears up to the front to replace those that have been either thrown or broken (I think there is considerable evidence to suggest that spears broke quite frequently).
The shield wall provides defensive solidity to the formation independent of the effective presentation of serried ranks of spears. The sword and the shield make each soldier effective in close combat if the spears fail.
While some more-disciplined forms did not throw their spears (such as most later Greek Hoplites-- I think) and many less-disciplined forms did not make use of the shield wall, I think it is easy to see why this broad tactical form was used so broadly over the centuries.
DA
Rosacrux
Πραγματικά πολύ ενδιαφέρων καλογραμμένο και περιεκτικό άρθρο. Δίνει συμπυκνωμένη γνώση και αποτελεί μια απο τις καλύτερες εισαγωγές για ένα αναγνώστη στους αρχαίους τρόπους του μάχεσθαι. Αλήθεια για ποιο περιοδικό προορίζεται? Διαβάζω κατα καιρούς αρκετά ανάλογα περιοδικά - αν και δεν συμφωνώ πάντα με το ύφος τους- οχι μόνο απο ενδιαφέρων για τα κείμενα αλλα και τις εικονογραφήσεις καθότι γραφίστας ων ~:) .
Παραπιπτώντος μην δίνεις καμία σημασία στο γνωστο καραγκιοζάκι (φαντάζομαι κατάλαβες ποιόν εννοώ) που θεωρει υποχρεωμένο τον εαυτο του να βγαλει χολή προς οποιοδήποτε ελληνικό θέμα. Αποδεδειγμένα το ύψος της μαλακίας του ανθρώπου αυτού είναι δυσθεώρειτο. Αν αυτοι οι δυσκοίλιοι ψευδοευγενικοι διαχειριστές του φόρουμ το επέτρεπαν θα τον συγύριζα κατα πώς του πρέπει.
Και πάλι τα συγχαρητήρια μου.
Thanks for the kind words of support Idomenea. I'm truly flattered. :wink3: Next time post your compliments in English so we can all enjoy the full meaning of your words.
~D
Thank you Idomeneas, Strijder
Greg, ain't that Greek to you? :dizzy2:
Idomeneas, I appreciate the comments but I think it would be better to write in English when in public. The magazine ain't out yet, it will start off either on December or January. I'll let you know when.
All,
PART III will be delayed somewhat. I've had a pile of translating work to do for my regular job, so I am quite fed up with translating and the last part won't be probably on until weekend, maybe Monday.
I'll keep you updated.
A note Rosacrux-- "ain't" in English is something that, if used at all, should be used very sparingly. It is hard to make it convincing-- it is an utterance that is generally associated only with certain classes and types of people. For anyone else to use it generally requires the perfect context and a perfect delivery, and even then it can sound kind of stale.
And it's even harder to use written. Spoken, I might personally say something like "Iaingonna saynudin", but would be more likely to say "I'm not gonna say anything".
DA
I thought the "ain't" was used perfectly. :cowboy:
I finally got around to reading parts 1 & 2. First of all, nice work Rosacrux. Lots of good stuff for a phalanx newbie like me to absorb.
I just had one specific comment. In Part 2, The Hammer and Anvil Approach, Tactical Innovations, paragraph 6, the phrase "– at least those not completely under the spell of the stirrups and the couched lance –" seemed grossly out of place with everything else in the article. When I read it, it felt like we stepped out of the article for a moment to make an unflattering remark ("under the spell" = "can't think for themselves") about historians who have a differing view on what was considered the first shock cavalry. Removing this out-of-place phrase makes the sentence more to the point and consistent with the rest of the article.
LOL @ "ain't"
I can't help it. I've learned "american english" (was raised very close to an USAAF base) and some things won't go no matter what ~D
Oh, well, Greg... in Greek the phrase (if we translate it literaly) would read something like "- at least not those who can't accept any notion of shock cavalry without the use of stirrups and couched lance". I thought the little paraphrase would serve the English text better. Was I mistaken perhaps? "Under the spell" in this context does not mean "can't think for themselves" but mostly "obsessed with" or "really fond of".
I think you falling into the decline trap that hangs over so much historical work on 4th century Greece. By the first quarter of the 4th Century all Athenian ephebes were trained to fight as peltasts as practicing archery and catapult operation. Modern historians have all too often simply interpreted peltast as automatically equaling mercenary. More importantly in modern usage ‘Mercenary Captain’ rings quite close to condottieri which suggest that Ipicrates was for sale to the highest bidder. In fact he commanded major bodies of Athenian troops and ships as often as mercenaries and had a active political career, and as far as I know even when on loan to Persia or a Thracian king, answered first to the Assembly at Athens.Quote:
Iphicrates was mostly a mercenary captain
No he was not unique in this. His contemporary Chabrias, was if anything more famous than Iphicrates for his well drilled and disciplined mercenary hoplites. He received the honor of a statue at Athens while still alive, for facing down Agesilaos and the Spartan army with his troops. In terms of influencing Philip, I would suggest more important than Athenian generals, would be the success the Phocians (Onomarchus etc) had with the professional mercenary force they raised and maintained on a permanent basis by looting the treasury at Delphi.Quote:
I don't think training and drilling as Iphicrates did it, was anything close to a "general trend". Sure he wasn't alone in it, but he was alone in the field of having a large, fully professional, full-time soldier force at his disposal. Again, it is a matter of perception, but there is a solid fact here: the standing army any city state would maintain, was usually very small. The Thebans had 300 men, the rest were citizen conscripts. A citizen is not a full-time warrior and hasn't got the time to drill and train in the way Iphicrates did with his men.
On a city state’s standing army, I do think there is evidence of a general trend. The sacred band at Thebes was not the rule but exception in that it was so small. The Argives deployed a professional select force of hoplites (epilektoi) in the 5th century of a 1000. By the mid forth century Athens had 1000 select hoplites, a professional cavalry force, its force of hamippoi like those at Thebes were professionals. Even tiny Philius seems to have joined the trend deploying a force of select hoplites and regular cavalry has its main fighting force. Considering Athens is just about the only city state that is well documented, it’s also worth noting Athens steadily improved it training and oversight of it troops both ephebes, hoplites and cavalry from the early to late 4th century. It’s a guess but I would suggest it reflects Athens’ adopting ideals from the Boeotia of Epaminondas. As Thebes moved from ally to rival in the 4th century Athens had no choice but to impove her land forces, Philip and Sparta could potentially be held at arms length, but not Thebes.
I take it you mean Plutarch’s Lives?Quote:
Polybious lives
True but again it’s important to consider Plutarch was writing at a time when the citizen soldier was a thing ancient history. Usage and terminology was not fixed, consider for example that in Iphicrates’s day hoplon was almost certainly never a reference to just the Argive aspis shield, yet by Plutarch’s day it could certainly be used in that fashion. Plutarch was intelligent, and had access to histories and works now lost, but he was also not able to access the kind of linguistic tools available today.
I don’t see how you get ‘a few miles away’ out of Xenophon Hell. 4.5.11. Rather, Xenophon repeatedly mentions that Callais (General of the Hoplites) and Iphicrates planned and executed the battle together. The formed and ready Athenian phalanx was critical for the plan, without its threat nothing constrains either the pursuit of the Spartans or their cavalry.Quote:
Partly right, partly wrong. The victory of Iphicrates against the Spartans was one of a well-led contigent of Peltasts only - the Athenian hoplites were a few miles away, close to Corinthus and quite away from the battle. That's the wrong part.
But they were explicitly dismissed by the foremost Greek captain of the era, Epaminondas (Plutarch ‘Sayings of Kings and Commanders’). Also I would be careful of source survival. If Plutarch’s life of Epaminondas was still extent, you might well be talking about his attention to training and discipline. Iphicrates benefits from the dominate position of Attic material both now and in the classical era. The attihistographers, the works of the Attic orators, the weight of Athenian records may well give a skewed perspective.Quote:
his tactics had an even greater impact, his military thinking and innovations were so important as to be quoted and referred to regularly by writers that lived even 4 centuries after him. Indirect importance, you might say. But I consider it of utter importance. A matter of perception, as I say.
Be careful of V.D. Hanson he stakes out a rather extreme point of view, particularly on the ‘push fest’. You are I think over crediting Philip and Alexander here. Epaminondas and Pelopidas did not fight endless push fests but very calculated battles designed to concentrates a killing blow against their enemy’s key forces – and wipe them out. In the aggregate they look to have not produced many casualties, but they (unlike some modern historians) realized the key factor was to kill Spartans and Spartan officers, not uninspired, and unwilling allies. At the battle of Tegyra for example; Pelopidas carried an aggressive assault aimed directly at the Spartan command, followed their destruction up with by a fierce general attack routing the Spartan force (which outnumber the Thebans by some 2 or 3 to 1). After winning he used his cavalry to execute an extensive pursuit, only called off when the fugitive Spartans approached friendly garrisons. All in all as aggressive a battle as anything Alexander led (Alexander might well be said to be copying Boeotian tactics). Even in the fifth century I not sure that generals like Brasidas, Demosthenes, Lamachus or Tolmides can really be described as pursuing semi-ritualized push-fests.Quote:
The innovations of the 4th century warfare and the genius of Philip and Alexander combined in the best way to create a military system that has revolutionized the way to conduct a battle or wage war. No more endless push-fests, no more immobile infantry in minimum-casualties half-ceremonial battles. As stated by the controversial Victor Davis Hanson in “Carnage and Culture”, “the coordination between infantry and cavalry was a completely new invention in the history of western warfare and was designed to make numerical superiority unnecessary. Philip’s battles were not extensive push contests between two phalanxes, but abrupt Napoleonic assaults in specific points, that would break along with the enemy’s moral” (P.S. this passage is translated back to English from the Greek translation of Hanson’s book so the wording is probably different than the original)
This extraordinary killing machine would reach its apogee in the times of Alexander the Great, who utilized it not just to prevail over his enemies, but also to utterly crush them.
While "ain't" is prevalent in dialects spoken by a significant minority of the population, it is dying fast even in rural areas. It is not a part of standard American English as it is spoken currently.
I wasn't saying the usage was incorrect, more that it was tacky. But whatever, I know the bad habits we learn in foreign languages are always the most fun. It took long time for people to get me stop pronouncing "Michoacán" and "Yucatán" as "MichoacáM" and "YucatáM"-- it's a common pronunciation among some groups of Mexican peasants, but it drives alot of other people nuts ~;)
DA
First, I think you are reading too much into my thoughts. Secondly, and since you refer to Xenophon, he specifically calls Iphicrates “captain of mercenaries” and in most references he talks about Iphicrates and his men as “Iphicrates and his mercenaries” (of course he uses “Iphicrates and his peltasts” as well). Methinks our most reliable source tells us that Iphicrates was indeed a captain of mercenaries.Quote:
I think you falling into the decline trap that hangs over so much historical work on 4th century Greece. By the first quarter of the 4th Century all Athenian ephebes were trained to fight as peltasts as practicing archery and catapult operation. Modern historians have all too often simply interpreted peltast as automatically equaling mercenary. More importantly in modern usage ‘Mercenary Captain’ rings quite close to condottieri which suggest that Ipicrates was for sale to the highest bidder. In fact he commanded major bodies of Athenian troops and ships as often as mercenaries and had a active political career, and as far as I know even when on loan to Persia or a Thracian king, answered first to the Assembly at Athens.
Of course, this did not – at this timeframe – mean a soldier of fortune in the modern context or even the medieval (since you talk about condottieri). This is a different discussion altogether. But since his contemporaries called Iphicrates “captain of mercenaries”, I find it quite ok to do the same.
Interesting… I’ll try to find more data on this, might prove useful. Any primary source with references to Chabrias?Quote:
No he was not unique in this. His contemporary Chabrias, was if anything more famous than Iphicrates for his well drilled and disciplined mercenary hoplites. He received the honor of a statue at Athens while still alive, for facing down Agesilaos and the Spartan army with his troops.
I don’t understand… in what way did they influence Philip? A standing mercenary army was not a novelty, not even in Hellas.Quote:
In terms of influencing Philip, I would suggest more important than Athenian generals, would be the success the Phocians (Onomarchus etc) had with the professional mercenary force they raised and maintained on a permanent basis by looting the treasury at Delphi.
Talking about 4 cities out of… how many? There are few more that had a standing army. Actually, most city-states had standing armies but they were tiny-to-small (Athens at its peak could field… how many? maybe 14.000 hoplites and 30.000 more manning the fleet? and for all these, they kept 1.000 full-time soldiers. 1.000 out of 44.000 is not very impressive).Quote:
On a city state’s standing army, I do think there is evidence of a general trend.
Iphicrates considered mercenaries to be reliable and citizen armies not to be reliable. In that manner, he was surely an inspiration to wannabe-world rulers as Philip was.
I do this all the times… mea culpaQuote:
I take it you mean Plutarch’s Lives?
He is one of our best sources for the era, despite him writing a few centuries after it.Quote:
True but again it’s important to consider Plutarch was writing at a time when the citizen soldier was a thing ancient history. Usage and terminology was not fixed, consider for example that in Iphicrates’s day hoplon was almost certainly never a reference to just the Argive aspis shield, yet by Plutarch’s day it could certainly be used in that fashion. Plutarch was intelligent, and had access to histories and works now lost, but he was also not able to access the kind of linguistic tools available today.
I don’t see how this passage indicates that Kallias and his hoplites joined the battle in any fashion:Quote:
I don’t see how you get ‘a few miles away’ out of Xenophon Hell. 4.5.11. Rather, Xenophon repeatedly mentions that Callais (General of the Hoplites) and Iphicrates planned and executed the battle together. The formed and ready Athenian phalanx was critical for the plan, without its threat nothing constrains either the pursuit of the Spartans or their cavalry.
and Callias, the son of Hipponicus, who was in command of the Athenian hoplites, and Iphicrates at the head of his peltasts, saw no risk in attacking with the light brigade. Since if the enemy continued his march by the high road, he would be cut up by showers of javelins on his exposed right flank; or if he were tempted to take the offensive, they with their peltasts, the nimblest of all light troops, would easily slip out of the grasp of his hoplites.
With this clearly-conceived idea they led out their troops; and while Callias drew up his heavy infantry in line at no great distance from the city, Iphicrates and his peltasts made a dash at the returning division.
And, later, when the hit-and-run of Iphicrates’ men has already exhausted two attacks of the Spartans, the Lakedemonian cavalry comes back
they were joined by their returning cavalry, in whose company they once again attempted a charge. The light infantry gave way, but the attack of the cavalry was feebly enforced. Instead of pressing home the charge until at least they had sabred some of the enemy, they kept their horses abreast of their infantry skirmishers, charging and wheeling side by side.
The only mentioning of the hoplites in the actual fight, is this:
And now, in the very slough of despair, being so sorely troubled as man after man dropped dead, and unable to strike a blow, to crown their distress they saw the enemy's heavy infantry advancing. Then they took to flight;
So, Kallias' heavy infantry did never join the fight, they only acted as a scarecrow in the last phase of the fight, "aiding" the Spartans to commit to a full flight.
Yes, that is a known problem about classical Greece. But to draw conclusions without supporting evidence might provide an even more skewed perspective, no?Quote:
But they were explicitly dismissed by the foremost Greek captain of the era, Epaminondas (Plutarch ‘Sayings of Kings and Commanders’). Also I would be careful of source survival. If Plutarch’s life of Epaminondas was still extent, you might well be talking about his attention to training and discipline. Iphicrates benefits from the dominate position of Attic material both now and in the classical era. The attihistographers, the works of the Attic orators, the weight of Athenian records may well give a skewed perspective.
I am very aware of Hanson’s misdemeanours and mostly his obsessions with certain aspects of warfare (not to mention his utter disrespect for historical facts when they contradict with his own bias). He does give credit to the Greeks for several things, though. And I think he is right when he says that the type of warfare Greeks employed originally was designed as to minimise casualties while at the same time give a very decisive outcome of the clash. That wasn’t the case in all battles, though.Quote:
Be careful of V.D. Hanson he stakes out a rather extreme point of view, particularly on the ‘push fest’. You are I think over crediting Philip and Alexander here. Epaminondas and Pelopidas did not fight endless push fests but very calculated battles designed to concentrates a killing blow against their enemy’s key forces – and wipe them out. In the aggregate they look to have not produced many casualties, but they (unlike some modern historians) realized the key factor was to kill Spartans and Spartan officers, not uninspired, and unwilling allies. At the battle of Tegyra for example; Pelopidas carried an aggressive assault aimed directly at the Spartan command, followed their destruction up with by a fierce general attack routing the Spartan force (which outnumber the Thebans by some 2 or 3 to 1). After winning he used his cavalry to execute an extensive pursuit, only called off when the fugitive Spartans approached friendly garrisons. All in all as aggressive a battle as anything Alexander led (Alexander might well be said to be copying Boeotian tactics). Even in the fifth century I not sure that generals like Brasidas, Demosthenes, Lamachus or Tolmides can really be described as pursuing semi-ritualized push-fests.
The Greek warfare was usually not “to the last man” before the Macedonians entered the picture. Even Epameinondas (to whom I give ample credit for the “new type of warfare” in that era, as you must’ve noticed – some even might believe I was suggesting that the Macedonian phalanx was the Theban tactics executed by a pike-phalanx instead of a hoplite one) and Pelopidas (I should’ve mentioned him too, at least in association with Epameinondas) didn’t go as far as Alexander and even Philipos did on that trend.
Nice work Rosacrux, very informative and well written.
were can i buy this magazine u write coz i am very interested in buying it.
You can subscribe online http://www.historynet.com/mh/
Most good newsagents usually have a copy
Babelfish says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
Really very interesting kalogramme'no and comprehensive article. It gives condensed knowledge and constitutes one from the better imports for reader in the ancient ways ma'hescaj. Truth for who magazine it is intended? I read at times enough proportional magazines - even if I do not always agree with their style - not only from interesting on the texts but also the illustrations kaco'tj grafj'stas wn. Parapjptw'ntos you do not give no importance in the known karagkjoza'kj (I imagine you understood who I mean) that it considers compelled it removes bile to any Greek subject. Apodedejgme'na the height of this malakj'as person is dyscew'rejto. If these constipated beydoeygenjkoj administrators of forum him allowed sygy'rjza at how he should. Once again syghariti'rja my.
Online translators suck...I need to learn Greek:dizzy2:
Littleganon,
the magazine isn't out yet, shall be in January for the first time and it will be written in Greek (if you are Greek, you'll probably appreciate it).
Templar Knight,
As far as I am aware of, I am not writing (yet ~;) ) for the Military History Magazine . Thanks for the kind comments though.
Are you looking for skilled writers from abroad? ~D
Sorry Rosacrux, my mistake :bow:
Rosacrux, very informative...however, I've got something to say that's perhaps as important. Easy to read and concise, I can't say better then that
Very good article.
9 out of 10 happy faces
~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D