over 9 factions have at least one phalanx unit too much i think.
Printable View
over 9 factions have at least one phalanx unit too much i think.
yeah but ost of em are former possesions of alexander the great. most of the eastern ones anyway, didnt he start reforms in their armies to train em like a macedonian army???? any historical experts?? i will say that spearwarband phalanx unit probs shouldnt be there
At best (or most negatively if you want) the Germans and the Carthies shoul perhaps not have the phalanx, but that is up to the individual. Personallly I prefer both of them having it.
The Carthies seems to have used it a number of times and the Germans (the Helvetii) used it too. The Germans in genereal might no have used it, but we simply don't know.
Let's do a little review here.
Number of purely greek factions in the game
Greek cities
Macedon
Seleucids
total 3
Number of might as well be greek factions
Thrace
Pontus
Egypt
total 3
Number of factions that are not greek but have a phalanx unit
Armenia
Germans
Carthage
total 3
Viewed like this the only factions that it might be pushing it for them to have a unit with phalanx ability are the bottom three on my list. Also you should not that CA only put in one blanket form of phalanx. There were at least 2 greek styles. The traditional southern greek phalanx and the Macedonian phalanx that Philip developed for his sarisafors to use with their long spears and small shields. Plus you have the shiled wall which is probably what the Helvetii were using anyway.
The Carthaginians used phalanx at least when Xanthippus (Spartan merc) trained and lead their army to victory at the Battle of Tunis in the 1st Punic War in 255 BC. They had Greek style equipment, even before he arrived, so it is believed they were in phalanx for the defeats before that. As best I can tell, it is believed that the Carthagian african raised heavy infantry were fighting in phalanx early in the 2nd Punic War. After Lake Trasimene in 217 BC (and Trebia before it), Hannibal had captured enough gear to reequip his infantry and supposedly did so. Just thinking out loud: I have to admit that this latter part seems a bit odd. One would expect his Spanish troops and his own Africans to have better swords since the Spanish steel was better than what the Romans had. The armour, shields, and helmets of the Romans would probably have been good and of uniform style. His losses of African vets. at Cannae were fairly light, but they were the flankers and didn't bear the brunt of the fight.
The Germans as phalanx is probably a bit of a stretch, although Caesar I think described something like this. It is probably a bit too resisilient in the game being such a large unit, a base level unit, and fairly long "spear" style. If you want to mod it, you might try reducing the base unit size somewhat (and cost/upkeep), and changing the attribute below stat_pri to "short_pike" instead of "spear." This will shorten the spear length a bit and take a bit of their punch away.
There seem to be 3 styles of phalanx possible in the game:
1. Macedonian style = "long_pike" This is the sarissa based unit with smaller shield. It is deadly in the game.
2. Iphicratid hoplite style = "spear" This is an intermediate length spear that all the other phalanx types other than pike phalangites use in RTW.
3. Classical hoplite style = "short_pike" This is not used by any units at the moment, although it can be modded in. It is shorter, about the length of a traditional hoplite spear. I've only experimented with it a little.
Though for playability leaving the Germans with their phalanges is best. They make up for the horrible financial position.
From what I have heard Caesar was astonished at the discipline and incredibly long spear of the german units.
What would be really cool would be if CA or someone took the trouble to make the phalanx units fight as they would: Spartans and greeks using overhand stab with shorter pike, larger shield. Macedon and all possessions: Mainly using a long spear, underhand with both hands, buckler style shield, plus a shield slung from the neck. Germans: Long spear tight formation, not much is known about them though...
Yes, the phalanx should be diferenciated. But more important, it should be probably implemented a little different. the Greeks used their phalanx, from what i gather, as shock troops that slamed into the enemy formation, breaking it on the offensive. Only the Macedonians used their phalanx formations purely on the defensive. So, it should be nice to see the Greek phalanx xharge into the enemy formations, shield to shield, in good discipline, aiming to pull the eyes of the enemy out with their short spear before putting their shield up and going into the ranks of the enemy, shattering morale, distrupting formation, making them flee, killing all that turned their backs. Oh yea, this would be cool...
yeah that would be cool
But didn't the greeks abandon their normal phalanx in favour of the Macedonian one ?
Yes, they seem to have began using the macedonian phalanx, or pike formation, really. But that does not matter we must never see some phalanx bashing into unsuspecting, lets say, Gauls. Really, it would take all the fun out of the greeks to have them be some sort of macedonians without cavalry. They would also be unplayable, or almost...
I think that the ability to "Phalanx" is given away too easily. It needs hard training and discipline to make a spear group confidently form a phalanx.
Ideally speaking, the Germans phalanx should be much messier and less effective than the Greek one.
Going back to the list someone produced of phalanxey nations - weren't Pontus, Armenia and Egypt (Ptolemad) also ex-greek factions, and so, if anything should have MORE of a greek basis? (excuse me if i'm wrong - i'm taking this off my shaky recollection of something i read...).
Pontus and Egypt are in the 'Might as well be Greek' group.Quote:
Originally Posted by KyodaiSteeleye
Armenia was not Greek, but they adopted a few things from the passing Greek armies, like levy pikemen. I think it is even mentioned that they had sometyhing that is similar to the Heavy Spearmen unit. But Armenia was not Greek.
Of course we are going to have many Phalanx units. This was the era of the Phalanx, the "Military standard" of the time. Thanks to Alexander's legacy the eastern factions certainly all had it (with the exception of Parthia of course) and everyone else was impressed by it.
As has already been said Carthage also adopted Greek-Style training and tactics during the first Punic War. It certainly points to the formation being very effective and growing in popularity at the time.
The Germans are the only Phalanx that is unconnected to the advancement of Greek culture and tactics... I suspect the use of the word was more of a general one on the part of Caesar because most Romans would have been well aware of what a Phalanx was, and if Caesar was trying to create the impression of a "Phalanx-like formation" for readers back home he would have succeeded.
Military techniques proven effective tend to spread pretty quickly, especially if they fit into the socioeconomic setups of their recipients. Before the Macedonian phalanx the Greco-Mesopotamian hoplite phalanx had been "the thing" and was used by just about every group that fancied itself as "civilised" around the Med (and more to the point had the sort of agricultural society it was suited for).
Well, the Macedonian pike phalanx trounced it soundly, and duly became the norm. The Romans went straight from hoplites to maniples and didn't bother with pikes along the way, but they were pretty much the lone exception - and their javelin-toting swordsmen did have some issues with the pike-hedges.
The German "phalanx" in the game is probably stretching it a bit. I'm quite willing to accept the Teutonic spearmen could have fought in the sort of close, spear-armed shieldwall that would remain the norm well until Middle Ages, but if that one rates as phalanx then the Triarii should too... Well, write it down to artistic license and some creative interpretation of Caesar.
Compare the popularity of the phalanx - of either form - in the Antiquity to the way pikes became all the rage during Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance following the Swiss example, or the spread of firearms anywhere once introduced. Imitation, as they say, is the most honest form of praise.
Yeah, but the romans did trounce the phalanxes, because of flexibility and the ability of "officers" (centurions) to make decisions to change the disposition of their tyroops during battle. Plus the Legionarry was better able to deal with missile fire and flanking attacks, and due to thew short range of the gladius there was no fighting past the 3-5th row and slaughtering the pikemen.
Actually, the Romans didn't trounce the phalanxes in many instances early on. People seem to only remember the last few showdowns in battles like Pydna and Cynocephalae. While the battles were pivotal, it was more due to the geopolitical situation of the time than to an absolute failure of phalanx warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
I do agree with the assessment of the flexibility being the eventual key (certainly at Cynocephalae), but that was not enough in many early confrontations.
Look at earlier battles:
1. Pyrrhus fights three major battles with his elephant and phalanx army vs. the Romans on Italian soil, defeating them twice and losing a 3rd (night attack.)
2. The Romans beat poorly prepared or led Carthaginian troops several times in the 1st Punic war. Then they faced a drilled Carthaginian phalanx under Xanthippus in the Battle of Tunis, and the Romans were routed from the field
Hamilcar Barca is successful at maintianing the fight in Sicily, but Carthage loses the war at sea
3. Hannibal used his phalangites in novel fashion to crush the Romans repeatedly...until they refused to give him battle anymore. The war see-sawed in Spain with Romans finally losing their commanders until Scipio arrives, reorganizes and defeats the Carthaginians. In the final decisive battle of Zama, the veterean Carthaginian infantry fare well, but Scipio's Numidian cavalry allies turn the tide.
4. At Cynocephalae the phalangites on the right were beating the Romans. However the left wing was unable to deploy so the phalanx was disordered/not yet formed.
5. Pydna also relied on disordering the phalanx on one wing (with elephants) and then working into it in the center as the phalanx there was pushing the legions back. The legion equipped Pelignians on the other wing were beaten.
Conclusion: An ordered phalanx would beat the the Roman legions and did so numerous times. A disordered phalanx could not. The Roman system could afford to be pushed back and disordered on one wing. The phalanx system could not.
It's all about where the battle is fought and about the way the armies are arrayed and organized. And there's also leadership to consider...
If a well lead phalanx army with auxiliaries and some cavalry support faced a similar roman legionary army with similar cavalry support and auxiliaries I'd put my money on the phalanx army. the thing was that you needed much better commanders for a phalanx army than for a roman legionary force. The phalanx is much more harder to control and direct effectively. Also the phalanx really needs to have good support troops, while legionary armies aren't that dependent on them, except for having some cavalry back up.
It's clear than in history well lead, well balanced phalanx armies were succesfull at defeating the Romans. The problem was that geopolitically the Greeks and other phalanx using cultures could not fare.
But how I love a phalanc in battle...
I think the main confusion with the Germans comes from a misunderstanding of what a "phalanx" is. A phalanx does not necessarily imply the use of pikes - it is simply a closely packed formation of men. There is, to my knowledge no reference to the Germans or the Helvetii using pikes or very long spears. Indeed, Tacitus says that the typical German weapon is a small, light spear suitable both for throwing and fighting hand to hand.
I would suggest that in both of these cases, the use of the word phalanx by classical authors does not imply a pike formation, but simply a closely packed formation of men using their shields to defend themselves, somewhat like the "scildweall" of later Germanic warfare.
One formation that is well attested among the early Germans is a wedge of infantry with the bravest and best armoured at the front.
Julius Caesar mentions Germans of some sort using tight formations with very long spears. Well disciplined troops, very different from the usual "barbarian" troops and much more similar to Greek phalanxes than anything else.
Uesugi Kenshin
I think your overstating it a bit J.C. does use the word phalanx, but there really are not many other words he could have used to quickly describe men armed with spears and shields and fighting in close order. However the context is important. I don't think the text supports Caesar as being surprised or impressed.
Rather in one case he has little trouble finding men to rush in and break the enemy formation (1.54), or (1.24) the legions are describes as easily breaking the 'phalanx'. There is no place in Caesar’s description for the distress or awe inspired by the Macedonian phalanx. No lifelong dread of A. Paullus, or desperation like that of Flaminus, thinking one whole wing of his army was being swept away by the advancing Macedonians.
Also not similar to the greeks in that, having been forced to loose their shield, the German and Gauls are described as effectively unarmored. A Hoplite, loosing his shield would hardly be noted as unarmored.
The hoplites phalanx could most certainly be broken by less formed troops. Remember Marathon? The Persians broke through in the center but that caused their downfall in that the flanks swung in. Thus I see no problem in the Romans being able to punch through a solid line of spearmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
And using the Macedonain phalanx as a comparison is not fair as the Germans had no real similarity to that.
And the hoplites... Well have you read about the Polopponesian Wars? Or the wars between Sparta and Thebes? We are talking about naked hoplites or very lightly armorued ones. Indeed quite unarmoured.
Kraxis
I at work now, but if you will check back I will post my thoughts and evidence on the 'naked hoplite phenomenon'.
But in general, I don't buy it. I know some books and authors (cough, the osprey series in particular) love naked hoplites, but I really see no evidence for the ideal that hoplites were running around the 5th and 4th centuries without armor.
Marathon is rather unique though in that the Athenian center was very thin and considering the extended advance at a run, I rather doubt the center was in phalanx formation’ as such when it hit the Persian line. I can’t think of another example during the next 2 centuries of battles between Greek and Persian troops were Persian soldier broke a Greek line. My point was that in context Caesar is describing rather easy victories, and does not appear to have been overly impressed with either the drill or quality of the enemy formations.
I go with Red Harvest on this one.
Polybius was a military commander himself, and distinctly mentions that the phalanx was "invincible" when it was laid upon the conditions which made it so. However, he continues to mention that those conditions which make the phalanx have a "tendency to dissipate", while the conditions that disrupt the phalanx never cease to pop up. And then he goes on stating the various conditions which the phalanx require to be effective - open field engagements, flat terrains, enough room and space to lay the formation out, etc etc.. and then compares it with the Roman system of Legions.
As a matter of fact he goes as far as stating, "what's the use of the phalanx, even if it is invincible, when the Romans could avoid combat and burn and pillage the cities and towns the phalanx were trying to defend?" - ie. "the flexibility of the Legions" was not necessarily on a small-scale tactical term, but more of a strategical one. On a purely tactical scale, the Greek phalanxes were more than a match for any Roman army. However the Legions marched faster and could fight at any given condition. Their commanders were also keen in disrupting tactical advantages of the Greeks on a political/diplomatical scale so often Rome would win wars without even single combat.
A certain "Greek" faction would gather its phalanx armies and start hostile activities, and then Rome would send in the Legions which already march past them into the heart of that certain faction's key strategical locations, lay up seige equipments, threaten individual cities to open gates, and then start diplomatic negotiations and end the war there. A nice little threat something like, "stop hostilities or we burn every one of your precious cities in sight" and bam! The war is over, without a single fight. Things went that way everytime.
I might be wrong but I'm certain VDH mentions that as time went on the so called 'hoplite panoply' became more and more slimmed down. A classical era hoplite would have had a spear, shield, helmet, greaves, arm guard and some sort of armoured cuirass. By the post-Alexandrian era they were probably down to just the shield and helmet.Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
I'm not a total 'naked hoplite' fan, I agree on that. But the light hoplite certainly made sense to the Greeks.
The light infantry had proven itself in battle against slower hoplites enough times for the Greeks to understand that they needed to do something.
The Spartans devised sending out their young hoplites.
A young Thermopylae-period Spartan Hoplite would have at least, the aspis (9kg), a heavy linnen cuirass (7kg), greaves (3-4 kg? But feeling much heavier as they were on the legs) and of course the Corinthian helmet (2kg). I will not count the weapons.
A peltast would have the pelte (2kg?) and his heavy Thracian cloak (3kg).
Now who will run the fastest? Not the young hoplite, that is for sure.
Since the running hoplites apparently could catch the peltasts now and then. Iphicrates troops (in this case they were javelineers) were reluctant to engage the Spartans outside Corinth since some of them had been caught earlier by Spartans, that they eventually did ngage is less important. And at Pylos the Spartan contingent of 300 hoplites did send out their young hoplites to catch the much more numerous Athenian light troops. We think of it as a deathrun, but apparently the Spartans believed it could be done. And it does seem as if the hoplites were close to catching the light troops now and then as they were only sent back to the phalanx because they were hit in the sides by other light troops, not because they couldn't run the first down.
So we have established that the young hoplites at least could, if the battle was right, catch light troops. We have to assume that the Spartans were in general better runners than most others (I'm willing to grant them an edge in pretty much everything physical, barring size), and young men run faster in general too. Light troops were generally young men, so at least that point is lost.
The better Spartan physique doesn't add up to being able to run faster with heavy gear on. But if he has only the aspis and Pilos helm to think of I'm willing to believe that he could possibly run down some of the light troops. The light troops were after all very used to being able to outrun hoplites so possibly they had a small superiority complex when it came to running and thus quite possibly didn't go on long runs together or train all that much really.
So we have the young Spartans as being only equipped with the aspis, but why would the older ones have armour then? The young hoplites were at the front anyway and would take the brunt of the fighting.
That is basically the argument I have seen. Personally I'm willing to grant them a light linnen cuirass, such as the one Iphicrates used for his hoplites later on.
The older troops would probably be wealthier and less nimble, so they would have more use for armor and would be more able to afford it.
Ahhh... But the Spartans were state-equipped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH I forgot about that. Well maybe the state took into account their lack of dexterity and gave them more armor?
I really should have remembered that.....
wasnt this thread about too many phalanx units
Yeah, but now we are talking about phalanx units in general. I think most people acknowledged that this was the era of the phalanx and other than the german phalanx all of them should definately be in. The only question remaining about that was whether they should be a true phalanx or something a bit different.
i go for more difference
Emperor Umeu 1
Uesugi Kenshin is right, pretty much any Hellenistic State (Carthage, Greeks, Successors, etc.) would have deployed either a hoplite, or Macedonian style (or both) phalanxes has their key heavy infantry element. But CA could or should have given the hoplites and near hoplites and over arm thrust rather then a mini-Macedonian look.
Kraxis
”The light infantry had proven itself in battle against slower hoplites enough times for the Greeks to understand that they needed to do something. The Spartans devised sending out their young hoplites.”
I’m not so sure, that that is true. Or the related point that some how the Greeks need to response to some sudden new light-infantry challenge.
As a broad counter I would point out Marathon, Plataea, Cunaxa, Eurmedon River, etc. all victories of hoplites over light infantry, and crushing ones at that.
Now the battles you cite have become almost canonical as demonstrating blundering pig headed Greeks just won’t learn how vulnerable lumbering hoplites are (add let me add Demosthenes abortive attack on Aeolian as well). But I think that is rather something of a CW construction.
Pylos: Really what we have here is a tiny Spartan garrison cut off by Athenian sea power, exposed too an overwhelming assault by hoplites, professional archers, and peltasts, and a vast auxiliary army of rowers armed javelins, slings and targets. If you discount any helot attendants the Spartans might have had (fair I think, seeing as they had not been offered any reason to fight for the Spartans, and the Athenian army at Pylos included ex-helots in it’s ranks and was explicitly offering shelter and freedom), the Spartans were outnumbered by around 3:1 by just the Athenian hoplites. When you add professional light infantry and rowers (even conservatively) you get something over 20:1.
The last day at Thermopylae hardly argues for the value of Persian troops over Spartan. Similarly the lesson of Sphacteria, has nothing do to with light infantry over hoplite. If anything the lesson is don’t put valuable troops on islands if you enemy can assert mastery of the sea at anytime they wish, because they will simply apply overwhelming force to you garrisons at their leisure.
Demosthenes in Aetolia: I know you did not bring this one up but it’s often linked to Demosthenes and his Pylos campaign. Demosthenes did err in not waiting for his Lorican allies (light infantry) because of his initial success. But the key point is that he originally did intend to have both heavy and light infantry. When things got ugly, it interesting that his tiny force of archers was sufficient to hold off the Aetolian peltasts, unlike hoplites they apparently could not deal with archers. Finally, it’s worth noting his guide got killed (bad luck). Rather then some Greek who thinks only of hoplites, Demosthenes looks rather like a first time commander who got a bit too excited with his initial success. But more importantly, he correctly envisioned a mixed force of light infantry and Hoplites, backed archers, exactly the force that might have beat the peltast only Aetoilians.
Iphicrates: As far as I can make out there is nothing to suggest the younger Spartans were armored more lightly then any other Spartan. Also by my reading of Xenophon it looks like the Spartans did not really sustain serious fatalities until they started to sent the young hoplites in pursuit. Also it’s not like Iphicrates beat 600 Spartans with 600 peltasts. His peltasts probably outnumbered the Spartans, and he was operating in conjunction with Athenian hoplites (who themselves may have outnumbered the Spartans). Lesson: don’t put a small hoplite force near a much large combined arms force commanded by aggressive and opportunistic generals.
I admit though there appears to a fair amount of grave stele from Peloponnesian sites that suggest in the early 4th century unarmored hoplites may have existed.
First off I think this was an exception. Stele from Athens, Thebes, votive figurines from Southern Italy seem to argue in favor of most of Greece choosing not to partake in this trend. Epaminondas is noted (by Plutarch) as being dismissive of the Iphicrates style
heavy peltast, and the Thebans are generally accepted as not abandoning armor.
Considering the Spartans became increasing reliant on mercenaries (men who almost certainly could not afford a full kit of hoplite gear) and armed helots, I would suggest many of the under armored ‘Spartans’; are either mercenaries (who like Hannibal’s mercenaries would improve their armor with victory) or intentionally under armored helots.
So perhaps Sparta and some of her allies adopted a light hoplite, I would say it was a mistake Light hoplites appear largely unable to deal with professional peltasts (ala Iphicrates), and equally they loose to real hoplites (Sparta loosing to Thebes).
As a complete aside, it’s interesting the hoplite is often noted as lumbering while the legionary is not. But overall the armor and weapons were about the same weight. Many historians (Hanson is perhaps the worst offender here) like to suggest how immobile a hoplite was by citing an archaic hoplite from say 600 BC. Ignoring the fact that by the 4th century most hoplites used either a cuirass only (either the linothorax or muscled bronze plate), a helmet that allowed hearing and vision, no greaves (or at least only greaves see the next bit) and no addition plate bits and bobs (vambraces etc…). Altogether, not a kit that is really any heavier then that of the Roman legionary. Also while Plato may have belittled it, sword drill was clearly becoming a common element of hoplite training in the 4th century as well. I think it is altogether likely the more mobile elements of Philip’s (and Alexander’s) phalanx were rather more of the hoplite type.
As I have always said balance, flexibility and variety will win out. Has anyone heard of them attempting to mix heavy and light hoplites or were they one or the other during a time period?
Hi, conon394,
I am a bit confused as to where you are going with this. While I'm not too concerned about the Spartan case in particular, I don't see how you can disagree with the Greeks realizing they needed some lighter troops for dealing with peltasts and for harrassing other hoplites. Part of the reason is campaign vs. battlefield use. Sure a hoplite will do well in stand up, but if you can use peltasts to keep him harrassed along the march in rough terrain, he will also be less effective if he reaches the field.
I disagree about the struggles at Sphacteria and in Aetolia, and about Iphicrates as well. If anything these reinforced the need for combined arms. Hoplites could escape from one another when the need arose. Unprotected, they couldn't escape from determined light infantry nor could they actively engage them if the light infantry were not forced by other circumstances to engage. And of course there are substantial terrain limitations for the hoplites or other phalanx types.
It makes perfect sense that archers with their range would counter peltasts, esp. when backed by hoplites. I have no problem with hoplites standing up well to archer attack, but it seems to me peltasts would have trouble closing and throwing their missiles under archer fire--since doing so would force them to expose themselves, and the archers could easily be arranged for enfilade fire. Meanwhile, the hoplites can hunker down and watch the show.
The battles you cite (Marathon, Plataea, Cunaxa, Eurymedon River) are against Persians, who lacked effective heavy infantry. Without sufficient heavies the combined arms approach isn't really combined arms. (Sort of like the modern day concept of trying to win with only an air campaign, and no ground component.)
I won't defend Hanson ~D but the point I see is not that hoplites were lumbering as much because of their gear, as the formation was lumbering since it had to remain unbroken to be effective. All the hoplite and phalanx defeats I can think of resulted from disorder of the formation, whether it was caused by terrain, elephants (enemy or friendly), combat, a command blunder, or even from success in pushing the enemy back--because it too would cause disorder that could be exploited.
As was cited here or on another phalanx thread, the only times the romans had great success against phalanxes were when the phalanxes were not properly formed up. A disorganized phalanx is not a powerful weapon. But when fully prepared a phalanx will crush just about anything on the battlefield. Especially if it is a phalanx minigun mounted on US ships for close antimissile duties! ~D
I agree my post was a rather wide and scattered.
So let me try and refine my argument...
First I wanted to respond to the following by Kraxis
"And the hoplites... Well have you read about the Polopponesian Wars? Or the wars between Sparta and Thebes? We are talking about naked hoplites or very lightly armorued ones. Indeed quite unarmoured."
My contention is:
I think that while it's true Hoplite gear did evolve, with a couple of exceptions I don't think the majority of Hoplites could ever be described as naked or lightly armored. I would argue the following...
In general I think hoplite gear did become lighter from where it was in the early classical period (maybe 600 BC), I think it reached equilibrium sometime around the mid to late 5th century.
That equilibrium being: A helmet that allowed considerably more freedom of hearing and vision then the old Corinthian style; A cuirass either a linothorax (likely with some kind of metal reinforcement), or a bronze muscled breastplate; the Argive style aspis or hoplon; And greaves as a possible addition (although less common post Persian wars, they never really seem to go away).
I think for most of the 4th century this holds in general for mosr hoplites, Theban, Athenian, etc. While there is evidence for unarmored hoplites (particularly in the Peloponnesian region), I’m confident it is largely explained by either Spartan use of mercenaries and or helots; I just don’t see the Spartan equals abandoning armor. Iphicrates’ reforms to the extent they occurred should not be misconstrued as a new light hoplite but rather: A one off event during campaigns in Persia, the development of a professional Greek peltast, and finally reforms at Athens to deploy citizen ‘heavy peltasts’ in some special cases.
A last point, in the 4th century the population outlet of colonization was unavialble, so I don’t really see any surprise in finding mercenary hoplites appearing who have just the bare minimue of gear. After all if these men could afford a complet hoplite kit, they most likey would have enough wealth to be happy at home as middle-class hoplites
To other points:
I just don’t see Pylos as a good example of anything but any 400 or so troops confronted by 20:1 odds (where the enemy is well lead and confident) looses. Considering how many hoplites Demosthenes and Cleon had they could have won anytime, the only delay was their desire to win with almost no casualties.
In the 4th century I just don’t see that there was any real need to lighten Hoplites (to the point of lacking armor) as some response to professional peltasts. They could irritate, and occasional pick off an isolated detachment, but not win a decisive victory. The Athenians were never able to bar the isthmus either to Sparta or Epaminondas, by deploying peltasts. They could delay, and aggravate, but not much more.
I was also tying too point out that if Sparta really did generally abandon armor (sometime around 400 B.C.), it looks like a mistake. Since they were still neither light enough to catch peltasts, while it seems they lost the ability to address the Theban hoplite challenge.
I agree on combined arms. That is why I disagree that hoplites ever generally abandoned their armor. Good generals, Epaminondas, Agesilaos, Chabias, Iphicrates, Phillip, learned not you need naked guys with hoplons, but rather don’t forget the cavalry and auxiliary light infantry.
than wy the hell dous hoplite means the heavy armed/oured
Duh. 'Cause they started out as armored heavy infantry. The fact that they for most intents and purposes dropped armor altogether at one point is hardly enough a reason them to start calling themselves by a different name, as their function and background remained essentially unchanged.
Anyway, wasn't hoplon the shield they used ?
Far as I know the lightening of the hoplite panoply was started by the Spartans (who by and large were the military innovators of Greece at the time). The main reason was mobility, both strategic and tactical. One major problem with the armored hoplites was that especially the bronze muscle-cuirass coupled with the helmet, greaves, shield and weapons was a godawfullt heavy combination. The lighter bronze-scale cuirass wasn't quite as cumbersome, but if the formation was to be maintained the guys wearing just scale had to move at the pace of the plate-wearing folks.
Bronze, you see, has the minor problem as an armor material of being relatively soft; if you want to make a genuinely protective bronze plate, it's going to end up fairly thick and heavy...
Thirty to forty kilos is the estimated total weight of the full hoplite panoply I've seen cited. That's quite a lot, especially in the Mediterranean heat. What it meant in practice was that the already slow hoplite shieldwall was slowed down to a veritable crawl, and effective pursuit of a broken enemy (who would naturally ditch his heavier equipement) was essentially impossible.
Nevermind the problems caused by unburdened skirmishers with their nasty javelins, or archers. Both had reasonable enough chances to severely hurt fully equipped hoplites.
Hence, the temporary lightening and then disappereance of armor. The conditions of war had became such that it made more sense to make the hoplites mobile rather than armored, so they could maneuver better, travel lighter, pursue routing foes and generally move faster. Prior to the Persian Wars several city-states, anticipating the possibility of having to fight the Persian archers, adopted the sport of "dashing in armor" - and the lenght of the dash was curiously about the same as the effective range of Persian infantry bows...
As a side effect lighter armor, or none at all, was far cheaper than a heavy panoply - for various reasons, bronze was pretty expensive. This wasn't such a big deal for the Spartans, but in the rest of the city-states the hoplite had to buy his own toys and thus more men than before could fight in that role.
Later on, before the Macedonians turned up and changed the military paradigm, the Greeks again started using heavy armor, and apparently the solid bronze cuirass became the standard wear. Don't ask me what made for this, I don't know. Economically it might well have been made possible by sheer accumulation of bronze armoury over the centuries, driving the price down.
Anyway, the Macedonian phalangites were comparatively lightly armored - their defense was in many ways their pike - and the Romans for their part used mostly iron mail at the time, which was rather more weight-efficient than just about any sort of bronze armor could ever hope to be. The realities of maintaining a very tight, "closed" formation and the assorted quirks of the pike as a waepon, however, rendered the phalangites positively glacial in comparision to the fairly loose-order legionaires.
Watchman
The shield was the aspis . The classical Greek word (hoplon) that forms the basis for Hoplite is used to describe Armor, weapons, or more generally a Heavy armed soldier, and more generally still just tools. Hoplon used to describe just shield is a late usage by Roman era historians (and of course modern historians).
"Thirty to forty kilos is the estimated total weight of the full hoplite panoply"
That is excessive. By the mid 5th century a Hoplite is going to typically have:
Shield: around 18lbs
Sword: 4 - 6 lbs
Spear: 6 -7 lbs
Helmet: 4 - 5 lbs
Cuirass: Linothorax (no metal) about 10lbs to a max of 30lbs (a rather heavy estimate) for a bronze cuirass
Greaves: maybe 6 - 7 lbs
My estimate puts the hoplite (conservative numbers with the bronze breast plate) at about 70 lbs (32 Kg). However, I can’t actually find a weight for any existing muscled cuirasses. 30lbs seems a tad excessive. In addition greaves were largely abandoned by the Peloponnesian war. So if you allow an estimate of only 20lbs for the cuirass, and no greaves the kit drops to around 55lbs (25kg).
By way of comparison a republican legionary looks to have hauled around at least 65 lbs (30 kg) worth of armor and weapons.
"or archers. Both had reasonable enough chances to severely hurt fully equipped hoplites."
While it certainly looks like peltasts could inflict casualties, but they had to get close enought to risk a counter attack. Beyond that consider the famous attack by Iphicrates . Xenophon points that the Athenian peltasts anticipated being able to attack the Spartan column on it's unshielded side (since the Spartans lack any covering force of say cavalry or light infantry). The Spartans take casualties, but don’t really suffer losses until the brake their formation trying to chase down the peltasts. At sparactea, even with an overwhelming number of missile troops, the Spartans were relatively safe once they retreated to the end of the island and they were no longer being flanked. As for archers, I think the evidence from the Persian wars is sufficient to show that the hoplite was largely immune to archery, except at point blank range.
“As a side effect lighter armor, or none at all, was far cheaper than a heavy panoply - for various reasons, bronze was pretty expensive. This wasn't such a big deal for the Spartans, but in the rest of the city-states the hoplite had to buy his own toys and thus more men than before could fight in that role.”
I don’t think you can use manpower as an argument for lighter equipment. The vast majority of Greek states were oligargies. One of the key ways these states justified limited political participation was by setting the entry level for full citizenship at the ‘hoplite class’ level. They really had no interest in expanding the number of people who might qualify to be hoplites. Consider Athens, under the democracy to use a round average number about 10,000 or so hoplites were generally available for service (this excludes the 18-20 year and over 45 year classes). But under the coup of 411, the thirty tyrants, and the oligargy imposed by Antipater, at a minimum half of these men were disenfranchised and no longer allowed to bear arms. In many respects Athens is unique as just about the only classical city state that regularly used all of it manpower citizen (hoplite or poor), metric and slaves, to fight its wars. The leaders of most greek city-states probaply slept better knowing the hoi polloi could not afford to be hoplites.
But didn't the 30kg include the soldiers rations, cooking equipment and tools to build the camp etc. - rather than just his 'fighting gear'?Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Interesting discussion, by the way...
Didn't hoplon mean hoplite gear in general?
I did research for a project on Sparta and that is what always came up in the books and internet sites that I checked.
"Hoplon" just means armaments really, or "military gear". Hence "hoplites". I think "Aspis" is the shield in ancient Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin