Printable View
I have recently re read "In the name of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy and he claims that hoplite warfare ceased to be used in the 5th century after the Sparta- Athens war. Instead Greek cities relied more on cavalry and small mercenary forces. Will this mod still be using hoplites?
? seems a bit of a sweeping statement of him to make? i'm assuming by spartan - athenian war you mean the Peloponnesian war? i'm certain that Hoplites were the principal component of Hellenic armies for some period after that - though lighter armed troops and cavalry were used more widely later on by the Greeks - the athenians apparently experimented for a short time with horse archers - by the era of the successors of alexander hoplites were superceded in some areas and cultures (eg. macedon) by phalangite pikemen and spear-armed light troops.
Goldswarthy is smoking something I want then. I think what he meant is that they're no longer fighting with the lacadaemonian style and argive shields after that war.
If the Romans came up against the Macedonian phalanx in the battles of Cynosphelae, Pydna, and many others, then how could the Greeks have abandoned the phalanx? Either this Goldworthy is smoking something strange(as Urnamma suggests), or he is referring to the abandonment of the Classical phalanx, not the Macedonian one. However, if he claims that mercenaries and cavalry are used more then I doubt he is simply misunderstood, as Alexander and his successors used the phalanx as their main battle formation continually from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC.
- Panda
This is ridiculous. I'm sure that there is plenty of evidence for the phalanx. Also the Iphycratean hoplites were becoming more and more popular amongst the southern greeks. I'm pretty sure they didn't give up being hoplites. That would be disastrous against the macedonians.
Preposterous.
[SARCASM] Are you being sarcastic? [/SARCASM]
No.
Or am I? ~;)
Yeah, totally wrong here on the hoplite point
The classical hoplites were abandoned along with the Corinthian helm. However, the Macedonian style 2 handed sarissa phalanxes were used, so the idea of the phalanx survived.
Where the phalanxes did not survive is in Carthage, in the Second Punic War. During the fighting that took place in North Africa in the First Punic War, there is definite evidence of phalanx use, we can assume it is some sort of loose spear phalanx; the sarissa phalanxes were not popular among non-Greek/Diodachi factions.
But the Carthagian armies of the Second Punic War did not employ the phalanx. The vast majority of Hannibal's "African Infantry" were Libyans, mostly spearmen, not in phalanx. There were very few real Carthagians in Hannibal's force. When Scipio Africanus took the fighting to North Africa, the Carthagians supplied Hannibal with Libyan mercenaries who did not fight in phalanx.
The continual defeats of the Macedonian factions in the four major wars between Macedon and Rome, led to the depreciation of the sarissa phalanx and phalanxes in general. Time and time again it was proven that the phalanx was outdated. The Seleucids, Ptolemys and Southern Greeks made steps towards developing combat worthy light infantry. I strongly believe that this trend should be shown in EB. The Greeks and Diodachi need strong swordsmen/spearmen, certainly not as good as principe, but at least some good enough to tank hastati.
You probably misunderstood Goldsworthy,since he is a really good writer/historian;phalanx were surpassed by the times,Romans had to drop it when they encountered the Samnites wich fought in maniple way and on broken ground,much flexible and manouvrable, phalanx was still good only on great plain flat battlegrounds,and supported by a strong cavalry (as Alexander demonstrated)
that way they could fight by their book,also it depended on wich type of enemy you had in front.....Alexander docet again,with less than good enemies it could still do,otherwise.... :duel:
Personally, as a tactics buff, I love the Roman checkerboard formation. I consider it to be far superior to the Macedonian phalanx.
For the Romans, it was a matter of finding the middle ground between the all too strict Greek phalanx and the all too unwieldy barbarian horde. The checkerboard has the order and solidity of the civilized armies along with the flexibility and manueverability of the barbarian warbands.
You said it all..... ;-)
It was not a case of fortune, they went so far that way....:-)
Ah thankyou for your feed back. here is the direct quote anyway: " In the later fifth century BC the peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta and their allies had swept aside many of the conventions of hoplite warfare. By the furth century BC most Greek states were increasingly reliant on small groups of proffessional soldiers or mercenaries, in place of the traditional phalanx raised when needed from all those citizens able to afford hoplite arms."
I see how i misread this. My apologies to Adrian Goldsworthy.
SOmeone mentioned the reformed hoplite equipment developed by Iphicrates.
It is worth mentioning that the Iphicrates' hoplite used a small shield strapped to the wrist and neck, and a two-hand grip on his 12ft spear. It would seem that the 'Macedonian' phalanx system was actually developed by an Athenian (Iphicrates) and adopted by Macedon, (perhaps through Epaminondas?)
Does anyone know whether Epaminondas' phalanx was of Iphicrates' type, or more akin to the traditional hoplite?
Iphicratean hoplite was equipped with:
*Helmet (probably of Thracyan design);
*Spear with 3.6m (aprox. 12ft) held underhand, but not with both hands (macedonians used a 4.1m (aprox. 13.5ft) at the time of Alexander. The Sucessor States continued to increase it´s length.
*Smaller shield than that of the traditional hoplite, but still bigger than most macedonian´s and strapped to the neck, but still held in the hand like the traditional one;
*No greaves;
*Linen Cuirass;
*Slightly larger hoplite sword.
This changes are considered gradual and old equipment was not completely discarded in favour of this kit. It still remained very popular.
It is almost certain that the Macedonians took ideas from Iphicrates, as he had family relations with Philip.
EDIT: found a nice pic
http://www.thrace.0catch.com/iphicrat.jpg
Sarcasm,
Could you try that pic again as a url img link? It did not work as a thumbnail.
Apparently the site doesn´t allow direct links......selfish bastards. ~;)
Just copy the link to your browser....
http://www.thrace.0catch.com/iphicrat.jpg
Ano2:
Goldsworthy is normally a rather moderate and competent historian I’m surprised he would argue for such an extreme view…
Epaminondas and his Thebans were traditional hoplites thought and through. They built their 4th century successes and mopped the floor with Sparta with hoplites. When Athens and Thebes fought at Second Chaeronea vs. Philip for hegemony in Greece (late 4th century BC) they used roughly 30,000 citizen hoplites. Select hoplites were still being used by Athens, Aetolia and the Achaean league in the 3rd and 2nd centuries. While the nature of hypapists is a subject of debate, at least one view argues they were effectively hoplites, which would mean even Philip and Alexander deployed Hoplites.
Turin:
Polybius is rather clear that Hannibal veterans deployed as a phalanx at Zama
Sarcasm:
There simply is no real good evidence for the alleged Iphicratean Hoplite.
At best…
Iphicrates rearmed his peltasts while serving as a mercenary commander for Persia, in Egypt to meet a specific tactical need. His success with peltasts in the Corinthian war may have encouraged Athens to reform its training systems and deploy citizen ‘heavy’ peltasts and or mercenary peltasts in some very specific geographical areas. In particular for campaigns either in Thrace and attempts to hold the passes through the Isthmus of Corinth and along the Attica/Theban boarder, against first Sparta and then Thebes.
The leading proponent of traditional Hoplite battle in the 4th century (Epaminondas) defiantly used regular hoplites, and was unimpressed and dismissive of Iphicrates style troops. There is no visual evidence of this new style Hoplite in the 4th century (grave stele, pots, monuments, etc)…
The "Iphikratean reforms" are like the "Marian reforms" in that an individual was given credit for a series of reforms across a period of time, or rather a more gradual change than we are led to believe. Both Marius and Iphikrates did make changes, but not drastic ones.
Epaminondas was a part of this process - he changed the spear length a bit, and switched to a linothorax. Iphikrates lengthened the spear even more, and replaced the bulky helmets. The Galatian influence of the 290's led to changing the shield to the lighter thureos.
Our "Iphikratean" style troops don't really appear until about 270, when the shield is changed. Before that they appear similar to the in-game hoplites, though without the silly crests, of course.
Okay so exactly what is the new start date for the game? And of course, what is the new end date?
maybe he was talking about the anciant shieldwall warfare wich did ceaced to stop after king philip of macedon. after that most people used the pikewall, the hypaspists however didn't, they used a more mobile copy of the shield wall.
To be fair, he isn't saying that phalanxes stopped being used, only that the large citizen armies of ancient Greece became less common, being replaced by smaller professional forces of hoplites and mercenaries. As far as I'm aware that's pretty much true.
Khelvan
Iphikratean reform is even more un-like the Marian than you suggest, seeing as it’s basically a fantasy.
Epaminondas used hoplites. There is no evidence to suggest he changed any of their gear or their spears. The linothorax had been in use by hoplites since at least the mid-5th century. If by Bulky helmet you mean the iconic Corinthian, it too was largely abandoned before the 4th century for various helmets that addressed its deficiencies. The whole reform ideal rests on vague and late Roman era historians. There is no solid reference in a period historian, pictorial representations, attic orator, or official inscriptions. I don’t deny peltasts and other light infantry was not used more often and more effectively during and after the 4th century, just that the Hoplite changed in any significant way.
I find the Iphikratean hoplite as usually described is also difficult to accept as effective. The longer spear (closer to the Macedonian sarissa than to a hoplite spear) would be unwieldy at best with only one hand. The smaller shield undermines the shield wall effect provided by ‘hoplon’ aspis. Whatever maneuverability was gained with lighter gear seems likely to have been undermined by the complexity of maneuvering a pike with only one hand. Overall, I see an ideal that was neither fish nor fowl, losing the advantages of the hoplite system without the benefits of the Macedonian system.
“Galatian influence of the 290's led to changing the shield to the lighter thureos.”
The thureos may have become popular for light infantry, but I don’t think you can view at part of the kit of troops considered to be ‘Heavy Infantry’
When Philopoemen reformed the Achaean army, he was explicitly rejecting the model of Aratus; light troops, with thureos, and for want of a better word irregular guerrilla tactics. Philipoemon, wanted to win decisive set-piece battles, so he equipped his army with heavy armor and abandoned the light thureos shield for the heavy aspis.
You keep using Iphikratean... That's a term I used for a while, but the word 'reformed hoplite' is probably a better one. The thureos was clearly used by the heavy phalanx infantry. Several Rhodian and Hallicarnasian (Dionysos, for one) historians of the period clearly state this. It also appears on Athenian and Rhodian pottery. The shield was lighter, but larger and more protective. The lengthening of the spears was a natural result of fighting macedonians. Remember, the traditional hoplite spear was about 9' long. The spears were lengthened to about 12-13' in the period. This makes the underhand stab the preferred control method, but it's certainly not unwieldy enough to merit 2 hands, like a 18-20' long pike.
The Thureos is a large sheild as well, actually longer and just as wide as the hoplon. The difference is between the plywood and metal construction versus solid bronze. The ubiquitous attic style helmet (or Thracian) is used regularly in this period.
We're not talking about a 'revolutionary reform', merely a 'refinement reform'.
Urnamma
I just don’t see the evidence for hoplites using longer spears for Hoplites in the 4th or 3rd centuries BC (aside from the alleged Iphikratean reforms). Why would a 12 ft spear be any better then an 8 or 9ft spear as a response to the Macedonian pikes? Also an underarm thrust style with such a long spear seems likely to be as hazardous to you own rear ranks as the enemy. The response to the Macedonian system was rather to improve hoplite training, and/or adopt the Macedonian system, keeping only a core of ‘select’ hoplites (presumably to fill the same role as hypaspists).
“The Thureos is a large sheild as well, actually longer and just as wide as the hoplon. The difference is between the plywood and metal construction versus solid bronze. The ubiquitous attic style helmet (or Thracian) is used regularly in this period.”
I’m not so sure you can always characterize the Greek use of the ‘Thureos’
To be suggesting a heavy scutum-like shield. In general the name simply seems to have become for describing a largish oval shield; sometimes meaning a heavy shield, at other times being used to describe what was really an oval-shaped pelta.
I do realize that the heavy Thureos was used, but I don’t really see some kind of general gradual shift to longer spears, lighter armor, and the heavy Thureos. A Thureos, roughly as large an aspis seems more like a change of taste (for a heavily armored spearman), than a reform or significant alteration in kit weight. Analogously the abandonment of the Corinthian helmet for any of the later styles is significant. Clearly Hoplites wanted or needed better visibility, and hearing, and felt some sacrifices in completeness of protection were worth it. But the choice of Boeotian, Thracian, Attic or Chalcidian looks more like fashion or tradition (assuming of course the hat types have check pieces), not functionality.
The hoplon was not solid bronze but mostly wood (a wooden block hollowed out on a lathe, into a bowl shape) with a bronze face and rim. The bronze bits were also removable, thus the Spartans did not store the bonze pieces with the shields to minimize the risk of their Helots seizing the fully functional shield.
Read Diadoros and Nepos. Some Hoplites did indeed remain in the traditional manner (with the round shield) (though almost always with underhand spears, except in the case of the heavily armored ones). A large amount of evidence for this comes from the hoplites on Sicily, who did not adopt the new shields, but rather adopted the longer spears, to counter the Carthaginians.Quote:
I just don’t see the evidence for hoplites using longer spears for Hoplites in the 4th or 3rd centuries BC (aside from the alleged Iphikratean reforms). Why would a 12 ft spear be any better then an 8 or 9ft spear as a response to the Macedonian pikes? Also an underarm thrust style with such a long spear seems likely to be as hazardous to you own rear ranks as the enemy. The response to the Macedonian system was rather to improve hoplite training, and/or adopt the Macedonian system, keeping only a core of ‘select’ hoplites (presumably to fill the same role as hypaspists).
Those that did indeed change to the new and large thureos were the more 'revolutionary' of the Greek cities. Rhodes is a prime example. Agathocles of Hallicarnassos as well mentions the use of these shields. In regards to the underhand spear usage being 'illogical', think of the Macedonian phalanx. A similar system, albeit with one hand rather than two, was developed. These hoplites would have been quite useful against their macedonian counterparts because their spears and shields allowed them to be more mobile. Generally, the lighter infantry would tackle the phalanx, where these men would hold the cavalry at bay. It worked rather well.
Indeed, you are correct in your assumption about the hypaspistai role, but only partially. Some hoplites fought in this manner, but the key word here is specialization.
Urnamma:
I have read C. Nepos and Diodorus (of course now we are back to the Iphicrates’ reform).
The problem with both is that they are late historians, and hardly considered the A team of ancient historians at that (and neither have as far as I know the military experience of say Arrian to add credibility to their statements with respect to military equipment). Diodorus often gets an overly bad rap, but he remains a somewhat careless compressor of earlier historians and lacks the critical judgment of a Polybius or even Plutarch. Nepos is of course a writer of biography, not history, and is both sloppy and inaccurate to boot.
Taking Nepos for example: He presents in very brief form (a couple of lines) the ideal that Iphicrates carried out a reform of some kind on troops under his command. However he appears to have both a confused understanding of what kind of shield these troops had and what armor they wore (note references to mail, etc.) He is clear on suggesting a doubling of the spear. If you think he means hoplites then he is suggesting not a 12 ft spear but a Macedonian style pike. Lost in all of this is the fact that neither Nepos nor Diodorus appears to be suggesting this ‘reform’ applied to any thing but Ipricatrates’ troops. The Epaminondas section of Plutarch’s “Saying of Kings and Commanders” provides a rather strong counter to the ideal that Ipricatrates’ reforms were anything but a local and singular (or at most limited) occurrence.
My reservations steam from the fact that the alleged reform either gradual or Iphicrateian rely on these late sources (there is a tendency to call Nepos period, but that makes me a period source for the American Revolt from Great Britain). No new hoplite type appears on grave stele or pottery images. No fragment from the acropolis at Athens suggest the “Council and the People decreed 5000 of the new type of spear should be purchased by the officials in charge of the public arms and stored ….” No Attic Orator suggests that he participated in such and such battle armed in the modern fashion. Xenophon does not mention any new style of equipment (contra Thucydides who notes how the Athenian navy fought in a modern fashion, while Corinth and the other Peloponnesians fought in the old fashion way). Also, I don’t see why Hoplite would need to light any more than they had. The mostly Hoplite armies of the 5th century had demonstrated they were the masters of Persian light infantry, cavalry and archers. In the famous Athenian victories (light infantry over Spartans), what is generally ignored is that the Athenians also deployed Hoplite forces in those victories of at least (if not greater) strength than the Spartans. Contrast that with the inability of light troops deployed in isolation (even thiose commanded by Iphicrates) to ever close the isthmus to Epaminodas and his hoplites. Epaminondas clearly learned the right lesson; not I need lighter Hoplites, but rather just bring my own peltasts and cavalry…
I would suggest the Both Diodorus and Nepos do indeed provided evidence of a reform; but one that involved improving peltasts from pure skirmisher to multi-faceted light to medium infantry. Hoplites remained much as they were in the 5th century and continued to be heavy infantry. As for spear length I would not be surprised if they are not simply projecting the Macedonian style pike backward in time.
Hmm I lost about half my post on cut and past..
To continue:
I am sorry but I can’t think of an example of the tactical system you suggest. Best as I can see, In the 4th,3rd and 2nd centuries Greeks (and Macedonians) countered heavy infantry (phalanx troops either Hoplite style or Mac style ) with heavy infantry: Second Mantinea, Second Chaeronea, Raphia, Third Mantinea, Sallasia, etc. In each of these battles Phalanx faces phalanx; not light infantry or cavalry pin phalanx.
Rhodes is near and dear to by heart (only after Athens). However, the last independent Greek democracy was famous for a lot of things, but not the prowess of it’s army (at least with respect to offensive land campaigns). Also I think the thureos is a bit of a distraction. As I noted earlier the Greek usage is hardy precise, thus Plutarch used the word to describe what is in effect a light pelta style shield. But lets, ignore that and assume a large wooden shield (of Roman/Celtic scutum like dimensions, with a metal boss and rim), you are talking about a shield just as heavy if not heavier than an Argive aspis (hoplon), how is this a indication of a light Hoplite?
The argive shield is made of solid bronze! The thureos, while just as large, was made of layered wood. Draw your own conclusions. I didn't say Rhodian land forces were very good, just that they were armed in a 'newer' fashion.
I think we're misunderstanding each other. These hoplites I speak of carry a large shield, greaves, helmets, and linen armor. What's not heavy about them? They simply weigh less than a fully armored hoplite bedecked in full bronze getup. I'm not saying they become light spearmen. They become lighter weight, but continue to fight as heavy phalanx infantry, albeit with a bit more agility!
Add to this, they keep the phalanx, but simply lengthen the spears a bit.
Urnamma
The aspis was most certainly not bronze. The only surviving example is from the excavations at Olynthus and it is clearly bronze rimmed with a residual wood core. The literary evidence supports this view as well. The telamon Macedonian shield was very likely often all bronze (see Asclepiodotus' description).
In addition the bronze face cover recovered from Athens (taken from one of the 200 or so aspis carried by the Spartans captured on Sphacteria) suggests a wood shield covered with a very thin sheet of bronze. Why make a cover sheet for a shield that was already all bronze?
You're right on that, I'd confused the two for a moment.
Still the average thureos weighed about 12-13 lbs and were made of plywood. The average aspis... 18-24. We can see the substantial difference in weight was consistent with 'lightening' the weight of the hoplite, but not lowering his defensive power.
Let's just make sure what we are talking about here are my views...
Aspis, the classic Hoplite shield: weight around 13 or 15 lbs. I think 18 lbs is too high and in any case lighter then the scutum.
Pelta, a wicker or light wood and hide shield.
Thureos, a word that clearly enters the Greek post the Celtic incursions. Used by late authors to describe almost any oval shield. Thus the oval pelta or even rimless plywood shield of a mercenary peltast could be a Thureos or something as heavy as a scutum (Celtic or Roman) used by late heavy infantry. In any a case the scutum is certainly as heavy if not heavier then the estimates for the aspis around 20 - 22 lbs.
My feeling is that in the second or first century if Greek heavily infantry adopted a thureos what is implied is a scutum like shield that may have been an improvement over the aspis, but not lighter. Other wise I think we are (in the 4th and 3rd centuries) more likely dealing with mercenaries using a cheap oval pelta or at best an oval plywood shield, men who should be considered peltasts, not really expected to stand against hoplites or Macedonian style phalanxes.
edit: rimless wood thureos might well weight only 12-13 lbs or even a bit less, but I think the men who used such a shield were not the Heavy infantry but the kind of medium to light infantry that fought on the flanks of the battle line, as at Sallasia for example.
Actually, the weight of the Celtic oval shields varies widely depending on the region they come from. The Boii used lighter shields of thinner ply construction that only weighed around 12-13 pounds. Most Gauls used solid oak, they weighed more than that. The Helvetii and others used shields sometimes with metal inserts in them, and heavy rims, those might weigh around 18+ pounds. There is a large error in stating an average weight for a Celtic oval shield, because different regions constructed their shields in a different manner; so, depending on the build of the shields used by the Greeks, and what they based it on, the theuros could vary widely in weight. If it were like the Boii shields (unrimmed, plywood, with a small metal boss and reinforcing metal strip), they would be relatively light. But if they were more like the majority of Gallic shields (solid oak or thick plywood construction with a large metal boss and quarter rims), then they would be a bit heavie.
Perhaps a distinction more functionally significant between aspis and thureos than weight would be the way each shield was held?
IIRC, the thureos had a single central hand-grip, while the aspis used the hand and forearm system. I would guess this difference should have an effect on how much protection each fighter can expect from its own and its neighbor's shield and, hence, on the general fighting style and details such as the way weapons were handled etc...
Cheers
A.