@TA: that word looks familiar, and IIRC doesn't it have something to do with ancestry or something? It's on tip of my tongue and I can't remember (this is why I need to learn greek). "sons of ....". Oh well.

@Abou: I did'nt mean that Diadochi armies weren't flexible, I was just illustrating the increase in armor under the Successors. Under Philip II and Alexander, we hear of hoplites and phalangites "running" and such (can't remember where I read this), but under the Successors, we see slower, more sterotyped battles with the phalanx unable to act in an offensive role. I think that our image of a purely defensive phalanx comes from historians who were writing after the death of Alexander. The phalanx often was used in offensive roles in the earlier period, fully capable of crossing large distances quickly with ease, while Pyrrhus and Philip V are often criticized for trying to use the phalanx as an attacking force. I'm not trying to get into an argument here or even terribly challenge any of EB's statements. I apologize if that's what it looked like. I understand my inferiority when it comes to research on the subject compared to EB's historians.

I do remember reading that while peltasts had gained armor over the course of the 5th and 4th centuries, the hoplite had lost armor, especially the majority of citizen hoplites. This partially explains the ease with which the Makedonians were able to defeat the allies at Chaeronea, since the lightly armored allied hoplites were vulnerable to the pikes of the phalanx.

Thanks though for taking interest in my questions.

Chairman