Phalanxes as depicted in "Alexander"

**duncan.gill** · 10-21-2008, 02:11

Were the phalanxes accurately depicted in the movie Alexander? Compared to EB it appeared that the men in each unit were not as tightly spaced. Also were they that vulnerable to arrows (in the movie it appeared that archers were exceptionally deadly)?

**Maion Maroneios** · 10-21-2008, 03:01

I believe they where quite accurately depicted in the movie, yes. A Makedonian phalanx would generally be more 'loose' than a RTW phalanx, AFAIK. As for the archers, yes they where very deadly. Maybe even deadlier than in EB.

Maion

**Woreczko** · 10-21-2008, 07:31

As for the archers, yes they where very deadly. Maybe even deadlier than in EB.

Remember though, that in reality only front ranks of archers may fire with any degree of accuracy. Unlike RTW, where line of sight doesn`t matter, and you may have whole legions of archers pounding on a single unit.

**Cullhwch** · 10-21-2008, 08:30

The archers seemed a little too deadly for my tastes. Hollywood arrows penetrate EVERYTHING, rendering shields and linothoraces useless. Other than that, it's the most perfect real-time depiction of a phalanx that I've ever seen. It's just too bad that it was wasted on a hokey and lackluster battle scene.

**konny** · 10-21-2008, 13:17

Originally Posted by Cullhwch

The archers seemed a little too deadly for my tastes. Hollywood arrows penetrate EVERYTHING, rendering shields and linothoraces useless.

Linothorax is useless against arrows (or anything else pointy). It helps to protect your body against blows. A Hoplites does not realy need a cuirass or any other decent body armour because this part of his body would be protected by his huge shield. A good hemlet and greaves were much more important. On the other hand he is suffering from blows due to the pushing of the lines, both from the front and from the back. Here linothorax is well suited, in fact even better suited than metal, to protect him.

**Maion Maroneios** · 10-21-2008, 13:25

Originally Posted by Woreczko

Remember though, that in reality only front ranks of archers may fire with any degree of accuracy. Unlike RTW, where line of sight doesn`t matter, and you may have whole legions of archers pounding on a single unit.

While that it true, let us not forget that archers fired in a sort of parabolic curve, with the arrows finally reaching their destination forming a near 0 degree withe the vertical line most times. Especially when they fired their arrows from afar. So, when they start falling, their speed increases rapidly, as does their momentum. In the end, during the collision with the enemy ranks, while the force with which the arrows hit them (F=dp/dt for those who know) is not extremely great (due to the small mass of each arrow), their pressure is (P=F/A, where A is the area of the arrowhead) far, far greater. You see, while the force applied by the arrows isn't big, the area of the arrowhead is extremely small and as such it pierces human flesh that cannot withstand such great pressure.

Originally Posted by konny

Linothorax is useless against arrows (or anything else pointy). It helps to protect your body against blows. A Hoplites does not realy need a cuirass or any other decent body armour because this part of his body would be protected by his huge shield. A good hemlet and greaves were much more important. On the other hand he is suffering from blows due to the pushing of the lines, both from the front and from the back. Here linothorax is well suited, in fact even better suited than metal, to protect him.

I'm sorry to tell you that konny, but what you just said about linothorax is BS. Mayor BS. It wasn't invented because it helped against blows, as they - the Greeks - had cuirasses and breastplates for that job, a job in which they where both better than a linothorax. It was invented because of it's cheaper production (just a few metal pieces and lots of cloth stripped together) and easier usage (they didn't suffocate like with a breastplate, plus it was lighter). But most of all, it was used to counter the growing usage of missile units. You see, many strips of leather put together with metal reinforcements, does indeed protect you a lot better against arrows. They have even tried it with modern bows (aka stronger ones) and they found out it indeed helped (though it may have caused minor wounds).

Maion

**Socy** · 10-21-2008, 14:39

Not taking any "side" here, but I think Konny meant "Blunt blows" when he said "blows", as in being pumelled with say a club instead of a sword. No expert in the area, but wasn't the linothorax actually effective at just that? Blunt weapons, but not "sharp" ones, as swords?

**Maion Maroneios** · 10-21-2008, 15:13

Maybe, but that wasn't the reason I protested. The reason was because konny said the linothorax was completely uneffective against arrows, something absolutuely not true.

Maion

**konny** · 10-21-2008, 15:32

Thank you, yes "blunt" was the word I was missing.

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

I'm sorry to tell you that konny, but what you just said about linothorax is BS. Mayor BS. It wasn't invented because it helped against blows, as they - the Greeks - had cuirasses and breastplates for that job, a job in which they where both better than a linothorax. It was invented because of it's cheaper production (just a few metal pieces and lots of cloth stripped together) and easier usage (they didn't suffocate like with a breastplate, plus it was lighter). But most of all, it was used to counter the growing usage of missile units. You see, many strips of leather....

I think you should be carefull with throwing around BS, do you? Linothorax is not made of leather but of linen (what, I might guess, is the reason it's called Linothorax?). I don't know how many layers of linen you'll have to use that it can not be penetrated by an arrow, spearhead or any kind of sword; but certainly far more than the usual 24 that was used for a Linothorax armour.

This kind of armour is absolutly useless against these kinds of weapons, but something you want to have in a pushing match with other heavy guys and their huge shields. That's the reason why it came up with the phalanx and the reason why it wasn't regarded as any kind of real armour outside a phalanx formation. Wearing chain in the same situation would be a bad idea, unless worn over linothorax or any other padded protection, because chain will increase the effect of blunt blows. The only alternative would be a cuirass that is made of a maximum of two pieces that cannot "work" (so, pectorales and the like wouldn't be good either).

**mcantu** · 10-21-2008, 15:44

there is an interesting (and long) thread on linothorax over at RAT...http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=16574

another good thread is this one...http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131, which shows how mail and jacks of differing layers hold up against various weapons. linothorax has the same basic construction as a jack (although i am of the opinion that the linen layers in a linothorax were hardened)

**Maion Maroneios** · 10-21-2008, 16:00

Well, you see modern scholars have concluded that Linothorax wasn't made of linen, but of leather. Linen was very expensive at the time and judging by the number of this type of armor found it would be almost impossible to be made of 100% linen. Rather, leather seems to have been more favored, as it gives the same effect.

Next time do some research before your tounge speaks ahead of your head, I speak out of what I have seen or read, you of what is more or less publicaly known.

Maion