Hoplitai too weak ?

[ARCHIPPOS]

hmmmmm, the Celts can not be used as atypical example of superiority against the phallanx ...
from what i've read they attacked during winter , when the majority of the Makedonian army was on leave tending their farms...
Stupidly the Makedonian king Ptolemy Ceraunos thought this would be yet another nice bushwar and decided to attack them with only the core of his army the full time professional royal army of infantry and cavalry elites ... his smallish bodyguard against what??? a full blown barbarian horde numbering 30000??? he must have been ridiculously outnumbered.
when the Celts moved southern and faced some regular greek armies they got their ass kicked all around... sure the Celts destroyed afew towns... that's what a raiding horde can do to minor cities...but normal adequately numbered hoplite armies???

[Watchman]

Yeah right. And that only if we hypothesise hoplites don't just form up in a single line as they used to. You're beeing WAY too certain of the truth of some things. I said phalangites would probably win, not certainly. You're taking too many things as given and talk way too hypothetically.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation, I'll remind you. And it's kind of a given that hoplites in any relevant time period would be at least passingly familiar with the working principles of the pike phalanx; moreover, even if they for one reason or another now were obstinate enough to insist on maintaining a continuous line (anything but a given, given the changes even hoplite warfare had gone through by any relevant stage) there's very little reason why they wouldn't intentionally thin out and lenghten their line to ensure a double envelopement of the cumbersome pike block. That pike phalanxes should not be fought frontally should be something even the slow on the uptake in Greece ought to have grasped by any relevant time period, and trained soldiers most certainly.

Again, compare Marathon - where a rather similar scheme (thinning out the center to ensure the frontage was sufficient and the wings strong enough) was managed by a far less professional and poorer drilled army with quite spectacular results.

[Maion Maroneios]

Again, compare Marathon - where a rather similar scheme (thinning out the center to ensure the frontage was sufficient and the wings strong enough) was managed by a far less professional and poorer drilled army with quite spectacular results.

What? Much poorer drilled? Would you care to present me some evidence that the Persians had (on overall) better training than the Athenians?

Maion

[Watchman]

What? Much poorer drilled? Would you care to present me some evidence that the Persians had (on overall) better training than the Athenians?

The training of the Persians is actually pretty irrelevant, as I was referring to that of the Athenians.
Who, I hear, were not Persians.
And by all accounts THEIR approach to tactics and warfare around the time had all the sophistication and professionalism of "line up and charge the other guy for a six".

[Maion Maroneios]

See? You don't know so stop playing smartass and having a damn answer ready for everything. As you said, we're talking of possibilities here and you make the hoplite-win seem like something de facto based only upon hypotheses and personal oppinion.

Maion

[Macilrille]

As I said, its merely an opinion, and individual opinions are worth nothing right? So now its time to kick some Watchman ass.



I said that since thats the usual reaction of people when seeing my name. And yeah everyone is baised, I gues you're baised for fish?



There aren't any sources which explain precisely, I´ve read the reason somewhere, it being that at the time it was way to obvious to explain such an thing since it was a part of life.

This reenacted Hoplites Phalanx shows very well how such a density would be, and in an pushing match you´re opponent would surely be not a meter apart trying to poke at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XLKmWAXyk

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

[Watchman]

See? You don't know so stop playing smartass and having a damn answer ready for everything. As you said, we're talking of possibilities here and you make the hoplite-win seem like something de facto based only upon hypotheses and personal oppinion.

It's a conclusion I reached after analysing the known strengths and weaknesses of the relevant fighting systems and formations. Above all, the over-specialisation to linear frontal combat and the due vulnerability of their formations' flanks that kept dogging pike phalangites as long as they were used, and the readiness with which this can be exploited in the scenario described by anyone who rubs two brain cells together. Doesn't really help that hoplites are known to have carried out similar double envelopements much earlier, when the level of tactical competence, sophistication and drill in Greek armies was on the whole on a rather lower level than by the Hellenistic period.

Put this way - what have you to offer up by the way of argument AGAINST the pikemen getting their flanks promtply turned, in the absence of mobile flank guards ? You keep insisting, but seem to offer very little in the way of actual argument and reasoning to justify your position.

Which kind of thing, incidentally, is Snark Bait in my books.

[Maion Maroneios]

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

Just search for "othismos" (literaslly "shoving" in Greek) on the Internet. There are sources describing a hoplite clash, with the armies chanting paeans and shouting battlecries just before the clash. I believe there is even one guy who described the whole phase of the battle, deviding it in phase one [name], phase two [name], etc. with "othismos" being the phase when, after the initial clash, the two hoplite armies start pushing each other.

Maion

[Maion Maroneios]

It's a conclusion I reached after blah blah blah

Which doesn't mean its true. I believe phalangites would win due to more intensive training and the ability to thin out as much as the hoplites could. And that's my oppinion, I don't want to prove anything.

Maion

[Celtic_Punk]

makedonia won because they had longer spears. the phalangites were a revolution that outdated the classical form of a hoplite! Even numbers on flat terrain Phalangite vs Classical Hoplite = Phalagnite victory

[Maion Maroneios]

That's what I mean. Long pikes and peltasts were the banning of old-style hoplites, wether you like it or not. Heavy spearmen with 50kg worth equipment that are just drilled to go forward are less flexible than well-drilled pikemen than can move much faster if the situation asks for it and keep the enemy at bay with the pikes.

Maion

[Watchman]

Did you geniuses finally COMPLETELY forget the specific scenario we've been discussing this whole fscking time ? 1K pikemen vs 1K hoplites ?
Christ.

I believe phalangites would win due to more intensive training...

And you believe the phalangites received "more intensive training" in the relevant disciplines - here meaning actual hand-to-hand combat, not pike use - and that this would be enough to offset the advantage the hoplites derived from their specialised fighting gear why exactly ?
Also, from what I recall from reading of the clashes between the Romans and Hellenistic pikemen, it would rather appear the phalangites on the whole were most definitely NOT the equals of close-combat heavy infantry at face-to-face distances.

...the ability to thin out as much as the hoplites could.

Except they can't, you know. If they thin out the ranks too much, there's not enough successive ranks of spears to offer a reliably stopping barrier to the enemy. Plus given their *extreme* dependency on maintaining a rather specific drill and formation it may not be a good idea to alter the formation deployement on the fly to an unfamiliar one.
Also, due to the extreme vulnerability of their flanks the pike-line sub-units *must* stick together for mutual protection, which still leaves the outermost one partially exposed. The hoplites are under no such imperatives. There is no technical reason why they cannot split into as many separate sub-units as they now deem fit, and pretty much run rings around the lumbering pike blocks looking for openings to exploit.

makedonia won because they had longer spears. the phalangites were a revolution that outdated the classical form of a hoplite! Even numbers on flat terrain Phalangite vs Classical Hoplite = Phalagnite victory

...because they had sufficient cavalry and other combined-arms support, numbnuts. The pike phalangites were a part of a holistic system, and did NOT do very well by themselves.
Which is exactly the hypothetical scenario we're dealing with.
Pay attention dammit.

Long pikes and peltasts were the banning of old-style hoplites, wether you like it or not.

Only when used properly together alongside with cavalry, which was the Hellenistic armies' primary offensive arm.

Heavy spearmen with 50kg worth equipment that are just drilled to go forward are less flexible than well-drilled pikemen than can move much faster if the situation asks for it and keep the enemy at bay with the pikes.

I've no idea how the fig you ended up with a 50 kg load on the hoplites (plate-clad Medieval knights lugged around under half that...), but clearly you are now wholly - and I rather suspect intentionally - acutely underestimating what shieldwall spearmen can and can't do. For one thing as far as formations go they are FAR less dependent on them than the pikemen, who are nearly useless if out of the ranks; for another, they can wheel and maneuver much more readily and if necessary abandon all semblance of ordered formation in a pinch and still remain reasonably effective combat units.
Pikemen of the Hellenistic pattern, conversely, are very cumbersome on account of the absolute need to maintain orderly rank and file in order to avoid the long pike-shafts getting tangled together in a hopeless log-jam mess. "Moving much faster" you can similarly forget outright; these weren't the Swiss pikemen who could deliver a charge at the run without compromising their formation, but a painfully slow-moving and cumbersome long and deep lines of notoriously poor tactical maneuverability and flexibility.

As for the pikes, they're of any value only to the front. The second foemen get into the side of the pike block, they're as good as dead weight and need to be ditched posthaste out of the way of sidearms and close combat.

[Maion Maroneios]

How about a nice cup, Watchman?

Maion

[Watchman]

I'm a teetotaler. And hate it when people start acting stupid and ignoring a little something known in agrarian societies as context.

[Maion Maroneios]

I'm a teetotaler. And hate it when people start acting stupid and ignoring a little something known in agrarian societies as context.

OK then,


Your babbling is getting me on the nerves. You pretty much screwed the conversation when you started giving us epithets. Plus, I despise know-it-alls and guys who don't respect another man's oppinion. And yes, I'm becoming as arrogant as you've acted in a past thread. Shoo now.

Maion

[Watchman]

Given that your argumentation has for a while now followed the pattern of "because I say so", I don't really see where *you* get to act all high and mighty.

[Zarax]

That's just too bad, the thread had a nice argument going on until attitudes set in...
*engaging fire estuinguishing system*

[satalexton]

Cool down Megas Philos Basileus, there's not reason be of ire. Your half-assed act of moros out of frustration, will never defeat the true moros.

[antisocialmunky]

Given that your argumentation has for a while now followed the pattern of "because I say so", I don't really see where *you* get to act all high and mighty.

You sir, deserve the most epic balloon...

[Phalanx300]

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

Then show me any source which precisely shows how Hoplite combat went, from what we have we can derive it was a dense formation which went another dense formation with probably overhand spears.

As I said at the time it was obvious how combat went and wasn't precisily writen, the same happens today as you as the perfect allknowing historian most probably know.

Which is how it was shown in the video and how it is shown in EB which you are apparantly totally ignoring as well.

Amateurs? Members of them are Historians and a member of them is the leading researchers on Greek heraldy.

And are you now seriously blaiming them for not using plant material to paint their capes? Do you even know how expensive a full Hoplite gear is even today?

You post is full of insult and arrogance towards those who know their stuff far better then you.

http://www.spartasmores.gr/

[Dutchhoplite]

Hmmm, the point is that no one actually knows the nature of actual hoplite combat and the othismos. At best you can call this *a* interpretation. Besides that , i don’t think you can simulate hoplite combat with so few people.

Though from a different period I find these videos much more instructive, especially on crowd behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLe...layer_embedded

[Geticus]

No I am not, I am biased for Vikings, German tribesmen and Romans, but through mindset and years of learning I have become as objective as one can, being a professional historian. I hope this is evident in my posts to those with skill.

So you present no sources, but say "well everybody knew". Sorry that is no source at all, nor are those amateurs marching around. First of all they are amateurs (come on at least have plant-dyed clothes...), secondly nowhere do even they push enough that they get so close to their opponent. As I said, I have 16 years of experience of fighting and if you get locked so close to your enemy you die for you are defenceless. Especially if you wield a long weapon, the whole idea of a long weapon is to stay at a distance where you can reach your enemy. If you go close in your long spear is just a very long and unwieldy club. You can easily push with spear at a distance so even if those pushing matches happened and is not just a label for one side pushing the other back by stabbing them or putting them on the defensive, it can easily be done at distance.

And if the enemy is a legionaire with a Scutum and a Gladius Hispanensis you should be even more wary of getting in close for there he han stab you and you cannot stab him.

Again you fail to present sources for your statements, it is getting very close to where no serious student or practitioner of history can take you seriously. Try actually reading some history and see how professionals present their case, and learn from it. You have in fact agreed to do so when you installed EB.

I am sorry to be arrogant, but I am sort of fed up with people who continuously persist in unbacked claims even when asked for sources repeatedly, the net is full of them, but the EB forum should not be.

Maion and others with knowledge and sources, how are those "pushing matches" described in the ancient sources?

Ditto what Maion said, the word was "othismos" from Greek "othizein" meaning to shove, othismos essentially meaning "the shove" similar to the concept of push of pike. The characteristic movement of a Polybian era Roman army was a slow step back (i.e. Romans fought rather defensively) as observed by Polybius himself whereas the characteristic movement of a Classical Hellenic phalanx was forward motion. If you want to read about hoplite war as described by an authoritative Classical Hellenist military historian read "The Western Way of War" by Victor Hanson who is arguably the top modern authority on 5th and 4th century BCE Hellenic Warfare.

The key is that the Greek phalanx tried to conserve forward motion. After the opposed phalanxes collided many spears tended to shatter and others could be simply be discarded in favor of the kopis. If you want source, I think Maion was probably alluding to Xenophon's description of the second battle of Koroneia c. 394 BC between the Spartan allied forces and the Thebans/Athenians, as described by Xenophon in the Hellenica, I don't have the Greek with me offhand but I have read it, it said more or less "and so they charged, they collided, they pushed, they died" or something to that effect. This was classic othismos between the Theban and Spartan phalanx. Phalanx conflicts tended to devolve into press of shield on shield. Similarly at the Battle of Leuctra Epaminondas massed his Thebans on the left 50 men deep precisely to maximize the othismos impact of the Thebans and overwhelm with sheer pressure the small fraction of actual Spartiates in the opposing army. The strategy worked and the king of Sparta died in the press and subsequent rupture. According to Hanson in fact one of the leading causes of death in classical hoplite warfare is trampling.

Since you are biased for vikings et al. then perhaps you are aware that in north europe shield press was also used, as for example one account of the death of Ragnar Lothbrok holds that since none of the Anglo-Saxons could beat Ragnar in battle the Anglo-Saxon king commanded his men to bear Ragnar down with shields, he was then flattened to the ground by grouped shield pressure, imprisoned in a pit and subsequently executed. It might be in the Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok if you are curious to verify.

In short shields are weapons that can be used to inflict blunt trauma by shieldboss strikes (a tactic often used by the Romans as for example at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae consistent with Marius' instructions) as well as general pressure through massed press of shields, and that tactic was used all over Europe in some degree from ancient times up to and including the viking era.

[Exosus]

Not to leap in in the middle here, but I think I have located the problem this argument is having. The phalangite side (I'm bad with names) is going on the commonly-taught concept that the rise of Makedon under Phillipos II and Alexandros III signaled the death or decline of traditional hoplite combat. This is credited to the 16-foot sarissa, and rightly so. When taken at face value, history education at the college level would lead to the conclusion that the phalangite is superior to the hoplite and therefore would win a 1v1 (or 1kv1k) battle.

However, these two things do not necessarily equate. The phalangite is a superior unit in some sense, but only when properly supported. If the hoplitai are forced to (or choose to for whatever reason) move directly into the spear wall of the phalangitai and cannot or do not wrap around the edges, they will lose, and they will lose dependably, assuming similar numbers. This results from the fact that there will be heavy casualties in the process of even reaching a range at which they can be effective. This is the entire purpose and strength of the philangitai - the maintenance of a range longer than that at which their enemies can engage.

If they are able to wrap around, the phalangitai will be defeated for two main reasons. Firstly, they are not as well-trained in close-range combat as the hoplitai, for which such range is the only range. Secondly, they are not as heavily armed or armored and have vastly smaller and less maneuverable shields.

In short, a supported phalangite unit > a supported hoplite unit; an unsupported phalangite unit < an unsupported hoplite unit.

[ARCHIPPOS]

i totaly agree with the guy above me

a very thined out HOPLITE battleline would behave much better in battle against a thined out SARISOFOROI line... the sarisa phallanx needs at least 5-8 lines of depth to work its best ... why??? to create the pike wall effect spear density is essential ... bc of smaller shields sarisoforoi absolutely need to produce the maximum possible number of projected spears as an extra means of defense ...

inadequate spear density could lead to HOPLITES actually dealing with the sarisa spears relatively easy by hacking them ,breaking them or simply avoiding them or even passing in between (very matrix-like i know but perhaps it could be done???) ... the pike wall actually works by saturating the enemy with lowered spears...

pike phalanx -----> pike wall=defense

this is what watchman claims and i tend to be convinced by his explanations... i don't understand why people have to get all personal over this though

some other aspects

1)the HOPLITES were certainly more mobile than the SARISOFOROI... for one they could perform a running charge and maintain some cohesion which i doubt the SARISOFOROI could do...
2)using their shields they could perform othismos (=the pushing effect)
points 1+2 = hoplites could use their mass better than sarisoforoi... this could be crucial in breaking a thined out line of opponents...

3)HOPLITES were also more manouverable... i think we can all agree that a 90 or 180 degree phallanx turn is more difficult to perform holding the sarisa than a spear...

4) THIS I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT TO BE MADE
the whole idea of a 1000 spears against a 1000 sarisae is missing the point ... the whole idea is that the MAKEDONES introduced a different revolutionary doctrine of warfare=combined weapons... to the effective yet monolithic hoplite battleline they answered with pinning and flanking manouveurs ... it's not the sarisae by itself that won the battles but the hammer and anvil...

[Phalanx300]

While a Phalangite formation is very good at the defensive I doubt that in a frontal fight they can push the Hoplites back. And as Dutchhoplite posted, the power of an crowd shouldn't be underestimated, the pure pushing power would, in an prolonged melee be enough to break the Phalangites. I think that the spears of the Phalangites wouldn't be able to take that much presure, unless the formation slowly walks backwards. Might be what happened at Chaoronea with the Thebans staying where they stood because they were the more disciplined troops, or with Phillip actually risking his left by having them stay put and his right slowly walk backward.

[Watchman]

Pushing against rows of pike-tips strikes me as singularly unhealthy-sounding activity, you know.

[antisocialmunky]

So is war in general, Watchman. Less healthy things have been done like WWI where men advanced into a hail of bullets as opposed to a forest of spear tips.

IIRC accounts of Chaoronea by Diodorus talked about relatively high casualties on both sides during the fighting. The only way I could see that happening would be from a flanking attack or the hoplites managed to engage the front few rows of the phalanx. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine that the front ranks of hoplites did things like get low to the ground and angle their shields upwards to get under the pikes. Points have a bad tendency to get redirected against oblique surfaces. The problem arises when you get to the first man and you're fighting him HTH except you can't move around since their are pikes everywhere and that other guy is getting support pokes from a guy in the back. There's also an issue of piles of bodies forming up in the front of the phalanx making it harder for the hoplites to push through.

[glouch]

Exosus, thanks for finally bringing some sense in this forum again. once i saw the big "cup of STFU" image above, i knew instantly that what's talking here is not REASON, but DAMAGED/THREATENED EGOs.

back to topic. i was going to say the exact thing Exosus was going to say earlier this morning, only my internet went dead. anyway, i'd also like to add that in an idealized situation of phalangite vs. hoplite formation, what they(Watchman and Maion) are saying are both fundamentally sound, with one major factor missing from what they've been been arguing so passionately, and that is the absence or presence of equally competent and knowledgeable commanders.

in the absence of commanding officers, the men in these two formation would just do what they would have been drilled to do, which would imply that the hoplites would, as what Maion had suggested, push against the wall of spear points presented by the phalangites, which would favor the pike phalanx.

in the presence of commanders who would be equally competent and knowledgeable of battlefield tactics, etc., things will be quite different. pike phalanxes are extremely vulnerable at the flanks, and the hoplite formation had the necessary mobility to exploit that weakness. and, honestly guys, do we really think that the etymology of the word used to describe hoplites and their tactics (which, as previously said, meant "to push" in greek) mean that that is the only thing they ever did, despite any situation that demonstrated that they could do something a little different to win in the said battlefield situation? i'd think the greeks, or any group of people would have had more sense than that, at least some of the time.

[Incompituss]

Whilst I am new to EB I have been been playing RTW(RTR) for many years with a group of friends. We get together every weekend and have multi-player battles.

Now I was rather well versed in the factions of RTR but am new to EB. This topic interests me as I am currently playing the Seleucid and find that the Hoplati are one of my favorite units(we tend to start tournaments with little money and build up during the course of battles making them a good early unit). Their moral has saved the day for me many times.

What I am wanting to understand better is where should I use the defend command and when to turn it off. I have never really understood the benifets of it, although it does keep my formation in tact.

Thx in advance.

[antisocialmunky]

That's neat that you guys have tournements. I like that money limit idea. Anyways, if you're curious @ online play, check out our tournement here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=118635