The Western Way of War: An Alternative Explanation

[sharrukin]

So, assuming we are reading the same article, where excactly does it contradict with my statement? Where does it concede with strategy's statement that Ifikrates changed the hoplite warfare generally and not only his own band of mercenaries?

I did NOT argue for Strategy's point of view. In fact I agree with yours more than his. My point was that the product of Iphikrates reforms were hoplites. I also stated that the reforms did NOT take hold in greece until well into the hellenic period. Are you saying that you do not believe that they ever took place in Greece proper?

BTW: This is what I disagree with.

c) a reform that produced a sort of peltast (that's how most ancient writers call them,not "hoplites") which could fight in a phalanx if need arose.

They were referred to as peltasts, but they were hoplites (close order infantry).

from the article
Part one;
Diodoros 15.44 records the following:

"After a trial of the new shield its easy manipulation secured its adoption, and the infantry who had formerly been called "hoplites" (hoplitai) because of their heavy shield (aspidon), then had their name changed to "peltasts" (peltastai) from the light pelta they carried."

"In fact Nepos and Diodoros make it clear that the troops given the new equipment were hoplites, not peltasts,"