Too many phalanx units?

[Spongly]

I think the main confusion with the Germans comes from a misunderstanding of what a "phalanx" is. A phalanx does not necessarily imply the use of pikes - it is simply a closely packed formation of men. There is, to my knowledge no reference to the Germans or the Helvetii using pikes or very long spears. Indeed, Tacitus says that the typical German weapon is a small, light spear suitable both for throwing and fighting hand to hand.

I would suggest that in both of these cases, the use of the word phalanx by classical authors does not imply a pike formation, but simply a closely packed formation of men using their shields to defend themselves, somewhat like the "scildweall" of later Germanic warfare.

One formation that is well attested among the early Germans is a wedge of infantry with the bravest and best armoured at the front.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Julius Caesar mentions Germans of some sort using tight formations with very long spears. Well disciplined troops, very different from the usual "barbarian" troops and much more similar to Greek phalanxes than anything else.

[conon394]

Uesugi Kenshin

I think your overstating it a bit J.C. does use the word phalanx, but there really are not many other words he could have used to quickly describe men armed with spears and shields and fighting in close order. However the context is important. I don't think the text supports Caesar as being surprised or impressed.
Rather in one case he has little trouble finding men to rush in and break the enemy formation (1.54), or (1.24) the legions are describes as easily breaking the 'phalanx'. There is no place in Caesar’s description for the distress or awe inspired by the Macedonian phalanx. No lifelong dread of A. Paullus, or desperation like that of Flaminus, thinking one whole wing of his army was being swept away by the advancing Macedonians.

Also not similar to the greeks in that, having been forced to loose their shield, the German and Gauls are described as effectively unarmored. A Hoplite, loosing his shield would hardly be noted as unarmored.

[Kraxis]

Uesugi Kenshin

I think your overstating it a bit J.C. does use the word phalanx, but there really are not many other words he could have used to quickly describe men armed with spears and shields and fighting in close order. However the context is important. I don't think the text supports Caesar as being surprised or impressed.
Rather in one case he has little trouble finding men to rush in and break the enemy formation (1.54), or (1.24) the legions are describes as easily breaking the 'phalanx'. There is no place in Caesar’s description for the distress or awe inspired by the Macedonian phalanx. No lifelong dread of A. Paullus, or desperation like that of Flaminus, thinking one whole wing of his army was being swept away by the advancing Macedonians.

Also not similar to the greeks in that, having been forced to loose their shield, the German and Gauls are described as effectively unarmored. A Hoplite, loosing his shield would hardly be noted as unarmored.

The hoplites phalanx could most certainly be broken by less formed troops. Remember Marathon? The Persians broke through in the center but that caused their downfall in that the flanks swung in. Thus I see no problem in the Romans being able to punch through a solid line of spearmen.
And using the Macedonain phalanx as a comparison is not fair as the Germans had no real similarity to that.
And the hoplites... Well have you read about the Polopponesian Wars? Or the wars between Sparta and Thebes? We are talking about naked hoplites or very lightly armorued ones. Indeed quite unarmoured.

[conon394]

Kraxis

I at work now, but if you will check back I will post my thoughts and evidence on the 'naked hoplite phenomenon'.

But in general, I don't buy it. I know some books and authors (cough, the osprey series in particular) love naked hoplites, but I really see no evidence for the ideal that hoplites were running around the 5th and 4th centuries without armor.

Marathon is rather unique though in that the Athenian center was very thin and considering the extended advance at a run, I rather doubt the center was in phalanx formation’ as such when it hit the Persian line. I can’t think of another example during the next 2 centuries of battles between Greek and Persian troops were Persian soldier broke a Greek line. My point was that in context Caesar is describing rather easy victories, and does not appear to have been overly impressed with either the drill or quality of the enemy formations.

[Ptah]

I go with Red Harvest on this one.

Polybius was a military commander himself, and distinctly mentions that the phalanx was "invincible" when it was laid upon the conditions which made it so. However, he continues to mention that those conditions which make the phalanx have a "tendency to dissipate", while the conditions that disrupt the phalanx never cease to pop up. And then he goes on stating the various conditions which the phalanx require to be effective - open field engagements, flat terrains, enough room and space to lay the formation out, etc etc.. and then compares it with the Roman system of Legions.

As a matter of fact he goes as far as stating, "what's the use of the phalanx, even if it is invincible, when the Romans could avoid combat and burn and pillage the cities and towns the phalanx were trying to defend?" - ie. "the flexibility of the Legions" was not necessarily on a small-scale tactical term, but more of a strategical one. On a purely tactical scale, the Greek phalanxes were more than a match for any Roman army. However the Legions marched faster and could fight at any given condition. Their commanders were also keen in disrupting tactical advantages of the Greeks on a political/diplomatical scale so often Rome would win wars without even single combat.

A certain "Greek" faction would gather its phalanx armies and start hostile activities, and then Rome would send in the Legions which already march past them into the heart of that certain faction's key strategical locations, lay up seige equipments, threaten individual cities to open gates, and then start diplomatic negotiations and end the war there. A nice little threat something like, "stop hostilities or we burn every one of your precious cities in sight" and bam! The war is over, without a single fight. Things went that way everytime.

[Baiae]

I really see no evidence for the ideal that hoplites were running around the 5th and 4th centuries without armor.

I might be wrong but I'm certain VDH mentions that as time went on the so called 'hoplite panoply' became more and more slimmed down. A classical era hoplite would have had a spear, shield, helmet, greaves, arm guard and some sort of armoured cuirass. By the post-Alexandrian era they were probably down to just the shield and helmet.

[Kraxis]

I'm not a total 'naked hoplite' fan, I agree on that. But the light hoplite certainly made sense to the Greeks.

The light infantry had proven itself in battle against slower hoplites enough times for the Greeks to understand that they needed to do something.
The Spartans devised sending out their young hoplites.

A young Thermopylae-period Spartan Hoplite would have at least, the aspis (9kg), a heavy linnen cuirass (7kg), greaves (3-4 kg? But feeling much heavier as they were on the legs) and of course the Corinthian helmet (2kg). I will not count the weapons.
A peltast would have the pelte (2kg?) and his heavy Thracian cloak (3kg).

Now who will run the fastest? Not the young hoplite, that is for sure.
Since the running hoplites apparently could catch the peltasts now and then. Iphicrates troops (in this case they were javelineers) were reluctant to engage the Spartans outside Corinth since some of them had been caught earlier by Spartans, that they eventually did ngage is less important. And at Pylos the Spartan contingent of 300 hoplites did send out their young hoplites to catch the much more numerous Athenian light troops. We think of it as a deathrun, but apparently the Spartans believed it could be done. And it does seem as if the hoplites were close to catching the light troops now and then as they were only sent back to the phalanx because they were hit in the sides by other light troops, not because they couldn't run the first down.

So we have established that the young hoplites at least could, if the battle was right, catch light troops. We have to assume that the Spartans were in general better runners than most others (I'm willing to grant them an edge in pretty much everything physical, barring size), and young men run faster in general too. Light troops were generally young men, so at least that point is lost.
The better Spartan physique doesn't add up to being able to run faster with heavy gear on. But if he has only the aspis and Pilos helm to think of I'm willing to believe that he could possibly run down some of the light troops. The light troops were after all very used to being able to outrun hoplites so possibly they had a small superiority complex when it came to running and thus quite possibly didn't go on long runs together or train all that much really.
So we have the young Spartans as being only equipped with the aspis, but why would the older ones have armour then? The young hoplites were at the front anyway and would take the brunt of the fighting.

That is basically the argument I have seen. Personally I'm willing to grant them a light linnen cuirass, such as the one Iphicrates used for his hoplites later on.