Hoplites Outdated?

[Byzantine Prince]

[SARCASM] Are you being sarcastic? [/SARCASM]

[Sarcasm]

No.




Or am I?

[Turin]

Yeah, totally wrong here on the hoplite point

The classical hoplites were abandoned along with the Corinthian helm. However, the Macedonian style 2 handed sarissa phalanxes were used, so the idea of the phalanx survived.

Where the phalanxes did not survive is in Carthage, in the Second Punic War. During the fighting that took place in North Africa in the First Punic War, there is definite evidence of phalanx use, we can assume it is some sort of loose spear phalanx; the sarissa phalanxes were not popular among non-Greek/Diodachi factions.

But the Carthagian armies of the Second Punic War did not employ the phalanx. The vast majority of Hannibal's "African Infantry" were Libyans, mostly spearmen, not in phalanx. There were very few real Carthagians in Hannibal's force. When Scipio Africanus took the fighting to North Africa, the Carthagians supplied Hannibal with Libyan mercenaries who did not fight in phalanx.

The continual defeats of the Macedonian factions in the four major wars between Macedon and Rome, led to the depreciation of the sarissa phalanx and phalanxes in general. Time and time again it was proven that the phalanx was outdated. The Seleucids, Ptolemys and Southern Greeks made steps towards developing combat worthy light infantry. I strongly believe that this trend should be shown in EB. The Greeks and Diodachi need strong swordsmen/spearmen, certainly not as good as principe, but at least some good enough to tank hastati.

[Legionario]

You probably misunderstood Goldsworthy,since he is a really good writer/historian;phalanx were surpassed by the times,Romans had to drop it when they encountered the Samnites wich fought in maniple way and on broken ground,much flexible and manouvrable, phalanx was still good only on great plain flat battlegrounds,and supported by a strong cavalry (as Alexander demonstrated)
that way they could fight by their book,also it depended on wich type of enemy you had in front.....Alexander docet again,with less than good enemies it could still do,otherwise....

[Turin]

Personally, as a tactics buff, I love the Roman checkerboard formation. I consider it to be far superior to the Macedonian phalanx.

For the Romans, it was a matter of finding the middle ground between the all too strict Greek phalanx and the all too unwieldy barbarian horde. The checkerboard has the order and solidity of the civilized armies along with the flexibility and manueverability of the barbarian warbands.

[Legionario]

You said it all..... ;-)
It was not a case of fortune, they went so far that way....:-)

[Ano2]

Ah thankyou for your feed back. here is the direct quote anyway: " In the later fifth century BC the peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta and their allies had swept aside many of the conventions of hoplite warfare. By the furth century BC most Greek states were increasingly reliant on small groups of proffessional soldiers or mercenaries, in place of the traditional phalanx raised when needed from all those citizens able to afford hoplite arms."

I see how i misread this. My apologies to Adrian Goldsworthy.