How did the Greeks fight in the RTW timeframe?

[Ano2]

My question is simply what type of heavy infantry did the Greeks use in the RTW timeframe?

Did they use the classical phalanx?
Did they adpot the Phalangite phalanx?
Did they use the Iphictrate's phalanx? ( If you believe they used this please inform me on how the Hell it actually was used in open field battles.)

Please stay on topic, and back up your argument with either sources, or good common sense.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Many greeks switched to a more Phalangite phalanx style without adopting phanangites themselves, AFAIK.

[Watchman]

The Macedonians pretty much rolled over them with their pike-phalanx, didn't they ? The Greeks would've been fools not to copycat a good thing, all the more so as their opinion probably wasn't even asked to begin with - whichever Successor it now was who lorded it over them no doubt wanted to be able to field infantry equivalent to his competitors'.

[Seleukos]

Actually sooner or later the other Greeks adopted the Macedonian-phalanx.
First to proceed to this transformation,outside the Macedonians was Pyrrhos the king of Epirus.
Phoilopemen in Achaean Sypoliteia and Cleomenes in Sparta followed.

ps:what do u mean by "iphicrates phalanx" ? Iphicrates was responsible for major revisions i nmilitary tactics of the 4th cent-mainly the use of peltasts.
Maybe u mean the "loxe phalanx" (aslant). which used bu Epaminondas too.in this the one part of the line was consisting of more men in depth ,so as to beat the opposite part of the enemy,and then turn to its flanks.

[Kralizec]

Sparta eventually adopted the sarissa, though much later then the starting date of RTR. I'm not sure about the other Greek city states, though any hoplites they used were different from those used centuries before that- the shields had become somewhat smaller and the spears longer, Ipicrathes used this sort of equipment but probably wasn't the one that started the trend.

[Ludens]

The Macedonians pretty much rolled over them with their pike-phalanx, didn't they ? The Greeks would've been fools not to copycat a good thing, all the more so as their opinion probably wasn't even asked to begin with - whichever Successor it now was who lorded it over them no doubt wanted to be able to field infantry equivalent to his competitors'.

As I understand it there were fundamental differences in the way the Greeks and the Macedonians (under Philip II and his successors) fielded an army. The Macodonian pike phalanx was a proffesional force that was properly organized. The Greek cities on the other hand embraced a spirit of extreme amatuerism in war. They had no professional soldiers (the Spartans and a few elite units being the exception) and almost no organizational back-up.

I've got most of this out Hans van Wees' "Greek Warfare". He argues that Greek states were unable to field a professional army due to organizational and social constraints and were too attached to their hoplite ideals to rapidly change their military doctrine. However, the way he puts it Iphicrates seems the inventor of the Pike Phalanx.

I am no historian, so I cannot say how credible these claims are.

[Rosacrux redux]

As I understand it there were fundamental differences in the way the Greeks and the Macedonians (under Philip II and his successors) fielded an army. The Macodonian pike phalanx was a proffesional force that was properly organized. The Greek cities on the other hand embraced a spirit of extreme amatuerism in war. They had no professional soldiers (the Spartans and a few elite units being the exception) and almost no organizational back-up.

I've got most of this out Hans van Wees' "Greek Warfare". He argues that Greek states were unable to field a professional army due to organizational and social constraints and were too attached to their hoplite ideals to rapidly change their military doctrine. However, the way he puts it Iphicrates seems the inventor of the Pike Phalanx.

I am no historian, so I cannot say how credible these claims are.

Despite what Mr. van Wees says (sounds like he's reading too much VD Hanson ) all Greek city-states fielded professional forces. The Athenians had a standing army of 1.000 and a force of "policemen" (over some periods the famed Skythian archers, those many'o'times fought in the battlefield), the Thebans had the Sacred Band, the Spartans... well, they were all full-time pros, and ALL city states (even Sparta, after one point) fielded mercenaries. Some fielded exclusively mercenaries (usually kingdoms or oligarchies) but only few. OTOH, the standing army of the Macedonian state were, practically, only the Hypaspists (3.000 in Alex's times, probably 2.000 under Philipos) and to an extent the Heteroi cavalry.

Because of the way the Macedonian state was structured, it was easier to drag the citizen from their fields for longer times, but that doesn't mean the 9.000+ pezheteroi or the rest of the contigents of the Macedonian army were "professionals" or whatnot.

To the question at hand, in the 3rd century every Greek state (be it kingdom, city or confederation) had gone its own way regarding military system. The only certainity is that the hoplites were if not a thing of the past, then a marginal and rather small part of the military force any greek state could field. Many had adopted the Macedonian phalanx, some operated as light peltasts mostly (the Aetolian league, for instance, fielded for the most time almost exclusively peltasts and heavy peltasts and peltast-like hoplites) and some tried to retain some of the older customs.

One has to note that all city-states relied on mercenaries in this timeframe - the socioeconomical changes brought forth by the hellenization of the eastern mediteranean and the creation of the large autocratic hellenistic states, brought a growing dependency upon mercenaries, while the citizen became all but eager to serve their duty.

[Geoffrey S]

Despite what Mr. van Wees says (sounds like he's reading too much VD Hanson ) all Greek city-states fielded professional forces. The Athenians had a standing army of 1.000 and a force of "policemen" (over some periods the famed Skythian archers, those many'o'times fought in the battlefield), the Thebans had the Sacred Band, the Spartans... well, they were all full-time pros, and ALL city states (even Sparta, after one point) fielded mercenaries.

Were the soldiers of various city states actually paid by the state, or was it mostly along the lines of who could afford to dedicate himself to soldiering full-time?

[Kralizec]

Standing armies tended to be small for city states, most soldiers could only campaign for the lenght of a season before they had to return to manage their farms or other business. Doing otherwise would cripple the economy of the city state.

The Spartans were different, even weird in that...they too, had to return after a short while of campaigning, but only to keep their Helote slaves, wich did everything to keep the economy going, from revolting. It always seemed strange to me that people consider the Spartans to be noble and dignified

[Kraxis]

Actually the Macedonian phalanx didn't roll over the old hoplite phalanx, it was the tactics of Phillip that resulted in the onesided affair.
He had one part of his army 'reel' back in face of the Athenian phalanx, causing them to proceed too far to 'send them running back to Macedonia.' So a gap appeared in the hoplite phalanx into which Phillip had planned Alexander and the Hetaroi should attack... Which they did. The hoplites had no chance against that.

But hoplites were time and again the strongest opposition to Alexander, though a true calculation is hard to do since the hoplites suffered the trouble of having their flanks stripped or some other non-line reverses. But there can hardly be any doubt as it which was better, it was just not lightyears better as sometimes it is said to be.