Iphikrate's Hoplite- A load of nonsense?

[Urnamma]

Guys, give me a little bit of time to formulate a proper response. I researched this stuff in October of 2004. It is hard to recall every little detail without re-reading a significant amount of text. I'm not trying to sidestep you, and I appreciate the challenge you present :-)

[Ano2]

Lol sorry, I look forward to it. Till then I'm going to enjoy amubhsing the armies of Briton with the Casse!

[Ano2]

Bump.

[Kampfduck]

more information about the subject:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...hikrates1.html

[VandalCarthage]

Thank you for posting that link Kampfduck; it's a very accurate source that I've had occassion to refer to myself in the past.

Taken from that site, this paragraphi very simply explains any source problems:

Because Iphikrates' reformed troops carried the pelta, there has been an unfortunate tendency to call them 'peltasts', as indeed Diodoros himself does. While this may literally be correct, it carries with it, certainly in modern times at least, connotations of troops being able to skirmish with the enemy at a distance, as Iphikrates' own peltasts had done so successfully in 390 BC against the Spartans near Corinth.4 This is one reason for the debate being somewhat confused, since people tend to assume every time they read about a 'peltast' it refers to a lightly-armed skirmisher. It is true that previously peltasts, such as those that served in the Peloponnesian war, are always described as skirmishers, fighting at a distance with their javelins, but this applies only to Greek peltasts: Thracian peltasts are recorded as being able to fight to a limited degree in a close combat.5

In fact Nepos and Diodoros make it clear that the troops given the new equipment were hoplites, not peltasts, and it would probably be better to refer to these troops not as modern commentators tend to do, as 'Iphikratean peltats' but rather as 'Iphikratean hoplites'. With a long spear rather than javelins they would lack the equipment to fight in the traditional peltast manner, but would be able to fight as a hoplite, a spearman in a phalanx, albeit one with lighter equipment; the longer spear would be partial compensation for the weakening of their defensive equipment.

This is a very reasonable explanation, which has precedant elsewhere, as the same mistake occurs with the Antigonids - whose elite soldiers were recorded as 'Peltasts.'

5) How did the Iphicrate's phalanx actualy fight? If there spears were lengthened to allow them to beat the Macedonian phalanx, how would this possibly have helped? The idea of the Greek phalanx was to close with the enemy as fast as possible and 'push' the enemy. Longer spears would only encumber this, since at close quarters a shorter spear would be more useful. Also why would the spear be used underhand? The pike's were lowered to torso level and trying to beat a 21" pike with a 12" spear in a simple "poking" match is just silly.

That's not really the case. While longer spears certainly encumber mobility, shorter spears don't give you an advantage in a direct assault against them. The Hoplite Phalanx would have had to maneuver between an enormous amount of spear points before their own would even have a chance to come in to play. With both phalanxes in motion, each using the same tactic, moving forward as a body, shorter spears would leave one at a disadvantage to the other. The point being, as useful as a shorter spear would be in close quarters, they wouldn't be able to get their as effectively. In addition, the whole point of the phalanx (no pun intended) was to have a multi-pronged defense (again, no pun intended), with layers of successive spears in front of the first rank, put forward by all the ranks who've lowered their sarissas. So, when a Hoplite gets into closer quarters, their spear lengths become irrelevant - the only difference is the amount of spears presented by the sarissa-armed phalanx reaches past more ranks in the Hoplite formation.

[Urnamma]

more information about the subject:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...hikrates1.html

He's well read (mainly easy-to-get primary sources and wargaming magazines), but doesn't read Greek or Latin. There have been thorough refutations of that before, and I see no need to post another.

[Urnamma]

Ok, here we go. Much of the (scanty) evidence we have from the period of 300 B.C. onward about how the mainland Greeks fought seems to indicate that individual city-states chose to react to the new developments in warfare in different ways. Some (like Corinth) chose to progressively abandon the phalanx and eventually looked not much different from a Roman legionary, though the development was different (Thorakitai).

Others, like Athens, chose a different route. Since they could not match the mobility of the Macedonian 'combined arms' (use of Thracians and Celts as heavy infantry along with the pike line), they chose a sort of intermediate soldier.

While it gets credited to Iphikrates (and much credit does indeed go to him) by Nepos and Diadoros, the information they present is not wrong.

The Greeks did start using longer spears, and they did start using them underhand. (unless there was a giant conspiracy by relief artists).

Also, we know for sure that armor lightened to the point where it became indistinguishable from Macedonian armor. This happened for many reasons, but the largest of which was the inexpensive nature of linen armor when compared to bronze. Equipping all your troops in bronze fielded you 8,000, in linen 18,000. Not much of a contest when you're facing 15,000 enemies. (numbers are abstract, but you get my point).

The use of the thureos means that many of them got classified as 'peltasts'. Later Greeks tended to classify soldiers by shield type, even when they fought in roles peculiar to what their names indicate. When 'Peltasts' are holding the center of a line and described (or shown) as fighting in a long stable phalanx line, we can be damn sure they're not skirmishers.

Granted, some states remained conservative, and many chose to keep some vestiges of the old equipment. EB will have that, we just haven't made it yet. You will see semi-classical hoplite-esque soldiers.

I'm not understanding why people don't realize that the ancient Greeks were pretty damn smart folks. When the form of warfare became more mobile and the flanks of these men who'd fought only one another for quite some time were suddenly in danger, they started to improvise solutions to keep some parity in the fight.

The Thureos was lighter and larger, and the celtic shields it was adopted from were very available for copy right after the victory outside Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, you can see row after row of relief carvings depicting men wielding thureoi and holding long spears (not pikes, but long spears).

This type of relief is plain for the world to see, in its respective museums. The textual evidence is also there. If you search through Arrian, Diadoros, and even Polybius, you will see that certain troop types that today we might be tempted to classify and forget, fight in ways contrary to what the name may imply.

It isn't so much of a leap (and indeed is quite well suported) to have more than just 500 B.C. hoplites.

[Ano2]

Because Iphikrates' reformed troops carried the pelta, there has been an unfortunate tendency to call them 'peltasts', as indeed Diodoros himself does. While this may literally be correct, it carries with it, certainly in modern times at least, connotations of troops being able to skirmish with the enemy at a distance, as Iphikrates' own peltasts had done so successfully in 390 BC against the Spartans near Corinth.4 This is one reason for the debate being somewhat confused, since people tend to assume every time they read about a 'peltast' it refers to a lightly-armed skirmisher. It is true that previously peltasts, such as those that served in the Peloponnesian war, are always described as skirmishers, fighting at a distance with their javelins, but this applies only to Greek peltasts: Thracian peltasts are recorded as being able to fight to a limited degree in a close combat.5

In fact Nepos and Diodoros make it clear that the troops given the new equipment were hoplites, not peltasts, and it would probably be better to refer to these troops not as modern commentators tend to do, as 'Iphikratean peltats' but rather as 'Iphikratean hoplites'. With a long spear rather than javelins they would lack the equipment to fight in the traditional peltast manner, but would be able to fight as a hoplite, a spearman in a phalanx, albeit one with lighter equipment; the longer spear would be partial compensation for the weakening of their defensive equipment. [/QUOTE]

Err this was never in doubt, I already stated that the two Historians you reference did believe in the Iphicrate's reform, and believed the hoplites were reformed. This doesn't really bring any new info to the discussion, but thanks anyway :)

That's not really the case. While longer spears certainly encumber mobility, shorter spears don't give you an advantage in a direct assault against them. The Hoplite Phalanx would have had to maneuver between an enormous amount of spear points before their own would even have a chance to come in to play.

Damn it we really could use a good source on the exact nature of how Hoplites fought pikes. You say they would have to weave amongst the pikes, however I believe that the idea of the hoplite phalanx would have been to charge full on in to them, using their larger shields to knock the pikes away. If you are right then longer spears would be useful. However if I am right then they probably wouldn't have helped.

With both phalanxes in motion, each using the same tactic, moving forward as a body, shorter spears would leave one at a disadvantage to the other. The point being, as useful as a shorter spear would be in close quarters, they wouldn't be able to get their as effectively.

I have no doubt it would have taken more time but they would have got through. Also a note, if they have to cut through pikes then heavier armour and the traditional hoplon would have been much more useful than linen armour and small shields.[/QUOTE]

In addition, the whole point of the phalanx (no pun intended) was to have a multi-pronged defense (again, no pun intended), with layers of successive spears in front of the first rank, put forward by all the ranks who've lowered their sarissas. So, when a Hoplite gets into closer quarters, their spear lengths become irrelevant - the only difference is the amount of spears presented by the sarissa-armed phalanx reaches past more ranks in the Hoplite formation.

This is true however the hoplite formation was not meant to equal the number of spears presented, indeed their would be no point in trying. The idea would have been to break through the spear ranks and form some kind of shield wall so that they could stab over their shields. Now stabbing overhand would require a shorter spear as your enemy is next to you, a longer spear would make this impossible. Now an underhand stab is of course possible, however again, at close quarters a longer spear would have been cumbersome.

Your argument suggests that the hoplite phalanx was reformed to allow the Hoplites to engage in a poking match against the Macedonian phalanx. This idea is credible if we assume that the Greeks were dumb (Which they sure as Hell ain't). You don't have to be a military genius to see that a 12" spear versus a 21" spear is going to end only one way.

Now if the Greeks stuck to their orignal idea of breaking through the pikes and engaging up close then I imagine they would do a lot better. The Greeks were far superior up close than the Pikemen, and this would have been used to their advantage.

If the Greeks reformed their phalanx according to the ideas suggested then why didn't they just adopt pikemen straight off (As later happened)? A poking match with the Mac's could only end one way.

Ok, here we go. Much of the (scanty) evidence we have from the period of 300 B.C. onward about how the mainland Greeks fought seems to indicate that individual city-states chose to react to the new developments in warfare in different ways. Some (like Corinth) chose to progressively abandon the phalanx and eventually looked not much different from a Roman legionary, though the development was different (Thorakitai).

Interesting, though how can you progressively abandon it? Any evidence as to how they went about doing so?

Others, like Athens, chose a different route. Since they could not match the mobility of the Macedonian 'combined arms' (use of Thracians and Celts as heavy infantry along with the pike line), they chose a sort of intermediate soldier.

BTW I have a massive classics library at my disposal so could you post some evidence :) Also does this evidence specifically state the Iphicrates hoplite or is it vague?

While it gets credited to Iphikrates (and much credit does indeed go to him) by Nepos and Diadoros, the information they present is not wrong.

The Greeks did start using longer spears, and they did start using them underhand. (unless there was a giant conspiracy by relief artists).

What reliefs? Also does that mean the only written soruces on the issue are those two?

Also, we know for sure that armor lightened to the point where it became indistinguishable from Macedonian armor. This happened for many reasons, but the largest of which was the inexpensive nature of linen armor when compared to bronze. Equipping all your troops in bronze fielded you 8,000, in linen 18,000. Not much of a contest when you're facing 15,000 enemies. (numbers are abstract, but you get my point).

I'm not gunna dispute the armour point, though when did the states start paying for hoplite armour? Didn't the soldiers pay for it themselves? Also if your gunna attack a wall of pikes, surely heavier armour is more useful?

The use of the thureos means that many of them got classified as 'peltasts'. Later Greeks tended to classify soldiers by shield type, even when they fought in roles peculiar to what their names indicate. When 'Peltasts' are holding the center of a line and described (or shown) as fighting in a long stable phalanx line, we can be damn sure they're not skirmishers.

Interesting this suggests that the hoplite shield changed. Don't see why. Whats that extra mobility gunna do when your charging a wall of pikes?

I'm not understanding why people don't realize that the ancient Greeks were pretty damn smart folks. When the form of warfare became more mobile and the flanks of these men who'd fought only one another for quite some time were suddenly in danger, they started to improvise solutions to keep some parity in the fight.

So they had mobile hoplites on the flanks? What about the centre? This suggests specialise troops.

The Thureos was lighter and larger, and the celtic shields it was adopted from were very available for copy right after the victory outside Delphi. In the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, you can see row after row of relief carvings depicting men wielding thureoi and holding long spears (not pikes, but long spears).

This type of relief is plain for the world to see, in its respective museums. The textual evidence is also there. If you search through Arrian, Diadoros, and even Polybius, you will see that certain troop types that today we might be tempted to classify and forget, fight in ways contrary to what the name may imply.

It isn't so much of a leap (and indeed is quite well suported) to have more than just 500 B.C. hoplites.

Okay so say you were right, how would the Hoplites have fought? Poking match? Also why would the troops on the flanks have changed equiptment? Surely a change of tactic would be more needed?

I'm not thoroughly convinced by your argument and the lack of sources is the killer, not to mention the lack of anyone stating real world application of the new hoplite that makes sense.

Good argument tho, lets keep it going!