Classic Hoplites and the Phalanx

**adishee** · 01-11-2007, 20:22

Will they properly stab down overhand?

maybe I should just try

**BigTex** · 01-11-2007, 22:33

Originally Posted by cmlax999

Will they properly stab down overhand?

maybe I should just try

In shield wall formation they do use their spear's in the overhand position and stab down. They'll even interlock their shield's in almost a fish scale pattern. Only problem is they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them. But if their hit in the rear they will be utterly decimated, if they also fight any form of a sarrissa phalanx the results will be a massacre of the hoplites.

**adishee** · 01-11-2007, 22:45

Originally Posted by BigTex

Only problem is they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them. But if their hit in the rear they will be utterly decimated, if they also fight any form of a sarrissa phalanx the results will be a massacre of the hoplites.

Is this not correct?

**Kugutsu** · 01-11-2007, 23:18

Originally Posted by BigTex

... they become very powerful blocks like this. There already quite powerful but with the shield wall they are unmoveable. Any loose formation infantry will be massacred against them...

This sounds exactly what hoplites should be like. They should also be able to carry the attack to the enemy and rout them. Classical hoplites were pretty hard to kill (at Cunaxa 2 were killed out of 10 000, one by being run over by a chariot and another by an arrow). Having said that, most casualties seem to have been inflicted after the battle, when the enemy were routed. The cavalry and peltasts then ran them down and slaughtered them. Melees seem to have rarely happened, as one side tended to break before the lines clashed. This is hoplite tactics long before EB though, and with more modern, professional opponents they may not have had the same effect.

**BigTex** · 01-11-2007, 23:30

Originally Posted by Kugutsu

This sounds exactly what hoplites should be like. They should also be able to carry the attack to the enemy and rout them. Classical hoplites were pretty hard to kill (at Cunaxa 2 were killed out of 10 000, one by being run over by a chariot and another by an arrow). Having said that, most casualties seem to have been inflicted after the battle, when the enemy were routed. The cavalry and peltasts then ran them down and slaughtered them. Melees seem to have rarely happened, as one side tended to break before the lines clashed. This is hoplite tactics long before EB though, and with more modern, professional opponents they may not have had the same effect.

Aye this is completely how a hoplite should work. But for those who like to see their roman and other adversary's do more damage to them it's a downside. Using shield wall makes them a pretty good replica to them, and it also increases their weakness to more modern phalanxes. Against a alexandrian phalanx a hoplite with shield wall will be massacred and the sarrisa phalanx will more then likely recieve little to no casualties.

More so in this formation the unit seem's more prone to use the push while attacking. I've seen one of them push through a the center of a unit while being attacked. Very interesting, would be the perfect solution for hypaspatai.

**Sarcasm** · 01-11-2007, 23:35

I need someone to tell me an instance in a battle when the macedonian phalanx was so superior to the hoplite phalanx...please. Really.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 01-12-2007, 00:46

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

I need someone to tell me an instance in a battle when the macedonian phalanx was so superior to the hoplite phalanx...please. Really.

IMO the reverse may have been altogether more true: hoplites were soldiers who could afford anything from decent to top notch equipment, whereas the Macedonians who could afford such high quality equipment may have been drawn into the cavalry rather than the infantry...

Two things for sure: the hoplites gave better account of themselves in hand to hand combat, but the Macedonians had the advantage of a 'simpeler' task (they didn't have to break their opponents, simply holding them in place was enough).

But, to me it seems most likely that both types were just about equal in strength.

**Lovejoy** · 01-12-2007, 00:54

Since me are speaking pf phalanxes I might as well ask..

Is the germen unit "heavy spears"(you know does dudes with big spears) supposed to be phalanxs? It is not.

**Sarcasm** · 01-12-2007, 00:54

That's my assessment as well, they were just designed to do different things. Dunno why there's this idea that the Macedonic phalanx was so overwhelmingly superior to the classical hoplites.

Makedonia's phalanx did have some decisive advantages over heavy hoplites, namely a lighter, less expensive kit, less emphasis on individual training and armies that could stay in field for extended campaigns resulting in large numbers of veteran troops.