i also found it quite intrigueing how the history channel and its "reliable" sources decided that the phalanx was more like a shield wall and that the spears were not lowered until the enemies charge was stopped.

i have been amazed over the years how the history channel has rewritten history time and time again. i suppose i wil have to throw some of my favorite and most reknowned historical books away on ancient warfare. 8(

fighting out of phalanx though is not really unusual since spartans were trained to fight individually as well. plus if the description of alexanders numerous pike formation arrangements is any indicator the spartans probably had many different ways to arrange their battle lines.

nonetheless to go from 9-12 foot spears lowered in a phalanx VS a shield wall with boar stickers is quite odd. the armor thing doesnt really surprise me because of paintings and the statue of leonidas. and how the early homeric era warriors often fought with little armor but a helmet, shield, sword and javelins. some argument can be given for this that the lighter the equipment the quicker a man is.

a big argument these days in urban combat where you have to balance a soldiers armor and equipment so he isnt walking like a turtle to get across an exposed area.

despite this my own opinion is that the spartans were heavily armored hoplites with 9-12 foot spears and a large hoplon and corinthian helmet who could fight at least two ranks deep.

however i do believe they were also tactically flexible fighters when they needed to be.