Why did Greek Equipment get lighter?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

As we read history, there are several cases since the mid 4th century that Hellenic military equipment, in general, was getting gradually lighter. In 399 BC, a hoplite would wear a muscled bronze cuirass, a Corinthian helmet, an Aspis, a pair of greaves and a spear with a reserve xyphos making him an effective heavy infantry soldier. That equipment weighed about 30 Kg, yet there seemed to be no significant problem with that for centuries.

But from 370 on, there were innovations: the massive use of peltasts, the introduction of the pelte and the thureos, both lighter than the Aspis, the abandon of heavy plate for lighter armour such as linothrax, and the disuse of the traditional Corinthian helmet. Some later Diadochoi elites tried to emulate the old times by restoring the old equipment in elite infantry such as the hypaspistai, and etc... but never to the same degree and scale as before.

Is there any valid and clear reason of why such trends changed the Greek army?

[different_13]

Battlefield communication (notice the later helms nearly all beared the ears or face), more advanced battlefield tactics and manouvres (which would require both communication and speed), the cost involved in outfitting a hoplite compared to that of an Ekdromos or peltast..

Remember, hoplites were citizens of good standing (financially, I mean). If your army can only consist of the (relatively) rich, you're going to have a small army (especially as the rich population will decline with each battle) :
I'd take Athens' 5000 citizen hoplites PLUS their 15000 light troops over Sparta's 2000 citizen hoplites and 5000 light troops any day.
(I made those numbers up, but you see my point, I hope..)

[EdwardL]

Just as you mentioned, the peltast.

Not every city state was willing to be cattled into slapping on loads of expensive armor and going face to face with other city states who had better access to equipment and perhaps experience with it.

Times changed as did the rules of engagement. It just so happened that some cities, in their search to compete with slower moving, heavy hoplites found a way to use the usual tactics of the day against said hoplites

[Watchman]

And by what I've read of it, some of the city-states simply happened to sit in regions manifestly ill-suited for hoplite combat but pretty much the home ground of peltasts and other light infantry, and took the due steps.

Those apparently generally tended to severely pwnz0r the rare invading hoplite army too.

[Tellos Athenaios]

First of all I am not expert on this. But I do think I can see a couple of issues with the "uber" heavy hoplites.

First: it requires you to have some serious funds to get it. This effectively limits the size of your army. In a city-state splendid-isolation based world order that's no big deal: you'll find that no other city state is capable of producing a really large army either; because you are all of about the same size. Since sheer lack of man power prevents you from forming a large army, you will have to look at other ways to make it effective to compensate for the lack of men.

However, when you suddenly do find yourself confronted with large-scale armies you will want a larger one yourself. It's all fine if you can hold back one major invasion - but the death of your most important soldiers in battle will ensure that sooner or later you can't field enough of them anymore.

Secondly: with the larger armies come the broader ambitions. And the hoplite based armies would do fairly well in a reasonably restricted field of battle but they wouldn't make such a fine army for conquering lot's of territory at once & campaigns deep into enemy territory which require you to pack your things and be gone the moment you hear of an approaching army. Within the near vicinity of your own polis/state you can assume to be well-informed; but when you are 2000 miles away from your home that kinda changes.

Thirdly: when you have to march for days on end with 30kg or with 10kg that makes a difference. If you start noticing the fact that you don't see much battle, but do see much miles you will be yearning for lighter equipment because your rationale will not be that of a soldier but that of every traveler: to get from A to B with the least amount of effort possible. If you have the chance to get stuck in the mountains during the snow falls in winter; or to be safely across the passes when they happen -- you will want the latter. And you can assure the latter by limitting the amount of stuff you need to carry around with you.

Fourthly: the Hoplite based armies require more of an economy to produce men of such wealth. When you face a constant war which is more than the occasional meeting of armies, but involves real campaigns aimed at the complete subjugation of your or enemy territory (rather than settling a dispute over a border) you will have to fight a lot and your economy will suffer a lot. This will slowly but steadily exhaust your city. You can prolong your life-term by relying on more men to do the fighting and by limitting the burdens placed on your economy -- but this requires a relatively cheap & effective fighting force.

That's pretty much what peltastai for example are: they avoid melee as long as possible (hence they can cut on the equipment) but are trained enough to take part in it whenever the need arises (so they can double as light infantry; talk about cost-effective) and they are trained beyond normal levels with their weapon of choice (which makes them particularly powerful skirmishers).

[TWFanatic]

As mentioned before, the reasons were as much social and economic as militant. Rome had the hoplite revolution for similar reasons. And later, they transferred to what we know in EB as the "Camilan" system of warfare for similar reasons as well.

[Watchman]

Wasn't the Roman shift due to the hoplite system being kinda sucky for fighting the Samnites in their damn highlands, though ?

Then again, the Greeks started adding peltasts to their armies because they found out the hard way how impotent the hoplites were against those with the Thracians...

[gurakshun]

That's pretty much what peltastai for example are: they avoid melee as long as possible (hence they can cut on the equipment) but are trained enough to take part in it whenever the need arises (so they can double as light infantry; talk about cost-effective) and they are trained beyond normal levels with their weapon of choice (which makes them particularly powerful skirmishers).

I wonder if all peltast armies in EB (or at least 66% peltasts , 33% elite shock hoplites -NO phalanxes, they cannot support the peltasts properly-,cav support,archers[wait, are archers even necessary anymore with a peltast dominated army?]) would be a feasible idea....peltasts seem to be even more flexible than the roman legions but better in terms of cost upkeep, and requisite infrastructure. *imagines 8 or 9 units of fully armor/weapon upgraded peltasts*

[NeoSpartan]

..... the reasons were as much social and economic as militant. ...........

Yep remember the long dragged peloponnesian War didn't allow a lot of people to save $$ and buy a really nice set of Hoplite armor.

[Urnamma]

First of all I am not expert on this. But I do think I can see a couple of issues with the "uber" heavy hoplites.

First: it requires you to have some serious funds to get it. This effectively limits the size of your army. In a city-state splendid-isolation based world order that's no big deal: you'll find that no other city state is capable of producing a really large army either; because you are all of about the same size. Since sheer lack of man power prevents you from forming a large army, you will have to look at other ways to make it effective to compensate for the lack of men.

However, when you suddenly do find yourself confronted with large-scale armies you will want a larger one yourself. It's all fine if you can hold back one major invasion - but the death of your most important soldiers in battle will ensure that sooner or later you can't field enough of them anymore.

Secondly: with the larger armies come the broader ambitions. And the hoplite based armies would do fairly well in a reasonably restricted field of battle but they wouldn't make such a fine army for conquering lot's of territory at once & campaigns deep into enemy territory which require you to pack your things and be gone the moment you hear of an approaching army. Within the near vicinity of your own polis/state you can assume to be well-informed; but when you are 2000 miles away from your home that kinda changes.

Thirdly: when you have to march for days on end with 30kg or with 10kg that makes a difference. If you start noticing the fact that you don't see much battle, but do see much miles you will be yearning for lighter equipment because your rationale will not be that of a soldier but that of every traveler: to get from A to B with the least amount of effort possible. If you have the chance to get stuck in the mountains during the snow falls in winter; or to be safely across the passes when they happen -- you will want the latter. And you can assure the latter by limitting the amount of stuff you need to carry around with you.

Fourthly: the Hoplite based armies require more of an economy to produce men of such wealth. When you face a constant war which is more than the occasional meeting of armies, but involves real campaigns aimed at the complete subjugation of your or enemy territory (rather than settling a dispute over a border) you will have to fight a lot and your economy will suffer a lot. This will slowly but steadily exhaust your city. You can prolong your life-term by relying on more men to do the fighting and by limitting the burdens placed on your economy -- but this requires a relatively cheap & effective fighting force.

That's pretty much what peltastai for example are: they avoid melee as long as possible (hence they can cut on the equipment) but are trained enough to take part in it whenever the need arises (so they can double as light infantry; talk about cost-effective) and they are trained beyond normal levels with their weapon of choice (which makes them particularly powerful skirmishers).

I think people should probably listen to Tellos ;)

[Geoffrey S]

Opposing (professional) armies became larger and larger, sticking to relatively small groups of hoplites was suicidal.

[russia almighty]

If the elites of the city where going out to fight though why wouldn't they stick to the bronze armor ? They would have slaves to carry it on the march .



Or did we see something that was similar to modern day warfare happen , the rich stopped fighting ?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

If the elites of the city where going out to fight though why wouldn't they stick to the bronze armor ? They would have slaves to carry it on the march .



Or did we see something that was similar to modern day warfare happen , the rich stopped fighting ?

However, when you suddenly do find yourself confronted with large-scale armies you will want a larger one yourself. It's all fine if you can hold back one major invasion - but the death of your most important soldiers in battle will ensure that sooner or later you can't field enough of them anymore.

But didn't the greeks face a lot of Persian invaders before with the standard heavy hoplite and won the day? Super Heavy Hoplite Equipment was well able to resist against anything thrown against them, and did really make a difference in quality against the more lightly armed and armored Persians. So it's an issue of quality vs. quantity here, and quality clearly has the leading edge, provided that the men are properly led of course.

Secondly: with the larger armies come the broader ambitions. And the hoplite based armies would do fairly well in a reasonably restricted field of battle but they wouldn't make such a fine army for conquering lot's of territory at once & campaigns deep into enemy territory which require you to pack your things and be gone the moment you hear of an approaching army. Within the near vicinity of your own polis/state you can assume to be well-informed; but when you are 2000 miles away from your home that kinda changes.

The fact is that most of the Peloponesian War was a broad-scale war, at least for Greek poleis standards. Men would fight in Siracuse, in distant islands, in Ionia, not just a few miles from their poleis. Yet, let me recall: Epaminondas lived in 371 B.C., and the "Peltast Revolution" was only at the beginning back them.

Thirdly: when you have to march for days on end with 30kg or with 10kg that makes a difference. If you start noticing the fact that you don't see much battle, but do see much miles you will be yearning for lighter equipment because your rationale will not be that of a soldier but that of every traveler: to get from A to B with the least amount of effort possible. If you have the chance to get stuck in the mountains during the snow falls in winter; or to be safely across the passes when they happen -- you will want the latter. And you can assure the latter by limitting the amount of stuff you need to carry around with you.

This is a valid reason, but then the Peloponesian War was fought mostly with these expensive hoplites with heavy equipment, as I said above.

Plus why wouldn't they just allow lower classes to fight instead of just abandoning the old tactics? Like the Camillan Romans, for example, or the Makedonians. Leave the middle class property owners with their expensive equipment and allow a good flow of low class recruits; these would be outfitted in cheaper, lighter armour and would also help carrying the heavy hoplite equipment during a long march.

But instead, the general trend was gradually lighter equipment for everyone, including the wealthy citizens who formed the bulk of the Greek professional forces.

[Geoffrey S]

But didn't the greeks face a lot of Persian invaders before with the standard heavy hoplite and won the day? Super Heavy Hoplite Equipment was well able to resist against anything thrown against them, and did really make a difference in quality against the more lightly armed and armored Persians. So it's an issue of quality vs. quantity here, and quality clearly has the leading edge, provided that the men are properly led of course.

Problem is, new enemies had large professional armies. Quality and quantity, if you will.

The fact is that most of the Peloponesian War was a broad-scale war, at least for Greek poleis standards. Men would fight in Siracuse, in distant islands, in Ionia, not just a few miles from their poleis. Yet, let me recall: Epaminondas lived in 371 B.C., and the "Peltast Revolution" was only at the beginning back them.

You'll find that the actions taking place quite a distance from the home city tended to fall flat rather dramatically; case in point being Athenian attempts in Sicily, or attempts to regain Ionia.

This is a valid reason, but then the Peloponesian War was fought mostly with these expensive hoplites with heavy equipment, as I said above.

Precisely. Most of the time both sides of a battle suffered from the same restrictions, restrictions only becoming obvious when faced with larger armies fighting in a different way.

Plus why wouldn't they just allow lower classes to fight instead of just abandoning the old tactics? Like the Camillan Romans, for example, or the Makedonians. Leave the middle class property owners with their expensive equipment and allow a good flow of low class recruits; these would be outfitted in cheaper, lighter armour and would also help carrying the heavy hoplite equipment during a long march.

But instead, the general trend was gradually lighter equipment for everyone, including the wealthy citizens who formed the bulk of the Greek professional forces.

Who said the elites abandoned old armaments? For a part, they did because such fighting styles were ineffective against large professional opponents, but heavy infantry certainly didn't go completely out of fashion and had its uses, and is represented in EB.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Basileos:

Of course you shouldn't take Herodotos as the be-all & end-all of Persian-Hellenic wars; but it is interesting to note the amount of defeats the Greek Hoplite based armies suffered against the (numerically, and often tactically) superior forces of the Persians he sums up.

In fact he claims that before the battle of Marathon even the word Persian was a reason for blind panic among Greeks...

//

About the Peloponesian War: for Greek poleis standards it was a broad scale war. But for Empire standards, it wasn't. What does apply though is the fact that this war clearly exhausted mainland Hellas to make them a relatively easy prey for Makedonian diplomatic coups & military invasion.

Note that the major equipment changes happen at a later stage - and note that the Makedonian lighter versions of Hoplites (the sarrisa phalanx) is in fact an attempt to beat low-social-class soldiers into a (semi-) professional infantry corps. This is inspired by the need for better & larger armies to counter Thracian & Illyrian raids.

Note that the final changes are made in an era when Hellenistic empires are vast and plentiful; which is what my point about the 2000 miles was about.
You may also want to imagine what had happened to Alexander's finances had he taken a Hoplite based army on campaign instead. Fact of the matter is: if you need a large retinue to carry your stuff for youl; you are simply slowing the army down. (Moving 5 people + donkey from A to B takes more time than moving 1 who carries his own stuff.)

//

Finally: Hoplite armies weren't just about Hoplite only. Anyone who was of fighting age had the duty to come and fight whenever the polis requested it. But the fact was that the lower classes were terribly ineffective against the heavy hoplites. Since the heavies troops would be positioned on the most dangerous part of the battle line, elite soldiers ended always up trying to break through the enemy non-elite soldiers ASAP. When they had succeeeded the battle would be considered over: the other party would either retreat or get slaughtered from behind. There was relatively little use for cavalry & light infantry, because of the way battles were fought.

The problem was that the city-states got exhausted; and they realised it. They did exactly what the Romans did in that respect: going for a different approach to battle in the hope to last longer.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I wonder if all peltast armies in EB (or at least 66% peltasts , 33% elite shock hoplites -NO phalanxes, they cannot support the peltasts properly-,cav support,archers[wait, are archers even necessary anymore with a peltast dominated army?]) would be a feasible idea....peltasts seem to be even more flexible than the roman legions but better in terms of cost upkeep, and requisite infrastructure. *imagines 8 or 9 units of fully armor/weapon upgraded peltasts*

Well it's like what general Iphikrates is reported to have used against the Spartans to a humiliating effect.

[gurakshun]

Well it's like what general Iphikrates is reported to have used against the Spartans to a humiliating effect.

Yep! since peltasts carry SIX thats 6 javvys, if you can get one facing the back of the enemy (if the enemy unit is already occupied from the front), they will pretty much ruin them.....thats why i think a peltast dominated army - with a few "enemy holder" units that are NOT phalaxnes and some anti-horse units , also archer baits - would reign supreme.

[bovi]

Why not phalanx? They're excellent anvils.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Bovi: for aforementioned implied reason that the Phalanx wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the army. He is basically trying to constantly out-manoeuver the enemy; instead of facing him head on.

[paullus]

Also recall that it wasn't ALL a movement in that direction. The Athenians took a move back toward the cuirass-armed hoplite in the 4th century, encouraging the true hoplitai class to wear bronze cuirasses for the first time in 100 years. These heavier hoplitai complemented the lighter iphikratous hoplitai and peltastai with a heavy force that could crush through the front of a lighter phalanx that was willing to come to grips.

Similarly, the Makedonian army got heavier as it got further east, not really because the heavier army suited the campaigning (it didn't, as has been pointed out, 30kg is a lot heavier than 10kg), but because there weren't renewable supplies of Makedonians, and with greater wealth at their disposal, the Makedonians could armor their soldiers more completely.

So while there was a general trend from the mid-5th century on which saw both the total numbers of hoplitai increase and their armor level decrease significantly, this was by no means a trend without counter-examples.

[geala]

One problem is that your dates and assumptions are probably partly wrong from the beginning. Firstly: we don't know for sure what happened and wether really something like "lightening" happened. I believe in it but it is debatable.

But why should we assume that from 370 BC onwards the equipment became lighter? I don't see any reasons for this date. The "Iphicratic reform" is a very elusive and enigmatic incident. We don't know wether the Iphicratic peltasts (= light hoplites) were really used and when, to what extent. We have two written sources about it but elsewhere (e.g. vase paintings) nothing is shown. The hoplites with aspis remained the standard until the second quarter/middle of the 3rd c. BC, when the adoption of the thureos became seemingly more widespread. The composite cuirass, made of linen or leather, was introduced as early as in the beginning of the 5th c. BC. It is not true that the bronze cuirass was the norm in the year 400 BC, quite the contrary. The composite armour is shown frequently from 490 BC onwards (appearing around 520 BC) in vase paintings. Btw it is highly doubtful that a composite cuirass was much lighter than a bronze one, both weighting about 4 to 6 kg. The greatest lightening of the hoplites took place in the 6th c. BC when the additional arm-, tigh- and footguards were discarded.

Many lightly equipped hoplites (without body armour) appear in paintings in the later half of the 5th c. BC. Peltasts came in use in these days too. Conventional wisdom connects this with the experience in Thrace from 460 BC onwards and the 2. Peloponesian War, starting 431 BC, the latter imposing a heavy financial burden to the poleis and bringing with it new forms of a more mobile warfare. And the wars became longer and longer, the battles more frequent, and the actual time in the field grew. If times are bad the protection of the individual soldier becomes less important than tactical advantages for the units and armies. Quite the same happened for instance in the Thirty-Years-War after 1635. For a hoplite a shield and helmet alone offered a good protection, so expensive additions could be discarded without a fundamental loss in unit performance.

Another theory is that lightly equipped hoplites formed part of the rear rows of the phalanges right from the beginning of hoplite warfare in the 7th c. BC. They were formed by the less wealthy peasants who could afford a shield and a spear, but perhaps no cuirass and/or helmet. Towards the end of the 5th c. BC also wealthier hoplites started to go more lightly equipped and than the artists started to show this feature. It is remarkable that the majority of lightly armoured hoplites at this time seem to be older men who stood more in the back rows of the phalanx. Young lightly equipped hoplites might have been ekdromoi, used to chase peltasts.

From the sources, mainly vase paintings, we must be careful. Many paintings in the 4th c. BC show warriors with (heroic and/or erotic) nudity or without armour. But grave stelae show more frequently armoured warriors.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Thanks all for your advices.

@geala,

Why did Greek equipment get so heavy before? War was a sport for the rich, I suppose, but then we're talking about the Greek Dark Ages and so when there was a widespread fight in the peninsula. And in Greek colonies, too, so the need for manpower was surely large.

Maybe because vases and other sources just portray wealthy people fighting, instead of the common men with lighter armour. So, the heavy hoplite was always an elite, and the lightening in the 5th and 4th centuries just happened because of the flow of semi-professional low class manpower... But I suppose there were always people equipped in linen, and etc... What about the pelte and the thureos? EB says they were only adopted from the 4th century onwards.

I'm curious on whether Mycenean hoplites already worn the traditional later heavy hoplite equipment. Is there any evidence for that? How did equipment get so heavy, and is there an evolution in this sense to the later heavy body plates used by the Greek elites?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Also recall that it wasn't ALL a movement in that direction. The Athenians took a move back toward the cuirass-armed hoplite in the 4th century, encouraging the true hoplitai class to wear bronze cuirasses for the first time in 100 years. These heavier hoplitai complemented the lighter iphikratous hoplitai and peltastai with a heavy force that could crush through the front of a lighter phalanx that was willing to come to grips.

Hmm... Epilektoi?

[Watchman]

I'm curious on whether Mycenean hoplites already worn the traditional later heavy hoplite equipment. Is there any evidence for that? How did equipment get so heavy, and is there an evolution in this sense to the later heavy body plates used by the Greek elites?

...the Myceneans had hoplites ? I thought they were more into the elite-chariots-and-lots-of-low-class-support-infantry Late Bronze Age pattern...

[different_13]

Well the thureos was inspired by Celtic shields, I think.
The pelta was Thracian, but I think it came to mean any small shield (for example the Cretan Archers used a small round bronze shield called a pelte..)

As "Mycenean hoplites", I'm willing to bet you'll get a few "there was no such thing" replies.
The term Hoplite tends to refer to the heavy infantryman who fought in the traditional phalanx (meaning Aspis/Doru phalanx).
Mycenean warfare isn't entirely known to us, and apparantly some Homeric poems allude to phalanx formations (though it's equally possible the writers just used the method of warfare known to them).

I think the tower-shield, figure-8 shield and some kind of round bronze shield (either the hoplon or a precursor, I can't remember the name) were very common, and the mass infantry would be armed with spears/javelins. Cavalry would have been rare. As for chariots - we still don't know what role they played (battle-taxi? Shock-cavalry? skirmishers?)

edit: damn, too slow..

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

...the Myceneans had hoplites ? I thought they were more into the elite-chariots-and-lots-of-low-class-support-infantry Late Bronze Age pattern...

I believe the hoplite tradition began during the Mycenean times. It is quite unpractical to use chariots in the rough, rocky southern greek terrain, anyway, so it's plausible that many nobles decided to fight on foot with heavy equipment. And cavalry was still very rare, too.

[Watchman]

"Very rare" as in "pretty much didn't exist outside the steppe". Anyway, as terrain goes Greece isn't exactly optimal for hoplites either - but that didn't really matter, because almost everything actually worth fighting over was located on more or less level ground.

That aside, one of the rather central details of the "true" hoplite system - the porpax or whatever that bronze loop on the inside of the shield the warrior passed his arm through was called - wasn't invented before whatwasitnow, 800s-700s BC in Ionia IIRC. Kinda difficult to have hoplites without their specialist shield which much of the whole combat technique worked around, I'd say.

As the chariots go, the Myceneans used them for a long time and the "Homeric" apparent battle taxis may well have been a *very* late developement - if Mycenean at all. Conceptually they're certainly much closer to the Celtic usage of chariots than the archer-platfroms and shock vehicles of the Late Bronze Age cultures of Eastern Mediterranean the Myceneans were in contact with.

[different_13]

This is OT, but what is the commonly accepted culture and ethnicity of the Trojans?
Were they Mycenean, Semitic, Hittite, what?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

"Very rare" as in "pretty much didn't exist outside the steppe". Anyway, as terrain goes Greece isn't exactly optimal for hoplites either - but that didn't really matter, because almost everything actually worth fighting over was located on more or less level ground.

That aside, one of the rather central details of the "true" hoplite system - the porpax or whatever that bronze loop on the inside of the shield the warrior passed his arm through was called - wasn't invented before whatwasitnow, 800s-700s BC in Ionia IIRC. Kinda difficult to have hoplites without their specialist shield which much of the whole combat technique worked around, I'd say.

As the chariots go, the Myceneans used them for a long time and the "Homeric" apparent battle taxis may well have been a *very* late developement - if Mycenean at all. Conceptually they're certainly much closer to the Celtic usage of chariots than the archer-platfroms and shock vehicles of the Late Bronze Age cultures of Eastern Mediterranean the Myceneans were in contact with.

But it is incredibly easy to give a guy a spear and shield, then train him with a militia to form a wall of spears, and that with the most primitive technology. Essentially, there were already predecessors that later led to hoplite warfare among the infantry... Wealthy citizens, and even the aristocracy, would gradually fight on foot as elite heavy infantry. That would lead to the technical and tactical upgrades leading to late hoplite warfare.

That, and considering most chariots were gradually abandoned in most places, first as shock weapons, then as anything useful in battle at all. There were probably no more purposes for Chariots during the Doric invasion except as taxis, and there wasn't cavalry either, so it was either foot or foot. Later technological innovations were a result of the constant improvement in this kind of warfare.

[Poulp']

I wonder if all peltast armies in EB (or at least 66% peltasts , 33% elite shock hoplites -NO phalanxes, they cannot support the peltasts properly-,cav support,archers[wait, are archers even necessary anymore with a peltast dominated army?]) would be a feasible idea....peltasts seem to be even more flexible than the roman legions but better in terms of cost upkeep, and requisite infrastructure. *imagines 8 or 9 units of fully armor/weapon upgraded peltasts*

I used to run a peltast-heavy army of Numidian Javelineers playing as Numidia (it was on vanilla, mind you)
The results were terrifying for the enemy, it's like chasing a mirage in the desert.
And their formation was dense enough to slip through any gaps and shoot/charge from behind.

It requires something to take care of enemy cav (jav cav) and shooters (light cav) and a mini anvil behind which the skirmishers can fall back (desert infantry)
It requires a lot of micromanagement too.