06-24-2009, 08:58 PM
You all argue back and forth that "a lot of men inside phalanx were useless", but it can be quite well explained. During Korean War US army made some tests that shown that only 2% of soldiers were actually shooting towards opponents. Rest either not shot at all or shot in the air. I assume that in ancient societies this % would be much higher, but still no more than 10%. Others wouldn't be that useful in battle as numbers only would suggest, on the other hand if placed inside the phalanx they could add to formation strength, if only a little.
This can also explain well known "ferociousness" of mountain tribes, who due to living conditions had higher percentage of "natural warriors". On the other hand settled communities, especially city dwellers had lower percentages of such men and thus their fighting ability (as a group) is much lower. This may be the answer why phalangitai of Philip II and Alexander were more effective than those of Philip V and Perseus - later period soldiers were simply more civilised and due to this much worse warriors. If it is so, then it is obvious that mercenary armies like the Xenophon's** were able to fight in much shallower formation than typical citizen army.
On the topic of pike phalanx - it should be noted that its depth may have much stronger connection to mobility than to fighting. Depth of sixteen may simply reflect depth needed to create nice 256 men square (speira). When 32 deep phalanx is mentioned, at Magnesia, phalanx is divided into 1000 men strong units - most probably 4 speira sized units placed together in a nice big square. Actually the formation of Antiochos's army seem to resemble early modern army with pike/musketeer squares with guns between them.
Edit: ** Not his at this point, but you know what I mean.
This can also explain well known "ferociousness" of mountain tribes, who due to living conditions had higher percentage of "natural warriors". On the other hand settled communities, especially city dwellers had lower percentages of such men and thus their fighting ability (as a group) is much lower. This may be the answer why phalangitai of Philip II and Alexander were more effective than those of Philip V and Perseus - later period soldiers were simply more civilised and due to this much worse warriors. If it is so, then it is obvious that mercenary armies like the Xenophon's** were able to fight in much shallower formation than typical citizen army.
On the topic of pike phalanx - it should be noted that its depth may have much stronger connection to mobility than to fighting. Depth of sixteen may simply reflect depth needed to create nice 256 men square (speira). When 32 deep phalanx is mentioned, at Magnesia, phalanx is divided into 1000 men strong units - most probably 4 speira sized units placed together in a nice big square. Actually the formation of Antiochos's army seem to resemble early modern army with pike/musketeer squares with guns between them.
Edit: ** Not his at this point, but you know what I mean.
Maciej Pomianowski
known also as \'ETAIROS
known also as \'ETAIROS
