Christian wrote:-
Quote:Note that all the words in Greek are interactive, so if you want to waste hours (it's not a waste, actually) you can look at the word definitions even if you don't speak a word of classical greek.
...being a non-greek speaker myself, this is exactly what I do !
But there is a caveat - sometimes the lexicons and dictionaries perpetuate errors....a classic example being the association of
longche( a shortish dual purpose throwing/thrusting spear) with Macedonians leading to it being mistakenly translated as 'pike', which in fact is
sarissa
Quote:I'm bringing this up because here, and again in Hellenika, Xenophon describes not an orderly march of the phalanx to meet its opponent, with careful rank closing and then a charge--he describes a 'bursting forth" of some warriors, with the rest running in behind, crashing like a wave.
This is exactly what we would expect...it is consistent with the entire human experience of men going into battle - fear, tension, and excitement lead to an eagerness "to get it over with" and individuals accelerate until the whole are carried forward by the momentum of the charge.Throughout Military History, commanders perpetually address this problem of 'curbing the men's eagerness' in order to keep the ranks intact. Note that initially, the running is started by rear ranks anxious not to fall behind...
Quote:Not only do some things evolve over time, but different generals take time to train their men to different tasks. Look at the Spartans sending different age groups off on "raids" against enemy skirmishers. Look at Iphacrates (forget his so-called reforms, just look at the training he put them to). Scholars have a belief that the hoplite way of war was unchanged for 300 years--hey, people try to say the same about medieval knights. Daft. There was change every campaign. We just can't document is all, and neither could they, and hence we're surprised by all of the deviations from "the norm."
Hear, Hear ! Couldn't agree more. "Armchair Strategists" often decry 'Military Blunders' in History applying twenty-twenty hindsight and knowledge the commanders didn't have, or ignoring limitations the commanders were stuck with ( General Braddock's campaign springs to mind, Christian :wink: ) For a current example. look how the second Iraq war differs from the first....Soldiers are faced with new problems
every campaign.
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus/Robert wrote:- (great choice of name, by the way! )
Quote:Kineas wrote:
But I'm a heretic.
Well, aren't we all in our own ways.
Maybe, but many of us are 'orthodox' in following the views of others blindly and uncritically....I am for critical and original thinking where appropriate. I am
definitely in Kineas' camp...
Paul B. wrote:-
Quote:Iphicrates reforms have been postulated to have resulted from Athenian marines armed after egyptian fashion. I can't find the link to Luke Ueda-Sarson's article on this, perhaps someone has it.
Here.....
www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html
Quote:Nice try, but you have proved nothing about "doubling." A direct reading of this is that he formed up 4 deep and charged that way. Were he to describe these troops prior to battle he would have said they formed in four ranks.
No, you mistake my point. I agree with you that on this occasion ( the review) the troops formed up on parade
directly in close order, 4 deep, probably only 50 yards or so from the 'audience'.The point is that this was the Hoplites 'customary'
battle order, as opposed to 'normal'/marching/open order.Given what we know of Greek drill methods, it is logical to deduce that the equivalent open order was 8
ranks.
Quote:For this you have no more evidence than for forming in 12 and tripling or forming in 16 and doubling twice- both just as unlikely.
This is hypothetical taken to the point of ridicule. Evidence for your assertions of 'tripling' and 'quadrupling'? As I mentioned above, my point was simply that 4 deep was the Hoplites 'customary' battle order.(bearing in mind other depths were used also). Xenophon says so unequivocally. Beyond that, we may surmise what the open order might have been ( logically 8 ) but is peripheral to the point.
Quote:I agree with Giannis. I see no reason to doubt that a standard formation for fighting hoplites was 8 or 12 deep,
That is all very well, bit isn't that just an assumption ? What evidence can either of you adduce that this was so ? When a source says e.g." they approached the battlefield and were 12 ranks deep" that must mean in 'normal'/open order, and if there were any doubt, as has been mentioned, in order to counter-march, they
must be in open order ( c.f. modern military bands).It necessarily follows that for combat in 'close order' they must close to 6 ranks deep.
Consider also two equal forces of 6,000 meet each other, one in open order 12 deep, one in close order 12 deep.This would mean the one in open order would be 1,000 yards long, and the one in close order 500 yards long. What would happen? The longer line closes just before contact, and long before the 12 ranks break through the 6 ranks they are enveloped and annihilated ( in fact, in a few short minutes)...therefore all Hoplite commanders would want the longest line, at minimum depth, compatible with the country and the enemy etc. Military Logic dictates this. As well as the fact that in 12 ranks deep, most of the men play no useful part. ( all of which is, of course, anathema to Paul B.s ingenious 'Othismos' hypothesis....
)
Quote:while a standard formation for frightening Cilician queens is 4 deep
:lol: :lol: ...very witty - but that was merely an amusing by-product. What was the real purpose of going to the trouble of bringing 10,000 men to assemble together ? ( an impressive feat in itself, which would have taken hours) ....This was the first time that the various mercenary contingents had been brought together as a 'phalanx' - an important rehearsal for the battle to come, so that everyone could get to know his place, especially the contingent commanders ( the individuals will have already known their places in the respective contingents) hence Xenophon's point about whose contingent stood next to whose....
Quote:Xenophon is clearly more interested in the place of the individual units in line than the depth.
....so we can agree on this, at least!
Christian/Kineas wrote:-
Quote:Phalanx fighting, of whatever type, was not the only function of a hoplite's life, especially in the looser and more wide ranging battles from 430 BC to 279. And Pankration, swordsmanship, and perhaps even spear fighting would all be useful skills to have, from a wine shop brawl to the deck of a trireme, especially after war becomes "professionalized." And given how often Xenophon mentions a guy as a champion at Pentathlon just before saying "and he killed three men," it seems to me the personal combat skills may well have played a roll in phalanx fighting, too.
Good points! The Hoplite may once have been a rank amateur whose only function was to hold his place in the 'Phalanx' for a day or two in the regular summer clashes between city states, but from the Persian Wars onward, we see the evolution referred to earlier....garrisons, shipboard fighting, expeditionary forces, light troops and counters to them, cavalry, patrolling, skirmishes and a myriad other combat innovations arrive to complicate the citizen Hoplite's life. Hence the rise of the 'professional' mercenary Hoplite. One has only to follow the History of say, Sparta's rise to Hegemony.Even it could not afford to send it's citizen army, professional though it was, beyond the borders of the Peloponnese other than occasionally, or for very long. Cash-poor (relatively) Sparta solved the problem of garrisons/expeditionary forces by raising 'neodamodeis' Hoplites ( a cheap alternative to hiring mercenaries), but ultimately had to hire Gallic and Spanish (and other)mercenaries as warfare got more complex....
There's much more to be said on this fascinating and complex subject but this post is long enough......
D shock: