+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: specifics in Spear fighting combat (/showthread.php?tid=11872)
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - PMBardunias - 05-22-2008
Quote: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.
Unless he meant that the fellow's training allowed him to run faster than his comrades, long jumping over corpses, and skewer fleeing foes first! (perhaps even beaning one in the head with a flattened disc-like rock
)I do agree that we too often pidgeon-hole hoplites as one-dimensional "heavy" infantry, and I am of the opinion that hoplites fought other hoplites in a much different fashion than they did non-hoplite foes.
Quote:Quote:
houtôs epoliorkês' egô ton andr' ekeinon ômôs
eph' heptakaidek' aspidôn pros tais pulais katheudôn.
translation?
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Kineas - 05-22-2008
H
Quote:That was a siege! Our men were ranged in lines of seventeen deep
Before the gates, and never left their posts there, even to sleep.
Sorry, I was looking things up in one browser and pasting to this one and let that off untranslated. Apologies.
Spear-fighting/Hoplite drill - Paullus Scipio - 05-23-2008
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 sarissaQuote: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: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...
But I'm a heretic.
Well, aren't we all in our own ways.
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:
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Giannis K. Hoplite - 05-23-2008
Paul M,when you say that an army had some depth(even if before the final charge),tell me a reason why this should have refered to the open order. The mention of the depth in used to compare the the strength of the oponent. So if they switched to close order afterwards,we should be informed of it.Otherwise it should mean either that they fought in open order,or that the number mentioned was refering to the depth they fought in.
As for your impression that there was not point of adding men to the ranks, then you must of cource consider the Thebans in Delion,and more so in Leuctra and Mantineia(and elsewhere) some idiots who didn't knoe their job and didn't have to extend their battle line,even though they were victorious in all those occasions. Or you think that in the text from Aristophanes that Christian posted above,the Athenians were staying n front of the gates all day and night in 17 ranks deep in open order,so in close order they would become...8.5?! No,he just wanted to say that when the time to fight came,they would form 17 deep. It's pointless to inform us what was their depth waiting and not how they fought.
Khaire
Giannis
PS.Your last post was so long that if needed to respond in the same way I should write an article. :lol: We've seen discussions becoming very difficult to follow when we all start writing very long posts.
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Kineas - 05-23-2008
I think it is at least possible that we should be wary of all mentions of depth, from Aristophanes to Xenophon.
Xenophon uses words carefully (all Greek writers do) and often leaves things out intentionally--he's writing for an informed audience of his friends. When he says that a group formed 4 deep, he may in fact be saying "we were so good, we didn't need the expedient of cowards--a deep formation."
Likewise, when he has the Thebans form in great depth, he notes first that by doing so they endangered all their allies who had agreed on a different depth (a VERY important line for this argument you guys are all in, because it meas that everyone used different depths and had to be standardized before battle--go figure) and second, I get the implication (hey, this's just me) that by being in great depth, they're complete cowards. Which is kind'a his point, over and over. Xenophon hates the Thebans.
Contrast this to Diodorus Siculus account of the battle.
Quote:LV. Now on the Lacedaemonian side the descendants of Heracles were stationed as commanders of the wings, namely Cleombrotus the king and Archidamus,1 son of the King Agesilaus, while on the Boeotian side Epameinondas, by employing an unusual disposition of his own, was enabled through his own strategy to achieve his famous victory. [2] He selected from the entire army the bravest men and stationed them on one wing, intending to fight to the finish with them himself. The weakest he placed on the other wing and instructed them to avoid battle and withdraw gradually during the enemy's attack. So then, by arranging his phalanx in oblique formation, he planned to decide the issue of the battle by means of the wing in which were the elite. [3] When the trumpets on both sides sounded the charge and the armies simultaneously with the first onset raised the battle-cry, the Lacedaemonians attacked both wings with their phalanx in crescent formation, while the Boeotians retreated on one wing, but on the other engaged the enemy in double-quick time. [4] As they met in hand-to-hand combat, at first both fought ardently and the battle was evenly poised; shortly, however, as Epameinondas' men began to derive advantage from their valour and the denseness of their lines, many Peloponnesians began to fall. For they were unable to endure the weight of the courageous fighting of the elite corps; of those who had resisted some fell and others were wounded, taking all the blows in front. [5]
Pardon the long quote, but the full description shows how little emphasis (none at all) is on DEPTH. It is the ELITE who decide the battle, and the lesser soldiers are sent to retire gradually and take up time. The better hoplites are "dense" but in no place are they "deep."
The Greek word for density used here is puknotês, the same word that Arrian uses for "close order.'
I am completely aware of the dangers of this contention, but I think we have to take all of Xenophon's views of depth with a grain of salt--and ditto Aristophanes. I believe that men are placed deeper when they are "weak" ie afraid, and thus, deep formations become a sign to the reader (in Xenophon) of cowardice. certainly in the quote I put up from Aristophanes, the intimation is supposed to be that the Athenian men are NOT brave. (We're talking Lysistrata, for heaven's sake!)
: )
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - PMBardunias - 05-23-2008
Quote: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.
I think you are incorrectly linking the "customary" part of the phrase to the depth of 4. Clearly, to me, he is referring to the individual units "customary", and probably argued over for honor's sake, position from right to left along the battle line. To Xenophon this would have been very important. I don't believe Xenophon is telling us that there is anything coustomary about the 4 rank depth. It is possible that this was a depth used against non-hoplites, there is good reason for this, but it is just as likely that the depth was a facade to make the army look more impressive to his audience.
Quote:Given what we know of Greek drill methods, it is logical to deduce that the equivalent open order was 8
ranks.
You mean what we know of Hellenistic drill, because other than a transition from enomotia to battle-line we know no intermediate step for greeks. I don't believe there was one.
Quote: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.
The point is that there is no evidence for doubling at this date either, so making up any combination is just as factual. Xenophon says no such thing, which is important, because he surely would have.
Quote:Beyond that, we may surmise what the open order might have been ( logically 8 ) but is peripheral to the point.
Integral to the point, by the end of the Peloponnesean war 12 was more common than 8 and 16 was seen as well.
Quote: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.
Who cares what depth they approach the field in? This offers us nothing of use in assesing the strength of the force. The important point is the depth of ranks in the battle-ready line, which, like the banks of oars on galleys, was a characterization of the strength of the force.
You make too much of the notion of a "common" depth prior to combat. These men deployed from enomotia into line, then even in your scheme marched some hundreds of yards, stopped and doubled before charging 50-150 yards. Aside from the spartans very little reorganization could occur between the initial formation of the line and the charge. If you can walk/run even 50 yards in a formation then surely you can walk at leisure for a few hundred. The middle depth is largely irrelevant even if it had existed.
Quote:as has been mentioned, in order to counter-march, they must be in open order ( c.f. modern military bands).
And yet Agiselaos countermarches to meet the Thebans at Koronea AFTER combat, presumably in close order.
Quote: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.
Aside from the fact that your 6 ranks would probably have fled like Argives prior to contact with my 12, your scheme is vulnerable to absurd reductionism: would a 4 deep line envelop your 6? a 3 that 4? etc... Clearly there is a minimum based on the needed power of the phalanx, and that minimum rose in the 5th c.
Quote: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.... )
Flattery will only make me agree with you in part- the ingenious part :wink: But actually, your scheme is quite compatable with mine. In fact were I to adopt it I could make a great case for the need to increase from 4, seemingly an absolute minimum, to 6 and 8 ranks in your manner, as the othismos becomes more important. I just see no evidence for doubling.
Kineas:
Quote:Likewise, when he has the Thebans form in great depth, he notes first that by doing so they endangered all their allies who had agreed on a different depth (a VERY important line for this argument you guys are all in, because it meas that everyone used different depths and had to be standardized before battle--go figure) and second, I get the implication (hey, this's just me) that by being in great depth, they're complete cowards.
While I jump at the chance to agree on Theban cowardice, I think the truth is more subtle. There is a treaty from the Corinthian war among the anti-spartan allies that states no contingent shall form in more than 16 ranks- which the Thebans break trecherously. But they did this not because it allowed cowards to hide in the deep ranks, but because it made local victory more likely. The Thebans had a better chance to win, but at the cost of length of line. Thus in raising their own chances of victory while risking the line there was cowardice.
Of course they would have the last laugh on this one, since their depth and local victory at the cost of the line is the Epaminondine strategy.
Spear Fighting/Hoplite Drill - Paullus Scipio - 05-23-2008
Giannis wrote:-
Quote:PS.Your last post was so long that if needed to respond in the same way I should write an article:lol: :lol:
...sorry about that, but unfortunately, when I come to the thread, I find that all you 'Western Hemishere' types have made many, many posts overnight while I slept....it is more difficult to 'catch up', and harder to write long posts than read them.
I'll try to keep this short....
Quote:tell me a reason why this should have refered to the open order.....that would require an article to set all the reasons. For now, just consider it a possibility, and approach the subject with an open mind, and read your original sources, not modern writers. Clue: the ancient drill manuals tell us that 'open order' is the normal order and hence has no special name...
Quote:So if they switched to close order afterwards,we should be informed of it....that is rash assumption. The ancient Greek writers are all from the Hoplite classes and their works are largely meant to be read by their peers, and Xenophon was a professional General. As Kineas points out they choose their words carefully, usually referring to what is significant, and certainly not wasting words and insulting their audience's intelligence by describing what all knew.
This lack of description of 'basics' is of course frustrating for the modern reader lacking even basic Hoplite drill.....
Quote:As for your impression that there was not point of adding men to the ranks, then you must of cource consider the Thebans in Delion,and more so in Leuctra and Mantineia(and elsewhere) some idiots who didn't knoe their job and didn't have to extend their battle line,even though they were victorious in all those occasions.... I was speaking of the general case, not the particular. Epaminondas' column tactics were 'new' and done for precisely the same reason as French Column tactics of the Napoleonic Wars. (Kineas' post will give you a hint) I suggest you study Military History, the psychology of warfare, and the Principles of War in all their variations; then you will understand that 'linear' versus 'column' tactics have recurred throughout History in naval as well as Land warfare, and the reasons why sometimes one, sometimes the other, prevail.
Quote:Or you think that in the text from Aristophanes that Christian posted above,the Athenians were staying n front of the gates all day and night in 17 ranks deep in open order,so in close order they would become...8.5?!....You cannot be serious! :lol: :lol:
Aristophanes is a comic writer ! You don't seriously believe they stood in front of the gates for 24 hours in close order, do you?...(try it some time! BTW if they did, then it had to be in open order, so as to sit or lie down to sleep))...It is a boast...an exaggerated joke! As is the "17 ranks"...everyone would laugh, knowing 17 was an impossible number, ( as you have recognised) so the speaker is ignorant of matters military, a fool, or a boaster, or all. :lol: :lol:
'nuff said.....this post grows too long :wink: :wink:
Sper Fighting/Hoplite drill - Paullus Scipio - 05-23-2008
Kineas wrote:-
Quote:Likewise, when he has the Thebans form in great depth, he notes first that by doing so they endangered all their allies who had agreed on a different depth (a VERY important line for this argument you guys are all in, because it meas that everyone used different depths and had to be standardized before battle--go figure)
...I think you'll find that no-one in this debate disputes that depths could vary for a variety of reasons ( see for example my earlier post ).
Quote:but I think we have to take all of Xenophon's views of depth with a grain of salt
For the record, here they are, as spoken by the fictional Cyrus in the Cyropaedia ( Education of Cyrus), a thinly disguised fiction which contains many tactical ideas.....
" when Phalanxes are too deep to reach the enemy with weapons, answered Cyrus," how do you think they can either hurt their enemy or help their friends?. For my part, I would rather have those hoplites who are arranged in columns a hundred deep, drawn up ten thousand deep; for in that case we should have very few to fight against. ( i.e. on a narrow front). According to the depth that I shall give my line of battle, I believe I shall bring the entire line into action and make it everywhere mutually helpful.."
Here, he advocates Line over Column, and he seems to have been right, since no-one subsequently adopted Theban tactics; for it was not the depth that was the secret of Epaminondas' success, as Xenophon knew....
Spear Fighting/Hoplite drill - Paullus Scipio - 05-24-2008
Paul B. wrote:-
Quote:I think you are incorrectly linking the "customary" part of the phrase to the depth of 4. Clearly, to me, he is referring to the individual units "customary", and probably argued over for honor's sake, position from right to left along the battle line. To Xenophon this would have been very important. I don't believe Xenophon is telling us that there is anything coustomary about the 4 rank depth. It is possible that this was a depth used against non-hoplites, there is good reason for this, but it is just as likely that the depth was a facade to make the army look more impressive to his audience.I would find this type of speculation/hypothesis more persuasive, if you cited some evidence or sources to support the expressed viewpoint. It seems to me that you and Giannis both start from an assumption, and when evidence from an original source is cited, you 'interpret', paraphrase or downright alter the meaning to suit that assumption....surely that is not the right way to go about debating a subject ?
Post evidence/source statements first, and then put your position from there and then you may persuade me to come round to your views.... :wink:
Quote:The important point is the depth of ranks in the battle-ready line, which, like the banks of oars on galleys, was a characterization of the strength of the force....agreed, to an extent, but my view, largely based on Xenophon admittedly ( but then why not ? He actually was a Hoplite General! ) is that Hoplites in formation spent most of their time in normal/open formation, probably with their servants/shield bearers alongside ( if the Greek drill command, "Fall out the shield bearers!" is anything to go by) and if an author tells you the 'normal' depth, then you automatically know the 'fighting' depth (half that).
Quote:And yet Agiselaos countermarches to meet the Thebans at Koronea AFTER combat, presumably in close order.......that would be a rather incorrect "presumption". Elsewhere (in the 'Constitution', and also described in the Hellenistic manuals) Xenophon tells precisely how this was carried out, in 'open' order, with the rear marker about-turning, then the file leader passes up beside him, leading the file...so clearly, the first move of the 'counter march' was to 'Open Order'. ( try carrying aspides and jostling through in close order! ). Other possible evidence for 'open order' comes from the same battle, though it sounds somewhat strange and is only in later writers, who claim Agesilaos 'open ordered' his ranks to let the Thebans through
hock: hock: ....(Frontinus II.6.6 and Polyaenus II.1.19)...I am more inclined to believe Xenophon IV.3.19 Hellenica when he says "some of the Thebans broke through..."Quote:I just see no evidence for doubling.....on the contrary, the evidence for the use of 'open order' and 'doubling' by Hoplites is overwhelming. To avoid a lengthy post, I will give but a couple of examples.....
The front rank of a Spartan phalanx comprised the officers and leaders, but from it, the 'younger' age-classes could run out to chase off peltasts....only possible from open order....or Xenophon's Cyropaedia again for 'doubling' the file from 8 into 4 "..he gave the order to lead each file in twos. On this the dekarchs led up the files by the side into line. And when he judged it proper, he gave the order for each file to form fours. And thereupon the pentarchs in their turn led up by the side to form fours...." (thereby doubling the ranks into close order and halving the depth)
Or for non-Spartan Hoplites moving from 'close' to 'open' order, consider Cunaxa (Xen Anabasis I.8.20) where against chariots; ".... some, abandoned by their drivers did go through the Greeks. When they saw them coming, they opened ranks..." or again, (I.10.7) this time the Greek peltasts against Tissaphernes cavalry; "However, he did not kill a single man. The Greeks opened their ranks and struck at his men with their swords and flung javelins at them.."
I could go on, but I don't want this post to get too long.....
D lol: Quote:your scheme is vulnerable to absurd reductionism: would a 4 deep line envelop your 6? a 3 that 4? etc...That is the second time you have assailed my point by the rather poor method ofreductio ad absurdum...unfair rhetoric, and in the words of Mr Spock "Illogical, Captain! " :wink: :wink:
You might have done better by pointing out that the Spartans tried "my" enveloping tactics against the deeper Thebans at Leuktra....but didn't 'get it right', or were thwarted by Pelopidas and the sacred Band, and the deeper formation won, against Spartan expectations....
D
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Kineas - 05-24-2008
Quote:I think you are incorrectly linking the "customary" part of the phrase to the depth of 4. Clearly, to me, he is referring to the individual units "customary", and probably argued over for honor's sake, position from right to left along the battle line. To Xenophon this would have been very important. I don't believe Xenophon is telling us that there is anything coustomary about the 4 rank depth. It is possible that this was a depth used against non-hoplites, there is good reason for this, but it is just as likely that the depth was a facade to make the army look more impressive to his audience.
Perseus is down, so I can't check my work and histemi is not my best verb, but the important part of the sentence (man, you are making me sight-read--my Greek ain't that great) says (apologies for bad latin transliteration)
Ekeluese de tous Ellenas (He ordered the Greeks) hos nomos autois (in the manner customary to them) eis Maxen outw taxthenai kai stenai, (to form lines and to stand just as into battle).
I wouldn't want to bet my life on this translation, and I just got a valauble lesson on how much I rely on computers for verbs like histemi (stenai is a 2nd Aorist active infinitive, or so I'm guessing and god help me).
My point is that if "customary" referred to the location of the sub units, I'm pretty sure the sentence would have a referential indication, one of the many Greek markers like "I'm about to say more" like the men de construction (since he goes on to discuss the formation side by side.) As a final linguistic nail, he says "taxthenai" in this sentence and "taxthesan" in the next, which I recall as a nice way of linking the two--same verb, see, so the two thoughts are linked. so...to form lines... formed lines in 4 ranks" are linked thoughts.
I'd be delighted to have another Greek reader check my work. Greek is not my first or 2nd language!
Spearfighting/ Hoplite Drill - Paullus Scipio - 05-24-2008
Quote:Perseus is down, so I can't check my work and histemi is not my best verb....yeah, I had that problem too !
Hence I had to type out the Xenophon quotes in my post "longhand " !!.... :lol: :lol:
Re: Greek Hoplite formations/Spear fighting - Sean Manning - 05-24-2008
Quote:Christian wrote:-Great thread, everyone. Paulus, do we really have any descriptions of collective hoplite training before the late fourth century? I thought that there was none, just talk of hoplomachia and young aristocrats learning tactics and drill. Which leaves the fact that they could form up and move forward as a unit, but how they learned this (and how good most citizen hoplites were at it) rather vague.
Quote:My memory is that Athenian ephebe training was only instituted in the late 4th century, as I noted in my post. Is there any other source that speaks to hoplite training earlier?Yes, Xenophon mostly, but also Thucydides, Plato's Laches and many other sources refer to Hoplite training ( or rather, lack of it ! ) so we have a fairly good picture of what Hoplites could and couldn't do....
Prior to the ephebic reform (reform in recruitment) at Athens in 335 BC, Athenian hoplites were generally expected to provide their own arms and armour, and responsible for their own training ( see for example, the discussion in Plato's Laches, where the pros and cons of professional teachers of Hoplomachia = hoplite fighting, are discussed.).
While their defeat at Macedonian hands at Chaeironea in 338 caused the Athenians to rethink how to assure their military preparedness, little was done until Alexander the Great departed for the Near East in the spring of 335. The resulting ephebic reform involved a massive increase in the city's hoplite forces, with the thetes, the poor of Athens, admitted to the hoplite ranks for the first time. The need to equip the thetes(lower class citizens) as hoplites resulted in the likely adoption of a system of issue-and-return, which was the most economical one available. Each of the ephebes, the new recruits to the system, was given a shield and spear at state expense, trained for a year and was then sent on garrison duty for a year.
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - griffin - 05-24-2008
Quote:Ekeluese de tous Ellenas (He ordered the Greeks) hos nomos autois (in the manner customary to them) eis Maxen outw taxthenai kai stenai, (to form lines and to stand just as into battle).
I wouldn't want to bet my life on this translation, and I just got a valauble lesson on how much I rely on computers for verbs like histemi (stenai is a 2nd Aorist active infinitive, or so I'm guessing and god help me).
I just double checked my Oxford Greek Grammar, and your translation seems quite reasonable. The Middle Liddell lists Xenophon's usage of "histemi" as "Stand(in battle formation)", and stenai is in fact the 2nd Aorist active infinitive( the intransitive one). The "theoi" helped you in your translation. time to "thuein" something.....
Quote:I'd be delighted to have another Greek reader check my work. Greek is not my first or 2nd language!
Happy to help.[/quote]
Spear Fighting/Hoplite Drill - Paullus Scipio - 05-24-2008
Sean wrote:-
Quote:Paulus, do we really have any descriptions of collective hoplite training before the late fourth century?
Well, working backward from the 'Ephebic' reforms c.335 BC for Athens in Alexander's time, so far as major sources go we have some references in Aristotle (floreat c 350-320.), then Xenophon, our main source for matters military concerning Hoplites (floreat c 411-362 ) and Plato's 'Laches' (floreat c.428-348 BC), then Thucydides for the Peloponnesian War ( describes 479- 410, abruptly breaking off and leaving the last 6 years, probably because he died) and Herodotus, "The Father of History" who tells us of the Persian Wars (490-479 BC ) but little about training beyond that we are into the pre-Hoplite era, with the possible exception of the poet Tyrtaeus...so most of our information is concentrated in the period 450-350 BC roughly....
Re: specifics in Spear fighting combat - Kineas - 05-24-2008
Thanks, Michael.
I feel like a successful classicist, for once.(Slyly does not admit how long he looked at the verb in question before stumbling over the answer).