Spartan hype?

[PMBardunias]

You don't address the points put forward, nor do you put up an alternate viewpoint, supported by the sources. Is this RAT's answer to the "Mall Ninja" ??

Or perhaps simply a Mall Rat. No need to get so fiesty.

At any rate, I set out the mechanics, as I saw them, of Hoplite drill

Well I am glad you clarified this since I was under the impression that you were one of those who believed that hoplites clashed in opened order. Thus we have far less difference of opinion now. I believe that enomotia of 36 men formed close order by splitting in three, you believe they did this by splitting in 3 and then in 3 again. If you are correct, this in no way alters my perception of phalanx combat,it simply thins all ranks equally.

J.K. Anderson wrote a paper on Xenophon's Rep.Lac. 1.11.10. He describes the enomotia of 36 being drawn up in 3's 12 deep, or alternately in 6's 6 deep. It is clear that these are Alternate battle formations and not formed loose and close respectively.

I don't believe that they had to be formed loose in order to conduct a Laconian countermarch. They turn right, then the man at the end steps forward and all the rest move out in fromt of him in order until the filelleader is at the fron of the file facing the new direction. This was not a "U" turn in which the file doubled.

"run 200 metres.."? Where did you get that idea?

This is what the Thebans did at Coronea. Goldsworthy specifically states that 100-200 yards was a common distance that the charge was initiated. Do you have this paper? even though I chopped it apart, it is a good paper for details.

'a body of men in linear battle array'; but perhaps you have?

Fair dinkum mate, but the function of the "linear array" is implied in the understaning of the word. The Fulcum is a linear array and it's mechanics are in no way simmilar to a hoplite phalanx. Surely you can see the semantic problem of asking Arrian, Wellington, and Patton what a battle-line is? You can have a "phalanx" of peltasts or cavalry, but the connotation is not the same as a hoplite phalanx.

I most certainly would not have the temerity to suggest that we know more about Mycenean warfare than Homer !! Even if he was simply heir to a long verbal tradition; and arms and armour, and tactical methods were different from his own day, so that he was "wrong"in part, once again, he had access to sources, long lost, that we do not.

But we have access to much more than he had. We have the benefit of Archaeology from all over the region, comparative material from Egyptian and hittite sources, etc. We also do not have to color our interpretation for dramatic effect and to flatter contemporaries- unless you are Frank Miller of course.

"most authors assume......". Evidence? citations? sources?

Start with Xenophon's description of Coronea or Cunaxa to understand the upper limit to when they broke into a charge and the consequences. Then read at least two papers, Goldsworthy (97) and Luginbil's othismos paper- between them they cite most everything of interest.

" herd dynamics" ? This is not a flock of sheep we are talking about here but professional, trained, Spartan Hoplites!! Even Asiatics fought in formations not 'herds' or 'blobs'. The whole point of drill is to get men to overcome their fear in the stress of battle and function. A battle is lost once cohesion/disciplie goes and mob/herd behaviour takes over. This is emphasised over and over since time immemorial.......

This is not true, order can be lost and reform. Hoplites can begin a charge formed, lose formation as they advance and reform on contact. This is because hoplites fought synaspismos, a formation that is self-assembling like lego blocks. Hoplites were very much a crowd. If hoplites did run in the charge, then what I described had to have occured. I know of no one who believes that they could maintain spacing and ranks while running.

"Thymbrara" was Xenophon's opportunity to explain how to deal with Spartan'envelopment' tactics as well as Theban'column' ones, and , as you say an opportunity for an experienced cavalry commander to expound on cavalry and light troop tactics in the the light of his Anabasis experience.

I agree completely, thus he presents something beyond what was possible for the hoplites of his day. We should not expect a reader to think he could break through a column AND maneuver around the rear of the opposing force with a troop of hoplites in time to be relevant to the rest of the battle. So his writing does not translate directly to greek hoplite tactics.

Sorry, but you must put forward a hypothesis/alternate theory, cite your sources, and explain the matters I have alluded to in some alternate way if worthwhile debate is to continue.

If you don't see that I have, then perhaps you are correct that we should not continue. We can never solve this problem by citing sources alone, though I have given you many, and assumed you were familiar with others I drew information from- like the 200 yd charge at Coronea. If you read the various papers on how hoplites fought, you'll see that both sides cite exactly the same passages. We need to look beyond them to such universals as psychology, physics, and battlefield mechanics to get beyond the impass.