06-19-2008, 02:08 AM
At the risk of sounding foolish (never bothered me before) doesn't it sound like Iphacrates invented the phalangite?
Double the dory to the pike
smaller round shield
Asian style armour (He's just back from Persia).
My SENSE (this is opinion!) of reading the quotes in Greek is that this is an "everybody knows" thing--everybody knew that Iphacrates invented the "modern" infantryman. that's the sense I get from the shoes and from a bunch of stuff in Polyaenus, too.
Worth noting that Macedonian infantry could be very light indeed when needed.
But then, so could hoplites. heh...
My sense of history is that there are few revolutions and many evolutions. Before I proposed the above to myself (about ten years ago) I was always wondering--where did the Macedonian infantryman come from? For what purpose was he evolved? Was he there to replace the hoplite, or to conquer Persia?
Athens in 380 and Macedon in 350 actually had some similar tactical problems... the social issue of the post-tyranny of the 30 Athenian world was re-enfranchised men with no hoplite training or skills (if you accept that these came from public training and athletic training--which many people do not accept). If Iphacrates found a way to make these men--psiloi by training but hoplites by enfranchisement--capable of resisting hoplites...
Then why would they not be emulated by Philip, who had a similar problem?
this would answer another one of my little historical issues, which is why Xenophon so disliked Iphacrates. If he felt that Iphacrates was undermining the whole system (and he clearly does)...
Pure speculation, based on insufficient data. I'll go back to making things...
Double the dory to the pike
smaller round shield
Asian style armour (He's just back from Persia).
My SENSE (this is opinion!) of reading the quotes in Greek is that this is an "everybody knows" thing--everybody knew that Iphacrates invented the "modern" infantryman. that's the sense I get from the shoes and from a bunch of stuff in Polyaenus, too.
Worth noting that Macedonian infantry could be very light indeed when needed.
But then, so could hoplites. heh...
My sense of history is that there are few revolutions and many evolutions. Before I proposed the above to myself (about ten years ago) I was always wondering--where did the Macedonian infantryman come from? For what purpose was he evolved? Was he there to replace the hoplite, or to conquer Persia?
Athens in 380 and Macedon in 350 actually had some similar tactical problems... the social issue of the post-tyranny of the 30 Athenian world was re-enfranchised men with no hoplite training or skills (if you accept that these came from public training and athletic training--which many people do not accept). If Iphacrates found a way to make these men--psiloi by training but hoplites by enfranchisement--capable of resisting hoplites...
Then why would they not be emulated by Philip, who had a similar problem?
this would answer another one of my little historical issues, which is why Xenophon so disliked Iphacrates. If he felt that Iphacrates was undermining the whole system (and he clearly does)...
Pure speculation, based on insufficient data. I'll go back to making things...
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
