08-06-2004, 03:49 PM
Re: phalanxes<br>
<br>
"That a hoplitic phalanx could be used aggressively is banal to the extent that one of the two sides in a battle was trying to win. The OTHER hoplitic phalanx was defending"<br>
<br>
Strategically, this is true. Tactically, which is where formations of any kind make the most difference, the usual rule for Greek warfare was that both sides were marching forwards. They were both attacking, and met in mid-field. This is not the same as what was being done by the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings. Yet Harold's formation would qualify as a phalanx, by a loose definition. So would a cuneus, or the mixed archer and spearmen formations of the 10th century Eastern Roman armies.<br>
<br>
"To defeat a mass of men you need another mass of men. A numerous group of men, to have any real effective weight, must be in a formation of some minimum density, else no degree of useful cohesion can be ensured. PERIOD.<br>
...<br>
<br>
All other details -perfered weapons and way of striking at enemy, with spear of sword, type of armor, use of very heavily armored and shield to shield formations or less dense, more open ones- are variations that some armies specialized in, or, a given army might apply in various tactical variations. The best ancient exmple of the latter is the flexible roman army. "<br>
<br>
This implies that the English formation at Agincourt is also a "phalanx". I would submit that this usage makes "phalanx" mean "any infantry formation except a Roman legion". <p></p><i></i>
<br>
"That a hoplitic phalanx could be used aggressively is banal to the extent that one of the two sides in a battle was trying to win. The OTHER hoplitic phalanx was defending"<br>
<br>
Strategically, this is true. Tactically, which is where formations of any kind make the most difference, the usual rule for Greek warfare was that both sides were marching forwards. They were both attacking, and met in mid-field. This is not the same as what was being done by the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings. Yet Harold's formation would qualify as a phalanx, by a loose definition. So would a cuneus, or the mixed archer and spearmen formations of the 10th century Eastern Roman armies.<br>
<br>
"To defeat a mass of men you need another mass of men. A numerous group of men, to have any real effective weight, must be in a formation of some minimum density, else no degree of useful cohesion can be ensured. PERIOD.<br>
...<br>
<br>
All other details -perfered weapons and way of striking at enemy, with spear of sword, type of armor, use of very heavily armored and shield to shield formations or less dense, more open ones- are variations that some armies specialized in, or, a given army might apply in various tactical variations. The best ancient exmple of the latter is the flexible roman army. "<br>
<br>
This implies that the English formation at Agincourt is also a "phalanx". I would submit that this usage makes "phalanx" mean "any infantry formation except a Roman legion". <p></p><i></i>
Felix Wang
