"Hoplites" and "phalangites"

[Sean Manning]

A recent thread reminds me that many modern authors distinguish between hoplites (armed with aspis and doru) and phalangites (armed with sarissa and round pelte). Yet, on the face of the words, every hoplite spearman is a phalangite (someone who fights in a phalanx) and every phalangite pikeman is a hoplite (an infantryman who fights in close order with striking and thrusting weapons). I'm not complaining about this, but does anyone know where it originated? Did ancient authors make the distinction?

[Paullus Scipio]

AFIK, ancient authors ( certainly the technical military manuals) did not distinguish.
'Hoplite' = a man-at-arms/armed soldier/armoured soldier with shield who took his place in the 'main battle line'/phalanx.

'Phalanx' = the main battle line of 'heavy' (i.e. shielded and helmeted at least) soldiers, called 'Hoplites' who fought generally in 'close order' hand-to-hand.

The three similar manuals of Arrian, Aelian and Asclepiodotus almost certainly derived from a common Hellenistic source say much the same.....all say roughly this:-
Arrian : Ars Tactica
"Infantry equipment falls into three classes,heavy (Hoplite), light(psiloi) and medium(peltastae).The hoplites have breastplates and round or oblong shields, swords and spears ( Greek style) or pikes (Macedonian style)....."
If the ancient authors needed to distinguish between a 'Dory' armed phalanx and a 'sarissa' armed one, they usually described the latter as "armed in the Macedonian manner"........

Distinguishing 'phalangites' from 'hoplites' is a modern convention, originating in the war-gaming world.

[Paralus]

Distinguishing 'phalangites' from 'hoplites' is a modern convention, originating in the war-gaming world.

Couldn’t agree more. To the ancient writers “hoplite” referred to heavy infantry – “of the line” as Paullus remarks. As I remarked on the other thread, Arrian, for the great part, describes the Macedonian infantry as “hoplites”.

If the ancient authors needed to distinguish between a 'Dory' armed phalanx and a 'sarissa' armed one, they usually described the latter as "armed in the Macedonian manner"........

The Macedonians seemed to taken “as read” as sarisa armed phalangites. Going from memory, Diodorus mostly refers to them as “the phalanx”, “the Macedonian phalanx” or simply as “Macedonians”. It is only when you read into their actions that one realises these are sarisa armed phalangites such as the massacre of the Indian mercenaries or the battle of the Hydaspes.

In the massacre the “The Macedonians thrust with their long spears (tais sarisais)…” It is clear the Macedonians are sarisa armed. At the Hydaspes Alexander attacks with two battalions of the phalanx, the hypaspists and the royal hypaspists. Along with them are the Agrianes and archers as well as 5,000 odd cavalry (a rather eloquent comment on the size of Porus' forces). The phalanx (the hypaspists and two battalions) were to attack after the onslaught of Alexander. Diodorus and Curtius both describe “the Macedonians” (under Seleucus, Antigenes and Tauron - what has become of Neoptolemus??) enjoying success with their “long spears” (sarisae) against the Indian infantry and mahouts (and elephants).

One wonders, again, on what basis Lane Fox conceived his notion that the Macedonians dispensed with their cumbersome sarisae – never to use them again under Alexander - when embarking on the Indian campaign.

In any case the “armed in Macedonian fashion” only comes into vogue after Alexander’s death. The only other mention might be Arrian’s description of the fitting out and training of the 30,000 epigoni who, whilst never serving under him, provided much spear fodder for his Diadochos.