Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Phalanx
#16
Francis,

Have you been to Greece? The terrain absolutely stunned me. It certainly would define how battles were fought. Land (valleys) considered level enough for agriculture are still too lumpy to see very far. You need to be up at least 500 feet to see across from one range of foot hills to the next. Mycenae commands Argos - you can see the bay and Tiryns - but down on the ground you are enclosed by rolling hills, river gullies, steep hill faces. Amazing geography to a flatlander like me.
Cheryl Boeckmann
Reply
#17
Paralus wrote:
>This based on the number of homoioi? I find this hard to swallow. There is absolutely no
>record of them ever having participated in the battle. The Greeks – as with the Athenians
>and Plataeans at Marathon – will have assembled a hoplite army for this battle. It was
>their way of war. If the “light troops” did anything we have heard little of it.

I'd have to disagree. Heorodotus writes:

"The Lacedaemonians and Tegeans accordingly stood alone, men-at-arms and light-armed together; there were of the Lacedaemonians fifty thousand and of the Tegeans, who had never been parted from the Lacedaemonians, three thousand. " (Hdt 9.61, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D61 )

Which would certainly indicate they were present. Now, the following passages indicate that the fully armoured Spartans were at the pointy end of the engagement, but that doesn't negate participation by the light armed troops as skirmishers, missile support, and pursuers of the routed. Also, we have at least one specific instance from Plataea of a light-armed combatant providing critical support:

"The cavalry charged by squadrons, and Masistius' horse, being at the head of the rest, was struck in the side by an arrow. Rearing up in pain, it threw Masistius, who when he fell, was straightaway set upon by the Athenians." (Hdt 9.22, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... s%2Cgolden )

Which is certainly a record of the light troops participation in the battle. Herodotus tells us they were there, and that they did something. Just because they weren't the "heroes" of the affair didn't mean they didn't particpate.

Thanks
Cole
Cole
Reply
#18
I haven't been to Greece right enough.

But still, unless they plank a Phalanx in the middle of 2 steep cliffs I don't see how they would not attempt flanking attacks etc. If they had such a strong position why would anyone even attack? Why else have light troops? they would be perfect for that type of terrain.

If i was a general fighting a Phalanx i would concentrate on the flanks, even if they where sandwiched within rough terrain. Should you not always focus on an enemys weak point?

Cheers
Francis
Francis Aitken
Reply
#19
fhaggis, have you looked at the maps of many Greek battles? There is usually some sort of terrain protecting one or both flanks which would prevent large, organized bodies of troops moving around it. And things often got chaotic quickly, with some hoplites routing after a few moments of combat. There are recorded instances of flank and rear attacks, but they weren't trivial to pull off.

Having men on the flanks face sideways wouldn't do much defensively and would make it hard for the ends of the line to advance and retreat or push on the backs of the men ahead of them. Later columns of pikemen sometimes stopped and faced in all directions, but they had to stop moving and they had much longer flanks.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#20
Francis,

It strikes me that you may want to consider that exercising command and control of a body of men extended over that stretches several kilometers when the only tools at your command are the sound of the general's voice and verbal messages sent by runners.

In order to be able to effectively exploit that flank the general needs to be able to see itamong the dust and confusion, communicate via messenger to the body of men he wishes to exploit it before the opportuinity passes, have his orders understood, and then executed, again before the opportunity passes.

Armies that were able to exploit flank attacks either had a significant maneuverability advantage over their opponents (i.e. light horse), or a professional officer class, complex signalling methodologies (horns, music, banners) standard orders to make reaction more automatic, and so forth.

None of these were available to the greeks, which may explain why flank actions seem not to have played a significant role in their warfare.

Have fun!
Cole
Cole
Reply
#21
Phalanxes evolved slowly.
Initially a king and some retainers were hoplites.
Then the aristokratic clans swelled the numbers.
Even later the middle class landowners, craftsmen ad traders were added.

Roughly 500 B.C the larger phahalnx on Athens that included the new citizen hoplites
crashed Chalcidians and Beotians and prompted social reforms. The frontage of 10000 Athenian hoplites was larger tha the 5000 chalkidian Ippovotae. If you were an Athenian general you could spare troops for manouvers if you here Chalkidian you could not!

The terrain in Greece is such that in the worst case you can anchore one of your flanks somewhere if not two.
You can take my word for that I have visited major battle fields during my researches

Cavalry beat enemy horsemen and attacked the phalanx flank in the Lelentine War 7th century B.C.
Cleomenes crashed the Argives 494 by catching them on the move before they deployed

If you faced the enemy it was risky bussiness to manouver infrond of him.
Amphipolis and second Mantinea serve as examples

In hot summer clouds of dust can obscure vision and make men unwilling to separate.
We had 20 hoplites in Thermopyale August 2006 and we almost choked ourselves and spectators.


Kind regards
Reply
#22
Quote:Its also worth noting that the there were 30,000 light troops with the Spartans to help protect them against trouble as well...
...actually Herodotus records that each of the 5,000 Spartan Hoplites was accompanied by no less than 7 "light armed helots"(serfs), making 35,000. He records that each Hoplite from every other state was accompanied by a single 'auxiliary' - probably a reference to the Hoplite's usual batman/servant/shield-bearer (skeuophoros). On this basis he gives the incredible total of 69,500 'light troops', and the Greek army totalling an unlikely 110,000 ! This is the only time we hear of Spartans being accompanied by so many Helots, and the number is clearly suspect - more likely, each Spartan had one Helot batman. This force, if the number is correct, of 38,700 Hoplites is incidently the largest such army ever assembled. Herodotus' numbers are even more unbelievable for the Persians, whom he says totalled 300,000 and were accompanied by 50,000 Greeks ! ( Earlier he gave equally unbelievable totals for Xerxes invasion force of 1,700,000 soldiers and a further 517,610 men with the fleet !! This excludes an equal number of servants etc. To this, Xerxes adds Thracians and others collected en route - 300,000 - and comes up with a Grand Total of 5,283,320 men !! Then there were even more eunuchs, sutlers, camp followers and soldier's women)
We can only guess at the real size of the armies, but one clue is that Herodotus describes the Persian camp/stockade as having sides 10 stades long ( 2,000 yards). If correct, such a camp would hold around 100,000 men maximum, implying that the Persian Army including perhaps 10,000 or so Medising Greeks numbered around 50,000,plus an equal number of servants etc who like the Greeks may have had some function as 'light troops'.

Nevertheless, despite Herodotus' notorious innacuracy over numbers, Nikolaos/'Cole's point that Pausanias' Greek army had plenty of light troops to cover it's flanks if need be is quite correct, though generally they skirmished ahead of the phalanx, falling back through the open-ordered ranks as the armies closed. These 'light troops' (psiloi/gymnetes) were not organised, did not have shields or armour, and were armed with javelins and slings, or quite often just threw stones!
From the Peloponnesian War onward, they would be augmented/replaced by better organised and more efficient 'light troops' in the form of Thracian mercenary Peltasts ( armed with a light shield - pelta -and javelins), and eventually Greek imitation Peltasts, usually mercenaries........
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#23
Quote:I'm still not convinced. The arguments seem to be that they couldn't get round the sides due to terrain or enemy light troops. I don't believ the terrain was always or ever that bad and it would be just aslikely for one side to defeat the others light trops and then be able to atack the flanks.

Also The Phalanxs where not always the same size so it would be possible to sorround the smaller Phalanx. Imagine you where the last man on the side of the Phalanx, it would be very tempting to try and flank the enemy if you see an open flank.

Therefore i can not see disadvantages for having spears protruding from the sides.

Francis

I don't think of myself as possessing anywhere near the level of knowledge as some of the major contributors here, but it strikes me that having men face outward on the flanks creates at least three problems:

1) If you are on the left flank, near the front (say, first column, second row) and you aim your spear to the left, the back end of your weapon cuts across the men behind you, who are facing forward. The potential for obstructing or even wounding your compatriots seems substantial.

2) The wings are weakened. If the men on the left flank face left, they are not supporting those in the first line, or lines. The first four rows, at least, would have to face forward, so these men would remain vulnerable from the sides.

3) It would be impossible to advance in such a formation. I believe the hollow square, which has been described as becoming stronger the more it was compressed, was an exclusively defensive formation. Battlefield manoeuvers in those days seem to have been hard to execute effectively, and I can only imagine the difficulty of trying to advance with some of your men walking sideways. Even if this formation was only adopted after engaging the enemy, the effect of reforming at that time would be more likely to disrupt the line rather than add to its defensive capacity.
Ernst-jan Heijnis
Reply
#24
I’m back!

Firstly, apologizes for re-igniting an old argument and also for my dreadful lazy spelling in my earlier posts!

I have read through this post again and I am still not convinced. I also acknowledge my severe lack of knowledge compared to most on here.

What brought me back to this topic was reading Christian Cameron’s book God of War, I believe Christian frequents this site and is also a serious re-enactor himself.

In the book he describes, apologies I can’t find the exact page, a charge into the side of a Phalanx that has a few rows turn towards the charge. THIS is what I would expect to happen, but most on here seem to disagree, seeing the Phalanx as solely a forward moving machine with flanks protected by skirmishers, cav or terrain.

I still can not believe a Phalanx did not have some sort of side “protectors”, by that I mean men within the Phalanx, obviously not all the time.

Cheers

Franny
Francis Aitken
Reply
#25
The advantage of outflanking does tend to be somewhat overstated at times by people who don't think hoplites on the flanks or rear of a formation would be willing to turn towards a new threat. But a long, solid front was still the main focus for a number of reasons.

For instance:
A. Moral, as mentioned. In battle, the side doing the outflanking usually at least looks like it's winning.

B. The Corners. Unlike the flat front or sides, the men on the sides don't have any "one" direction in which to point their spears. At best they are going to look badly splayed points rather than like a solid front.

C. The relative length. If you have two lines on a curve then the one on the outside (the one doing the outflanking) is going to be slightly longer. In other words if you surround the enemy then you will have a longer front line and will have slightly more men actually fighting at any given time.
Henry O.
Reply
#26
Attacking from the flank would mean that the flanked unit would be partly or wholly surrounded. The enemy would attack the rear and would not remain on the side if it was anything else than a really small unit. That was disastrous, both moral- and combatwise. A formation that had the manpower, training, time and actual ability to prepare for such circumstances, could form a second front on the flank, a double or double-faced phalanx if attacked from the rear or a square, much like the ones we know from the Napoleonic wars -example, Magnesia.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#27
I think a lot of this comes down to misunderstanding how difficult it was to carry out the orders necessary to pull off a flank. Battle wasn't simple, do to communication issues.

Not sure if you ever played some of the Total War games, but if you had, it presents certain ideas that isn't hard to scale up. Flanking wouldn't go the way I planned it, despite having direct control of the unit in question. If I can have issues with my mouse, I can't even begin to imagine the difficulty of pulling off the orders with actual individuals who are scared, angry, confused and blinded by dust and deafened by noise.

Also, I'm often afraid to change tactics that have worked for me in the past. The repercussions for me is minimal - I can just make more units - and yet I'm still hesitant to change, in fear that the new plan won't work and have the opposite affect. Now imagine if it was real life; changing tactics that has worked for you before can result in the death of you and a lot of men, potentially costing you your homeland. Yea. No pressure.

(Sorry for the weird way to give an example.)
Reply


Forum Jump: