Phalanx

[Matthew Amt]

I understand what your saying but to me it's a bit to simple.

Basically if you get men around the side they coulldn't really counter you without throwing the phalanx into disarray. To me any good general would try to maximise on this i.e send men to attack the sides of the Phalanx.

Right, but like I said, any good general would take a few simple steps to prevent that. If the flanks of your line end at a river or woods or other natural obstacle, it's too hard for any significant body of troops to get around the end. Or you can place cavalry or light infantry at the flanks, to repel any force trying to outflank you. Or you can "refuse" your flank, either bending it back or arranging units in echelon, to cover the flank that way. Also remember that any force breaking off to try to outflank the enemy is itself in danger of being cut off and chopped up.

This leads me to the conclusion that either the generals where not very good or the Phalanx was much more advanced than thought?

Well, not all generals were very good! One of the advantages of the phalanx was that all a general had to do was check off a few basics, then aim his troops forwards and go. It also worked well with non-professional hoplites, who knew the basics and had a little training, but were not strictly enough trained or disciplined to carry out fancy maneuvers. Trying to outflank another army might lead to your own phalanx coming apart! A very good general had to keep this in mind--his troops might not be good enough to accomplish anything really clever that he tried. But it is also true that a phalanx was not a solid mass of robots or idiots! It was organized in units and files, and was sometimes used in more complex formations.

Remember, basic linear tactics were standard procedure from about 2500 BC into the 20th century. Outflanking the enemy was always recognized as a winning move, but it just wasn't as easy to accomplish as you might think.

Khaire,

Matthew