The Dory

[Paullus Scipio]

Kineas wrote:

Look I admit this is an uncomfortable truth. But the only reason to lengthen spears is because the quality of the infantry is going DOWN, not up. Pikemen aren't really even fighting--they are moving, and the mass of their spear points is dangerous. But swordsmen--whether Spanish or Neapolitan or Roman--make fairly short work of the front of a phalanx for the exact reason that no individual armed with a 20 foot pike is actually targeting and engaging anyone. Pikes are about morale--not about combat ability. Longer spears make worse soldiers feel braver.

....I would concur with this view, pikes are about 'mass effect' not individual fighting - but I might not so readily agree that swordsmen make short work of them. In all three clashes between Pila and Sarissa, the Phalanx held it's own frontally, as you would expect, but once its formation was disrupted, quickly succumbed - and that was the Phalanx's weakness as Polybius noted.

Further, I think both you and Paul M-S insist that spear fencing was either infrequent or non-existent.

Whatever makes you think that? D lol: ....Quite the opposite! I am for the bulk of Hoplite battle being spearplay, and a sceptic of Paul B's extreme form of othismos, as I thought you would have gathered by now. To my mind 'othismos' tended to take place after both sides were tired/exhausted, or if one side was seen to be wavering.

One observes the phenomenon of increasing length of spears made possible by tapering/smaller heads/larger sauroters - but the traditional dory was not replaced and did not disappear. The trend might have something to do with the increasing numbers of cavalry on the battlefield or any of a dozen reasons.

further, as far as I can tell, most spears that show a taper (and what proportion of all spears shown in contemporary art show a taper?) have a double taper. They taper both ways--usually a long spear to the point, and a shorter taper to the butt.

I have seen one or two examples of 'double' tapered spears, but many clearly show a taper from butt end to point. Have you observed the opposite in the iconography, then ?

all sorts of things were tried to make up for the lack of trained men--long spears, deep formations, cavalry, psiloi, peltasts, mercenaries, improved cavalry--all in response to the lack of trained hoplites and increases in army size.

I think it was the increasingly complex nature of warfare, rather than lack of trained Hoplites that saw these trends occur - I don't believe that Hoplite quality decreased.Rather, with the increase of full-time mercenaries, the growth of permanent epilektoi ( picked men), and just the increasing professionalism generally led to a decided improvement of the quality of Hoplite forces over the peasant-farmer militia of the 6th C BC.

And Paul (now M-S) I find it odd that anyone believes that the Sarissa is superior. I'm pretty sure that a cursory examination of the evidence will show that Philip's sarrisaphoroi never, ever beat hoplite armed infantry straight up--they required a cavalry victory on the flanks, every time! In fact, I'd bet that Phillip felt his infantry were inferior, and all he expected of them was that they not crumble away before his cavalry won the day. It is possible to rationalize each instance of the Macedonian infantry's failure to win a battle, but taken as an aggregate, they fail--overall--to beat even lack lustre hoplites. Or put another way--where is the battle where Phillip won with his infantry? Against hoplites? Antipater had trouble with Spartans, even at heavy odds--Chaeronea should have been a runaway victory, but the Athenians seem to have shoved Philip's center around, and anyone who believes that an ancient general could control a retrograde has sat in an armchair too long!

Heh, heh. I love dissing Philip and Macedon. Makes me feel better.

Steady on ! I didn't say the sarissa was "superior", at least not initially. Simply that the sarissa was the logical extreme of this design trend in spears. I'd agree with you that there is no clear-cut example of Philip or Alexander's Macedonian Phalanx decisively beating a Hoplite one. I'd also agree that Philip's retreat at Chaeronea was unlikely to be feigned - the victors write the history, after all!
Against that is the fact that most city-states in Hellenistic times ended up with their Phalanx armed "in the Macedonian manner" - which does not mean it was superior, merely perceived that Macedon was victorious, and therefore their systems to be copied....