Login

02-01-2005, 08:19 PM

Ave, 
 
Here is yet another bombardment of my incessant questions! 
 
How well could a group of Greek Spartan Hoplites defend against missiles, especially arrows? It has already been stated that they did not create shield walls like we saw in Troy, so what did they do? Was there any special defense, or did they just raise their shields above them? Even that seems difficult if you are carrying a large spear that requires both hands. 
 
Thank you for answering, if you do. Feel free to ask any questions about the German Military of WW2, as I am more knowledgeable in that field. 
 
-Spatha

02-04-2005, 05:03 PM

I began a couple of weeks ago with the ancient Greek warfare, so I can make mistakes. But it seems to me that before the long spears (during the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian Wars) that they were protected against missile objects by raising their shield above their head and fighting on under their shields. 
 
During the period with their long spears they simply marched on. The lines 5 to 16 held their spears op into the air to 'break' the missiles, which should also break the arrows' courses. The best charge against a phalanx was missile, such as arrows or spears. That is one reason why the Romans could defeat them, their pila.

02-12-2005, 08:40 PM

Khaire! 
 
The Classical Spartans carried one-handed spears and the big "argive" aspis/shield, popularly called the "hoplon". Above that was their helmet, below were the greaves. So under heavy missile fire, they'd duck their heads a little, and probably hunker down some to cover their thighs with the shield, and hope no arrow got lucky. 
 
It was only after the end of the Spartan dominance that the 2-handed Hellenistic or Macedonian pikes came into use, so the Spartans as we popularly know them didn't use such weapons. (That's just a generality, of course! Naturally Sparta still had soldiers after that period, but they're out of the spotlight and not their former glorious selves any more.) 
 
Sorry the board is so dead! Just not a lot of active members. I only remember to check it every few weeks, being busy with other stuff. 
 
Enjoy, 
 
Matthew 
 
www.larp.com/hoplite/

Matthew Amt · 02-12-2005, 08:50 PM

...Managed to post that under my wife's identity. Stupid computer... 
 
Matthew

02-12-2005, 09:38 PM

Yes, during the "Hellenistic period" (5th century BC) it was easy to cover behind your shields, though when they were attacking in front and with missiles you had kind of a problem. But I can't imagine the Macedonians covering behind their shields while marching on. Much smaller shields, longer spears which needed two hands, and so on. 
 
(PS, matthew, check your email )

02-15-2005, 05:17 AM

Ave, 
 
Out of curiosity, why DIDN'T they form up like we saw in Troy? Is there any special or known reason? Do you think that it would be possible, considering the length of the spears? I guess it would cause them to move out of their formation, but it seems that it would be better than just taking heavy archer fire behind just their own shield. 
 
Sorry about all these questions, I have no books on this subject and no money to get them (College is spendy!). The Internet and this forum are my only sources currently. 
 
Valete, 
 
-Spatha

02-15-2005, 05:24 PM

Well, here are some answers 
 
The arms and armor they use in the movie Troy never existed. That's why I haven't got a close look at the swords but the other arms and armor is almost all fantasy. And in those days (1200 BC) the most common were chariots, archers, spearmen and a few infantry with swords. And it was as good as impossible to form up such formation, because the Greek evolved to the phalanx formations which definitely could effort such things. Each shield was about 80-90cm wide and it was much easier to take cover behind your own shield by just holding it above your head than packing together with 3meters-long spears, the sizes of the shields etc. 
 
Shortly said, just impossible to do and they never thought about that (the Romans were the first to do so).

Matthew Amt · 02-15-2005, 05:28 PM

Well, I didn't see "Troy", so I'm not sure what formation you're talking about. Sounds like some sort of testudo or tortoise. 
 
Classical hoplites (later than the Trojan War and Bronze Age) rarely faced many archers. The Persian Wars would have been the big one, of course, but they don't seem to have cooked up new tactics just because of the arrows. Their shields and armor must have done a pretty good job, though it's entirely possible that the men in the front instinctively hunkered down some, and that the men behind them instinctively held their shields up for better coverage. That wouldn't interfere with the formation. Don't know! At Marathon, the Greeks simply ran to close the distance as quickly as possible. Seems to have worked! 
 
Most of the time, however, hoplites fought other hoplites. 
 
Make up a list of books for your family to get you for birthday and Christmas presents! Connolly is first--I think it's still in the $40 range, which isn't all that terrible even for a college student. You can probably find used versions on Amazon even cheaper, but do get the second edition if possible. 
 
Khaire, 
 
Matthew

02-15-2005, 05:44 PM

Yes, in Troy Achilles and his Myrmidons formed up what the Romans later called the Testudo. Then only with 3 (rather small) shield above each other and 6-7 wide. Then they marched on and at a close distance they charged the Trojans. 
 
But yes, like you said, they mainly fought other hoplites (Greek enemies or mercenaries in the Persian army), and the Greeks themselves didn't have many archers. Peltasts yes, a little bit cavalry but not much. (Correct me if I'm wrong ). 
 
Connolly is one of the best, Nikolas Secunda is also one of the better Greek/Persian historians. The price of the Osprey-books is between $16.00 and $25.00

Vincula · 03-08-2005, 05:30 PM

I am using an old first edition Connolly, Matthew. 
But you recommend the second edition. What bits has he changed?

Matthew Amt · 03-09-2005, 05:31 PM

Not sure! My copy is the old first edition, too. I know there are a few revisions on Republican Roman weaponry, but I don't know if there are any significant changes in the Greek section. Haven't heard of any, at least. I just figure that's the one for new folks to get since it's the one that's available. Probably isn't worth getting the new one if you already have the old one, but that's up to your wallet! 
 
Matthew

03-10-2005, 10:26 AM

Please allow me to disagree with you in here. 
 
Romans managed to defeat macedonian-type phalanxes due to flank attacks (Pyrrhus times) and then the mobility of their manipular legions (after Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Hannibal) that was able to exploit line gaps on the phalanxes due to terrain accidents, etc, and not due to missile fire. 
 
Actually, I recall to have read somewhere that Sabin, or maybe Melbruck, believed that most pila simply fell too short and were mainly used to make the ground harder to walk on/through. 
 
Certainly, if pila were very effective, the Civil Wars would have been carnages at the first shock, and most killing happened when one of the armies routed and tried to run away... If a pilum got stuck on your shield during the last run, you would be forced in many cases to drop your shield. If pila had a high hit ratio (say 50%), and an 80% of efficacy in disabling your shield/scutum, you'd find that about 35-40% of your first line was unshielded. That's never been described by primary sources, and Caesar gave pretty precise descriptions of battles between pila-able very big armies. 
 
As I can see it, most pila would have to simply fell to the ground and stuck there like little trees, making the attack harder and the defense easier. 
 
Both hellenic and macedonian types of phalanxes had to deal with parthian mounted archers, and with large quantities of sparabara standing archers, and they did so particularly well in all the accounts we have from historical battles, so I'd say that the heavy armor of the athenian/spartan-type of hoplites and their aspis were enough protection for them, while the lighter macedonian phalangite had enough protection to go past the point of missile effectiveness. 
 
This is, however, a very interesting and unknown field, because most sources barely mention light infantry on the major battles, and we are to believe that battles were mostly defined by the heavy infantry, but all armies had large quantities of light infantry to support them, and they must have been there for something more than to add in the numbers (considering battles were won by moral, and density, not mass). 
 
khaire! 
P. Lilius a.k.a. Argyros

03-27-2005, 04:54 PM

Hello again! 
I feel prolific today. 
In my reply on the battle of Marathon dicusion, I made a detailed comment of the light troops masking the move of the fallanx and the interchange among ranks. 
I will mention again Peter KonollyÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s works on ancient warfare and his depiction of falanx in open order. 
Light troops simply buy you time to bring you mince machine (aka hoplites) close and then Ahoura Mazda help them - which he didnÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t. 
For the wargame fanatics among you the only game that represent this is WRG 6 to my knowledge so far! 
A simillar example are the clouds of French tirallers during the revolutionary and napoleonic wars.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me