The hoplite phalanx just before battle

[FarDarter]

I am currently reading Victor Davis Hansen's book The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece, the title of which should be self-explanatory. In this, Hansen writes that in phalanx battles, both lines of hoplites would charge at each other. This confuses me - he writes at length about the phalanx, but it seems to me that it would be all but impossible to maintain such a close order at a charging speed. I know that not all hoplites fought in the phalanx formation, and after the Persian wars, where missile-armed infantry became more important, the hoplites might often charge to get through the 'beaten zone' as fast as possible.

But, like I said, keeping close order at the sprint is pretty much impossible. What about older hoplites, who can't keep up with the young'uns, or what if someone trips over a rock? Would it not be entirely more prudent to go into battle marching, like Napoleonic soldiers, so a line can be kept? Can someone clear up this discrepancy for me? It may just be me, but Hansen sort of skipped over the few seconds' transition between going to engage the enemy and engaging the enemy.

[Macedon]

Define "charging speed". The most common charging speed for Greek phalanxes was at a walking pace. In my opinion, speeds up to a rhythmic jog could be achieved for a limited distance (let's say a bowshot) without seriously endangering order by a phalanx that was adequately trained/experienced. Higher speeds are not that easy to achieve, mainly because of the shape and size of the shield, which does not allow such movement without it being raised high or held aside, which practically would make the hoplites even more vulnerable to missiles. What makes you think that charge "at a run" was common for ancient phalanxes? According to Herodot, Marathon was the first case of a running charge among the Greeks (6.112)

[FarDarter]

I mean 'charge' at the sprint or nearly so. If a phalanx marched into battle, why not just say that they marched into battle instead of charged into battle? Apologies if this sounds sarcastic, but 'charge' typically connotes a meaning of moving very fast. For example, charging cavalry are not going to be advancing at the trot - they will be galloping.

[Macedon]

A "charge" has nothing to do with speed in historical texts. It is just a synonym to "advance against in order to engage in hand to hand combat". When you read about charging cavalry in a history book, it can as well mean at a very slow pace. Do not worry, this is a common misunderstanding.

[Dithrambus]

I have, at times, been a little confused by some of the descriptions of battle, mostly those found in Xenophon's Hellenika, at times he seems to be describing a running 'charge' and subsequent violent clash of two bodies of hoplites, other times we read of what sounds like a relatively slow but steady march, as in the case of the Spartans. Of course, I'm reading English translated versions of Xenophon, Herodotus etc.

I think George makes a good point above, to "charge" doesn't necessarily mean at a dead run, but to an English speaker that is the implication of the word.

[FarDarter]

I see. Thank you. So 'charging' hoplites might only be going at a steady crawl, then? As opposed to other hoplites, who might move forward at the sprint?

[Macedon]

Yes, the "Spartan charge", for example, was practically a silent crawl, and even when you read about a "running charge", it could as well mean a steady jog and not a sprint.

[hoplite14gr]

After a lot of practice and 7 years doing the think I can honestly say that even in close formation a unit can advance with a very fast pace.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6109/62404...e8b8_z.jpg

And as Macedon said: charge is not necessarily on the run.. Jack is facing the problem that every reader faces while reading translated text.

Here is an example of what might have happened in Marathon based on Experimental Archaeology
http://stefanosskarmintzos.wordpress.com...e-phalanx/

Kind regards

[FarDarter]

After a lot of practice and 7 years doing the think I can honestly say that even in close formation a unit can advance with a very fast pace.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6109/62404...e8b8_z.jpg

And as Macedon said: charge is not necessarily on the run.. Jack is facing the problem that every reader faces while reading translated text.

Here is an example of what might have happened in Marathon based on Experimental Archaeology
http://stefanosskarmintzos.wordpress.com...e-phalanx/

Kind regards

All good points. I had believed that primary source authors used 'charge' to refer to a dead run, like what one might see in movies.

[Josho Brouwers]

I find Hanson a dubious source of information. He presents a very stylized and idealized picture of what he thinks hoplite warfare was like, informed by a great deal of modern political ideology. I noted some of my objections to The Western Way of War on the Ancient Warfare blog.

Be sure to also read treatments of the topic by Hans van Wees and Peter Krentz. I disagree heavily with the "Hanson-style phalanx", for reasons that will also be apparent when you read my Henchmen of Ares (apologies for the plug). Essentially, I don't think Hanson is anywhere near correct. I made a remark in passing in one of my more recent blog posts, too, on ambushes (which Hanson would have you believe are cowardly and thus never used by his idealized Greeks, which is patently rubbish).

[FarDarter]

Interesting. I have a tendency to believe that Ancient Greece is where anything important ever got it's origin, mostly because I think Ancient Greece is the best place ever, but hey, that's my opinion.

[Dithrambus]

I find Hanson a dubious source of information. He presents a very stylized and idealized picture of what he thinks hoplite warfare was like, informed by a great deal of modern political ideology. I noted some of my objections to The Western Way of War on the Ancient Warfare blog.

Be sure to also read treatments of the topic by Hans van Wees and Peter Krentz. I disagree heavily with the "Hanson-style phalanx", for reasons that will also be apparent when you read my Henchmen of Ares (apologies for the plug). Essentially, I don't think Hanson is anywhere near correct. I made a remark in passing in one of my more recent blog posts, too, on ambushes (which Hanson would have you believe are cowardly and thus never used by his idealized Greeks, which is patently rubbish).

Looking forward to reading your book, Josho and I also strongly recommend that anyone with an interest in hoplite/phalanx warfare read Peter Krentz and Hans van Wees, especially van Wees' Greek Warfare, Myths and Realities. Not sure that I would go as far as to say that these gentlemen should be considered the final word on the subject, but I do think they have much to add to the overly simplified orthodox views of Hanson & Co.