03-07-2019, 05:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2019, 09:30 AM by Paullus Scipio.)
We seem to be in danger of losing our topic focus of 'ouragoi' and drifting off into the early phalanx instead. We have little evidence prior to Herodotus ("The Father of History") born c.484 BC. Some further snippets occur in Thucydides born c.460 BC history of the Peoloponnesian War. Our first technical information about the phalanx comes in Xenophon ( born c.431 BC). The Greek phalanx - men fighting in line and close order, together rather than as individuals - existed prior to 650 BC, as shown in iconography such as the Chigi vase, and the Berlin and MacMillan Aryballoi (c.650 BC). Earlier Aryballoi – the Lechaion aryballos (c.690 BC) and the Perachora Aryballos (c.675 BC) both show phalanxes fighting, save that the hoplites have a mix of ‘aspides’ and Boeotian violin shaped oval shields. Both Aryballoi also show archers supporting the phalanxes in the rear, and one has a piper piping the beat to march to. It may be that the phalanx goes back even further for Homer, believed to be writing c.800 BC writes for example:
“When Achilles had chosen his men (2,500)and had stationed them all with their (five)captains,........As the stones which a builder sets in the wall of some high house which is to give shelter from the winds- even so closely were the helmets and bossed shields set against one another. Shield pressed on shield, helm on helm, and man on man; so close were they that the horse-hair plumes on the gleaming ridges of their helmets touched each other as they bent their heads.”
That they fought together rather than individually occurs in another passage where a group of Myrmidons force back Hector.
Certainly sounds like a phalanx, and of course organised bodies of infantry went back to Sumerian times.
"Tribesmen or clansmen do not feel any great concern for their kinsfolk in time of danger, but a band which is united with ties of love is truly indissoluble and unbreakable, because one is ashamed to be disgraced in the presence of another, and each stands his ground at a moment of danger to protect the other." Plutarch, Pelopidas 18
"It has been seen, that a troop never be stronger than when it is formed of fellow-combatants that are friends." Xenophon, Cyropaedia 7.1.30
The same is true today, as the author can vouch from personal experience.
Morever, in the early days of the phalanx we hear of sub-units called 'phratries'/kinship groups which would obviously have been of different sizes. Later as armies became more organized and professional, they are organised into 'enomotia'/sworn bands of equal size.
As to the so-called 'archaic lochos' devised by Connolly, something must have evolved but it may not have necessarily been based on units of 'fifty'.( see "Greece and Rome at War "pp37 on) Connolly's idea is solely based on the etymology of the word 'pentekostys' which can mean fifty. But while we hear of a variety of different sized 'pentekostys' and 'lochoi' - which could vary from a single file to hundreds of men, we never hear of a 50 strong 'pentekostys' !!
In fact 'pentekostys' can also mean "one fiftieth" ( of an army) and this fits the context better here.
There is no evidence for this "archaic lochos" and it probably never existed outside Connolly's imagination.
As to discipline, it was obviously necessary to fight in 'phalanx' in the first place. One should remember that "the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there". Ancient Greeks whether in the field or on the sporting ground submitted themselves to corporal punishment, albeit resentfully. As an example at the end of the march of the ten thousand, when they reached safety Xenophon was accused of 'hubris' for having struck his soldiers. He was threatened with stoning but opted for a trial. His defence was that he acted as a parent or teacher for their own good. He admitted he struck one man with his fist "so that the enemy would not do so with a spear." Xenophon was acquitted, and late in life advocated that men "responded best to reason."
“When Achilles had chosen his men (2,500)and had stationed them all with their (five)captains,........As the stones which a builder sets in the wall of some high house which is to give shelter from the winds- even so closely were the helmets and bossed shields set against one another. Shield pressed on shield, helm on helm, and man on man; so close were they that the horse-hair plumes on the gleaming ridges of their helmets touched each other as they bent their heads.”
That they fought together rather than individually occurs in another passage where a group of Myrmidons force back Hector.
Certainly sounds like a phalanx, and of course organised bodies of infantry went back to Sumerian times.
"Tribesmen or clansmen do not feel any great concern for their kinsfolk in time of danger, but a band which is united with ties of love is truly indissoluble and unbreakable, because one is ashamed to be disgraced in the presence of another, and each stands his ground at a moment of danger to protect the other." Plutarch, Pelopidas 18
"It has been seen, that a troop never be stronger than when it is formed of fellow-combatants that are friends." Xenophon, Cyropaedia 7.1.30
The same is true today, as the author can vouch from personal experience.
Morever, in the early days of the phalanx we hear of sub-units called 'phratries'/kinship groups which would obviously have been of different sizes. Later as armies became more organized and professional, they are organised into 'enomotia'/sworn bands of equal size.
As to the so-called 'archaic lochos' devised by Connolly, something must have evolved but it may not have necessarily been based on units of 'fifty'.( see "Greece and Rome at War "pp37 on) Connolly's idea is solely based on the etymology of the word 'pentekostys' which can mean fifty. But while we hear of a variety of different sized 'pentekostys' and 'lochoi' - which could vary from a single file to hundreds of men, we never hear of a 50 strong 'pentekostys' !!
In fact 'pentekostys' can also mean "one fiftieth" ( of an army) and this fits the context better here.
There is no evidence for this "archaic lochos" and it probably never existed outside Connolly's imagination.
As to discipline, it was obviously necessary to fight in 'phalanx' in the first place. One should remember that "the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there". Ancient Greeks whether in the field or on the sporting ground submitted themselves to corporal punishment, albeit resentfully. As an example at the end of the march of the ten thousand, when they reached safety Xenophon was accused of 'hubris' for having struck his soldiers. He was threatened with stoning but opted for a trial. His defence was that he acted as a parent or teacher for their own good. He admitted he struck one man with his fist "so that the enemy would not do so with a spear." Xenophon was acquitted, and late in life advocated that men "responded best to reason."
"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
(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
