tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post8340246752003601387..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: The inner workings of a Greek phalanxUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-31453890725868747302016-07-11T21:09:36.875+02:002016-07-11T21:09:36.875+02:00Warfare is a fascinating subject. Despite the dubi...Warfare is a fascinating subject. Despite the dubious morality of using violence to achieve personal or political aims. It remains that conflict has been used to do just that throughout recorded history.<br /><br />Your article is very well done, a good read.Geraldhttp://www.greatmilitarybattles.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-70992880470777354762013-10-21T03:23:15.438+02:002013-10-21T03:23:15.438+02:00"If you name the Macedonian infantry as Greek..."If you name the Macedonian infantry as Greek"<br />Well, IF I had done it, I SHOULD have written "Hellenic" instead.<br /><br />Where does your light cav reference come from? The Macedonians weren't much exposed to the more famous light cavalry forces of the era, such as the Scythians (at least not as much as the Thracians).<br />Furthermore, light cav of that era fought predominantly as horse arches, against which pikes don't help (big shields would). And their raiding activity required a different melee response than pike formations which only work during more formal battlefield actions. The Thracian Rhomphaia may have been a typical melee response to raiding light cav (see similarity to Nagamaki and Changdao) instead.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-41105062571109628772013-10-20T13:46:59.009+02:002013-10-20T13:46:59.009+02:00Interesting site, but not enough correct historica...Interesting site, but not enough correct historical facts!<br />If you name the Macedonian infantry as Greek, that is the same as if you name the Gaul fighters as Romans, just because they have fought against a common enemy in a single formation!<br />The Macedonian Army and its formations are unique, but certainly influenced by its neighbors - the independent cities in what is today Greece, but also Ilir tribes and the armies from Asia Minor.<br />Actually, the long spears where developed and implemented to be a counter-weight to Light cavalry, but the Macedonian formation also had "solutions" that would work against the Greek heavy infantry.<br />The conclusion is that The Macedonians, as separate form the Greeks as from Persia and others, developed an army formations that will conquer the enemy and its armed forces!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08153411465175922704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-79349524016574369572012-05-28T21:42:41.803+02:002012-05-28T21:42:41.803+02:00http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1192506?uid=...http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1192506?uid=3737864&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=56213176183<br /><br />The mass shove theory is discussed in science, but the bell cuirass is just one among many components for this task. The special form of the Argive aspis serves as well to secure breathing room. Different shields, like the Macedonian aspis or Phoenician aspis were less well suited for this breathing space support. You can compensate with short anaerob burst of great power.<br />For the Thebans, their great success in hoplite warfare was linked to the popularity of wrestling that did train them to quickly read body pressures and react as individuals in a fast reacting group. These timed reactions create shockwaves that have been researched as part of the http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.de/2008/11/crowd-othismos-model.html<br /><br />The switch to longer spears has several different reasons, Iphicrates reformed his marines and javelin throwing peltasts according to the Egyptian template he met during an earlier campaign. But these "hoplites" or Iphicratean peltasts were employed in a very fluid combat mode on ships and in amphibious warfare, not like the Macedonian phalanx and are surrounded by much dispute, but the marines theory seems to hold as these long spears were quite widespread among marines throughout the ages with similar low density formations.<br />The step towards the Macedonian phalanx changes the spear length and seems to have originally consisted of joining two seperable weapons, a long spear and a kind of goedendag together into a formidable range weapon (later development made them one piece extremely long spears). But the Macedonian idea borrows from Iphicrates by arming poor peltasts as infantry of the line.<br />The difference was that now it was not fluid and maneuver dependent, but a way to create a cheap infantry line that stood their ground while the cavalry struck home. The original Macedonian infantry was quite lightly armoured and very different from the very heavily armoured very deep ranked very long spear armed shoving of the successors that merged Greek and early Macedonian warfare.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-44843012192540407152010-09-10T11:21:33.489+02:002010-09-10T11:21:33.489+02:00Excellent article!one minor correction-the region ...Excellent article!one minor correction-the region is called Thessalia and not Thessalonia.chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-13604071686715989872010-08-17T18:43:37.505+02:002010-08-17T18:43:37.505+02:00Well, "too trapepd and crushed to fight"...Well, "too trapepd and crushed to fight" would apply to the opponent as well - a stalemante. That's in part why the losses were so low and why decisions in phalanx vs. phalanx battles were favouring the bigger battalions (excluding battles involving Spartans).<br /><br />The pre-Macedonian hoplite armour was decentrally acquired and always mixed. There were always full bronze panoplies mixed with lighter, cheaper panoplies.<br /><br />The Makedonian phalanx had formations like 16x16, but part of their superiority stemmed from their training that enabled them to use different formations, including rather thin ones. Alexander would have had a far too short battle line in his steppe battles if he had employed 16 rank formations only.<br /><br />There's on the other hand nothing wrong with a very deep formation if you've got a huge army in a valley as in Philipp II's battles.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-71332349823606508442010-08-17T18:11:49.240+02:002010-08-17T18:11:49.240+02:00Interesting. I don't buy it. If you need a s...Interesting. I don't buy it. If you need a stiff cuirass to breathe, you are already too trapped and crushed to fight, and doomed. If you prefer a longer spear, it's because you DON'T want to have to push. Early hoplite phalanxes are thought to be 4-8 men deep, whereas the later Macedonian pike formation were far deeper, which doesn't fit the theory. Also, early archaic period bell cuirasses were solid bronze plate, but then the apparently more flexible cuirasses came in when the hoplite warfare was at its height.Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17183378114300920629noreply@blogger.com