| |

Weaponry: Greek PhalanxMilitary History | 3 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post With the widespread adoption of identical tactical principles, a ‘cult of symmetry’ arose in classical hoplite battle. The idea of symmetry on the battlefield goes back to Bronze Age aristocratic warfare, but the ethos that compelled Homer’s Achilles to battle mano a mano with Hector outside the walls of Troy was projected onto collective warfare in Greece between the 8th and 5th century bc. Phalanx-versus-phalanx combat became the preferred mode of warfare in Greece to the exclusion of more efficient means of killing, inasmuch as light infantry was not an acceptable battlefield tactical system for the Greeks. While archery was recognized in early Iron Age Near Eastern warfare as the great battlefield equalizer, allowing death to be dealt at a distance, it simply did not fit the confrontational image that was the essence of heroic warfare as defined by Homer. Consequently, archery was relegated to a subordinate status, usually hunting. Classical Greek warfare tended to be very localized in its scope, with city-state battling city-state for territorial gain. The relatively short distances between the various Greek city-states, however, were still forgiving to the hoplite army on the march. Greece’s steep slopes, deep gorges, dry washes and narrow passes dictated the use of regular routes to move armies. That alone often compromised strategic surprise and reinforced the ritual character of phalangeal warfare at the same time. Furthermore, hoplite arms and armor were much too heavy to wear in the summer if crossing difficult terrain. It meant that even for a short campaign against a neighboring city-state, the hoplite and his attendant had to transport several weeks’ rations as well at arms and armor. If pack animals or ox-drawn carts were used, the size of the marching column grew exponentially, since at least some fodder for the pack or draft animals had to be carried as well. Greek victory in the Persian wars in the first half of the 5th century bc contributed greatly to the perceived dominance of the heavy infantry phalanx. Although some Greeks realized that Persian errors had also contributed to their victory, the more common belief was that it represented the triumph of the spear over the bow and of heavy infantry over light. As the 5th century wore on, however, individual Greek city-states began to experiment with their armies by adding light infantry to the tactical mix. During the Peloponnesian War, Athenian use of archers and javelin throwers against the Spartans at Spacteria in 425 bc improved the Greek perception of light infantry, but it was only a step toward a fully integrated army. The Greek city-states never did adopt a complete combined-arms tactical system. That refusal cost them their freedom when, in the middle of the 4th century bc, King Philip II of Macedon marched south and defeated city-state after city-state with a balanced, combined-arms tactical system that added heavy cavalry lancers and horse archers to an improved phalanx protected by light infantry. With the invention of the Macedonian combined-arms tactical system, Alexander the Great and his Greco-Macedonian army carved an empire and ushered in the Hellenistic Age and a new era of warfare. This article was written by Brian Todd Carey and originally published in the September 2006 issue of Military History magazine. For more great articles be sure to subscribe to Military History magazine today! Subscribe Today
Tags: Ancient-Medieval, Historical Conflicts, Weaponry
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
3 Comments to “Weaponry: Greek Phalanx”
this is so confusing yet cool
By Alyse on Sep 11, 2008 at 12:23 am
Author quotes from Xenophon twice (”primary’ source) referring to him as a Spartan soldier and historian. Zenophon was an Athenian which made his leadership of the the 10,000 after Cunaxa (consisting mainly of Spartans) more remarkable so shortly after Athens’ defeat by Sparta only three years earier in the Peloponnesian Wars.
Interesting, but a distillation of secondary sources. Writing does not flow well. Exempt the obviuosly academic and arcane prose, this works as a primer for Hellenistic warfare.
By Caucasus on Jan 2, 2009 at 11:21 am
“Zenophon was an Athenian which made his leadership of the the 10,000 after Cunaxa (consisting mainly of Spartans) more remarkable so shortly after Athens’ defeat by Sparta only three years earier in the Peloponnesian Wars.”
What a fascinating statement. The commenter assumes, for some reason, that Cyrus’ mercenary contingent of some 11,000 Greeks consisted “mainly of Spartans”. I’m afraid the source material (Xenophon’s Anabasis ) does not back up that assumption. Perhaps the commenter has confused the command of Clearchus – a Spartan “in exile” and Chirisophus – with the notion that this was a Spartan army of some description.
Xenophon (Anab. 1.1 – 1.2.4) records the contingents of this mercenary force and how it came together. There is little room in that description for this army to comprise of “mainly Spartans”.
Cyrus was Sparta’s estwhile finacier – at the pleasure of the Great King. Sparta might well have allowed the occasional “advisor” to join this army but it would – at this moment – shy at the prospect of breaking the alliance with Persia that had won it the Peloponnesian War. That would come later with Thibron, Dercilidas and Agesilaos. The Great King, always holding the whip hand, would smack Sparta back into line by finacing Athens via Conon and bringing his forgetful Greek policeman back to the negotiating table through Antalcidas.
The writer might inaccurately describe Xenohon as “Spartan”. What is certain is that Xenophon was no Athenian. He might more accurately be described as “Peloponnesian” for that was certainly his outlook and, indeed, his world. His sons underwent the Spartan agoge and his Peloponnesian idyl was rudely cut short by Epaminondas, Pelopidas at Leuctra. He neither forgave nor forgot – to scrub them as far as possible from his history that is.
By Michael on Aug 25, 2009 at 7:16 am