How "obsolete" were Hoplites in the DEI timeframe?

[Livin La Vida Loca]

Were hoplites truly ineffective by the 3rd century BCE? The game frequently states them to be outdated, but were they completely ineffective, or did part of it simply have to do with them just going out of style,like pikes did until their resurgence in the late medieval period,despite obviously being extremely effective?

[The Tribunal]

hoplites did not perform well against pikes in the confrontations that are recorded. the hoplite panoply also required significant amounts of wealth from the soldier to afford in order to provide a formidable column, wealth which became increasingly less disseminated in Greece in this time frame, disallowing the steady deployment of hoplites over time. it is difficult to discern their effectiveness against pikes in ideal conditions though Arrian does emphasize that Memnon's hoplites were apparently very difficult to deal with for Alexander, I believe the same thing is said about Philip's struggles with the Greek line at Chaeronea, though I don't remember specifics about that battle.

[gerfand]

Not really that obsolete, they were actually one very effective Troops type in the start of the game, and they kept this for a good time!

The problem w/ Hoplites is that they are a Jack of all trades compared to other Hellenistic units.

They don't have the Sarissas from Phalangitais, but they were more Flexible.

They did not had the Flexibility of Thureos shielded troops (machiroporoi for example), but they had sustain power.

They were a good addition to any army... and if supported, or better yet supporting the Phalagitais, they could do Very heavy Damage

Remember that we are talking about a trained infantry in Shield wall of Larger round shields and spears... something you will see again w/ the Germanic and Nordic Tribes, especially w/ the Anglos-Saxons on Britain... that hold very well against the Norman Cav in Hasting.

[Dardo21]

I thought Alexander and his 'heirs' kept using them alongside the phalangites, mostly on the flanks.

[Falco]

I thought Alexander and his 'heirs' kept using them alongside the phalangites, mostly on the flanks.

Seems so, I'm reading a book about Antigonus the One Eyed (one of the successors), quite a few mentions of Hypaspists being used (armed in a very similar fashion to hoplites).

[The Tribunal]

they were never the meat of the line.

[Geffalrus]

One good way to look at it is to think about "who" was doing all the fighting in this time period. That is often a better way to understand what equipment was used/needed/etc.

In the Hellenistic period, the most common person doing duty as a "soldier" would be a mercenary. Mercenaries were everywhere. And for every day they spent actively fighting in a set piece battle (like what we mostly see in R2TW), they probably spent dozens or more on guard or patrol duty in a garrison. While a lot of mercenaries used whatever equipment they brought with them from their culture, the most common mercenary equipment after Alexander's death was the Thureophoroi kit. Oblong shield, spear, sword, javelin, helmet, whatever other armor suited your fancy. This kit was so common because it was useful in almost every situation. In a melee fight you had a good shield, spear, and sword. At range you had a javelin or two or three. Flexibility in equipment was key. As long as you could afford the basics, you could serve as a mercenary. The kit also did not require intense special training like that involved in preparing a Macedonian phalanx for battle. This meant that it was a little easier for a city state/kingdom/empire to outfit a large force of levies in this fashion. If you needed quantity, this was one decently effective way to do it.

So that's the mercenary. Previously, the Hoplite got a lot of play around the world as a high quality heavy infantry mercenary option. After Alexander, however, the Hoplite was less useful for two reasons. The Thureophoroi described above was more flexible due to his kit - he was useful in more situations, though probably not as effective in a heavy infantry vs. heavy infantry situation. The hoplite, however, had recently been demonstrated to be effectively countered by the pike phalanx. Both the hoplite and the pike phalanx were effective means of organizing a citizen levy into a heavy infantry formation. Head to head, however, the hoplite had trouble doing anything against the pike phalanx. There was a strong incentive to adopt the pike phalanx if you intended to fight large battles in the Hellenistic World. See the Achaean League and the Cleomenes Reforms of Sparta.

So to summarize, in formation in a big battle, the pike phalanx was more effective (though by how much is an open ended question), while when out of formation, Thureophoroi were more useful. This is not the same as saying that the Hoplite was useless. A hoplite was still a heavy infantry soldier with a spear, big shield, and armor. Such a soldier is always going to be useful. It's just that the primary purpose of the hoplite was fighting in a dense formation, something that the pike phalanx did better. The hoplite kind of sat in between two troop types that were more effective than the hoplite in different ways.

Could the hoplite have still been effective in war? Absolutely. Certain things would have had to be done differently, however. One thing that held the hoplite back was the fact that it was primarily a citizen militia. Part time soldiers are not as good as full time soldiers. Had a Greek city state been able to afford to do so, they could have paid for a large force of hoplites to serve year round. That's what the Epilektoi are, after all. Historically, none of the Greek states around at that time could afford to do so, had they wanted to equip their citizenry as hoplites instead of a pike phalanx. But as the player, you can certainly do that, and I don't think it's that un-historical. The one problem that Professional Hoplite Force will always face, though, is the fact that it will struggle against a professional pike phalanx. With no easy way to break through the pike phalanx, the Professional Hoplite Force would - also - need a Powerful Cavalry Force. And that is a LOT of money. Well beyond the finances of the Greek city states at the start of the game. Of course, this is relatively easy for a player to solve.

[JCB206]

Apparently I can't give you more Rep until I spread it around but very very good explanation. The key here is that mercenaries dominated this timeframe and it was cheaper for the common infantryman to purchase the panoply of thueros vs hoplite. Levy hoplites can be a very effective force multiplier when funds are low and more troops are needed.

[Geffalrus]

Thanks!

One extra thing to mention is that it should be remembered that the reason - why - there was such a need for mercenaries was the death of Alexander the Great. Had Alexander lived to become Emperor Alexander and establish a unified political entity with some sort of succession plan (maybe he would have......but that is certainly debatable), his Greco-Persian Empire might have had a measure of peace and stability. Instead, he died young leaving a Macedonian warrior aristocracy in charge of vast territories, recently conquered, barely unified, with no good plan for who should lead such a thing. Shockingly enough, everyone decided to fight their way to an answer, creating the Antigonid/Seleucid/Ptolemaic mega successor states we see in Rome 2. Those Successor kingdoms relied on large mercenary forces to augment the military settler forces and to shoulder the bulk of the garrison duties since the settlers were Reservists, and the Royal Guard by design needed to attend the king.

And garrison duties there were aplenty. Currently reading a fascinating biography of Antigonus the One Eyed and one of the many things that really jumps out is how ubiquitous garrison forces were during the Hellenistic Age. Garrisons occupied the citadels of the major cities in Greece. Garrisons patrolled the frontiers. Garrisons kept on eye populations of uncertain loyalty. Loyalty was the rarest commodity BY FAR in the Wars of the Diadochi directly preceding the start of Rome 2. It made Game of Thrones look like a friendship seminar. Trusted lieutenants - routinely - defected to the enemy side or carved out their own kingdoms. Mercenary garrisons were theoretically one of the only ways to ensure control over forts and cities because at least you could trust their loyalty to getting paid.

Disloyalty, warfare, unruly populations - all made mercenaries incredibly valuable during the Hellenistic portion of the Rome 2 timeline.

[Caius Martius Coriolanus]

For the start of the game I wouldn't describe them as "obsolete" per say, but you have to look at them in context of the era. Each of the Diadochoi states utilized the sarissa phalanx, and they were the dominant military powers of the Mediterranean. The classical Greek states (Athens, Sparta, etc...) continued to use hoplites, however, these states were largely irrelevant from a military standpoint. Antigonid Macedon was the hegemonic power within Greece, and although they didn't officially control these states, they did occupy them militarily. Cities like Chalcis and Corinth had massive citadels built within their bounds that housed Macedonian garrisons; Athens had one as well. The hoplite continued to see battle, just not as main-line infantry for any military power that could be spoken of. The primary issue with hoplites is that while they were effective in battle, they were not war-winning soldiers. With the exception of the Spartans, they came from a martial tradition that treated them as a militia of equals. Hoplite armies were often disorganized and lacked the drilling and discipline needed for combined arms strategies to work. Imagine an army where the lowest ranking individual was a captain and you get the idea. Hoplites were useful in defending a city state, but beyond that were largely deficient. The epilektoi were an attempt to remedy this, but these forces tended to be small, as large, professional forces tended to overthrow their city-state governments. Hoplites were also rather niche soldiers. Outside of phalnx formation they were poorly suited to other tasks, and Hellenistic-era infantrymen often needed to be jacks-of-all-trades. Alexander's foot companions didn't just function as phalangites, they frequently moved in and out of lighter roles when needed. Thureophoroi could function as line infantry but also needed to skirmish when needed.

[Geffalrus]

Caius - Very nice summary.

[PanDemon]

I know my post is a little bit late

But i want to post,cause is something that always strikes me:I have a different opinion based on the recorded history results ,and the most accepted modern battle reconstructions.
in that pretext,my opinion is the opposite of the 90% of the others ,but I can support it.
Hoplites had not a disadvantage against pike phalanx,they could engage it with no better or worse outcome than engaging another hopiite phalanx.
But what about longer spear and such?would not make any difference?i ll answer later.

Historical accounts of hoplite phalanxes and sarissa phalanxes clashing:

1.Third Sacred War,Phocis Federation against Macedon.

The details are obscure,but the time frame suggests hoplites against the new form pike phalanxes of Philip.
At 354bc the two armies .leading by Onomarchus and Philip,clashed two times.In both occasions,the Phocis army won the battles.Polyaenus suggests the use of catapults was decisive for the victory of the hoplite army.
The desicive battle was fought in 353 or 352bc.it was a desicive victory for Philip,but most acounts agree that the battle was won due to superior cavalry in macedon side. (Buckler and Diodorus).
In the aftermath of the battle ,philip rushed to gain access to thermopylae ,but it was already protected by unspesified number of Athenian troops,ranging from 5000 men to much more:
philip did not engaged them but with drew,although supposedly to modern theorists it was an ideal place to practice the superiority of the pike phalanx agaisnt the hoplite one.
The battle would be fought head one but with no cavalry support.

To sum it up,3 battles and one stalemate.2 hoplite victories aided by catapults and artillery vs one pike one,aided by cavalry.
Where it could been a desicive head on hoplites vs pikes battle ,Philip did not engaged.

2.War between Athens/Thebes and Macedon:Battle of Chaeroneia 338bc.
None can tell exactly the course of the battle,most modern reconstructions ,do not make sense,some contradict each other.

What we have for certain is the battle line of the two armies.Right Alied wing was occupied by thebans and their profesional soldiers,Sacred Band,center with different alied cities,left was ocupied by Athenians .Part of the athenian line was composed by epilektoi.
The modern account of the battle is that Philip with drew in the left,moved part of the left to the center ,athenians rushed to fill the gap,Philip left them ,then egaged them from the center(?) ,from the left(?) and won them.
At the same time ,Companions on foot or mounted managed to break the sacred band or pass in the gap that Athenians left (no gap Athenians were in the left not int he center) and surround the sacred band.
After that the battle was over ,however for a surrounded army of 35000 men,mostly heavy infantry ,the Allied loses were moderate :2 000 men and 4000 prisoners.
Battle is open for interpretation even today.
How can a pike phalanx withdraw with hoplite on their faces,outrun them and then form a battle line?These are not horse archers this is dense heavy infantry.
some propose that the macdonians forces that engaged the hoplites of Athens were skirmishers:if that is the case,then we have hopites charging skirmishers...

And some think(and me) that the athenian epilektoi were able to push back the right wing of pike phalanx ,so much that a gap was created between them and the center:
The whole aliied units then started to follow to fill the gap,untill the Thebans did not,it was then that they were surrounded and killed by the gap that was created.
With the right aallied wing destroyed and with cavalry on their backs ,battle was over.

So you can take two theories and outcomes of the Chaeroneia battle:
Hard fought victory of the pike phalanx against the hop-lites,aided by cavalry manoever,
or
tactical victory of the left wing hoplite phalanx against the pike one,but poorly executed follow on ,with the result being right part of allied line surrounded by cavalry.

3.Siege and battle of Thebes 336 bc.
http://www.livius.org/sources/conten...ack-of-thebes/

Alexander attacked thebes ,and prepared for an assault ,making three lines of troops.
First line were the ones that would execute the assault .(so no pike phalanxes)
Second line was made by his line infantry .(phalanxes,probably here)
Third was reserves.

Thebans surprised Alexander and poured out of the city,attacking first.
According to livious ,easily punched through the first line ,met the second and still had "high hopes of victory"
it was the manoeve by Perdicas ,and the poorly withdraw of the fighting theban army that set his fate,not any weakness of the hoplite tactics against the pikemen.

4.Lamian War 323bc.
3 battles took place.
In the two ones hoplite phalnx was victorious or on par with the pike one:The coup de grace was given by thessalian cavalry which had joined the allies.
In the third battle it was the opposite.The macedonian cavalry wining the thessalian one and driving the battle in stalemate.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...s/18A*.html#15
wikipedia states that pike phalanx was superior and directs to diodorus,however diodorus never mentions anything about that.
diodorus points that macedon side had far greater numbers and after the initial clash ,the hoplites were able to form defensive formation and easily repulse enemy attacks.

"The Greeks who were encamped against them at this time were far inferior in numbers;"...
hen the cavalry had met in battle and the Thessalian horsemen were getting the advantage because of their valour, Antipater led out his own phalanx and, rushing upon the infantry of the enemy, began to make great slaughter. The Greeks, since they were not able to withstand the weight and number of the enemy, immediately withdrew to the rough ground, carefully keeping their ranks. Thus they occupied the higher ground and easily repulsed the Macedonians thanks to their possession of the superior position. "

5.Siege of Halicarnassus 334bc.

A remake of Siege of Thebes.A bloody battle which at one point was going to the hoplite side untill reenforcements arrived and turned the tide.
A stalemate,broken by the use of reserves.

6.Battle of Granicus.
it was decided by cavalry not by infantry

7.Battle of Issus.

The most clean engagement between these two types of phalanxes.Supported arms wer present ,but thetwo phalanxes meat head on ,with out any other force to get in thier way.

According to Arrian:
"Darius' Greek mercenaries attacked precisely at the point in the line where the gap was widest. There was a violent struggle. Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water [...], while the Macedonians, in their turn [...], were determined not to forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian. It was in this phase of the battle that Ptolemy, son of Seleucus, and about 121 Macedonians of distinction met a soldier's death."

According to Curtus Rufius:
"Then the blood really flowed, for the two lines were so closely interlocked that they were striking each other's weapons with their own and driving their blades into their opponents' faces. It was now impossible for the timid or cowardly to remain inactive. Foot against foot, they were virtually engaging in single combat, standing in the same spot until they could make further room for themselves by winning the fight: only by bringing down his opponent could each man advance. But, exhausted as they were, they were continually being met by a fresh adversary, and the wounded could not retire form the battle as on other occasions because the enemy were bearing down on them in front while their own men were pushing them from behind."


The hoplites closed the distance and engaged the pike men in very close melee.At which point the inflicted 120 deaths to the pike side.But we must be cautious of the terminology.
the term in greek is "επιφανεις" ,it means 120 elite ,or noble macedonians dead.it could be simple soldeirs or officers.in the latter ,the pike casualties would be very high.

In tactical sense it was a clear victory for the hoplites ,untill they were -again-surrounded by enemy cavalry.
Again it was the cavalry that saved the day,in fact it was two cavalry forces that attacked the rear of the hoplite phalanx,thesalians and companions.
The accounts vary to what happened next,since we knew some of the hoplites survived and got through:
either they were able to withdraw resisting the cavalry and fighting in two fronts at the same time ,untill reaching more disorganized persian masses of soldeirs and getting through,or a part of the hoplite phalanx punched though the pike one and was able to survive.

8.Battle of Gaugamela.

It was decided by cavalry and light infantry manoevers.Hoplites were not present en masse as in two previous battles as their numbers have shrinken cause of the caualties.

9.Battle of Megalopolis 333Bc.
Bloody stalemate as usual,high casualties for both sides a final pike victory,but macedon had double the numbers agaisnt spartans.20000 vs 40000.

10.
Batlle of Selasia 222bc.

Spartans vs macedon and Allies ,20000 vs 29000 men.
Phalanxes clased to the left,a stalemate as usual,it was the macedon/allied light infantry the manoevered and attacked -again-the hoplite phalanx from therear.
After that the pike phalanx won.

i could add more examples...what i see is that as long the hopites deal with pike phalanxes alone,albeit slowly they gain the upper hand.
In not one battle the pike phalanx pushed back or penetrated the hoplite one,maybe with exception the lamian war final battle.

So hoplites were not obsolete,they were still the supreme heavy infantry.
it was the social changes that brought them down,not the military ones.they still could hold their ground,but they were the ideal product of thought of the POLIS.
As Polis became obsolete in the new world,where empires ,kingdoms and federations ruled,hoplite phalanxes proper trained and equipped men were few ,expensive and untrustfull.

Sorry for the long post

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

@PanDemon

Welcome. That's a very good first post

[Kirsch27]

In my opinion, the reason pike formations became the norm throughout the Hellenistic world was mostly to do with the fact that it was much easier to conscript, outfit and train units of pikemen than it was to create new hoplite regiments, at least as they used to be created in the good old days. Hoplites were so effective because of a combination of good equipment, good training and good morale. The equipment a hoplite uses is probably "superior" to that of your average sarissa man. However, it's probably quite a bit more expensive (bronze cuirass versus cheaper alternatives such as cloth/leather/linen/chain armor of some kind, hoplon vs pelte shield, etc.) and whether or not you believe it was more effective as PanDemon argues, it certainly wasn't a decisive advantage by any means and most actually believe the pike formation was probably going to have the upper hand in most engagements. In the case of training, the advantage here was due to regular drill and a culture of citizen soldiery which was well integrated with the general culture of the city and where each man was expected to serve in the armed forces as a matter of due course. Obviously this more grassroots approach runs into issues when you attempt to fill the ranks of a larger polity's armed forces. Contrast this with the process to train sarissa formations, where soldiers were generally conscripted and trained primarily to fight in formation since out of formation they were not nearly as effective, meaning all soldiers were being drilled together relatively quickly and efficiently and due to the emphasis on unit tactics rather than individual prowess the individual skill of the soldiers did not need to be honed through long hours of practice, only their ability to fight together with their fellows which admittedly was a feat of coordination and discipline as well. Finally, morale runs into similar issues as the source of this high morale for the original hoplites had a lot to do with the fact their neighbor in the line was probably also their neighbor in town, or at least they were known to each other. The smaller community from which recruits were drawn meant more personal and social ties which naturally kept units more cohesive and less likely to rout as everyone would know of your shame and you were fighting for your city so running was rather personal. In the case of pike conscripts, the morale may never have reached these levels but they could be recruited and trained quickly and en masse and due to the nature of a phalanx, it was still rather difficult to get out of the line and rout unless you were on the edges anyway. Overall, to me the whole issue is reminiscent of the late-medieval "bows vs gunpowder" transition where skilled archers were slowly replaced with cheaper and more replaceable gunners who could be trained quickly to fire in a line and deal comparable damage to the more expensive and skill-intensive archery of previous years. This was another period where population growth and the rise of larger empires required more manpower for armies, rather than difficult to replace elite knights or archers, blocks of pikes and guns were used to great effect during the post-medieval period.

[HernanU]

As "spear and shield" warriors their are not obsolete at all (for, at least, a thousand years and more "spear wall" was a simple, sound tactic), as a socio-economic organization (wealth based citizen-soldiers recluted autonomously in the cities-states) they were in disadvantaged against more professional armies (against state armed professional+levies macedonians and, specially, against state-armed professional citizen+auxiliary romans and his immense recruitable manpool). You need to understand the dynamics of societies, never is one factor only (the military side without economic, sociologic, etc.) even if in certain moments the military aspect have great influence (like the phalanx, legion, tercio, machine-guns, tanks) the other factors complicate the equation and, many times, are more important.
Where the germans in the IV century more big, strong, skilled, better armed than in the -I century? Maybe they were better lead? No, they weren't. They were not superior to Hannibal and the carthaginians, Pirro and the Epireans, the germans defeated by Marius or the celts defeated by Caesar. The interaction between economic, politic, social and military render the roman weak to resist their onslaught, even if the destruction was less than the invasion of Italy in the second punic war.
So, in my opinion, they weren't obsolete like the chariots (their use ceased everywhere but in isolated regions), but the socio-political and economic background who produce them and the changes in the world around them (more and more centralized vast empires) demanded a change in their links with society.

[PanDemon]

Hey Greek strategos,thanks for kind words o/

To be honest it was not a very good post since i said in the beginning of the post that ,"But what about longer spear and such?would not make any difference?i ll answer later."
Which I did not...

Also I compared what I think should be a "typical" phalanx (for me) ,that is the late hoplite phalanx of the wealthy greek states,meaning a mix of mercenary/epilektoi/rich citizens ,wearing heavy hoplite armour."Muscular" thorax and the new then semi closed helmets ,Atticothracian and Phrygian.
I compared this kind of hoplite phalanx to the temporary sarissa phalanx,which-in my opinion-was less armoured than the later pike phalanxes of the Antigonids and the Seleukids.
(Alexander gave new body armour to his pezhetairoi during hs campaign and burned the old ones,meaning leather armour for the majority of men)

But I do believe that hoplite phalanx in its majority of years of existense was heavily armoured ,with a brief change during peloponesian war.Even then I am not sure ,if hoplite panoply got lighter all the time or just for skirmishes ,border actions.I think during major hoplite phalanx clashes ,hoplites would be armoured as before.Example during ,the deaparture of the Athenian expeditionary force for Sicily,athenian nobility was showing off in the port,displaying its hoplite shields engraved with gems and precious metals.I dont think such men would go to fight other hoplites with out body armor.
So to sum up,my conclusion is that the rule was hoplite phalanx during its existense was heavily armored,with some exceptions.

On the other hand I do believe that well armoured pike phalanx was an exception than the rule.
I mentioned the leather armored pike phalanx of Alexander,and the general conscript pool of pike phalanxes were people from non urban societies at least during the sarissa-hoplite phalanxes clash.
These rural societies would have difficulty to equip the much more noumerous phalangites with the quality of weapons of the middle class citizens of the southern greek states.
After a brief money explosion during and after persia's conquest of Alexander,all states consumed the wealth left,and i think the well armored soldiers were a minority ,and reserved for special troops,kataphraktoi ,royal proffesional bodyguard corps and not for the bulk of the pike phalanxes.
Another point about pike phalanxes not well armoured is ,maybe,its performance when broken.
While hoplite phalanxes were in a severe disadvantage when broken,they could still fight for some time after or withdraw.
The pike phalanx instead does not display ther same performance.If it is broken it will disintegrate quickly.
Dr kambouris a greek writer argued that this shoud not happening.The phalangite had a decent shield,much more agile and usefull in loose melee than the hoplite one or the roman scutum.
phalangite had a decent sword aswell.So we can conclude either that were poorly armored ,or not at all,or not trained at all for melee.If that is the first,then it adds my notion of poorly armored pike phalanxes as a rule.it could happen the second though...

As for the longer spear and how was not so formidable against hoplites:
My thoughts are:

1.Greeks tended to adopt arms and armour that made them impression and consider them superior.Examples,akinaka towards kopis,palta spears/javelins,thracian pelte,thracian peltast concept,thyreos ,and others.
Greek hoplites had fought two handed spear wielding enemies ,during 10,000 army xenophon's march,Chalybes, and also during persian wars,the egyptian troops were mentioned to carry two handed spears.
These made little impression to them.
Demosthenes during its famous speeches against Philip,to boost the moral of the Athenian citizens ,says "Do not fear Philip ,for he does war with cavalry and peltasts".Peltasts meaning the pikemen.
The Athenians knew first handed the efficiency of the pike phalanx against their Phocian allies in the Sacred war,and seemingly were not impressed.15 years after in chaeroneia battle they chose to field as many hoplites as they could ,while they could easier ,field lighter skirmish troops and tactics.Chares ,their best general was an experienced mercenary ,fighting decades with lighter troops.
So they thought that hoplite phalanx was not in disadvantage against the longer pikes.
Pike phalanx was not a new tactic that took them by surprise,it was in limited use around the hellenic world and sometimes used against Greek troops.The results agaisnt hoplites seemed to be rather poor.

A hypothesis by dr Kambouris is that ,whole thracian tribes could have in use a static form of pike phalanx ,before the Philip's reforms.
Southern Thracians continued to import and use heavy helmets and armour,while these were not optimized for their main type of warfare,skirmishing/dueling.
He suggested that the more older and richer thracians would form a static pike line heavily armoured ,as a regroup point ,while the bravest and younger thracians would do the main fighting with skirmishing and dueling.In that essense an inner thracian battle would resemble exactly the clashes of the trojan war era.
He also adds,that Philp reforms were probably done after the thracian campaign of his,of which he faced thracian pikemen.
I know the whole thesis in an assumption,i just want to mention it.

2.From a physics point of view,an overhand down ward thrust ,projects way more power than a two handed ,in the waist level,thrust.
It is just mechanics.
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1520915/7...0extracted.pdf
The one hand spear has about the double energy of a two handed one.
The one hand spear can be aimed at shoulders ,head thorax of the enemy.
At 4-5 m away you cannot aim so good with a two handed spear,you can use repeated movements though to create a meat grinder effect.

3.Could the typical sarissa penetrate the shield wall ,and behind it ,the muscular armour of the promachoi hoplites?
I am fairly certain ,no.The standard attack animation does not provide enough energy to penetrate a shiled and then penetrate the muscular armor again.
And this in first seconds of contact.As the two lines will come closer and sarissas will be in attack range to attack the shields ,the shield defenders would just had to move front,maybe half a foot ,to shorten the energy output of the pike movement,maybe by half.
This could renforce the pattern of battle I mentioned in my previous post:As time was passing by the hoplite phalanx slowly was gaining ground ,cutting the distance between the promachoi hoplites and the first line of the pike men.

4.The modern reconstructions fielding late armoured hoplites against pikemen,are non existant.
The closer I have seen is a loose line of 6 hopites against a loose line of 5-6 phalangites,the latter trying (wrongly my opinion) to aim the hoplites faces.
The sarissas were benting from the weight,a real deterimned hoplite "mob" would break though the pike barrier in seconds.

5.Historians put too much credit to Polybius ,about the "piercing" abilities of sarissa.
Problem is,archaelogy does not support that.While we have "mak" inscribed sauroters,wehave failed over the decades to find a distinct "sarissa" type spearhead.
Either we are extremely unlucky,or the sarissas had the exact same tip,as the dory.In the latter case would offer similar piercing performance.
But what about Polybious clear mentionings?
We must remeber that the Romans were wearing celt inspired chain mail at the time,a type of armor adequate to sword slashes (main celt sword techniche) while poor performance to heavy spear thrusts (generally main greek way of fighting).
Polybious could just wrote,what the romans said in the aftermath of their battles with the greeks,what made them impression.In that theme,it was not the sarissa that had any piercing extra abilities compared to spear/dory,but just the general atributes of a spear weapon against the first gen of chainmail armors.

6.Hoplite way of fighting.
Hoplite way of fighting as I saw over time by renactors made little sense to me,it does not collaborate well with the temprorary written and inscribed paintings and vases.
How could the ancients depict it so wrong.
Way of renactorrs fight,make almost impossible to project more than one spear point in a dense phormation with shields locked.That is why in almsot all demostrations,hoplites are arranged in a loose order ,to the side as to the depth of the phalanx.
I came to this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYv87dt0ixA
The way he uses it,two guys one packed closely behind the othe could fight together,with out causing cohesion issues,still can aim and still can have shield locked formation.
Why i mention that:
i think somewhat the inferiority spear vs sarrisa theme,comes from modern recontructions,where both formations use the same animation,which favours the longer spear ,sarissa.
if hoplites would use the video showed one,if ever reached the pikemen,would have a distinct and clear advantage in kinetic energy projected to the enemy line.

Sorry for the long post,many of my points are controversial,but i beleive something is not right when examining the whole spear fighting/sarissa vs spear thing and we tend as a modern society to generalize and take for granted well esteblished theorems ,with out re examine them with newer data.
Famous example the historian that made sarissa replica using a sauroter,and for nearly a decade in seventies people believed this was the right thing to do.

Goodmorning to all o/

[Hektor27]

Hey Greek strategos,thanks for kind words o/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYv87dt0ixA
The way he uses it,two guys one packed closely behind the othe could fight together,with out causing cohesion issues,still can aim and still can have shield locked formation.
Why i mention that:
i think somewhat the inferiority spear vs sarrisa theme,comes from modern recontructions,where both formations use the same animation,which favours the longer spear ,sarissa.
if hoplites would use the video showed one,if ever reached the pikemen,would have a distinct and clear advantage in kinetic energy projected to the enemy line.

I read somewhere that some pottery depictions show the dory having a string - one end tied to the spear, the other end having a knot so you can grab on with your thumb. These depictions seem to point to a throw-sliding over-arm fighting technique where you throw the dory at your enemy for maximum impact. The knot-string addition is to prevent accidentally losing the spear in case of a miss-throw. So it seems to me that over-arm spear fighting is definitely a thing.

[Kirsch27]

-snip-

The infamous overhand/underhand debate is certainly not getting settled in this thread, heh. I personally think it's quite evident that overhand would have been very awkward and that hoplites in general probably didn't use their spears overhanded or would have at least used both techniques, but everyone has their own theory on this. However I think it's probably incorrect to say that a sarissa couldn't penetrate hoplite's armor... spear points can pry open or get stuck into gaps in the armor such as the underarm, neck, joints or lower body and these places are often quite vascular.

[PanDemon]

Hey Kirch and Hector o/

Hector I have seen the vase painting ,t depicts one nude man with an elaborate knot in the javelin/dory and a strange type of grip:
He has index finger and the finger next to it ,raised while holds the weapon.
The guy that made the video also in his comments in another video mentions that he can see in the Chingi vase a smilar type of grip,or speculates that would be.
I think this is probably javelin throwing mechanism ,but i dont rule it out ,to have effectiveness in an overhand loose spear grip aswell.
Maybe if ever anyone makes that type of grip,we can see.As far none did :/
Centainly,about the overhand debate ,I personally concluded that in tight formation it was used ,and underhand only when formations were broken.It is a matter of debae as always.

Kirch ,it is ,as you said,an endless debate,but as i said to Hector,i leaned to overhand solution in this debate.
For a number of reasons,mostly what i seem nergy efficient,formation usefulness and temporary proofs.Overhand wins in these three sectors:
Underhand cannot be used in a formation,it has way less energy ,and 90% of art depictions through the centuries show overhand techniques.
I agree though ,that and the other side has its own arguments.

About the piercing thing,I am fairly certain again that at 4m distance,a sarrissa cannot penetrate enything.
Maybe a shield after some time ,and if the phalangite and the hoplite stay relatively in exact same positions one to each other.So sarissa to hit the same spot.
To hit the shield penetrate it and then hit and penetrate the man behind for me that is impossible.
The best I have seen in noumerous videos all these years ,is renactors using shorter (1,2-1,5 spears) weapons ,aiming at a stationary target,build up all their streangth and then make a small dent or partially penetrate a shield.
The problem with that result is that it is generated in almost perfect conditions for the attacker:

1.The target does not move forward so to reduce the attacker's animation range->muscle mechanism->energy projected to half.
To visualize it,imagine after the first hit,the stationary target to mopve forward maybe half a foot.While the attacker stays in same position.Attacker has no room to animate the movement,he can attack at greatly reduced streangth.

2.The attacker can aim a spesific point at the target and deliver the blow to the shield.If both were moving ,a hit that type to a round hoplite shield could be bounced/deflected with ease.
far less energy would be put on the surface.

3.The attacker uses way shorter spear than the sarissa and he is able to produce more kinetic energy.At 4m away he would not be able to produce the same outcome ,cause of the sarissa benting,pulsating.

4.A 5 -6 meters weapon ,made up of light wood,it will break or lose structural cohesion after 4-5 hits to an armored target.All the weapons i have seen renactors using,all of them in all videos ever,tend to bend.
If at 2018 we cannot make a straight sarissa ,structural strong ,then we really missing data about the weapon.

These are my arguments.For penetrating a shield.Which is maybe 25% the problem a sarissa attacker has to solve.After penetrates the shield,must strike more ferociously,to penetrate again,making an even more animation attack muscle movement,reaching way behind the armoured body.
When he reaches it,he needs to penetrate the excelent armour,the secondary armour behind it (kothyvos,leather or the strange foam type cloth we see in many vase depictions) and then the body.
It is possible...but you need to have perfect conditions for the attacker and worst for the defender.
in reality,what I think,is that after first clash the hoplites/legionnaires,would step up to close the distance and reduce the output of tha attacker.
Then it would be a time debate,where the sarrisa would break or would would the defender.
The attackers would need to break 2 sarissas to come in range of the phalangites.then it is over,the phalangite in opposition to him either would get stabbed,or would drop sarissa to raise his shield and protect himself.
Anyway ,these all are theoretical ,cause none bothered untill now to fully reproduce the outcome .

So my conclusion is that a sarissa armed attacker would have an extremely difficult time to wound/disable an armored shield carrying opponent.
he could lock him in place though..for a time.Which is what history tells us about all the sarissa type armies.

Gm to all o/

[corsair831]

Well this entire thread was an absolutely fascinating read, worthy of r/askhistorians, kudos guys!