The Wise Coffin

If it doesn't look like a duck, doesn't squawk like a duck, then it isn't a duck - maybe it's a swan?

Thanks for sharing.

Umm Xenophon describes Cleachus' hoplites' formation as a phalanx. That's at least 50 years prior to Phillip II's reforms arming his peasants with the sarissa. The term "phalanx" refers to the hoplite formation before it refers to the Makedonian pike formation.

Indeed. My confusion was that people many times call the Phalangites as Phalanx; so there is my confusion about this topic.
Still the reference of Phalanx still looks placed by more modern influences, since the name seems to derive from the phalangites; but i can still be wrong about it, of course. Still, i will call the hoplites doing the hoplite formation :laughter:

Phalanx is a pack of soldiers close together so that each man protects with his shield the one to his left.
There are many kinds of Phalaxes. Hoplitic, Obligue (still hoplitic) and Macedonian Phalanx. YEs the MAcedonian is a bit different cause the soldier has the sarissa wich needs both hands to handle but all are phalanxes.
Cheers :)

[I]Phalanx [/I]can be a really broad term. The later Greek writers called a Roman legion a "phalanx" for example. Technically it could refer to any organized (line) formation of heavy infantry, though in modern use it's usually used to either describe a hoplite phalanx or the Macedonian phalanx.

Btw, hoplite is a pretty generic term too. Classical hoplites, Macedonian sarissa-bearers and Roman Legionnaries could all be called "hoplites". Though in modern use the term is generally restricted to the classical hoplites armed with the doru and the aspis. I'm pretty sure "phalangite" is a modern invention (rather than a term used in the ancient world), but I'm not absolutely sure about that.

Strictly speaking I would only call people carrying a hoplon hoplites, so a Macedonian phalangite, who has no shield at all, would not be a hoplite, and a legionnaire employing a Roman scutum wouldn't be either. Meanwhile the word phalanx originally meant "tree-trunk" and then also "roll" (as in "steam roll", only they did not have steam...) referring to a tightly packed battle line that would (steam) roll the battle field, so any such battle line, from pre-greek infantry, over classical hoplites, the Macedonian phalanx to the Roman legions could be called a phalanx. Maybe the frequent joint usage of "hoplite" together with "phalanx" then shifted the meaning of "hoplite" to be more general than a hoplon carrying soldier to a generic member of a phalanx formation.

[QUOTE=Iskar;bt349]Strictly speaking I would only call people carrying a [I]hoplon[/I] hoplites, so a Macedonian phalangite, who has no shield at all, would not be a hoplite, and a legionnaire employing a Roman [I]scutum[/I] wouldn't be either. Meanwhile the word [I]phalanx[/I] originally meant "tree-trunk" and then also "roll" (as in "steam roll", only they did not have steam...) referring to a tightly packed battle line that would (steam) roll the battle field, so any such battle line, from pre-greek infantry, over classical hoplites, the Macedonian phalanx to the Roman legions could be called a phalanx. Maybe the frequent joint usage of "hoplite" together with "phalanx" then shifted the meaning of "hoplite" to be more general than a hoplon carrying soldier to a generic member of a phalanx formation.[/QUOTE]

It's rather that the term [I]hopla [/I]came to mean "arms" in general (not just the shield). I suppose [I]hoplon [/I]could have originally just referred to the hoplite shield (the classical writers use [I]hoplon [/I]extremely rarely, they use the term [I]aspis [/I]to describe the hoplite shields, generally speaking). Anyway, if we're speaking of Hellenic and Roman eras (rather than early Classical Greece), [I]hoplite [/I]seems to have generally meant simply a "man-at-arms" (in other words, a heavy infantryman).

Btw, the Macedonian "phalangites" did carry a shield (called Pelte Makedonike, about 60cm diameter) strapped to their left arm.

Why people judge things when they lack of "native" languages words and terms?
Phalanx is a close rank formation used/described originaly the tide infantry formation of the Mycenean infantry.
So as phalanx we NAME the infantry formation (IN GREEK) that men are close enough to cover eachother or fight as one. Phalanx had atleast 4 stages. But it had NO MATTER what equipement or armor those that formed it had or how we called those warriors.
So..just like all shileds were not spesificaly hoplon but , thyreos, pelte, aspis and so many other sub types, just like all spears were NOT spesificaly , dory, palton, kammakas etc, the same way phalanx could be Hoplite or another warrior type one. Hoplites formed their phalanxes based on their shield co-cover, Mukenean infantry men and later Ificrates (and the Macedonians) warriors formed phalanxes based on their spearheads co -cover. The OPoster makes a tiny mistake. Macedonian/Hellenistic phalanx was a rebirth of the Mycenean Phalanx and not an evolution of the Hoplite Phalanx. The two types emphasised in diferent war features. That is why hoplite phalanxes often brought Macedonian ones to a vary dificult situations. But just like Ificrates the Athenian, Macedonian army reformers had to make a choice: Quality but small numbers, large numbers superiority but less effectiveness. It was all about money and time shortage.
CONCLUSION: All infantry formations ARE CALLED IN GREEK Phalanx (even those that 16th century Spanish infantry formed). I can understand that Hellenic/greek language is hard to figure out. An other missunderstanding...Macedonians did not call their phalanx infantry men "Phalangites" they called them Pezhetaeroi (hetaeroi on foot). Phalangites was a much later name given from people that wanted to give their readers a way to distinquish between diferent warrior types. In reality Macedonians had a pezhetaeroi phalanx but also a hoplite phalanx formed by their Hypaspistae that their name describes them as aspis (hoplon version) users.