Phalangites/Hoplites

[PeshmergaJ]

Could someone explain to me what the difference is, I know hoplites comes from the word hoplon, which I believe is the shield they carry. I'm guessing phalangites has to do with the spear they carry.

And if i understand right, they both fight as phalanx's. I remember a post where someone said it was nice to fight phalanx units as opposed to phalangite ones, and that made me wonder if there was more of a difference than I realized.

[MrT785479]

As far as in game differences go its mostly a matter of spear length and armor. Phalangites have a much longer spear, with the first 5 ranks holding them out towards the enemy, while hoplites usually only have 2 or 3 spears held forward, the trade off is that hoplites tend to have more armor to make up for this. It's also important to note which .exe you are using to run the game, be that RTW or BI. In RTW hoplites and phalangites both use the "phalanx" special ability, while in BI only the phalangites have this ability. Instead of the phalanx, the hoplies (as well as other spearmen like Triarii) use a default formation similar to the phalanx, but it ends up being a little bit more flexible.

[khshayathiya]

The Greek word phalanx and its Latin counterpart are quite deceptive - they may designate pretty much any corps of medium/heavy infantry that fight in close formation.

In fact, the word is used as early as Homer (in the Iliad), where it simply means "battle-array".

It can be applied equally well to to Greek (Xenophon, Anabasis, 6.5.27), Macedonian (Polybios, Historiai, 18.29), Roman (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 7.3.3) or Gallic (Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 1.25.2) formations.

Only if you take the word in a very narrow sense does it mean the Greek or Macedonian phalanx, the two being distinguished by length of the weapon (spear "dory"/pike "sarissa") and size of shield. In terms of game, I think the word "phalangite" tends to be applied more often to Macedonian-style soldiers.

[Mythos_Ruler]

1st, the word "hoplon" means "equipment for war" in a general sense. The word for shield is "aspis."

2nd, the differences between a hoplite and a phalangite include spear length (the hoplite's dory is around 8 feet long, while the phalangite's sarissa is 18-24 feet long, depending upon the period), size of shield (the hoplite's aspis is much larger than the phalangite's pelta), formation (the hoplite mostly uses the phalanx formation, 8 deep, with overlapping shields, while the phalangite uses the syntagma formation, 16 deep, with an open order), and professionalism (most hoplites were a citizen levy, while phalangites were usually professional soldiers). Body armour was similar in both cases, ranging from no body armour in the rear ranks, to linothorakes, scale reinforced thorakes, and bronze cuirasses. Helmets varied on a solider by soldier basis. Another difference you might notice is that hoplites are usually depicted with a single over-hand / over-shield thrust (something I agree with), while the phalangites most definitely utilized both hands while wielding the long sarissa (their small pelta shield slung over the shoulder).

[PeshmergaJ]

Thanks, very informative

[Mythos_Ruler]

You might enjoy this little gem I whipped up:

[MasterOfThessus]

What game is that?? Looks like someone has tried to crossbreed RTW and EOE

[Phillieas_Caesar]

i think you discritions of a hoplite battle formation is inncorret. i'm a amathur military historian (history major in college) but the hoplites since they were a levy or at best a part time army they had low moral. to counter this they were place in a long narrow Relitivly formation since to run away the men at the front had to get by the men in the back. since the men in the back where in the back they wernt as sacared of the enemy as the men in the front and would not rout. infact some historians argue they they may have pushed with their sheilds the men in front of them. to summerize ittake more courge to stand in a long line like the 800 by 8 was more likey to be use by the romans
the hoplite would be inverse more in the back in a narrower line. i post my referance later cause i got to go to class now

[mdg1125]

i think you discritions of a hoplite battle formation is inncorret. i'm a amathur military historian (history major in college) but the hoplites since they were a levy or at best a part time army they had low moral. to counter this they were place in a long narrow Relitivly formation since to run away the men at the front had to get by the men in the back. since the men in the back where in the back they wernt as sacared of the enemy as the men in the front and would not rout. infact some historians argue they they may have pushed with their sheilds the men in front of them. to summerize ittake more courge to stand in a long line like the 800 by 8 was more likey to be use by the romans
the hoplite would be inverse more in the back in a narrower line. i post my referance later cause i got to go to class now

Is this for the 300 comics?

[Phillieas_Caesar]

no i mean moral as its harder for the men in front to run if their in a deep formation. it take training to be able to fight in a shallow formation and a high moral. i'll give the referance as soon as i find it again. it was an great book too. oh yeah i cant spell either and no its not for 300. that movie based on a comic base on an actullal event.

[khshayathiya]

One should never underestimate the passion with which ancient soldiers fought. True enough, the hoplites were levies (and the same is true of the Roman legions before the reforms of Marius), but their sense of participation in the business of their country ensured that they saw any public war as a personal war.

Also, the fact that within the detachment they fought along people they knew (either relatives or neighbours, depending on the system adopted by the city) ensured they would rather die than dishonour themselves by showing cowardice.

It may be easy for us to walk the streets and meet only strangers, who have no idea what we have done, but a man who had deserted his comrades would for the rest of his life be anathemised and despised by nearly everyone he met in the street.

Also, take into account that the very first things the Greeks learned were the epic poems of Homer, which extol manly courage, fearlessness, seeking immortal fame through one's deeds on the battlefield. I'm pretty sure these values would be burned pretty deeply in a Greek's soul.

One needs only read through Thucydides to see that hoplitic armies of citizens are no pussies - they fight hard. It takes only a very unexpected event (like an enemy army suddenly popping up at the back) to break the will of the hoplite to fight.

[Mythos_Ruler]

There are references stating the depths of the phalanx between 6 and 12 were common. Sometimes the Spartans used a 6-deep phalanx, because of their low numbers, while Thebans regularly used 12-deep or deeper phalanxes. Your description of those in the rear pushing those in front is correct. It's that "huge shoving match" analogy I used. Both sides pushed, shoved, and slashed until one side's coherence finally broke. This type of warfare was exhausting and battles typically only lasted an hour or two at most. It was the Theban general Epaminondas that finally found a way to defeat this style of warfare utilizing his new "Oblique Order" formation, or as he liked to call it, systrophe ("amassment"). Basically this was a phalanx, with overlapping shields, but on the extreme left flank the formation was up to 50 shields deep. He did this on the left in order to smash the enemy right flank, which in traditional phalanx warfare was the enemy's strongest flank (the Spartan basileus was stationed here along with his body guard, or hippeis, for instance).

Morale within the ranks of a Hoplite phalanx varied greatly. Heavily armoured, upper-middle class merchants and men of wealth had a high stake in the outcome of most Greek vs. Greek battles (because they were historically fighting over limited natural resources - farmlands, pasture lands, lucrative mines, trade routes, etc.), while the lower-middle class hoplite, lightly armoured, might not have so much at stake in the current conflict other than his life. There are many dynamics to take into consideration, but it is true that most Greek cities instilled into their populous a city-state (Polis) mentality - nationalism of the city. Citizenship in one's Polis was elevated to an almost cult status. Morale might also vary by the quality of leadership, devotion to the cause of the moment, tribal hatreds (Ionians vs. Dorians vs. Aeolians vs. Achaeans vs. Ionians), as well as other deep seated grievances unrelated to the current conflict. There are instances where an entire army of hoplites broke ranks and fled before even meeting the shields of the enemies. Spartans particularly instilled so much fear into some enemies that this occurred more than once. Going into battle, many cities had state chants, calling upon their patron gods for courage or will to fight (dynamis), called paens. Some even used a type of flute (which sounded like a modern oboe) to keep cadence and thus the men's spirits high.

[alessandrosalazar]

Why do I get the knowledge I know what the next showcase of 0AD is.

[Clearchus of Sparta]

I'd agree with K on this one although Im no historian. You may be substituting "moral" for "disipline" in so much as the greek hoplite received little training except in basic manouveres. They fought in ranks and files made up of friends and family. Ask yourself, would you run if your brother was in danger by your side? Probably not. Especially if he stayed and then told everyone back home of your "cowardice" The exception to this was the Spartan. Probably the only professional soldiers of their day. You also have to remember that battles were only fought if both sides felt they could win. A battle would be fought most likely in a single day with the victor decided by who occupied the ground, not necessarily the number of dead or wounded. Then a truce would be declared at the end of the battle to tend to the wounded and peace terms negotiated. The Greeks expected wars to be fought this way. One pitched battle to decide the outcome. Very rarely did one city "storm" another city in the way the romans did later on for territorial gain.

There is a very good book on what it might have been like to be a hoplite called "The Greek Way of War" by Victor Davis Hanson

[Mythos_Ruler]

Naw, next one might be Persian Elephants.

Something to mention is that the transition from hoplites to phalangites in the Greek world wasn't a rapid one. The Greek cities still used Hoplites, the phalanx, and accompanying tactics well into the Hellenistic age. Hoplites gave the regents of Macedon some trouble during the various rebellions in Greece. Mercenary hoplites were used quite a bit by Persia, Macedon, Carthage, and the Diadochi. The most feared enemy troops during Alexander's Persian campaign were the mercenary Hoplites under the employ of Darius.

Anywho, a good source for information on these topics is "Ancient Warfare" Magazine. Everyone should check it out. It discusses everything from hoplite tactics, to phalangites, to hypaspists, to battle tactics. Very cool magazine. (I'm not affiliated with the magazine at all, so I hope this doesn't get me banned for "advertising" )

[Etepete]

The whole sarissa phalanx -> hoplites change in RTR (and EB etc) has always puzzled me. I mean surely, 50 years after Alexander proved the effectivness of the sarissa formation from the adriatic coast to the Indus, the sarissa formation would have been widely adopted?

That Alexander faced (spear wielding) hoplites during his campaign is one thing: but that an outdated fighting method persisted half a century after that date is quite another. And I remember reading something to the effect that the spartan phalanx during the diadochi times used the macedonian formation (in RTR, they use spears)

Besides, it seems to me that the word "hoplite" when it appears in the sources does not necessarily refer to a certain type of phalanx warrior, or preclude the use of sarissa. Surely this term was used with wider implication and might have changed in meaning over time

I DO suffer from a severe lack of resources on this though. And I realise that the developers of RTR has done an impressive amount of research. If possible, I would love to see the sources so I can have a look for myself and form my own opinion.

p.s. Havent found a classic greek mod yet: shouldnt a classic hoplite formation really have the BI shieldwall formation

Hope someone can help shed some light on this issue.

EDIT: I am currently reading some on the era: fascinating read. There does indeed seem to be several cased of late hoplites with traditional equipment. Not sure whether this "equipment" is the classic spear, or a classic hoplite shield or both. Would be interesting to see what archeological finds there are.

I realize there are several threads on this topic. Sorry if I brought up something that has been discussed a lot before

[Sphere]

"Sarissa formation" was not obviously superior to the traditional hoplite phalanx.

Phillip and Alexander showed that the macedonian style phalanx was effective when combined with excellent cavalry and supporting infantry. The key was hammer and anvil tactics, not the superiority of the macedonian phalanx. The Diadochi showed that trying to use phalanx's alone was ineffective as there was no hammer to finish the job.

Traditional hoplites, however, were trained and equipped to win battles on their own, without any substantial support. In this way, mercenary bands and city-states might favor using the more flexible and multi-task hoplite because they lacked the resources necessary to field respectable supporting forces.

[Mythos_Ruler]

There is also evidence and much speculation that the Macedonians themselves may have used old Hoplite equipment and tactics under certain situations, especially utilizing the Hypaspistai corps or Argyraspides. These men were the creme de la creme of the Macedonian armies and were used for the most dangerous missions on the battlefield. Liby-Phoenicians within the Carthaginian ranks may have fought as hoplites, and the famous Legionnaires of the Imperium Romanum had been known to use hoplite-style shield wall tactics when appropriate. The key in later times was flexibility and using the correct formations and tactics to meet the challenges on the field that day.

[Etepete]

After some light research, the hoplites in RTR DO seem very accurate. And even more importantly: I'm beginning to really enjoy playing with them.

Thank you for taking the time to shed some light

Edit: Ohh, I remember being told about the "Silver Shields" ages ago by a warfare history buff friend of mine. THEY are the 60 year old elite soldiers. Fascinating Its actually quite remarkable - and a parallell I suppose to the roman division of the legion depending on age and wasn't it also marital status, with Principes all being pater familias? Its an intriguing concept that I suppose comes naturally to citizen-armies originally so grounded in their native communities. He he, sorry a bit OT there.

[sumaznguy]

My history teacher talked about the hoplites a bit. They didn't have moral troubles because they were pretty much fighting for their stuff. It's not like professional warriors where you fight whoever your general/king/emperor told you to. They worked hard on their land, so they definitely would not want to lose and have to pay tribute.