Greek hoplites not using sarissa?

[AqD]

Hi all!

After reading some articles, I begin to wonder if the greek hoplites in 280 BC were really not using sarissa? It's been some 50-60 years since the defeat of independent greek states and certainly they should have learnt their short spears are nearly useless against macedonian-style phalanx from the front.

And what about hypaspists, libyan spearmen and sacred band? Were they really using the short and old spears too?
________
Nexium Lawsuit

[Skirnir]

Good point. I think I read somewhere that Kleomenes of Sparta armed his men "in the Macedonian fashion."

[khshayathiya]

According to some reconstructions, your average sarissa weighed some 6 kilos, whereas the hoplitic spear just about 1-1.5 kilos. So you notice that if a unit wanted a reasonable degree of mobility, it would prefer the shorter one. Also, the sarissa was impractical to say the least when scaling a wall, so that's another reason why elite units would go with the more practical dory.

[AqD]

Yes certainly. But we're talking about the majority of greek hoplites at 280BC. The standard Hoplitai, Corinthian Hoplitai, Athinaioi Hoplitai, and Liby-Phoenician Spearmen, etc, were they all using dory at that time??
________
Portable electronic vaporizer

[Quinn Inuit]

To my knowledge, at that time the Greeks were generally not armed in the Macedonian fashion. Carthaginians certainly not.

[Korlon]

I believe it was that only a few Greeks started using the sarissa, but most held their tradition of using their regular 8 foot spears.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Strange! Why they didn't copy the macedonian phalanx after Alessandro's campaign? :hmmm:

[horatius]

It's just my theory, but I believe that the standard old Greek hoplite, with the dory, aspis, etc. has many advantages over the Macedonian phalangites.

The Macedonian phalanx, with its extremely rigid structure, has excellent holding abilities, but not necessarily great killing power. After all, who's just going to throw themselves on to the spears? The phalanx, however, could hold the enemy in position while the heavy cavalry flanked, performing the classic hammer and anvil tactic.

Greek hoplites, though, how had more sheer killing power with their short, effective spears. They also had much greater flexibility than the long speared Macedonians. The Greeks just lacked effective cavalry, which is why Philip, and particularly his son Alexander commanding the cavalry, were able to defeat the Athenians and Thebans at Chaeronea.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Maybe you're right: lacking of a cavalry as powerful as the macedonian Hetairoi, greeks cuoldn't use the macedoniand's tactics. So they need an infantry that not just hold the line, but even slay the enemy without cavalry's intervention :hmmm:! But why didn't they develop an heavy cavalry??? Lack of strong horses???? :hmmm:

[Mikail Mengsk]

To my knowledge, at that time the Greeks were generally not armed in the Macedonian fashion. Carthaginians certainly not.

But in RTR PLatinium Poeni Citizen infantry has long pikes similar to sarissas and they form the macedonian phalanx :hmmm:

[Quinn Inuit]

But in RTR PLatinium Poeni Citizen infantry has long pikes similar to sarissas and they form the macedonian phalanx :hmmm:

That's an error, which is corrected in TIC and either 3.2.4 or 3.3 of the ExRM. Not only should no Carthaginians be using the Mac phalanx, the Poeni Citizen Inf. were actually skirmishers.

[Quinn Inuit]

Economics, actually. Ancient Greece had a strong middle class. They could afford the hoplon, but not a horse. More feudal societies fielded larger armies of the poor while the lords rode on horseback. Mounted heavy cav was hard to beat, though, and societies that fielded it won out until ranged weapon development finally outpaced armor.

[horatius]

Quinn Inuit has a very good point about economics. Horses are very expensive, and most armies were not government armed. The Romans were also weak in their cavalry arm as they often relied on foreign horsemen.

However, during ancient times (rather than medieval times), heavy cavalry was not good for stand up fighting against heavy infantry due to the lack of the stirrup. Cavalry was best used to charge the rear of an engaged unit rather than a frontal charge.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Hoplites were not useless against Phalangites. What caused the Greek defeat at Chaeronea was the unprofessionalism of the Athenian contingent (they fell for the Macedonians' withdrawal feint) and the power of the Macedonian Hetairoi. If the Athenians had held their ground and not opened a hole for Alexander to punch through and surround the Thebans, then the battle might have gone quite differently (certainly young Alexander probably would have been killed, even if his father had eventually won the day).

[Alkidas]

Maybe the feint retreat decided the battle of Chaeronea, but it's uncertain and some scholars don't believe that such a feint would've been possible for the clumsy Macedonian phalanx to carry out. It's also possible that the phalanx with the power and range of sarissas simply defeated their Theban opponents in a long infantry engagement.

[horatius]

Maybe the feint retreat decided the battle of Chaeronea, but it's uncertain and some scholars don't believe that such a feint would've been possible for the clumsy Macedonian phalanx to carry out. It's also possible that the phalanx with the power and range of sarissas simply defeated their Theban opponents in a long infantry engagement.

It's also possible that the Athenians actually managed to drive the Macedonians back, thus opening up their flank to the Macedonian heavy cavalry. A heavy cavalry charge to an exposed flank would easily disrupt, if not rout or destroy the Athenian phalanx, and once they were defeated it would have been easy to surround and destroy the Thebans.

[MasterOfThessus]

You got to love theese discussions, and people wonder why RTR is still going strong!

Thanks for the history lesson all!

[Skirnir]

Good points, all. I've been thinking about something in this vein: if the sarissa-armed phalanx was so overwhelmingly superior to the traditional hoplite, how could the Achaean League even come into existance? If such a superiority existed, the Macedonians would have easily kept control of all of Greece until their own conquest by Rome. I think there's something to this.

[Mikail Mengsk]

I think the continuous rivalries and wars between Macedonia and the other Diadochii kingdoms didn't allow the Macedonians to invade the whole Greece. Macedonia also had a little role during the second punic war, but the Romans controlled the situation. Also, the Seleucid Empire was a big threat for the Macedonians, and a Macedonian's king (forgot the name...) let the Roman Legions pass through his kingdom allowing them to defeat Antiocus III at Magnesia...

[horatius]

Good points, all. I've been thinking about something in this vein: if the sarissa-armed phalanx was so overwhelmingly superior to the traditional hoplite, how could the Achaean League even come into existance? If such a superiority existed, the Macedonians would have easily kept control of all of Greece until their own conquest by Rome. I think there's something to this.

Like I said earlier, I don't think the sarissa-armed phalanx was so overwhelmingly superior. Just my opinion, though.