the Greek overarm...'phalanx'?

[Spadicus]

Assuming hoplites in Greek phalanxes fought with an overarm spear, how many ranks would be involved in the fighting? I imagine that with spears short enough to be held overarm, and hoplites of equal height, only the first row could be involved in fighting. Have there been any reenactments or reconstructions to see?

If only the first rank fought then would it be correct to call the unit a 'phalanx'?

Thanks!

[vikrant]

see rtw mod rise of persia
they have overarm phalanxes

[Spadicus]

...so do many mods .

[The Lacedaemonian]

probably one.

[conon394]

If only the first rank fought then would it be correct to call the unit a 'phalanx'?

It would be a bit odd not too seeing as it is what the Greeks in questions would call it…

[Spadicus]

O lol. Fair enough...I just thought for some reason that the phalanx was a formation that enabled several spear wielding ranks to fight at once .

[Red Harvest]

O lol. Fair enough...I just thought for some reason that the phalanx was a formation that enabled several spear wielding ranks to fight at once .

Different phalanx, that is the Macedonian phalanx while the original phalanx was the hoplite phalanx. They fought with different styles (not like in RTW where only the length of the spear changes.)

[Piggypigpig]

"In battle, Greek hoplites formed a phalanx-a block of soldiers eight or more rows deep." -from the world history encyclopedia, page 47. It then goes on to say, "Soldiers in the front line jabbed at their enemies' faces and necks." Sadly it gives no information on what the other ranks would do.

Seeing as the phalanx was designed to fight other phalanxes, I can only assume that greek hoplites with spears would only fight in the front rank, the rest would be back-up for when the front fell.

Of course, when fighting with pikes i assume the 2nd, 3rd and perhaps even 4th rank could fight.
When fighting enemies who fought with weapons such as swords, axes, and other "hand-to-hand" weapons, the send rank would probably also be able to jab at the enemy, while the front rank would probably draw their short swords.
Does that answer your question?

[Zenith Darksea]

Actually the primary way that a phalanx defeated an enemy was not by stabbing but by pushing. If you read details of phalanx battles you'll see that very few people die, and that when lots of people die it's generally because their phalanx was broken. If your phalanx could psh an enemy phalanx back then it would become disordered and you'd essentially have defeated them. As a result, the way the rear ranks of a phalanx helped was by providing extra weight and momentum to the formation.

[Stalins Ghost]

Hell, what most people dont realise is that very few forms of ancient and medieval warfare actually resulted in many casualties until the ranks broke and routed (as Zenith was saying). Read any period texts and you'll see that the pointy thing your holding is virtually impossible to use when your in the press of combat. The gladius did help with this slightly, but in the end, even that gave way to the good ole' rugby scrum style combat. This is more a western convention though. Generally in the east cavarly skirmishing reigned supreme. Of course this is a huge generalisation across the board really

[avesta]

In RTW, the phalanx animations are historically inaccurate. You see the individual soldiers thrusting their spears back and forth. In reality, as Stalin and Zenith stated, the basis of the phalanx formation was to present a wall of spears/pikes to the enemy, and use the pushing momentum from the men in the 2nd and subsequent ranks to drill this wall into the enemy.

[communist]

btw, is the hoplites shield attached to their left shoulder/arm or can it be moved around quickly and such?

[Xiaodun]

The hoplon was a rather heavy instrument and it had to be strapped to a man's arm. Moving the shield would be rather hard (not to mention horribly disrupting) as the shields were used to cover the line and protect the guy next to you. Considering their heavy weight, I doubt that they would have been easy to use in individual combat

[A$TAR-519]

I dont know if being greek helps, or half in that case, but I learned alot from books and infos on the net.

Hoplites that were in phalanx formation did not use their spear to jab, they pushed forword to break the enemy line, ofcourse if the backline did not time their extra push well, then the front lines would be tipped-off balance by the unexpected nudge from the back, thats why when in battle, the back line always yell before pushing, giving an warning sign for the front line to brance themselves.
Another thing was, during the intense combat many would have fallen, such as in the front roll, the hoplites breast plate, skirt(with bronze or leather), helmet, shield, greaves, (rich hoplites could afford wrist plates), plus his spear and short sword, weight an incredable amount. Around 100 pounds estimated. As such, the front line hoplites who got stabbed or got pushed down wont be able to get back up, he would be stepped on and get kicked by his fellow soldiers who are marching over him, kicking him to shock, and if his phalanx get pushed over by the enemy phalanx, then he would get spear-butted as he is still lying on the ground, (thats why in rtw they have double sided spears or pikes, 1way was to use the rear incase the front was broke, the other was to waste no time stabbing downed soldiers to make sure they were dead.)
The hoplon shield, was very heavy, around 22 pounds, it had to be held chest level during the entire fight, and the spear weighted around 12 pounds, leaving the mans arms burdened with weight. And as such, the helmet provided extra confusion, and was very uncomfortable to wear, there were no inner linings, so if say you got smacked in the face with your helmet on, the rough bronze could cut your scalp without the inner linings. Thats why spartans grew long hair and other greek city states stuffed bread in their helmet, hunger and uncomfortable problems solved at the same time (thats all i can think of, hope it was interesting)

[conon394]

A$TAR-519

The hoplon shield, was very heavy, around 22 pounds, it had to be held chest level during the entire fight, and the spear weighted around 12 pounds, leaving the mans arms burdened with weight. And as such, the helmet provided extra confusion, and was very uncomfortable to wear, there were no inner linings, so if say you got smacked in the face with your helmet on, the rough bronze could cut your scalp without the inner linings. Thats why spartans grew long hair and other greek city states stuffed bread in their helmet, hunger and uncomfortable problems solved at the same time (thats all i can think of, hope it was interesting)

I have to disagree on a couple points…

12 pounds for a spear? Maybe for a 15ft sarissa, but you are vastly overestimating the weight of the hoplites spear. Given an 8ft cornel wood shaft (~2lbs), bronze butt spike (~1lb 5 oz) and iron point (~ 3 - 4 oz) a long hoplite spear is only around 3lbs 8oz – 9oz (1.).

22 lbs for a aspis seems heavy, the more typical range I have seen for estimates is around 13-15 lbs (2.). In any case 22 lbs is still within the range of weights for Roman scutum shields and the Romans very much expected to use them actively in fencing and swordplay.

, there were no inner linings

No, rather a lot of Greek bronze armor had small holes for a lining (3.), and what of the pilos caps worn under the helm (4.). Bread in their helmets, can you source that?


Since I asked for a source on the bread thing here are mine…

1.“The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor “
Minor M. Markle, III American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 81, pp. 324-325.
2.For example Osprey “The Greek Hoplite” pg 10.
3.“The tale of the sword – swords and swordfighters in Bronze Age Europe”. Kristiansen, K. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Nov2002, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p326-327
4.Thucydides 4.34 is often used to suggest the Spartans were only using a felt pilos cap, and no longer a helmet. Given the surprise nature of the Athenian attack, and the fact that Thucydides explicitly notes many Spartans were caught still trying to arm themselves - I feel one can equally argue that many Spartans were simply wearing only part of their armor, that is in this case only their helmet liners… Of course since piloi were also real bronze cap helmets, it may simply suggest that the relative limited coverage of the helmet left their face and necks exposed to archery.

[A$TAR-519]

Yeh your right about the spear conon, it would have probably weighted only 5-7 pounds the most. But the hoplon weighted alot more, and besides, I held up an actual hoplon, the weight depended on the type of wood used and how many layers of bronze used. Oak was more dense and layers of extra bronze added extra weight. Even the smallest hoplons weighted 17 pounds the least. And you have to remeber that back in ancient times peoples metal work or carving skills arent as advanced as today. What seems light today would be a really burden back in the days. As most blacksmiths didnt extract all of the slag from the minerals, the weight would have been alot less if they knew how too.
The greek helmet never had holes in them. The evolution for the greek helmets was a three step process.
1. The old fasion greek helmet, with horse hair crest, complete face protection with narrow eye slits, and no inner lining. this type was used till the persia war with greece.
2. Then came the helmet without the horse hair crest, as it was very burdensome, they removed the crest, allowed a more open face helmet, and put colored stumps on the helmet for me to pick out on the battle. (as seen in spartan total warrior helmet)
3. The last type of helmet was the kind worn by the spartans in rtw, this was introduced when the greek cities was diminishing and the roma began to rise to power. It was fasioned so that hearing and vision was not obstructed, but the soldier stands a great chance of being hit in the face without the cheek guards.

Thats all I can say, if you have more interesting stuff please post asap great topic

[conon394]

it would have probably weighted only 5-7 pounds the most

You are in my opinion still leaning toward vastly overstating the weight of the spear. I simply cannot see how you get to such a heavy weapon…

My calculations:

Assuming a cornel wood shaft of about 8’- just about the longest spear a person could reasonably be assumed to be using with one hand. The weight of the shaft is then roughly 2 lbs. Cornel seems to have been the wood of choice, being both strong and flexible. Cornel was however relatively heavy at 51.5 lbs per cu. ft. compared with some other noted alternatives:

41.8 lbs per cu. ft. for White Ash (serving as a stand in for European ash)
36.8 - 58.06 lbs per cu ft various Oaks
~ 34.33 lbs per cu ft a (rough) average of firs and pines

(Mass/Weight of woods: in general http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_wood.htm and for Cornel Wood: “The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor” Minor M. Markle, III American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 81, No. 3 (Summer, 1977), pp. 323-339)

Using a less ideal wood implies a weaker spear, but in almost any case (except some oaks – a wood not well attested for spear shafts anyway), cornel wood is probably the heaviest material commonly used. Overall I just don’t see a spear shaft weight of over 2lbs.

Now, the butt spike and point: I don’t have a really good catalogue from something like the excavations at Olympia, so I will freely accept an argument from contrasting archeology to what I am going to offer up.

Starting with the evidence from –

Greek Bronzes Recently Acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Gisela M. A. Richter
American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1939), pp. 189-201.

The individual spear butt in question is about 1lbs 5 oz (just a tad over 21 oz). The author’s discussion makes it clear that the particular example in question is typical of one of two common types of classical Greek spear butt (based on the Olympia excavations). Nothing in the paper indicates the butt is either particularly light or heavy, so I am assuming in is effectively average. One of the key functions of the butt was to balance the spear, and specifically to move the balance point rear of the center of the spear. Allowing for this understanding, I conclude the weight of the hoplite’s iron spear point must have been no more than ½ of the butt’s. I can find little published actual weight evidence for the iron points and given the effects of corrosion I doubt it would be consistent or useful. But one thing is clear points were comparatively small, which correlates with my argument from the weight of the spear butts.

So going with a potential high end weight of 11 oz for a point; an 8ft shaft, a 1lbs 5 oz butt spike and a (non-ideal) oak shaft of the heaviest sort at 2lbs 4 oz – the spear still amounts to about 4lbs 4oz, less than your range and something I still think is over weight by at about 4-6 oz(*).

But the hoplon weighted alot more, and besides, I held up an actual hoplon, the weight depended on the type of wood used and how many layers of bronze used. Oak was more dense and layers of extra bronze added extra weight. Even the smallest hoplons weighted 17 pounds the least.

Can you back that up? I have held reconstructions too and they were 18lbs but they were based on plywood. I am unaware of actual surviving Classical Greek aspis, so I am assuming you also held a reconstruction as well. The bronze facing was extremely thin, and as far as I know optional in the first place and not multi-layered (the Spartan shield facing recovered from Athens, a trophy of pylos, was a single very thin sheet). From the evidence I can fine from re-enactor sites using plywood is actually a heavier option that building the shield the way the Greeks would have.

For example: http://www.4hoplites.com/Aspis.htm

In any case the range of estimates I can find for the ancient aspis are 13.5 lbs/13.5 lbs/15 lbs/16.5lbs/15.5-17.5/18.5.(**). Further a aspis was hardly uniform example range from around 80 cm to 100 cm and some are not truly round.

Heavy, certainly; but overly cumbersome and unusable in anything but the rugby scrum that the extreme push/othimos crowd imagines - no. First I agree the aspis was bulky, the hoplite was no skirmisher. The hoplite might not be a soloist skirmisher, but I don’t think the evidence suggests that they could not fight in a open order or even running battle against other heavy infantry or even light infantry in the right circumstances. I would like to reiterate one thing even in heavy kit and at the high end weight for the shield you suggest the hoplite’s kit was no more heavy or onerous that a Roman grunt’s (***). The Romans expected their soldier’s to be relatively maneuverable and to be able fight in open order given the weight of their kit; I don’t see why Greeks could not also do the same. In fact evidence tends to suggest they could – At Issus the Greek mercenary hoplites enjoyed the same advantage that the legions did against a Macedonian phalanx in rough terrain; at Crimissus River the hoplites were the better swordsmen and the more nimble troops against the heavy and ineffective Carthy phalanx; under a good commander like Agesilaus and with light infantry support hoplites could operate in open order against light Persian troops in Asia.

And you have to remeber that back in ancient times peoples metal work or carving skills arent as advanced as today. What seems light today would be a really burden back in the days. As most blacksmiths didnt extract all of the slag from the minerals, the weight would have been alot less if they knew how too.

I don’t in general find that a convincing argument. The production of aspis seems to have been a rather specialized skill and profession and as such I simply don’t buy the argument we are better now. Aspis were not something to be knocked off quickly: After Thrasybulus' and the democratic exiles seized the Piraeus in 403 BC their feverous preparations for a showdown with the Thirty involved the production of only pelta and Persian style shields not aspis. Given that the Thirty had disarmed the population and seized the supplies of weapons and armor so the 'men of the Piraeus' ere starting from scratch , thus It is interesting that the industrial center of Athens, a city that was noted as a producer of arms and armor, could not in fact produce aspis (and other hoplite gear) on a dime for Thrasybulus and his men. What we have is a skilled trade, and as such I don’t think you can so easily undervalue the skill of craftsmen ancient or modern

The greek helmet never had holes in them.

Never is perhaps best avoided. I would suggest you check the following….

The plate/image in “Greek Hoplite” Sekunda pg 11 it offers a clear example of a Corinthian helmet with lining holes. More generally, see the article I cited earlier by Kristiansen, or “Ancient Techniques for Making Holes in Sheet Metal” W. Rostoker AJA Vol90 No. 1. pg93-94.

More directly there is the problem raised by Eero Jarva, in ”Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour” That by itself Greek bronze armor is too thin to be effective amour. Thus the point Kristiansen (and his citations) that the evidence from both edge holes and rivet spaces suggest that Greek bronze amour was always a composite backed by leather of felt or such – thus in aggregate it was functional.


*I am accepting Markle’s figure for the volume of wood in a ‘typical’ 8 ft spear for the hoplite when considering other woods. Markle uses the correct volume formula, and his weight number is widely cited with no objection by other historians.

**Sekunda/H. Blyth/Victor David Hanson/Connolly/Donlan and Thompson/Warry.

*** “The Roman Army at War” Goldsworthy. Generally chapter 5 for the weight of the Roman kit. In particular the Roman shield 13 - 22 lbs based on excavated shields.

[carl-the-conqueror]

i always thought the phalanx was a formation depper than its width, with the user requiring protection from the sheild mainly to the man on the right hand side (as the sheilds were on the left).

the first to break would be on the far right, as a precaution to this the spartans fought left handed, one reason they were practically undeafeated (on land anywho).

that is pretty much my knlodge of the phalanx formation.

[Zenith Darksea]

the first to break would be on the far right, as a precaution to this the spartans fought left handed

Are you sure about that? I don't think that they did fight left-handed.

[conon394]

the first to break would be on the far right, as a precaution to this the spartans fought left handed, one reason they were practically undeafeated (on land anywho).

The Spartans veered to their right just like everyone else. See Thucydides 5.70 where he describes the battle of Mantinea (or Xenophon Hell. 4.2.18.) He notes all Greek armies veer to the right and in particular both armies at Mantinea did. In particular the Spartans use a slow advance and the ability to order a pause for redressing their lines to minimize the problem 9or as at Nemea River to turn it into an encircling maneuver.).

The lack of shielding on the right is overstated as a factor in the hoplites ability as a soloist or in actual fighting in my opinion. The hoplites actual battle stance was like a fencers, not square forward (as when marching). Thus while fighting and with the shield held away from the body the hoplite’s right would not be exposed.

The unshielded factor is mainly a phenomenon of the advance or when marching only, where the forward walking stance caused the right side to be exposed (and must have made the men on the extreme right feel vary exposed indeed.

Nemea River offers an interesting example of this: the Thebans clearly intended to use a deep phalanx to flank the Spartans line, but were unwilling to be posted on the left. Such a posting would have force the hoplites to expose the right to the enemy and face a rather cumbersome turn to a fighting stance - on the right however the flanking movement would always show the enemy their shields.