Phalanx fallacies - hoplites again

[Imperial Dave]

'the Greeks were real men'

Of course, if the Greeks truly believed that to be the case, while truly believing that the Persians were effeminate cheese-eating surrender monkeys, then that would give them a definite advantage whether it was true or not.

...' effeminate TROUSER-WEARING surrender-monkeys...'....in fact...😶🇬🇷

[Cantabrigian]

But surely this would only be true if the Persians held the same belief?  If the Persians felt they were real men, there would be a mismatch in expectations and the issue would be in doubt.

True, but you can never be worse off by the rank and file believing you can win.  Well except in those instances where the rank and file were so convinced of winning that they persuaded a general to attack despite their personal judgement.

[Erpingham]

I was put in mind of the disasters which can occur if commanders allow their national stereotypes/myths to affect their tactical decisions.  Take, for example, the "furia francese" and the French approach to infantry combat in 1914.

[Nick Harbud]

It's always dangerous when one starts to believe one's own propaganda... 

[RichT]

Yup. I'm reminded of the 'these Sigmas will deceive you' story:

"But Pasimachus, the Lacedaemonian commander of horse, at the head of a few horsemen, when he saw the Sicyonians hard pressed, tied his horses to trees, took from the Sicyonians their shields, and advanced with a volunteer force against the Argives. The Argives, however, seeing the Sigmas upon the shields, did not fear these opponents at all, thinking that they were Sicyonians. Then, as the story goes, Pasimachus said: 'By the twin gods, Argives, these Sigmas will deceive you' and came to close quarters with them; and fighting thus with a few against many he was slain, and likewise others of his party." Xen. Hell. 4.4.10

Pasimachus supposed that the Argives, not knowing they were fighting Spartan Übermenschen, would be unpleasantly surprised to discover they were, but in fact it worked the other way - the Argives, not knowing they were supposed to lose, won.

There's a nice post on this and related matters in the 'Pelennor fields' blog somebody (Mike in fact) linked to earlier - "the magic was never in the Spartan, it was in the image of Sparta that lived in the mind of his opponent". (I think he slightly overstates the case, but only slightly).

[Imperial Dave]

Agreed. Spartans were living rent fee in most Greek generals and soldiers minds for a long time

[Chuck the Grey]

There is also some evidence that at some of the Spartans had a more realistic view of their martial ability. Consider Demaratos' reply to Xerxes when when discussing the fighting ability and willingness to resist of the Spartans.

"I do not claim to have the ability myself to fight ten men at once, or even two, and I would not fight even one in a duel if I had the choice. But if I were compelled or urged on by some great challenge, I would indeed take the utmost pleasure in fighting one of those men who say that he by himself is equal to three Hellenes. The Lacedaemonians are in fact no worse than any other men when they fight individually, but when they unite and fight together, they are the best warriors of all."
Herodotus, The Histories, 7.103-104

It would seem that Demaratos at lest did not seem to view the individual Spartan as a super warrior, but recognized that the real might of the Spartan army was in the collective effort of each unit. Perhaps Pasimachus forgot that bit of military wisdom.

[Imperial Dave]

It would seem that Demaratos at lest did not seem to view the individual Spartan as a super warrior, but recognized that the real might of the Spartan army was in the collective effort of each unit. Perhaps Pasimachus forgot that bit of military wisdom.

true....he doubled guessed the situation. Had he just lined up with lambdas on his shields he would have found his opponents less willing to fight

[Cantabrigian]

There's a nice post on this and related matters in the 'Pelennor fields' blog somebody (Mike in fact) linked to earlier - "the magic was never in the Spartan, it was in the image of Sparta that lived in the mind of his opponent". (I think he slightly overstates the case, but only slightly).

I think he's slightly misinterpreted his stats.  A 50:50 win/loss record doesn't indicate that you were no better than your opponents, because the record doesn't (as several commenters note) include those battles where one side thought they had no chance, and avoided the battle altogether.  If  Sparta's opponents thought the Spartans were good, then they'd try and avoid battle unless there were other things (e.g. numbers, location) to make up for it.

So a 50:50 win ratio is probably a better indication that the Spartans were roughly as good as their opponents expected them to be.  Which if you believe that an army is largely as good as its opponents expects it to be (see shields without lambdas), then it's not that surprising a result!

[Justin Swanton]

I would suggest three things about the Spartans:

1. They didn't fight outnumbered unless they were led by an idiot like Pasimachus. Most Spartan armies were largely made up of non-Spartan allies who buffed up their numbers. Spartans were smart enough to know they had to take on enemies at least on a rough 1:1 basis.

2. They were professional soldiers, which meant their entire career was spent learning how to fight. They would have been better than the average citizen hoplite in a one to one duel (the average citizen hoplite spent most of his time making a living), but not dramatically better as Demaratos affirms.

3. They were drilled troops. This meant they could execute battlefield manoeuvres that citizen hoplites could not, especially their special favourite one of enveloping an enemy flank. They could also respond to sudden threats. They were a lot like legionaries in this regard, Caesar's troops for instance, who were always able to react effectively to an unexpected surprise. Being drilled also meant they had strong sense of unit cohesion. A Spartan hoplite would not panic so long as his unit remained together and this cohesion made it very difficult to shatter a Spartan unit in battle.

Other professional Greek hoplites - the epilektoi - were as good as Spartans which showed the latter were not supermen.

[PMBardunias]

There is also some evidence that at some of the Spartans had a more realistic view of their martial ability. Consider Demaratos' reply to Xerxes when when discussing the fighting ability and willingness to resist of the Spartans.

"I do not claim to have the ability myself to fight ten men at once, or even two, and I would not fight even one in a duel if I had the choice. But if I were compelled or urged on by some great challenge, I would indeed take the utmost pleasure in fighting one of those men who say that he by himself is equal to three Hellenes. The Lacedaemonians are in fact no worse than any other men when they fight individually, but when they unite and fight together, they are the best warriors of all."
Herodotus, The Histories, 7.103-104

It would seem that Demaratos at lest did not seem to view the individual Spartan as a super warrior, but recognized that the real might of the Spartan army was in the collective effort of each unit. Perhaps Pasimachus forgot that bit of military wisdom.

This reminds me of Napoleon's comment on his cavalry: "Two Mamelukes held three Frenchmen; but one hundred French cavalry did not fear the same number of Mamelukes; three hundred vanquished the same number; one thousand French beat fifteen hundred Mamelukes. Such was the influence of tactics, order and maneuver."

[LawrenceG]

2. They were professional soldiers, which meant their entire career was spent learning how to fight. They would have been better than the average citizen hoplite in a one to one duel (the average citizen hoplite spent most of his time making a living), but not dramatically better as Demaratos affirms.

To what extent did the average citizen hoplite do this rather than spend his life in the gym and symposia while his slaves  made a living for him?

[Justin Swanton]

2. They were professional soldiers, which meant their entire career was spent learning how to fight. They would have been better than the average citizen hoplite in a one to one duel (the average citizen hoplite spent most of his time making a living), but not dramatically better as Demaratos affirms.

To what extent did the average citizen hoplite do this rather than spend his life in the gym and symposia while his slaves  made a living for him?

We tend to think of fighting in Antiquity in terms of elaborate swordplay (a must in Hollywood to stretch out the action sequences). But hoplites didn't do swordfighting. If they were trained professionals they could do all sorts of manoeuvres and formation changes that citizen hoplites could not. Their professional cohesion meant they could not be easily panicked. "Swordfighting" meant they stabbed their opponents at close quarters with a small sword or knife. It didn't require much skill. The non-professionals were generally artisans or workers of some kind, which meant their trades kept them in reasonable physical trim. People used their muscles in those days, before cars and automation were invented.

[RichT]

To what extent did the average citizen hoplite do this rather than spend his life in the gym and symposia while his slaves  made a living for him?

There's no simple answer to that as it depends on the hoplite, on the city, on the date, on the particular circumstances and on who you ask.

The ideal was that all hoplites would as you say be down the gym or discussing philosophy and politics with their equals. The reality was that hoplites were a more socially and economically mixed lot than that.

The non-professionals were generally artisans or workers of some kind, which meant their trades kept them in reasonable physical trim.

Perhaps, though:

'to be sure, the illiberal arts [handicrafts, artisanry], as they are called, are spoken against, and are, naturally enough, held in utter disdain in our states. For they spoil the bodies of the workmen and the foremen, forcing them to sit still and live indoors, and in some cases to spend the day at the fire. The softening of the body involves a serious weakening of the mind. Moreover, these so-called illiberal arts leave no spare time for attention to one's friends and city, so that those who follow them are reputed bad at dealing with friends and bad defenders of their country. In fact, in some of the states, and especially in those reputed warlike, it is not even lawful for any of the citizens to work at illiberal arts.' (Xenophon, Economics 4.2-3)

On the other hand:

'And when, thus conditioned, the rulers and the ruled are brought together on the march, in wayfaring, or in some other common undertaking, either a religious festival, or a campaign, or as shipmates or fellow-soldiers or, for that matter, in actual battle, and observe one another, then the poor are not in the least scorned by the rich, but on the contrary, do you not suppose it often happens that when a lean, sinewy, sunburnt pauper is stationed in battle beside a rich man bred in the shade, and burdened with superfluous flesh, and sees him panting and helpless - do you not suppose he will think that such fellows keep their wealth by the cowardice of the poor, and that when the latter are together in private, one will pass the word to another "our men are good for nothing"?' (Plato, Republic 9 556c-d)

There is no single simple answer.

[Justin Swanton]

There is no single simple answer.

One simplish answer: put the lean, sinewy, sunburnt paupers in the front to do the actual fighting whilst the rich men bred in the shade and burdened with superfluous flesh take up the prestigious post of file closers and supply managerial oversight.