The Hoplite phalanx

[Rob Miles]

Now any other controversies of hoplite warfare we want to tackle

Just the one suggested by this: how to get wargamers to play hoplites historically when all of the rules I have seen (not got the Italian one yet) only reward long shallow lines. It's interesting in Xenephon's Hellenica IV that the Boeotians have a lot of debate about this. Some, led by the Athenians, argue against deep formations that can be easily overlapped by the skilled Spartans (who, if I read it right, could change formation very quickly to do this). Their allies want the security of a deep formation that can withstand the othismos of their enemy. Clearly, getting the balance right was crucial to the generalship of hoplite warfare.

[RichT]

Most wargame rules don't represent hoplites any better than they do Romans, in my limited experience.

The great othismos debate is at least 70 yeas old and I don't suppose we are going to resolve it here, so trophies on either side are premature. Every time the traditionalists erect a trophy, it transpires that the metaphoricalists have seized the traditionalists' aposkeue. Meanwhile the revisionists continue to hurl javelins from rough ground on both parties' unshielded sides.

Patrick: "I think it is actually quite clear cut"

I expect you do Patrick, but you are, shall we say, a somewhat unusual case!

Roy: "Similarly cuties are small"

I find that statement mildly disturbing.

[Rob Miles]

The Roman problem, which I have as well, is down to how to effectively divide up legionary formations with space for each maniple without falling foul of the homogenous 'battlegroup' formation rules. We used to say a figure represented so many ranks and so many files, and yet we allowed supporting ranks of spears to count even though they would, to scale, have been four or five 'real' ranks behind the front. Compromise is always going to be the order of the day, although the closer you get to 1:1, the more realistic (and expensive!) it becomes. Having been dazzled by the candy-store that is Hinds Figures Ltd, I could probably be up for halving the ratio and doubling the figures on the table, but not much more than that.

As to the other.... I would like to see someone try and take down that trophy. Literary evidence is only valid when confirmed by Archaeological evidence, and I have yet to see any evidence from the 'metaphorical' lobby other than re-interpreting evidence that the 'traditional' lobby has been apparently dependent upon-- only it hasn't. Arguments about semantics do not alter the shape of the shield or its configuration of grip. Arguments about 'artistic conventions' are unprovable (as well as utter fantasy). From what I have read of the 'metaphorical' argument, it is not supported by the very un-metaphorical reality of the debates reported by Xenophon about depth and the ultimate victory of the Leuctra phalanx (supported by a spoiling attack to stop the Spartan overlap) against an unbeaten elite unit of Spartiates. Besides, who ever heard of an order in battle being an ambiguous metaphor? Let him have it?

And for those who think the Hoplites broke into one-on-one combat upon impact-  with THAT shield? Really? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Patrick Waterson]

Every time the traditionalists erect a trophy, it transpires that the metaphoricalists have seized the traditionalists' aposkeue.

And trust me, that can be painful! 

"Thereupon some of the traditionalists were already garlanding Agesilaus, when a man brought him word that the metaphoricalists had cut their way through the Orchomenians and were in among the baggage train." - Xenophon, Hellenica IV.3.18

Actually, Alexander has the answer to that one:

"Now, it chanced that at that instant Alexander was about to give the signal for the onset to those under his command; but when he heard Parmenio's message, he declared that Parmenio was beside himself and had lost the use of his reason, and had forgotten in his distress that victors add the baggage of the enemy to their own ..." - Plutarch, Alexander 32.4

So I think we can  allow Rob his trophy and, albeit perhaps second-hand, his baggage.

Meanwhile the revisionists continue to hurl javelins from rough ground on both parties' unshielded sides.

Which perfectly demonstrates the impossibility of the revisionists' position, at least without quantum bilocation.

Patrick: "I think it is actually quite clear cut"

I expect you do Patrick, but you are, shall we say, a somewhat unusual case!

Praise warms the heart ...

Now any other controversies of hoplite warfare we want to tackle

Just the one suggested by this: how to get wargamers to play hoplites historically when all of the rules I have seen (not got the Italian one yet) only reward long shallow lines. It's interesting in Xenophon's Hellenica IV that the Boeotians have a lot of debate about this. Some, led by the Athenians, argue against deep formations that can be easily overlapped by the skilled Spartans (who, if I read it right, could change formation very quickly to do this). Their allies want the security of a deep formation that can withstand the othismos of their enemy. Clearly, getting the balance right was crucial to the generalship of hoplite warfare.

The way Justin Swanton covers this in his upcoming Optio system is to confer a morale advantage on deep formations ('morale' in Optio is a combination of training, stamina, elan and skill - with a bonus for depth in armies and troop types which can meaningfully use it).

One does observe that, having agreed to a universal sixteen deep, the Thebans on the day of the battle blithely disregarded this and formed up 'exceedingly deep' - which led to the Athenians on the left being outflanked and rapidly defeated.  The Spartans then tacked and defeated the victorious Argive, Corinthina and Theban contingents as they returned from pursuit and defeated each one.  (Hellenica IV.2.18-22)

[Patrick Waterson]

The Roman problem, which I have as well, is down to how to effectively divide up legionary formations with space for each maniple without falling foul of the homogenous 'battlegroup' formation rules.

This may be the cue for another conversation on gaps in lines being suicide, even for Romans.  We might note in passing that rules which treat the fighting line of a legion as a homogenous unit are closer to our accounts of how Romans handled things on the battlefield than the idea of subunits popping between gaps.

In fact, this is probably best handled as a fresh topic.

[Erpingham]

As to the other.... I would like to see someone try and take down that trophy. Literary evidence is only valid when confirmed by Archaeological evidence, and I have yet to see any evidence from the 'metaphorical' lobby other than re-interpreting evidence that the 'traditional' lobby has been apparently dependent upon-- only it hasn't. Arguments about semantics do not alter the shape of the shield or its configuration of grip.

Having allowed you a trophy, you now go an rekindle things If by archaeological evidence, we mean remains of shields, it doesn't really affect the metaphoricalist position and I'm sure revisionists will turn up with videos of people skirmishing with the Argive shield.  If there is any other archaeological evidence of relevance, please quote it.  The artistic evidence likewise doesn't affect the metaphoricalist position either, though I would suggest it leaves the revisionists with some explaining to do.  I presume they would argue that hoplites moved in close formation but, when the got close to the enemy, dashed in like a bunch of individuals and jousted?

[aligern]

Rich, 'cities are small'  Its the curse of the iPad, continually hitting the proximate key!!
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

I prefered the other interpretation 

[Rob Miles]

Since our discussion around the various dubious revisions of Hoplite warfare, and given that my slow reading pace has just about caught up on DBM and FOG rule sets (still no sign of DBMM), I've been giving some thought to how proper hoplite warfare could be represented on the tabletop. Just as with phalangites, legionaries and panzer divisions, every culture that came into contact with hoplite armies until the next big evolutionary step eventually conceded that the best way to defeat a phalanx was with another, better phalanx. Even the Persians got the message eventually.

The strengths of the hoplite phalanx when opposing non-hoplites are:

1) impregnable frontal armour
2) mutual support across rank
3) rehearsed and familiar drill
4) resistance to recoil
5) propensity to push back
6) long reach of spear

The weaknesses are:

1) depth sacrifices frontage causing vulnerability to overlap or outflanking movement
2) relative weakness of armour on flanks and rear of formation
3) inability to operate as phalanx in broken or wooded terrain
4) burdensome shield if in solo combat
5) restricted manoeuvrability

Reading the 'Immortal Fire' army list, the first eyeball-wrencher is the idea that hoplites can be 'undrilled'. Er.... no. Not even a rubbish city would field hoplites who had not been well rehearsed in knowing their place and how to move and even how to cosy up to their immediate comrades, coming as they would from the same barracks, deme, extended family, tribe, etc. You cannot form any kind of phalanx and be 'undrilled'. Ever. Under any possible circumstances. The only people who could 'throw' a phalanx together on the spur of the moment were the Spartans-- and I mean the Spartiates. Training for war was all they ever did.

The second item which requires the attention of any rule-maker is the notion that, because the 'average' wealth of the citizen in MOST cities changed as a result of reforms (again, not the Spartiates) then the frontal armour value of the later hoplites must be less. No. No. No. No. First of all, the shield isn't your usual hide-covered plank of wood- it guards the whole body from the thighs to the shoulder, has an armoured face and EVERY hoplite had one. Vase paintings show some hoplites only wearing greaves and enough of a breastplate to cover the exposed part of the upper torso. That, plus a helmet, is enough to provide adequate cover PROVIDED the hoplite unit is able to form a phalanx. And, anyway, the poor citizens would be kept towards the back partly because of their lack of armour but mostly because the front of the phalanx would be where the glory-seeking rich would take station.

As discussed earlier, a deep phalanx could 'out-shove' a shallower one, but would be vulnerable to overlap. Only, (once again) the Spartiate phalanx could quickly change face, change frontage, manoeuvre in complex wheels and generally out-fight just about anyone else who did not either shoot at them from a safe distance or pile into them with a fifty man phalanx after stopping their counter-move. The Spartiate phalanx must be considered elite. No other formation of the time ever enjoyed such a long-lived reputation for skill, discipline and unrivalled stompability. The 300 were Spartiates.

So, if there is an invincible hoplite unit on the table, how to kill it? The obvious solution is to fight it in terrain that prevent it from forming in the first place- a disordered phalanx is actually much weaker than an ordinary spear-armed unit as its strength comes from its drill. Outflanking or overlapping are other well-documented ways of dealing with it. Attacking it head on--- better wait until someone invents the long wobbly pole before trying that.

[Justin Swanton]

So, if there is an invincible hoplite unit on the table, how to kill it? The obvious solution is to fight it in terrain that prevent it from forming in the first place- a disordered phalanx is actually much weaker than an ordinary spear-armed unit as its strength comes from its drill. Outflanking or overlapping are other well-documented ways of dealing with it.

One could also try a certain wedge-shaped cavalry formation... 

[Imperial Dave]

nice summary Rob.

re the drilled/undrilled stuff, I would argue that most troops have a degree of drill (and not just talking about Classical phalanx/hoplites here) so maybe the word undrilled is a bit of a misnomer anyway. I would prefer grading of experience with regards to drill. As you say to call a hoplite body undrilled is a bit of an oxymoron

[Erpingham]

We probably need a definition of drill here.  We tend to think of drill in connection with formal evolutions of Renaissance and onward Western armies.  My limited knowledge of the modern debates suggests that few but the Spartans practiced to this level.  So perhaps that is where the idea of undrilledness comes from?  Yet Dave and other reenactors know there is a level below this of weapon handling in groups, moving together etc.  which might also be seen as drill, in that you practice it.  I can't see a hoplite phalanx being able to function without this level of drill. 

[Patrick Waterson]

We could at a pinch term it 'coordination' and stretch the term to include such refinements as men fighting cooperatively as opposed to individually.

Any hoplite phalanx worth its salt, or at least its aspides, would coordinate.  Men would know their place in the file, what they were supposed to do there and how they were supposed to advance and fight without mischiefing the next man along (or sideways).  The Spartans added another level of refinement to this: they practised countermarches, marching backwards, reforming files on the first man you see (and getting the result straight, all while in combat) and just about every variation one could think of.  Herodotus' description of Leonidas' Spartans at Thermopylae suggests their skill and repertoire:

When the Medes had been roughly handled, they retired, and the Persians whom the king called Immortals, led by Hydarnes, attacked in turn. It was thought that they would easily accomplish the task. [2] When they joined battle with the Hellenes, they fared neither better nor worse than the Median army, since they used shorter spears than the Hellenes and could not use their numbers fighting in a narrow space. [3] The Lacedaemonians fought memorably, showing themselves skilled fighters amidst unskilled on many occasions, as when they would turn their backs and feign flight. The barbarians would see them fleeing and give chase with shouting and noise, but when the Lacedaemonians were overtaken, they would turn to face the barbarians and overthrow innumerable Persians. A few of the Spartans themselves were also slain. When the Persians could gain no inch of the pass, attacking by companies and in every other fashion, they withdrew.  - Herodotus VII.211

From this and Herodotus' description of Plataea, one gets the impression that Persians and their subject peoples did not coordinate: they had a place in file, etc. but everyone seems to have fought as individuals and not as pairs, teams or groups - at Plataea 'groups of ten' did throw themselves on the Spartans simultaneously, but they still give the impression of having fought individually and without reference to one another.

Rob's outline of the hoplite system might make the basis of a good short article ...

[Rob Miles]

I think it is dangerous to measure other hoplites and, indeed, every other army in history, against the standards of the Spartiates. They were exceptional-- drilled and beyond drilled. To suggest other hoplites were undrilled by comparison would render Imperial Guards, legions and Unsullied (yeah I know, Game of Thrones. I watch it for the anachronistic use of Gothic architecture you know...) as shiftless, slouching dregs.

The most striking use of a wide range of hoplites is Marathon. A complex plan involving more than just coordination required the wings to keep in contact with the centre whilst it gave way. Any gaps and the Persians would have been halfway to Athens before any <shudder> undrilled hoplites would have worked out where their knees were and remembered what The Poet said about their use. The Athenians threw every man into that battle- rich, poor, experienced and veteran, and they kept their discipline to the end.

I've looked through the army lists for the 'ancient' period (covering 99% of the time humans have been on this planet). Some of the rubbish that gets away with 'drilled' is shocking- part timers called up after the harvest? Gimme a break! The various military/tribal institutions in Greek cities vied with each other to outdo them and so earn a more glorified position on the battle line. Cities which did not keep their young men in training quickly became subject to those that did. Being a citizen and being a hoplite were not two different things.

[Patrick Waterson]

Being a citizen and being a hoplite were not two different things.

A point which we, being un-Hellenically accustomed to the separation of civil and military functions, can easily miss.