tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post830317467277047567..comments2024-03-28T03:10:23.679-07:00Comments on Polemarch: Phalanxes and FlexibilityThe Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-92109747277731335892012-07-09T01:01:14.786-07:002012-07-09T01:01:14.786-07:00Hi,
Yes, i think the idea of a phalanx is a catch...Hi,<br /><br />Yes, i think the idea of a phalanx is a catch-all for all sorts of different things. I think I complained about Greek hoplites and Saxon fryd being described as the same in some rule sets before. <br /><br />A lot seems to come down to training (later phalanxes were levies, Alexander's phalanx were professional soldiers) and culture - levies had no real loyalty to whoever they were fighting for, while Alexander's troops were personally loyal to him.<br /><br />I suspect (again, not knowing much about them) that Vikings and Saxons had similar formations, but the world-view of those forming them were different from that of, say, a Greek citizen hoplite.<br /><br />Although how that manifests itself in terms of battlefield behaviour I'm not sure.<br /><br />ThanksThe Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-50124801577719379832012-07-08T11:51:34.682-07:002012-07-08T11:51:34.682-07:00Hi,
Another interesting point you have made here....Hi,<br /><br />Another interesting point you have made here. I agree that phalanx was not a "one-way wall of spears" as frequently imagined. In 400 BC at Kolchida "Xenophon's ten thousands" formed by lochos with wide gaps between (around eighty altogether) and successfully attacked in rough terrain uphill. As these were probably experienced veterans it shows your point that well-drilled troops could do much more than we usually expect of "the phalanx".<br /><br />In fact, I suppose the problem may be in treating all troops which are said to have fought in phalanx as doing the same thing. Which is not true. Romans did fight in "classic phalanx" for quite a long time, than they slowly invented "manipular phalanx" and than "cohort legion". All these were just variants of the original "single-body formation", steadily developed over time. It is interesting that Roman formations still changed until they came back again to "one-body" version of phalanx.<br /><br />Greek or Macedonian phalanx (which I am less informed about) surely had this feature of not being one solid mass, which is shown by the fact that some parts of phalanx were routed while other parts still fought on.<br /><br />Also, "phalanxes" fought in different ways - with relatively short spears, long pikes, with javelins or pila and swords. Formation was called the same, but its tactical use was different. Gauls and Germanic tribes are also said to form phalanx, but it worked differently than Roman or Greek one. Vikings' shieldwall seems to be very similar to Greek phalanx, but still, I have not read much about them.<br /><br />So, I suppose we should talk about different kinds of phalanxes in different times and places, specifics of each should be treated separately.<br /><br />The important point of training may be compared to formations of the napoleonic wars. Almost all infantry had the same battle formations, but militia-drill unit had enough hard time just to form a line and deliver effective fire, while guard-drill units performed many different maneuvers fast and effectively under fire as small or large units. Of course there were all cases in between, performing more or less maneuvers faster or slower. Some could do well as battalions but were disorganised as divisions and so on.<br /><br />I think the same probably happened with phalanx formation. Obscure city-state militia could form a line and go forward while veteran, well-drilled troops could do much more, especially divide and cooperate as smaller sub-units.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />AdamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com