Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Greek phalanx or Macedonian phalanx?
- Thread starter Cornelius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- greek macedonian phalanx
Joined Jun 2009
29,886 Posts | 49+
land of Califia
Hi Darth Roach,
Cursing and implied cursing isn't permitted at Historum so please, if you find yourself getting irritated, please just take a breather from the thread for a little while.
Thanks,
O
Joined Mar 2011
5,772 Posts | 497+
Library of Alexandria
Alien. Not "barbarian".
Standard unit? I am talking about the Persian army at the battle of marathon. You simply assume it was the size of 1 standard unit. That's clearly making things up.
I mean hundreds of thousands of troops in total. And Napoleon mobilized 3 million men for the napoleonic wars, that was before railroads.
Also, in the ancient mediterranean the mediterranean sea acted as a natural railroad, enabling the supply of large military forces over vast distances. Rome and Carthage also mobilized hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Punic Wars, and these empires were significantly smaller than the Persian at their corresponding times.
And most means 98%?
To claim that the Athenian phalanx was broken by the Persians in the center while at the same time we have 30 times the number of Persian casualties and the fact that the phalanx was usually only defeated when attacked from flanks (it is the type of unit that is hugely strong at the center and hugely weak at the flanks) by an army that didn't use a phalanx is simply absurd!
Usually one would expect a mass of soldiers without any armor attacking a phalanx of armored hoplites directly at the center to not break it and instead suffer massive casualties (as this is what historically happened) and be routed afterwards. That was what happened at marathon and at most battles the Persians fought the Greeks.
I am asking because I never heard of any Persian army being a professional force organized in the mold of the Augustan legions. Also, in all of human history with the exception of late 20th century first world militaries and the Roman Principate, armies were never voluntary, always conscripted. I would expect the Persians, as just another pre-modern army to not have modern characteristics.
Joined Sep 2011
1,323 Posts | 6+
Jelgava, Latvia
Same thing. The other ancients did not see the Greeks are superiors to themselves, nor did they have any reason to.
No it isn't. We can only thoroughly analyze the size of an army if we know its logistics. The Achaemenid army was based around blocks of 10 thousand men, organized decimally.
Total = yes, easily. But not in a single army.
Have you ever heard of logistics and exaggerated numbers in ancient sources? Carthage could not possibly have fielded that many men, let alone sustained them - its military was a mix of mercenaries and Liby-Phoenician elites. It was an extremely expensive force. The largest armies they ever fielded where citizen levies when Carthage itself was under threat - and that was 50 thousand at the most.
Now let's go into a bit of math - each soldier would on average drink 2.5 liters of water a day, and eat ~2-3 kg of food a day. Multiplied by 100 thousand that is 250 thousand liters of water and and 200 - 300 tons of food. Per day. This would require at least 20 large ships arriving per day. Those ships would have to be escorted by an equal number of warships, all needing supplies too, and would take weeks on a journey from the nearest supply base. This leaves us with 14 (assuming the absolute minimum of 7 days sailing distance) X 40 = 560 ships, at the least. Now add the ships' crew members (50 for a transport ship; 200 for a warship, 14 000 + 56 000, 70 thousand) to the equation, and you need an additional 140 tons of food and 175 000 liters of water. Now a total of 340 tons of food, and 425 000 liters of water. A day. Add to that the wages of the troops, the expense of getting the food from production to supply base (in the case of the Achaemenids, from Egypt and Mesopotamia, to Tyre or Halicarnassus) to that, and you will quickly wish you hadn't started a campaign that large. Not to mention that you have to equip and train the men beforehand, since if you leave with untrained, crappy troops, your whole campaign will end in a waste.
Usually more than 99%.
At Pydna only 70 Romans died to 8000 Macedonians. Does that mean Macedonians were crappy troops?
The hoplite phalanx was not an impenetrable wall of shields. It was a formation of spearmen standing closely together, and is not too different from the Persian shield wall. The hoplites usually weren't even drilled, they had only their individual, personal training.
So... You basically know nothing about the way the Achaemenid Persians fought.
PERSIAN TROOPS WERE NOT UNARMORED. THEIR SPEARMEN WORE IRON SCALE ARMOR.
PERSIAN TROOPS WERE NOT UNTRAINED, THEY WERE RIGOROUSLY TRAINED IN ARCHERY AND MELEE COMBAT SINCE CHILDHOOD
The advantages of the hoplite were:
1. Longer spears - the hoplite spears were about 50cm longer on average than the Persian spears;
2. Helmets - Persians looked down on helmets as cowardly, not a thing a true warrior was supposed to wear.
3. Numbers - paradoxical as this may sound, the Greeks would have had more melee infantry. The Persian satabam (unit of 100; equivalent of the later Roman century in role) was a formation of both archers and spearmen. The more experienced men fought in the front ranks, usually 2, as heavy infantry fighting in a tight shield wall (as a matter of fact, the front rank consisted of officers, Datapatish and Patapatish). Their task was to protect the archers (the remaining ranks) from enemy cavalry and infantry, fixing enemy troops in place so that the cavalry could strike as well as simply attacking a foe after all advantages were secured. They did not have the primary role, they were just the backbone of the army. The archers would be more lightly armored and armed, with only quilted linen corselets and falchions, so that they could fire their bows quicklier and more accurately. This formation could easily get the better of hoplites if it had cavalry support, even when outnumbered. Yet at Marathon, this was denied to them, thus leaving their infantry at a decided numerical disadvantage, 2 ranks to the enemy 4. Yet according to Herodotus they still broke the Athenian center, most likely due to their experience of fighting in India, central Asia, Egypt and Anatolia over the past few years.
As I said, the army was initially conscripted, from every free Persian male (and since Persians were forbidden from holding slaves or being sold into slavery, that means all Persians were soldiers). Later it would have become more of a voluntary deal for the Persians. Auxiliaries would still be conscripts.
I seem to understand now,how did you manage to get everything wrong so fast? so my friend you like a bit of detail? perfect! but let's start with some general remarks:Considering they outnumbered Cyrus' center and left substantially, it would make sense to retreat a token force in order to convince the Greeks they have won.
Athenian side?
Okay, let's go into a bit of detail. The standard Achaemenid field army was 10 thousand infantry + cavalry auxiliaries. Since there were Persians, Ionians and Scythians there, we can safely say the core of the army was a baivarbam of 10 thousand Persians. Not more, since Persians were the elite, never numerous, and I don't see why the king should send more than a single unit to punish some barbarian city states. Then we know there were Scythian mercenaries, and since the standard ratio of infantry:cavalry in the Achaemenid army was about 10:1, and transporting horses overseas was extremely difficult, we can assume there were no more than a thousand of those. Then there was an unspecified number of Ionian troops, which were meant to support the flanks and help the cavalry. 5000, if we are very generous. Now, given that units rarely match their paper strength, there were definitely less than 10 thousand Persians there, but to avoid conjecture let's assume there were the full ten thousand there.
Superior or not, the Persian infantry fought organized in units of 100, as archers covered by a couple (1 to 4, at the very most) of ranks of armored spearmen. The infantry were not the primary force, they were meant to work in conjunction with cavalry, so their low numbers were usually not a problem. But Marathon saw them deprived of their cavalry, so the fight was left to the infantry. Being professionals, it appears the Persians pushed back and broke the Athenian phalanx, yet their auxiliaries on the flanks were defeated, allowing the Athenians access to the lightly armed archers and the backs of the infantry.
1) baivarbam is not an army,but an army unit,something like an augmented brigade or a small division,since the persian army WAS organized in divisions up to 60000 men(see Artabazus division escorting Xerxes out of Greece after the humiliating defeat at Salamis).The persian army had many units like that since since it controlled land from Ydaspes to the Mediterranean,and from Hindu Kush to the Persian Gulf(not tribute,but occupied regions)
2) "you don't see why the king would send more than one unit to punish some barbarian city states"? how unfortunate! you just underrated the persians to the status of qualified idiots!Espionase was thriving in that part of the world(see "A short History of Intelligence" by col. Alisson Reed) and Persian merchants were frequent in the ports of Corinth Athens,Megara and Aegina.Are you trying to say,that a city that 10 years later fielded more than 40000 men in its fleets with 8000 marines,and another 20000 infantry in Troezen,Poros and Salamis would be stormed by a baivarbam+its auxiliary units and little cavalry 10 years earlier? I don't think that there was even a single fool like that in Susa who harboured such notions,especially when he was well informed by the Satraps of the Aegean coast(Artafernes&co).Darius was a military man and he had two years to prepare his army and to get his information up to date.Do you think that Darius didn't know about Cleisthenes,the overthrowing of Isagoras,Athens total war to protect their young democracy,when desperately resolved to stand against all odds the Athenians marched out of their city,defeated the Theban alliance,marched the same day against Chalkis inflicting a shattering defeat to the knights of Chalkis and the entire army returned to the plateau of Elefsis to face the Spartan Army with both his kings present? of course he knew from the exile tyrant Hippias who was informed by his oligarchic sympathisers in Athens and he also new that he was not dealing with ...barbaric states.
Now the expedition was to 'punish'? certainly not! the campaign was to subdue the islands of the Aegean resisting the authority of the king,starting with Naxos which had fielded the previous year 8000 "shields" and had successfully repelled Artafernes the Elder and Aristagoras who had 200 triremes loaded with troops.(Bear that in mind when you say that a...baivarbam would manage Naxos+ other islands+Eretria+Athens...so he campaigned to subjugate.
Let's come to numbers now. The historians who believe that the Persians were about 20000 and those who maintain that they were more than 40000.Herodotus speaks of 600 triremes and doesn't mention transports,but Diodorus reports 800 transports in Xerxes campaign and 400 with Mardonius in 492 BC and we know that the Persians used transports for transporting cavalry. Modern Military historians are dived as follows:Bengston and Paul Davis maintain that the persian army numbered 20000,Martin Moerbeeck 25000,How& Wells 40000,Griechische and Glotz 50000,Peter Green(Greco-Persian Wars) 80000 including the rowers in 200 triremes and 400 transports Livio E. Stechini(Iran Chamber Society) 60.000 loaded in 300 triremes and 300 transports.It is evident from the events at Naxos the previous year that 200-300 triremes are out of the question as inadequate for all three objectives;
There is an additional reason for not accepting the smaller number version is that if we were to take the 20000 indicator,then easily the Athenians and the Plataeans would cross the straights unite under the walls of Eretria with the Eretrian army and thrush the Persians royaly!
Now let's visit the battlefield:the front of the Athenian army covered 250x2 for the centre,plus 125x9+1625 metres with one metre gap between hoplites.The persians on the same front with a gap of 1,4 metres in 40-50 ranks(so many the field allowed)-Persians are known to array up to 110 ranks depth...(M.L.lanning-Battle 100) would number 44000 to 55000 thousand. Xenophon in 'Cyropaideia' claims that if the Persian front was 2000 metres in 30 ranks then they would number 60000.
'Deprived of their cavalry' not really,the ceramic in the "Poikile Stoa"depicts the death of Callimachus among persian infantry and cavalry. Herodotus,although he claims(and correctly)that the Persian landed in Marathon because there is suitable land for cavalry there,he doesn't mention cavalry in his description of the battle;Burry&Meiggs in a lengthy footnote give three possible explanations for it, the predominant one being that the horses went for watering in the stream north of the valley(the Ionians in the Persian camp informed the Athenians about it) and Miltiades marched the army for battle.
The Persians broke the Phalanx? I beg to differ!The phalanx is the most difficult formation to break frontally,regardless of numbers,(even Darius had experienced it in Pelusium as a general of Cambyses )and broke by light infantry? there is something wrong with this thinking.I will proceed to refute the allegation this evening.
Joined Sep 2011
1,323 Posts | 6+
Jelgava, Latvia
BS. Artabazus led a "division" in the sense that he led a force that was divided from a larger army.
There is absolutely no proof that the campaign was intended as conquest. What is certain, however, is that the Persian force was no larger than 24 thousand - it was carried in 600 triremes (not counting the extra space required by cavalry). And that is just the maximum capacity. There could have been more than 11 hazarbama total, but historians like Nick Secunda argue that a large part of the force was sent off towards Athens herself. Also, why levy Greeks from the islands - they need food, space and command - if you have enough troops?
Don't forget it could not have been to major a campaign, since it was not commanded by the king.
The former could be right, although it is a shifty matter as to how many troops of the force actually took part in the battle. The latter are incapable of arithmetics.
Because the triremes were the ....... transports!
Diodorus is hardly a source of much use regarding the Greek wars, since he lived 450 years later.
The total force - yes.
A trireme would normally carry no more than 30 troops, maybe 40 for a short haul. So these numbers are bullcrap.
That is based on the assumption that the Persians were weak. Herodotus specifically tells us they were terrified of the Persians.
Plus the fact that an army moving by sea is generally quicker than one moving by land.
You do know that those ranks are pure conjecture? The standard Persian formation was 10 ranks. That's it. 1-4 ranks of spears and 6-9 ranks of archers, not counting reserves.
It doesn't matter why, the fact stands that the cavalry wasn't there to support the outnumbered infantry (the archers really don't matter).
Your opinion is worth about as much as a heap of crud here, since Herodotus, our closest source, mentions very specifically that the center was broken, and fled inland.
Bullcrap. The phalanx was just an extremely deep shield wall.
Quite frankly there is no evidence for what happened at Pelusium. All we know is reported by Greeks who lived long after the battle, and were nowhere near the location.
Light infantry? Persians - light infantry? WTF, dude, have you ever bothered to read up on the Achaemenid army?
It was a formation of heavy spearmen in scale armor and with large body shields, spears and swords, protecting a formation of archers. There was no light infantry anywhere in between. Skirmishers were provided by auxiliaries.
This is a little more complicated
Hi Guys
This is 2.3 millennia ago and there are still arguments over basic elements of Hopilite warfare. Aspis is a general term for shield, the hopilte shield was a 'hoplon'. The bronze cuirass was becoming uncommon, it was expensive and very heavy to march and fight in for long periods and there was a movement towards lighter armour, by the time of Chaeronea the Hopolites were mostly using a specially prepared layered and glued linen called a 'linothorax'. The main protection of the standard hopilite was the shield. No need to talk of the latin 'pila' the javelin thrown by the Greek Peltast (also named after their shield, the pelte) was also designed to bend at the point and stick in the shield. The bronze on the Hoplon wasn't added for strength, it was to make it heavy, to use it as a weapon for punching at your opponent. The hard wood with layered and riveted leather was more than enough protection against arrows and swords.
Now to answer the question (if I can). It is absolutely true that the Macedonian army was supreme because of tactics and employing the best professional soldiers and training, training.Just giving the infantry almost impossibly long spears could not work on it's own. Philip used his phalanxes to immobilise the enemy and then attacked them "the hammer and anvil technique". Plus a lot of other clever things.
After the death of Alexander, Roman legions with short swords could defeat Macedonian -style phalanxes because they were not co-ordinated with other troops and proper strategies. the Romans were better led and some of the Greeks over-relied on their phalanx without all the other troops to back them up.
Each unit had its advantages and disadvantages, it was how they were used , rather than one always being better than the other
Hi Guys
This is 2.3 millennia ago and there are still arguments over basic elements of Hopilite warfare. Aspis is a general term for shield, the hopilte shield was a 'hoplon'. The bronze cuirass was becoming uncommon, it was expensive and very heavy to march and fight in for long periods and there was a movement towards lighter armour, by the time of Chaeronea the Hopolites were mostly using a specially prepared layered and glued linen called a 'linothorax'. The main protection of the standard hopilite was the shield. No need to talk of the latin 'pila' the javelin thrown by the Greek Peltast (also named after their shield, the pelte) was also designed to bend at the point and stick in the shield. The bronze on the Hoplon wasn't added for strength, it was to make it heavy, to use it as a weapon for punching at your opponent. The hard wood with layered and riveted leather was more than enough protection against arrows and swords.
Now to answer the question (if I can). It is absolutely true that the Macedonian army was supreme because of tactics and employing the best professional soldiers and training, training.Just giving the infantry almost impossibly long spears could not work on it's own. Philip used his phalanxes to immobilise the enemy and then attacked them "the hammer and anvil technique". Plus a lot of other clever things.
After the death of Alexander, Roman legions with short swords could defeat Macedonian -style phalanxes because they were not co-ordinated with other troops and proper strategies. the Romans were better led and some of the Greeks over-relied on their phalanx without all the other troops to back them up.
Each unit had its advantages and disadvantages, it was how they were used , rather than one always being better than the other
Joined May 2012
202 Posts | 0+
Cardiff,Wales
I'm pretty sure the phalangites' phalanx was much worse off when penetrated than one consisting of Hoplites. The reduction in shield size and armor really saw to that. That being said, the hoplite phalanx as we know it was much more inefficient than the phalangites in terms of campaigns. It's a really hard comparison to make in my opinion.
Joined May 2012
3,727 Posts | 1+
Nonbeing which is to say everywhere
Your ignorance of the Punic Wars is unbelievable. Rome and Carthage recruiting hundreds of thousands of men is perfectly possible. For Rome 100,000 men was a drop in the bucket! Hannibal started out with nearly 90,000 on his march to Rome. Combining spanish levies and treaty obligations with the armies raised there throughout the war and you can see they raised over 200,000 men there before the war was over. Most citizens of Carthage were not liable to military service unless the enemy was endangering the city. But levies of Carthage and the Libyan city could reach far over 50,000 as the armies Scipio destroyed were far over that. Rome at one point had 24 legions mobilized with corresponed equal matching allied legions way over a hundred thousand.
Joined May 2012
3,727 Posts | 1+
Nonbeing which is to say everywhere
Persian infantry were usually poorly trained conscripts armed with a spear a wicker shield and no armor
Joined Jun 2012
529 Posts | 1+
Al-Ta'If, Makkah, Saudi arabia.
Historically they were both greeks, however, the greeks got their ..... handed to them by the Macedonian phalangites, the macedonians Had Sarissas and created a spear wall, the greeks used the same tactic as the macedonians, which is a phalanx, Imagine standing in line with a 2,4 meter spear Actually trying to stab and kill a guy with a 10 meter sarissa by standing in line, the example of this is the battle of chernoyl fields, dont remember its name exactly, but it was a phalanx To phalanx Battle, The greeks were literally running for their lives, also, the macedonian phalangites were regular soldiers, where as greeks were Traditional, There is no arguing about who is better or who would win this, the phalangites were superior, however if its a 1-V-1 then the sarissa would be pretty much useless for the phalangite
Joined Mar 2011
5,772 Posts | 497+
Library of Alexandria
Persian infantry were usually poorly trained conscripts armed with a spear a wicker shield and no armor
Nearly all ancient and medieval armies consisted of mobs of untrained soldiers without armor. Even in 15th century Europe, only a small fraction of the soldiers had heavy armor.
The Greeks and Romans were exceptional in that their soldiers, at least the heavy infantry, wore heavy armor.
So, the if most Persians fought without armor, that's expected: the vast majority of ancient armies did.
However, I am not sure about the phrase "poorly trained", since in fact, the Greeks were also poorly trained: they were a citizen force, not a professional military force, like the Roman Legions of the Early Empire, which were fully trained professional soldiers. Fully trained professional soldiers are rare in history as well.
Joined Mar 2011
5,772 Posts | 497+
Library of Alexandria
Last edited:
I counted the number of all men deployed by Carthage and Rome in all battles that Polybius gave numbers: 780,000 men deployed by Rome and 650,000 men deployed by Carthage. Of course, that's not an estimate of the number of men mobilized, since it includes men deployed two or more times and also doesn't include men deployed in battles that Polybius didn't give numbers or deployed in garrisons. It gives an idea of the general scale of the Second Punic War. I would say that well over 1 million men were mobilized by Rome and Carthage to fight this war.
In terms of scale, the First and Second Punic wars were the largest wars ever fought at the time and would be probably the largest wars ever fought in the West until the 17th century's 30 Years War. Maybe, it was even larger than the 30 Years War, since the battles involved more men in average. Only the Napoleonic Wars and the American Civil war truly surpassed the First and Second Punic wars in terms of scale.
Note: Nearly all historical wars before the 19th century where literary sources claim battles involving over 100,000 men in each side are generally BS numbers. In fact, I cannot remember any case of a well documented battle where respectable literary sources claims it involved over 200,000 men before the 19th century. Usually, such huge numbers are simply made up.
Joined May 2012
3,727 Posts | 1+
Nonbeing which is to say everywhere
A good point. I dont believe however that the numbers of The Punic War are made up. Polybius is a reliable source and several of his numbers are indisputable.
Joined Mar 2011
5,772 Posts | 497+
Library of Alexandria
Indeed.
The historians Thucydides and Polybius gave good, realistic numbers. While Herodotus and Arrian, gave huge made up numbers (like the 2.7 million Persians in Thermopylae, 1.2 million Persians in Gaugamela, respectively). Chinese historians also had the habit of giving huge made up numbers.
The historians Thucydides and Polybius gave good, realistic numbers. While Herodotus and Arrian, gave huge made up numbers (like the 2.7 million Persians in Thermopylae, 1.2 million Persians in Gaugamela, respectively). Chinese historians also had the habit of giving huge made up numbers.
Joined May 2012
3,727 Posts | 1+
Nonbeing which is to say everywhere
Yes i recognised these and was very sceptical. By firther reading i learned the absurdity of these claims. However Polybius cites a tablet carved on in a Temple in Bruttium as the source of his numbers. I tend to believe him. He was a very good historian.
Joined Jul 2010
6,851 Posts | 10+
Not sure what it is
Wrong. Even the non-Greek countries in the Hellenistic World were Hellenized. They had their own phalanxes. In fact, they even had their own legons. Another fact is, the later Greek hoplites were so lightly armored, they were almost nude to allow more mobility.
And calling Greeks poorly trained is pretty ignorant. I am sure Spartans were poorly trained in your eyes, and Macedonians were not a professionally trained military force.
Joined Jul 2010
6,851 Posts | 10+
Not sure what it is
Joined May 2012
3,727 Posts | 1+
Nonbeing which is to say everywhere
Joined Jul 2010
6,851 Posts | 10+
Not sure what it is
By Philip II's time, the Greek hoplites were very lightly armored. This gave them an advantage against the more cumbersome heavily armored infantry. However, Macedonians completely negated that advantage with their excellent cavalry.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-