Romans and the Classical Greek Hoplite

The Spaniard · Oct 22, 2019

Did the Romans ever encounter a Classical Greek hoplite phalanx in battle? I know that they fought the Macedonian pike phalanx multiple times in battles such as Pydna and cynoscephalae. I’m curious if the “shoving” and shorter spears of the older Greek phalanx would have been a different challenge for the Roman legionaries.
Would it also be safe to say that when the Romans themselves used a hoplite phalanx, that their experience with fighting the Gauls, and losing, would be enough of an example as to why they never bothered to continue using that formation?

aggienation · Oct 22, 2019

The Romans, early in their history as a kingdom and then in the Early Republic, fought as a hoplite force. Not identical to the city states of Greece, in that there were infantry classes within the Legions that were using non-aspis type shields, etc, but still very similar. It was only sometime in the 4th Cent BC, for unknown reasons, that they reformed and began deploying their infantry in a multiple line formation of separate infantry classes organized in separate maniples, instead of a single phalanx.

The Spaniard · Oct 22, 2019

Yes, but did the Romans ever fight a classical hoplite phalanx while using their manipular, or cohort, legion?

aggienation · Oct 22, 2019

The Spaniard said:
Yes, but did the Romans ever fight a classical hoplite phalanx while using their manipular, or cohort, legion?

Yes. The Samnites at least heavily used hoplite shields, though whether or not they fought in a phalanx is unknown. Various Italic peoples and Magna Graecia city states in central to southern Italy, Sicily, and North Africa stil fought as hoplites when Rome warred with them.

Note, the Roman manipular system was an evolutionary system, not a strict organization and doctrine that existed unchanged for hundreds of years.

Dan Howard · Oct 22, 2019

A phalanx is just a shield wall. There is nothing fancy or special about it. The only thing that is a little different about the Greek shield wall is that the shield was optimised for close-formation fighting.

Olleus · Oct 22, 2019

Kind of dodging the question, but what exactly do you mean by "classical" and "hoplite"?

Generally, spearmen fighting in a close order shield wall was a very common method of fighting in the Mediterranean basin pre-Rome (and indeed, everywhere for most of history), the pike formations only replaced it in the successor states. I believe that when Julius Caesar thought the Helveti he described them as forming a phalanx. If you're a purist, did Pyrrhus use spear+hoplite phalanxes or just sarissa ones? I also believe that lots of Greek mercenaries thought in the traditional hoplite formation, the Romans simply must have encountered them in southern Italy or Sicily, or when fighting the Punic wars.

Now if you define a classical hoplite to be precisely the equipment used in Greece pre Peloponnesian War, then the Romans might not have encountered them. But they definitely thought often against foes that were fighting in an almost identical way.

aggienation · Oct 22, 2019

A hoplite is a very specific infantry type defined by use of spear and aspis shield while fighting in a phalanx, developed by the Greeks and borrowed by others of the Mediterranean area. While phalanx can mean any shield wall, a hoplite phalanx does not.

HackneyedScribe · Oct 22, 2019

The usage of an aspis is heavily indicative that they fought in a phalanx (shield wall). It's not that good a shield when it comes to open-order fighting, because then you'll have a large portion of the shield on the left that's not protecting anyone, but the extra weight of the shield is still going to be there.

Dan Howard · Oct 22, 2019

aggienation said:
A hoplite is a very specific infantry type defined by use of spear and aspis shield while fighting in a phalanx, developed by the Greeks and borrowed by others of the Mediterranean area. While phalanx can mean any shield wall, a hoplite phalanx does not.

So what is so special about the hoplite? They used the same weapons, wore the same kinds of armour, and adopted the same tactics as everyone else who fought in shield walls. The only difference is the shield, which did not change the way they fought, it only made them marginally more effective. The Romans treated them no differently to everyone else.

aggienation · Oct 22, 2019

Dan Howard said:
So what is so special about the hoplite? They used the same weapons, wore the same kinds of armour, and adopted the same tactics as everyone else who fought in shield walls. The only difference is the shield, which did not change the way they fought, it only made them marginally more effective. The Romans treated them no differently to everyone else.

The same thing that made the Mycenaeans in your book different from anybody else. Culture, style, technology, mindset, etc.

AlpinLuke · Oct 23, 2019

Internet is full of pages about "Ancient Spartans" vs "Ancient Roman Legionaries" [or something like that].

What I know is that during the conquest of Greek lands Romans had occasions [and they already deployed legions on the battle field, it was late III - early II century BCE] to face Spartants. One example was the siege of Gynthium [195 BCE]. In that case the Romans were part of a coalition and the Spartan weren't able to resist. The Spartan leader Nabis had 1,000 Cretans, 3,000 mercenaries and 10,000 citizens with him.

At the beginning the Romans got defeated, but then they were able to defeat the Spartans forcing them to retreat within the walls. After different events, at the end Nabis surrendered, leaving the city to the Romans and going aways. Romans didn't request him to renounce to his crown [they wanted a little state in that area] and Nabis tried again to conquer Gynthium without success.

Pruitt · Oct 23, 2019

Guys, the effectiveness of a Hoplite Phalanx is disrupted when you fight on uneven terrain. It is hard to make a straight line with overlapping shields when you are going through hills. Roman Cohorts and Maniples are designed to fight in uneven terrain. By the time of Phillip II, the Hoplite Phalanx was out of date and the Macedonian Phalanx ground them into the dirt. I have been reading that the traditional Hoplite Phalanx was not a push and shove contest that often. There was a transition to Thureophoroi by Macedon and many Greek States.

Pruitt

Pruitt · Oct 23, 2019

AlpinLuke said:
Internet is full of pages about "Ancient Spartans" vs "Ancient Roman Legionaries" [or something like that].

What I know is that during the conquest of Greek lands Romans had occasions [and they already deployed legions on the battle field, it was late III - early II century BCE] to face Spartants. One example was the siege of Gynthium [195 BCE]. In that case the Romans were part of a coalition and the Spartan weren't able to resist. The Spartan leader Nabis had 1,000 Cretans, 3,000 mercenaries and 10,000 citizens with him.

At the beginning the Romans got defeated, but then they were able to defeat the Spartans forcing them to retreat within the walls. After different events, at the end Nabis surrendered, leaving the city to the Romans and going aways. Romans didn't request him to renounce to his crown [they wanted a little state in that area] and Nabis tried again to conquer Gynthium without success.

That is a lot of Citizens (full Spartans?)! That sounds like 1000 Cretan Archers and 3000 Mercenaries of different types. The Spartans would normally be broken up into Full Citizens, Non Citizens, and Psiloi. When Leonidas took 300 Spartans with him to Thermopylae, each Spartan brought along 7 attendants. On the March they looked a bit like servants and baggage handlers, but when battle neared they armed themselves! They would be Psiloi in support behind (or to the side) of the Spartan Citizens.

Pruitt

AlpinLuke · Oct 23, 2019

First of all, an errata corrige: I note I've written "Gynthium", the correct name of the city was "Gythium".

Then, as for I remember Nabis got the power when Sparta was short of full citizens and he run a real social reform [also setting helots free] to have again enough warriors.
He modified also the basic formation a bit [equipping the hoplites with longer spears].

Dan Howard · Oct 23, 2019

Pruitt said:
Guys, the effectiveness of a Hoplite Phalanx is disrupted when you fight on uneven terrain. It is hard to make a straight line with overlapping shields when you are going through hills. Roman Cohorts and Maniples are designed to fight in uneven terrain. By the time of Phillip II, the Hoplite Phalanx was out of date and the Macedonian Phalanx ground them into the dirt. I have been reading that the traditional Hoplite Phalanx was not a push and shove contest that often. There was a transition to Thureophoroi by Macedon and many Greek States.

Pruitt

The legions fought in flat open terrain. They used auxillaries in uneven or wooded terrain. The Dacian campaign, for example, was fought almost entirely by auxilliaries.

AlpinLuke · Oct 23, 2019

For accuracy, Polybius wasn't kind describing the army of Nabis. [13,6 - in English translation Polybius • Histories — Book 13].

Matthew Amt · Oct 23, 2019

HackneyedScribe said:
The usage of an aspis is heavily indicative that they fought in a phalanx (shield wall). It's not that good a shield when it comes to open-order fighting, because then you'll have a large portion of the shield on the left that's not protecting anyone, but the extra weight of the shield is still going to be there.

Not really. In a typical fighting stance, the shield is pretty well centered on your body, and gives good coverage. It's not quite as maneuverable as a scutum or thureos, or a center-grip roundshield, but it's perfectly functional. There's also no reason to suspect that it was significantly heavier than a scutum, though we do tend to believe the thureos was generally lighter, on average.

Matthew

Matthew Amt · Oct 23, 2019

Pruitt said:
Guys, the effectiveness of a Hoplite Phalanx is disrupted when you fight on uneven terrain. It is hard to make a straight line with overlapping shields when you are going through hills. Roman Cohorts and Maniples are designed to fight in uneven terrain. By the time of Phillip II, the Hoplite Phalanx was out of date and the Macedonian Phalanx ground them into the dirt. I have been reading that the traditional Hoplite Phalanx was not a push and shove contest that often. There was a transition to Thureophoroi by Macedon and many Greek States.

Pruitt

Careful. Hoplites continued in use long after the pike phalanx appeared, often as auxiliary troops, etc. They were far from useless! Philip also suffered 2 defeats in his invasion of Greece before winning at Chaeronea, though I don't know if there is any information on the composition of those forces that were defeated.

I certainly agree that hoplites were generally not the main force in Greece by the time the Romans arrived.

Matthew

HackneyedScribe · Oct 23, 2019

Matthew Amt said:
Not really. In a typical fighting stance, the shield is pretty well centered on your body, and gives good coverage. It's not quite as maneuverable as a scutum or thureos, or a center-grip roundshield, but it's perfectly functional. There's also no reason to suspect that it was significantly heavier than a scutum, though we do tend to believe the thureos was generally lighter, on average.

Matthew

I'm not saying it's useless. I'm judging the effectiveness of a shield based on it's relativity to that of other shields available. If they didn't fight in a shield wall then what's the point of an aspis when they have things like the thureos available?

I'm also not saying the aspis was heavier, but it covers less of your body than a scutum because a significant part of its weight is meant to cover the guy standing to your left. In open order fighting when there's nobody standing right next to your left, what else does that weight contribute? For an effective shield, each unit of added weight should contribute to something. I'm judging the amount of defense provided relative to its weight, as compared with other shields.

The Spaniard · Oct 23, 2019

Olleus said:
Kind of dodging the question, but what exactly do you mean by "classical" and "hoplite"?

Generally, spearmen fighting in a close order shield wall was a very common method of fighting in the Mediterranean basin pre-Rome (and indeed, everywhere for most of history), the pike formations only replaced it in the successor states. I believe that when Julius Caesar thought the Helveti he described them as forming a phalanx. If you're a purist, did Pyrrhus use spear+hoplite phalanxes or just sarissa ones? I also believe that lots of Greek mercenaries thought in the traditional hoplite formation, the Romans simply must have encountered them in southern Italy or Sicily, or when fighting the Punic wars.

Now if you define a classical hoplite to be precisely the equipment used in Greece pre Peloponnesian War, then the Romans might not have encountered them. But they definitely thought often against foes that were fighting in an almost identical way.

No its a fair counter question. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I am referring to the hoplite as it was prior to the Peloponnesian War. Another follow on question to throw into the mix would be, did other cultures treat their shieldwalls in the same way the greeks did (i.e. the pushing match/othismos)?

Search

Search

Romans and the Classical Greek Hoplite

The Spaniard

aggienation

The Spaniard

aggienation

Dan Howard

Olleus

aggienation

HackneyedScribe

Dan Howard

aggienation

AlpinLuke

Pruitt

Pruitt

AlpinLuke

Dan Howard

AlpinLuke

Matthew Amt

Matthew Amt

HackneyedScribe

The Spaniard

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions