Talk:Phalanx

message: First, apologies if I'm inserting this improperly. I really need to take some time and figure out the formalities of wikipedia. However, I came across this book, | A Handbook of Military Strategy and Tactics - Michiko Phifer  and I'm hoping I got the link right so you'll land on the paragraph -- which appears to be copied and pasted into this article with little, if any change. I'm under the impression that this isfrowned on.
The paragraph which attracted my attention begins "Historians have not arrived at a consensus about the relationship between the Greek formation and these predecessors of the hoplites..."  Paragraph 6 from the top.
--Glenn Hefley 05:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issue with content?

message: Have removed the reference to a revival under Napoleon as l'ordre profond has no real similarities to phalangial warfare, similarly I'm removing the reference to modern riot control.  A unit that manouvres in clos columns to maximise the effect of thrusting weapons is not necessarily a phalanx, nor is formation that possesses shields for mutual defence necessarily a phalanx (I'm actually surprised nobody included Roman Legions as a phalangial revival). I would tend to remove the schiltrom and swine array as well but don't know enough to conclusively say whoever included them is wrong, and am only leaving pike formations in on sufferance as they have significant differences.Inane Imp 11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't 'A unit that manouvres in clos columns to maximise the effect of thrusting weapon" the definition of a phalanx? :/ 4.231.130.74 01:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revial formations

message: Even though the tag is at the top of the page, I think it good to repeat that there is in fact a French article. There are only a few active translators at the moment, but there are small amounts of good English information not found on the actual English page. I am asking anyone interested to take a look at the work-in-progress at Messedrocker's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Messedrocker/Phalanx-fr2en#), and merge anything into this article that is unique to the French one. Thanks!
-ExNoctem 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: French Article

message: It might also be worth mentioning that the spears used in Hellenistic phalanges had a spike on the butt. The men at the back of the phalanx (those with their spears pointing upwards) would use the buttspike to finish off wounded enemies laying on the battlefield as the phalanx advanced over them, or as a backup if the spearpoint at the front broke.
I tried fitting a sentence or two in at various points, but everything I tried seemed to break the flow of the article or seemed like a digression. ChrisU 23:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  buttspikes 

message: Great article, although I wouldn't mind if it went on and on, particularly into strategy. I like the historical references  a lot. Anyhow, I don't believe that the Hoplite's shield is actually called a hoplon, or that the name is derived from it. I could be wrong, but I believe the shield is properly referred to as an "aspis", and that "hoplon" is a somewhat generic term for weaponry or military equipment, thus making the hoplite a sort of "man at arms". If I'm right and it is an error, it seems to be a popularly reproduced one at least.
: If that is what you feel, then you are free to add a mention of that fact. We must keep in mind, however, that "hoplon" helps provide a neat (if ahistorical) classification of shields by way of contrasting it with the oblong thureous and the smaller pelte carried by both later phalangites and the peltasts proper. 202.53.251.26 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoplon vs. Aspis 

message: I've removed this sentence because a google search of "hoplite drift" reveals only one result: wikipedia
----
"Hoplite drift" does appear in more places, including Ripples of Battle by Victor Davis Hanson 67.193.123.60 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  hoplite drift 

message: Makedonia,this edit of yours is without any edit summary. I would appreciate it if you could give a reason for it. My revert was accompanied with an edit summary which I think was fully informative of why I reverted you. Your reversion was not, so I am asking you here. Why did you revert back with no explanation? Just to keep some consistency, I include the edit summary which you did not care to answer:
:no dude, the Macedonian Phalanx was a later modification to the phalanx formation that sought to take advantage of the sarissa length.
I stick to this edit summary, the phalanx was first devised in mainland Greece, and later the Macedonians adapted it to take advantage of the very long pike that they used (the sarissa). This is also mentioned in the body of the article.
Could you please discuss this so as to avoid a revert war? --Michalis Famelis 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: The image depicts the soldiers having their right foot foward. However, having your left foot foward while thrusting with your right hand affords greater stability (like in boxing or MMA). Also, the body would face to the right, supporting the claim that the formation would naturally drift right.71.139.173.245 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right foot or Left foot forward? 

message: I took the liberty of changing up some things in the article.  Such changes included re-wording and removing citations to certain battles.
An example of this was the removal of Chaeronea as an example of cavalry breaking a phalanx.  Quite simply, there is no evidence of the Companions--or any other Macedonian cavalry--being used in that capacity against the Sacred Band.  The extant sources describe Alexander as leading the attack on said formation--but not what forces he himself was leading.  The unfounded conclusion that Alexander attacked at the head of the Companions is one of many popular ideas that surround the phalanx, ones that nonetheless do not survive close scrutiny.
I would recommend that interested parties take the time to note that accuracy in quoting a source does not necessarily correlate with accuracy in identifying a flaw inherent in the phalanx.
Case in point:  where Cynoscephalae is concerned, Polybius, the phalanx's critic himself, describes the phalanx not only assaulting over difficult terrain (Cynoscephalae), but doing so successfully at that.  Flamininus' left flank was being defeated by Phillip V's right flank; the decisive factor of the battle was Phillip's decision to launch his attack with only 50% of his forces.  That enabled Flamininus to send his unoccupied right flank to assault the other half of Phillip's forces.  Again, Polybius tells us that the Roman forces prevailed because these Macedonians were still in marching column and absent of any leadership at the head of their lines.  They broke, according to him, in the face of his elephants' charge.
Ultimately, one could accurately state that Polybius believed the phalanx to be unable to operate on rough terrain... but that is different from accurately stating that the phalanx was unable to operate on rough terrain.
Similarly, there are instances where contigents within the larger "Hellenic" army is attributed with roles that simply are not shown in the extant record.  Example:  skirmishers and light infantry being used to plug in gaps in the phalanx's line.  There are few times when such armies have been described as fielding multiple echelons/lines of battle.  Alexander III fielded a secondary line behind his Macedonian phalanx at Gaugamela, but these were hoplites--not light infantry or skirmishers.  Perseus at Pydna did not have a second line; his light infantry, mercenaries, skirmishers, etc., are specifically listed as being on his flanks (and only one of those, IIRC), along with his cavalry.  There was no mistake of the light infantry failing to plug in those gaps because that was never the intent.
Another thing:  the illustration showing the types of phalanx advance are not correct.  To begin with, the "standard" phalanx advance shows the two "elite" elements clashing head to head.  Shown properly, each "elite" element would have been squaring off against the opponent's weakest element.  Also, the oblique advance did not necessarily require the weakened flank to retreat; it more often than not was simply refused.  As it was a diagonal line of advance, the weakened wink might, theoretically, never come into contact with the enemy.  The whole point of the oblique was striking at a desired location along the opponent's line with the advantage of overwhelming localized superiority.
Also, could someone point to the reference that states Spartan hoplites were issued their panoply?  That, and a few other absolutist ("only Spartans wore their hair long in pre-Alexandrian times") and presumptive ("beards were popular as a means to cushion the helmet") strike me as suspect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebus Americanos (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes and corrections 

message: I ask these as they have occured to me whilst reading and I am unaware of where to find the answers.
What is the source for the supposed right foot forwards?
Its such a bad approach from a simple mechanical standpoint that I cant imagine it being true.
"There was little chance of survival in escape"
This goes against most other sources which state that the majority of the fleeing army survived with casualties only being small %age wise at least.
"It seems likely that both motions were used, depending on the situation."
Wasnt the formation too tight to allow you to change the spear from over to under arm, and vice versa.
Also how would you hold a spear vertically with the sauroter facing downwards with an overhand grip?  The only way I can see would have made it hard to move the spear and also hazardous to get the spear from vertical to ready.
"If attack was called for, an ... shoulder for maximum stability."
It is as easy to hit an unarmoured spot with both under and overarm isnt it, and while you can get more force overarm (apparently anyway) it is more important where and not how hard you hit isnt it?
"However, some Hoptlite reenacters have claimed that holding the spear under-arm would be hazardous for the rank behind ... argue that spears were only used over-arm in the phalanx"
While an underarm approach would lead to inadvertant croth stabbing (what an odd phrase) wouldnt an overarm approach be just as likely to cause inadvertant fratricide due to head wounds?
Couldnt a sarissa still be used one handed in combination with an asips if  properly balanced?
Couldnt a sarissa still be used overhand if the more obvious (at least to me) approach of strapping the shield to the body (which in turn allows a larger shield) was used?  In the same way that medieval pike formations apparently worked (at least as far as im aware).
To answer your questions :
1. "What is the source for the supposed right foot forwards? Its such a bad approach from a simple mechanical standpoint that I cant imagine it being true."
Actually it is not. Although the Greeks wore greaves on both legs, the Romans used to only wear greaves on the left and not right leg, for this was the leg they protruded during combat when swordfighting. Again contrary to what movies depict, Greeks and Romans, as all regular armies, tried to fight holding steady their places in the phalanx. They did not swordfight in a Hollywood manner. Holding the left foot forward was customary for the Greeks as far as I know but Vegetius says
"It must be observed that when the soldiers engage with the javelin, the left foot should be advanced, for, by this attitude the force required to throw it is considerably increased. On the contrary, when they are close enough to use their piles and swords, the right foot should be advanced, so that the body may present less aim to the enemy, and the right arm be nearer and in a more advantageous position for striking.", which seems to be suggesting that this wa the leg that should mostly be protected. Despite that, it seems that legionaries also preferred wearing a single greave on their left and not right leg. 
2. "There was little chance of survival in escape" This goes against most other sources which state that the majority of the fleeing army survived with casualties only being small %age wise at least."
Here you are totally wrong... During the actual battle very few casualties were really inflicted. It was during the attempt to flee that the real carnage begun... Fleeing most usually resulted in death or imprisonment, since it is impossible for thousands of people to hide or resist the pursuers. All tacticians suggest that there should always be left an opening for the enemy to flee throuhg, so that he does not remain in battle when his morale fails him. This is why the victors (and especially spear and sarissae bearing phalanxes) have so few casulaties while their opponents are cut down to pieces... Romans, preferring hand to hand combat suffered more casualties even in victory, but still dispropoertionately few in regard with their opponents. (20-50 times less)
Jdowdall, 28/10/2008
Actually I think you will find it is you who is "totally wrong." The extremly well respected P. Krentz, in his article "Casualties in hoplite battles", (1985) collates data from all credible ancient sources relating to hoplite casualties. His study concluded that the average losses for the winning army would be 5%, with 15% being the average losses for the losing side of a hoplite engagement. 
You are correct to assert that the actual combat would not be where the majority of damage would occur, as it is in the act of disengaging and fleeing which leaves you most vunerable to harm. However, as these statistics (and pretty much any working knowledge of hoplites) shows, armoured formations are poor at chasing down opponants, especially seeing as the losers would generally drop their shields in order to flee, which would make escape almost certain. 
Your assertion that enemies who face phalanxs are "cut down to pieces" does indeed capture well the result of the armoured and close combat orientated Greeks striking a formation of far lighter equipped troops, but you should not confuse accounts of Greeks defeating large armies as meaning they slaughtered large numbers. An infantry lines ability to hold is dependant above all on psychological factors, and once the hoplites had shown their worth most enemies of the greek world would retreat, and in doing so, restrict the death toll to the 15% suggested above.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowdall (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your description are not undisputed. Before you implement them in the article, please remember that it is B class and anything without sources will be deleted (especially extraordinary claims). For the Macedonian phalanx there are also reconstructions that place the aspis tied to the belly. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: A new image that displays the Macedonian phalanx is needed... old one has been deleted. · AndonicO Hail! 23:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image. 

message: IMO, this article seems to be torn between describing the phalanx as a general military concept, and specifically describing the use of the phalanx by Hellenic cultures. I believe it should focus on the latter, with a general statement about phalanxes in the introduction.
I think we also need to face the fact that most historical spear-armed troops are NOT related to the phalanx. To suggest that the use of the Roman pila as hand-held spears on a few occasions is a 'revival' of the phalanx is just not true. The spear is an intuitive (and cheap) weapon, and has therefore been used by many armies in history - but not in Greek-style phalanxes.
I am going to try and edit the article for consistency along these lines.
MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The many problems with that diagram of the Epameinondean system have been pointed out before - but since it does add something to the article, and since we don't have a better one, it's been left in. But really, someone should get round to replacing it with something better!MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, I have just found two better images on Wikimedia Commons, so the old one has now been replaced! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The focus of the article 

message: I am sorry that I cannot proffer any historical source, but the ongoing debate wether spears in the hoplite phalanx were wielded over- or underarm seems largely academic.
From my rich personal re-enacting experience I can tell you that is is almost entirely impossible for the spear to be wielded underam (in the front rows) for two reasons:
a) With the aspis interlocked, there is no space to wedge your spear between them. You either have to open a gap (an unwise decision standing in the front row) or lose the interlocking effect. Likewise, the aspis’ diameter does only allow you to wield the spear at slightly abobe knee-height if used "below" the interlocked shield row.
b) With the spear wielded underhand, the butt spikes pose an extremely serious danger to the health of all people standing in the 2nd and further rows, as it is a natural reflex to "pull back" (for greater length) before a strike –stabbing the guys behind you in the thigs, belly or loins. Extremely disciplined troops might be "brainwashed" (trained) not to do this, but it is a very strong impulse.
And furthermore, the underarm position does only convey more power to the push when the spear is couched to better transfer the momentum of a charge. If standing still, the thrust overarm is at least as strong as the underam-push.
You might want to consider this. Otherwise thanks fpr this great article, best regards
J. Kuchenbuch  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.58.164 (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spears: overarm or underam? 

message: I am by no means qualified to question the informed contributors to this article, but one aspect has confused me so I'd just like to ask for clarity:
Regarding the line "Individual hoplites carried their shields on their left arm, protecting not themselves but the soldier to the left."   Should this be "...protecting not only themselves but the soldier to the left also?. 
*Sure, your formulation is more precise.Wandalstouring (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Shield 

message: ...the opening section says. such a circuitous etymology seems a bit unlikely, but possible. it has no citation though. is it correct? --Mongreilf (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, couldn't find a source for this statement, so I assume it's wrong. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of finger bones derived from name of formation rather than directly from greek for finger... 

message: Interesting graphic:  
Can it be used even with the bit in French at the start?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.245.48 (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagonal phalanx gif 

message: The page Military rank seems to imply that a Λοχος (lochos) was in charge of 8 men, not 100; the reason I say this is because it talks about files that are 8 people deep, and then says that a lochos was a file leader.  I'm posting this comment here because I figure this is where the experts are :).  
-- TimNelson (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phalanx composition and strength 

message: I added a link to this very influential site on phalanx combat http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/  but it was removed.  The Crowd-othismos model, which explains how 12 ranks can stand up to 50 for example, should be referred to in the text of this article as it incresingly is in published articles on phalanx combat.  At the very least included in the links for further reading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMBardunias (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Crowd-Othismos model 

message: I am struck by the possibiity that phalanx may relate to Farank (spear) from which the Frankish people got their name. Lgh (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Phalanx/ Farank? 

message: Most sources show that hoplites actually ran into combat and in fact they were clumsy even on the move and were more akin a mob than a formation. Xenophon tells us that hoplites couldn't maintain a formation on the move and Thucydides awes at the Spartan for being able to maintain cohesion on the move while making the comment that other armies become distracted when going to met the enemy:
It happens that, the greater is the number of soldiers, the more they are apt to blunder. Either they scatter deliberately in search of provisions, or they are so careless of order on the march that some get too far ahead, while others lag too far behind. Xen. Cav. 7.9
After this followed the battle. The Argives and their confederates marched to the charge with great violence and fury. But the Lacedaemonians slowly and with many flutes, according to their military discipline, not as a point of religion, but that, marching evenly and by measure, their ranks might not be distracted, as the greatest armies, when they march in the face of the enemy, use to be. Thuc. 5.70 
And yet the Spartans, who were of all men past masters in the art of war, trained and accustomed themselves to nothing so much as not to straggle or get into confusion upon a change of formation, but to take anyone without exception as neighbour in rank or in file, and wheresoever danger actually threatened, to seize that point and form in close array and fight as well as ever. Plut. Pel. 23.3
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:8900:E6:3C20:6F1:1A7D:F0EF (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the article state hoplites walked into battle? 

message: (If I had, I'd 'a' red-linked to the so-far longed-for article battle array.)--Jerzy•t 03:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couldn't locate expected (unlinked), occurrence of "battle array"