It makes a lot more sense to me that hoplite warfare developed out of extended javelin skirmishing. It seems more in line with human nature to me that people would come out and and stand in loose formations and chuck javelins at each other and as it gradually became more and more clear that a massed charge could be decisive in such a situation the formations became denser and the spears and armor grew heavier. That was essentially the military innovation shaka brought to the zulu way of war.

@Badbentham

Жыл бұрын

Or, to use the Football analogy: First, they tried it with Field Goals. Then, as everybody used shields as defense, they switched to gaining Yards, where the goal became breaking through the ranks; - the Touchdown.

@Eruthian

Жыл бұрын

This! Also, if you look at that artwork on the ceramics, zheir shields aren`t even overlaping. It just looks like it for the team on the right side as the artist seem to have mirrored the way how they stand for the team on the left side, where each guy just has his shield on his left side, not overlapping it with the shield of the guy next to him. For me, they look a bit like Peltasts or Velites with bigger shields and heavier armor. Heavy skirmishers that use their javelins for throwing and as stabbing weapon if you ask me. This slowly evolving into classical phalanx warfare would make sense. Also, wasn`t the Sarissa a Makedonian invention anyways?

@eljanrimsa5843

Жыл бұрын

@@Badbentham With "Football" you mean American football l guess. Perhaps they fought battles with breaks for commercials

@SusCalvin

Жыл бұрын

These armies have large bodies of skirmishers and light infantry around them.

@therat1117

Жыл бұрын

Analogising the development to the development of Zulu warfare is a very apt comparison, that is precisely the sort of parallel historians should draw.

The Zulus apparently went from throwing spears to stabbing spears (assegais) in a very few years. Certainly well within Shaka's adult lifetime. I use him as an example of extremely rapid military innovation that might be considered by those discussing the evolution of ancient Greek warfare.

@artawhirler

Жыл бұрын

It was Shaka himself who invented the assegai.

@thomasmusso1147

Жыл бұрын

Yes, Shaka developed the Assegai .. the short stabbing / thrusting spear and it's use, thus revolutionizing battles as they had been fought up to then. He also furthered the formation of the central 'Boss' as the main 'shock' formation and then the 'horns' on either side which would envelop and surround the opposing force. His warriors were made to travel and fight barefooted as this made them more mobile. Legend has it that in the early days, one of his 'Impi's were found to be wearing leather sandals contrary to his wishes. He had them form up on parade on hard ground liberally strewn with masses of 'Devil Thorns' (a multi-spiked seed in which no matter which way it fell, one spike would always be pointing upwards). Horrible things .. personal experience having grown up in the 50 / 60's in Kwazulu-Natal .. and where going around barefoot was the norm. Shaka made them 'dance' the seeds into the ground. Any Warrior who flinched was taken aside and clubbed to death by Shaka's personal executioners. That cured anyone thereafter of 'sandal fever.

@markaxworthy2508

Жыл бұрын

@@thomasmusso1147 My original message was not specifically about Shaka. I was using him as an example of extremely rapid military innovation that might be taken on board by those discussing the evolution of ancient Greek warfare.

@thomasmusso1147

Жыл бұрын

@@markaxworthy2508 I realise that. My posting was about Shaka .. a little more info regarding the man and his tactics .. reinforcing inter alia, the importance of mobility and a tactic that included rolling up the enemy's flanks and subsequently surrounding him.

@LookHereMars

Жыл бұрын

@artawhirler @Thomas Musso Close, my friends but not quite. The Assegai long spear had been in use for centuries in one form or another and was the typical weapon of the skirmishing style of warfare in South Eastern Africa long before Shaka and the rise of the Zulu. The weapon that you are referring to is the short stabbing Iklwa spear which replaced among the Zulu the Assegai as the main combat weapon. The Assegai remained in service with the Impi but was instead utilised in a secondary capacity to complement the shorter Iklwa by being thrown enmasse to disrupt enemy formations before a charge. The Iklwa and Assegai became to the Zulu in this respect what the Gladius and Pillum Javelin was to the Legions of ancient Rome, and with it among other military reforms the Zulu revolutioned warfare in their area. Melee combat was rare among the tribes who preferred to fight in open formation and let loose projectiles at a distance to score wounds and kills. What made the Zulu so deadly was their reformation into a close quarters army of drill and maneuver in an area that for centuries to millenias conducted warfare in the manner of skirmish. A good book to read on the subject if you have not already and want more details on Zulu Warfare is the Washing of the Spears by Donald R. Morris.

This is very interesting: Herodotus seems to be dissing what is essentially ritual warfare, a way of deciding who’s the boss without destroying homes, crops and non-combatants. This works when both sides share the same culture. Very like the “battle of the North Inch” at Perth in Scotland in 1396. This was actually arranged by the king to decide which of two warring factions should have the chiefdom of the confederation known as Clan Chattan. 30 men were picked for each side (with one random volunteer from the spectators to make up the numbers). And yes, half the winning side and all but one of the losing side were killed.

@mnk9073

Жыл бұрын

You can see this "Ritual warfare" reemmerge briefly with the Condottieri of the Italian city states: Genua hires this company to claim that port or this bridge or those fields, Pisa hires another in response (because both citizen militas don't want to die over this), the two companies would try to outmanouver each other strategically until they actually meet on the battle field where both try to gain the upper hand by positioning themselves better, as soon as one army has the other at it's mercy they aknowledge the outcome and call it a day because a) they don't care which city claims the contested price and b) dead Condotierri don't get paid.

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

Seems like the author (and a lot of commentators) are projecting modern (or at least Clausewitzian) ideas of total war into an age when they didn't exist. In the medieval/renaissance times some battles in Italy were fought with almost no casualties.

@mnk9073

Жыл бұрын

@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 People in general underestimate how small populations were back in those times. For example the Etruscan city states of Veii and Tarchuna who fought Rome when it first became a republic had both a mere couple thousand citizens. A census of all of Attica from 300 BC lists a mere 21'000 citizens, including Athens itself. If we keep in mind, that armies were made up of the citizens of military age of the cities, losses above 10% would have crippled the losing polis both economically as well as socially for at least a generation.

@Astraben

Жыл бұрын

@@mnk9073 It must be said though that Attika's population at its peak around 425 B. C. is estimated to be 155.000

@mnk9073

Жыл бұрын

@@Astraben Yes, in total. But that includes women, children, metics (non-citizen residents) and lots of slaves, all of those were banned from participating in war.

It's easy to believe that pitched battles were rare because casualties were so heavy. It took an entire generation for Argos to recover from Sepeia, though that was admittedly horrible beyond the usual norms of hoplite battles.

@Intranetusa

Жыл бұрын

I've read that casualties during hoplite battles were usually rather light, because the battle ended with the loser routing after only a small percentage of troops became casualties during the actual battle. And since the Greek armies didn't have much cavalry, they couldn't easily chase down routers to inflict heavier casualties. I've read that the Battle of Sepeia was a special exception because the Spartan army caught the Argive army unprepared and completely by suprise, and then tricked and slaughtered survivors who were hold up nearby. If it was more of a pitch battle rather than a surprise ambush, the casualties probably would've been smaller.

@matthiuskoenig3378

Жыл бұрын

Even after the Greeks started using relatively large numbers of cavalry the loses were still rather small. On average the winner would take 5% casualties and the loser 15%. (with the rare cases of the winner taking less than 2% casualties and as much as 10%, with the loser taking as few as 3% and as much as 25%) And this is causlties not dead. Ie includes wounded (admittedly many more would die of this group later compared to modern day but not all) and captured. For reference the numbers for the roman army are similar (on average 4% casualties for winner, 16% for loser) and they used alot more cavalry. Sources: ->Greek battles: casualties in hoplite battles, by Peter krentz, Davidson college. ->Roman battles: Rome at War: Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic, by Nathan Stewart Rosenstein

@charleshawkins699

Жыл бұрын

Pitched battles happened much more often than history depicts. The Greek defenses were formidable however. They used a layered defensive strategy. Of trenches, traps and barricades or walls. Topped with archers. Which was common military strategy of the time period. Greeks excelled at building traps and walled fortifications. Their navy was for the time more professionally organized. Because most of the economic trade and supply of the Greek economy. Was through its shipping fleet. There were always pitched battles all over the region.

@alanpennie8013

Жыл бұрын

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Thanks for this reference.

@BoxStudioExecutive

Жыл бұрын

It's possible pitched battles were very frequent, but decisive outcomes could be rare. I think this is exemplified in Thucydides, where pitched battles are frequently fought, but with no clear outcome as to who won the battle. That said I think one side being able to massacre the other side in victory was apparently a rare occurrence. It was far more profitable to capture the losing side and sell them into slavery / ransom them from their hometown or even turn them as mercenaries. When Romans showed up, Greek soldiers were horrified after the Romans started butchering (instead of capturing?) everyone who turned to rout.

I always thought it was weird that they said the Phalanx was used on flat land... because, I mean I have seen Greece. You would think most of the flat land would be for farming. Interesting to see these new interpretations.

@monadsingleton9324

Жыл бұрын

Not surprising at all. The main crops the Ancient Greeks grew were cereals, grapes, and olives, which tend to do better in hill country, especially grapes and olives. You have to imagine the Ancient Greek countryside as a set of terraced hillsides with the bottom land left mostly fallow. Animal husbandry was quite limited, really only prolific in Boeotia, Thessaly, and Crete, and there aren't a lot of records of hoplite battles in those regions compared to, say, Attica or the Peloponnese. That leaves plenty of flat-land for phalanx armies to clash.

@MasterGhostf

Жыл бұрын

@@monadsingleton9324 wasn't the soil poor quality for grain farming? They also relied on fishing. When you mention animal husbandry was that cattle or does that include sheap and goats?

@hia5235

Жыл бұрын

Crop fields do not in any way prevent formation battles.

@monadsingleton9324

Жыл бұрын

@@MasterGhostf Mostly referring to cattle and horses, sheep and goats do well enough on thin, rocky soil, but the former require rich meadows to thrive. Cereals could and were grown on the lowest terraces of hillside farms, as well as the flatland, while the middle and upper terraces were given over to grape vines and olive trees, which often produce their best yields in stressed conditions.

@Valiguss

Жыл бұрын

I agree at first glance it seems odd but thinking about it, it’s because it’s what has strategic value. Think of it like urban fighting today, why would you choose to fight there, it’s grueling and inflicts massive losses, but the possession of the city or town is often what matters because it’s a fortified position so people take the time to clear it out, and even when a town is bypassed if it doesn’t surrender it often has to be waited out or they have to go back and take it

In the ''History of the Peloponnesian War'', we often read about hoplites, archers, cavalry, slingers AND light troops, if I recall correctly. This alone shows us that the Greeks knew very well that the phalanx was not the only mean of winning a battle.

@kieranlatty9334

Жыл бұрын

Skirmishing darters are mentioned too, IIRC they are referred to as an 'old fashioned' type of skirmisher, presumably using war darts, which are attested to be used by Greeks from around 500 BC.

@aaronfleming9426

Жыл бұрын

Very true. And Xenophon's Persian Expedition shows clearly how hoplites without cavalry and skirmishers were in serious trouble against mobile Persian forces.

@TemenosL

Жыл бұрын

@@kieranlatty9334 That's just a translation thing, don't take that too literally. Even medieval texts use "darts" vaguely to mean anything from arrows to lighter javelins to actual fletched javelins that you might call a war dart.

@danielkristiansen2298

Жыл бұрын

The hoplites were the citizens. They recieved the attention and glory, regardless of how they actually performed on the field of battle (as long as they won). You will find the same literary phenomenon throughout human history: Roman legions, medieval knights, German panzer divisions in WW2. They were all heavily supported by other troops that were not as glorious to focus on, and so are relatively ignored.

@jamespfp

Жыл бұрын

That's a nice summation of what my sense of logic suggests. Over time, various city-states developed specialized troops rather than general purpose jacks of all trades. This is mirrored in the various events we associate with Olympic games as well.

As Greek, throughout my student years I was taught that while the Hoplite was a major unit (in theory a better trained and better equipped soldier in the army), all armies were mixed. They had the archers and peltasts (sling carrying soldiers) that acted as ranged support, they usually had some kind of light infantry (usually conscripted freed slaves) and cavalry (usually for scouting and flanking attacks). Also, the hoplites (and most of the troops) carried some kindof sword (either a spatha or a xifos for the hoplites). About the type of warfare: Spartans were known to commit raids on the area of Messinia. My hometown was occasionally besieged by Spartans. In fact, it has two famous sieges in ancient times (although the second was at the tail end of the Hellenistic period). And my ancestors were known to take advantage of the natural terrain; they used to meet their opponents with their "weak" side facing a swamp.

@mislavdomlija5189

Жыл бұрын

not to be rude but modern greek genotype has very little to do with the ancient dorian and ionian greeks

@alxwak

Жыл бұрын

@@mislavdomlija5189 what exactly genotype has to do with hoplites and armys?

@isaacbruner65

Жыл бұрын

​​​​@@mislavdomlija5189it sounds like you're talking out of your ass on this topic. There is no basis for a "Greek genotype" or any other kind of ethnic genotype. That's not how genetics works. The human populations of the Old World have been in continuous contact since humans first evolved in east Africa and up to the present day. If you go even a couple thousand years back in the past, everyone who was alive then and has living descendants today is an ancestor of everyone who is alive today, except for maybe some very isolated populations on islands and stuff. I once saw a genealogical tree showing how the prophet Muhammad had descendants in Britain as far back as the 14th century who likely had no idea of the relation. Ancient Greeks lived much longer ago than he did, so the same concept applies but over a much longer timescale. The very idea of modern Greeks not being genetically related to ancient Greeks presupposes that it would even be possible for modern Greeks to solely be descended from ancient Greek ancestors, which is not possible unless Greece was an island in the middle of the ocean with no outside contact. Ethnicity is cultural and the Greeks (Hellenes really) still maintain their language, writing system, and historical heritage and still live in the same place, so the basis for ethnic continuity with ancient Greeks is incredibly strong, regardless of whatever pseudoscience you might have read about genotypes.

@Ronfost89

11 ай бұрын

@@alxwak Nothing, that person was just being a dick and trying to show how smart they are.

@FrancisGilkeson

10 ай бұрын

@@mislavdomlija5189 hey just fyi the idea that modern Greeks are mixed extremely by other ethnicities (Slavs & Turks) is Nazi properganda used to make modern Greeks seen as not true decedents of the anceint Greeks so that the nazis could praise anceint Greece as the epitome of Aryan suprmacy while still discrimnating against modern Greeks.

The phalanx is obviously just a formation of spears. You wanted to be close enough to your guys to your left and right to be covered by shields to protect your most important areas: the stomach, chest, side. If you get speared in the gut you are basically dead. These are the most heavily armoured parts in hoplite warfare, while arms are basically not armoured. The next most important thing is at least one greave on the left leg, to make it impossible for the enemy to get a quick and easy hit on your leg to take you out of the fight. You have the commander and his best troops on the right to keep the formation from drifting too much. You have the front ranks made up of veterans. The back ranks are made up of older fighters. The middle ranks are made up of inexperienced troops. Othismos doesn't mean push. It means motivate in Xenophon. So you are helped by the veterans handling the first most fierce clash at the start and then "othismos", you are motivated by the rear ranks. It means you don't run because it will be dishonourable to run before the older guys do. If you try to run you will see the most respected fighters as you try to leave and you will never recover your honour. So the back ranks motivate the middle inexperienced ranks to fight. When fighting happens you have a wall of spears and a no man's land between the formations. You keep your spear in front moving and you hit targets of opportunity. Legs, someone to the side not paying attention or you occupy someone else and set him up to be hit by someone else. A hard spear thrust to a shield can knock it off balance and a spear thrust to the face can leave someone's mid-section briefly vulnerable from other spearmen if they try to block. The phalanx works over the enemy formation. Spears held extended in front create space. Each hoplite spear usually has a very heavy sauroter on the other end, which is also sharp. This is to bring the point of balance of the spear further back and allow you to hold it comfortably further out, but it's also good if an enemy is on the ground and you need a heavy spear to punch through his armour. You just grip it with both hands, turn the spear around and deliver a two handed thrust straight down, without breaking your formation or your posture. When Caesar fought the Germans, it was also described as a phalanx and the Romans tried to hack at the spears to get close, because while hitting a spear with a sword won't break it immediately, it's a safer option than trying to run into a forest of spears and not being sure if your guys to your left and right will come with you. The same with the Macedonian phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx is the same principles as the normal phalanx. The spears are just much longer. Macedonians still used normal hoplites in a "phalanx" formation to protect the sides of the pike phalanx. The pikes created more space and the normal spears had flexibility. Spear formations are easy formations whose main advantage is creating space to allow for cooperation and team-oriented fighting. Multiple people can attack a single target and there is space to allow you to hear orders, rotate troops out to relieve tired fighters, etc. It's a conservative formation which makes sense for city states with limited populations. They are also joined by slingers, archers, light cavalry and heavy cavalry (if available), as well as heavy skirmishers (peltasts) or light skirmishers with javelins. These formations never go away either, they stick around well into Byzantine times. By the way, the phalanx is not the real name of the hoplite formation, that is a modern term. In the Greek army when you form up in "phalanx" or a "phalanga" of troops it means a column. That's all it means. A grouping of troops. It doesn't mean a specific fighting style or battle formation.

@SusCalvin

Жыл бұрын

Running is also when units really suffer casualties and the cavalry and light infantry really go to town on them.

@tomclayton5699

Жыл бұрын

Hoplites fought side on with their shield directly in front of them covering their whole torso. There is an interesting trend throught the classical period for hoplite armour to get lighter and lighter until by the end it was basically non existent. Xenophons 10,000 who were probably the greatest hoplite force of all time could rustle up 50 cuirasses between them. The shield is 90% of their useful armour and a helmet is most of the rest

@Masra94

Жыл бұрын

@@tomclayton5699 Yes, but when they did wear armour it was at least one greave and armour for the torso, so this is where they were most concerned about protecting. Plus, in battle, anyone up front would probably be a veteran and wearing armour, even if most of everyone else in the formation was not. Also, bronze cuirass was a very rare piece of gear and there was other armour that was more common and affordable. You also get thyreophori and thorakitai who existed around the same time and that style of fighting stuck around for a long time even to Byzantine times.

@absalomdraconis

Жыл бұрын

@@Masra94 : I'd hazard a guess that slingers were never a common sight: it's a much more difficult weapon than a bow in all matters except arm strength.

@knechtor5648

Жыл бұрын

@@absalomdraconis ​ they were pretty common, slings are a cheap weapon. slings with lead bullets could outrange most simple bows and if you didn't have any you could use stones from where you were fighting, anyone can carry a string of leather around without it encumbering him.

It's very refreshing to look at day-to-day historical processes rather then the big epic battles

8:15 - I'd like to point out that there is no hard line between javelin and spear. A javelin is basically a spear with the primary purpose of being thrown. A heavy thrusting spear with the primary purpose of stabbing at enemies in close quarters can still be thrown effectively if it isn't extremely long. The Roman pila, a heavy javelin, is a 7 foot long spear weapon that was used as both a throwing weapon and as a stabbing melee weapon. Edit: Since people are getting confused over the myth of the bending pila: The majority of pila are not designed to bend on impact and are supposed to be sturdy enough to be used as a thrusting spear. The bending pila idea was a misconception based on some people/earlier historians thinking it needed to bend to get stuck in a shield. Modern historical recreators such as Scholagladitoria and Thegnthrand have shown that the pila can get stuck in a shield even without it bending. Modern historians like MC Bishop also revised their earlier stance on bending pila, and MC Bishop now says that the bent pila discovered from archeology were likely bent not from impacting a shield, but from some other event. This includes people applying a lot of force while trying to wiggle out a pila stuck into a shield, a pila that hit a hard object like a rock or stone, and/or a pila that was stuck into the ground at an angle and then trampled on by soldiers as they advanced onto a position. Of course, there are niche exceptions such as pila with wooden pegs that may have been designed to break, or very thin javelins that may or may not be pila at all and were used by velites...there were sometimes so thin that it easily bends.

@gandalfstormcrow2486

Жыл бұрын

I thought it was designed to bend on impact.🤔

@user-fb7or1wt3t

Жыл бұрын

@@gandalfstormcrow2486 not a standard pilum. Only specially built pilae had this feature and only for some battles. Also the hastati and the later legionare had 2 javelins and the first to be trown at distance was the lighter one, not the pilum, which means that only the light javelins had the break/bend on impact feature since the purpose of this was to deny the enemy the possibility of recovering your javelins and throw them back at you.

@gandalfstormcrow2486

Жыл бұрын

@@user-fb7or1wt3t oh sweet! Thank you!

@gandalfstormcrow2486

Жыл бұрын

@@user-fb7or1wt3t oh sweet! Thank you!

@gandalfstormcrow2486

Жыл бұрын

@@user-fb7or1wt3t I knew hastati were skirmishers, but it never occurred to me they had different javelins/pilae. I always thought slings or maybe even arrows. Thank you again!

A couple of pieces of Greek warfare weirdness that stick in my mind, but I'm not sure actually fit with this discussion or not: according to Herodotus, during the Ionian revolt the Cypriots, themselves were still using chariots. Further in this same period the Lykians and Carians were both using Hoplite arms but also carried a sickle sword, one such being used to dispatch a Persian general in the revolt. Which suggests to me that there was not exactly a universal method of weilding the Greek arms, even if these instances are in Anatolia and Cyprus. Later Thucydides mentions during the revolt of one of Athens island subjects, the Spartan general sent to organize the defense had to arm and train the citizens, which suggests that even at this time there were fully Greek cities that did not have the supposedly typical hoplite phalanx as their method of fighting or even the means of producing one.

@Hell_O7

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure I understand the first paragraph. If the topic is about overarm and underarm spear, then I think the reasoning is off since having chariots and different sidearm are not "method of wielding". The former is more of a unit type, and the latter is equipment. I think I can explain the second one a bit. In Roel Konijnendijk's Classical Greek Tactics: A Cultural History, he said that aside from Sparta, the Greeks didn't train for war. I don't think he mention years, but he did say that Plato and Xenophon urge it and fail. A formal group training in Greek seems to only be done by Spartan or Spartan-led troops.

I'm so glad this channel exists. I've seen the quality of historical KZread channels improve since you've been making videos (keeping up to date with modern historical consensus). Achieving exactly what you set out to do

The line is an easy concept to teach. It doesn't take a lot of effort to drill a body of men to move in a block at a slow walk as long as they aren't expected to do any more advanced transitions like shifting from column to line or forming up a square. You can look at the mates on either side of you and make sure you are in the right spot relevant to them. The sources often skim over the role of skirmishers. We think these guys used to make up pretty large numbers. Like the video says, Homeros and others sometimes portray their ideal of warfare instead of the gritty practicalities. They aren't in the business of writing training manuals.

@tomclayton5699

Жыл бұрын

This is true, but irrelevant, because Hoplites werent drilled or disciplined. The sole exception is the Spartans who had enough training to march in time to instruments and had the ability to retreat in combat

@peterzin8979

Жыл бұрын

@@tomclayton5699 spartans trained from age 7-20 and that's all they learned? really?

@tomclayton5699

Жыл бұрын

@@peterzin8979 The spartans made most of that stuff up to impress romans hundreds of years later. The trained enough to have very basic drill and went to the gym

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

Who is this "we"?

@peterzin8979

Жыл бұрын

@@tomclayton5699 I don't think it was made up. Many non spartan greeks went through spartan school. I don't think they made it up. The spartans rarely kept records of their curriculum to impress anyone.

My thoughts on this (and I'm no expert) is that when battle lines met, they would largely maintain a gap of around 2-3 meters between the lines. Charges, I think, would have been to close the distance, and not crash directly into the enemy line. Having two lines face off with a gap between them would make sense due to the ubiquitousness of the spear. To use a spear effectively, you need space. The same really holds true if they also had a javelin or second spear for throwing. I can imagine there being moments where part, or even the whole, front line of battle would push forward in an attempt to kill/injure and push back the enemy, all of which would have an impact on their morale, but I don't see this as being something that can be done for long periods of time, and it is written than sometimes battles lasted for hours. Finally, I would like to point out that the picture on that vase could, instead of showing a single moment across a wide area, be showing a sequence of events - it is possible that it is showing the infantry preparing, then rushing to battle, before these same infantry then join the fight. Unless there is more context for this scene, we should not make assumptions. Great video, subscribed instantly 👍

In ancient Greek, the shield was called "hoplon" and so the name "hoplites" for the soldiers. The word "aspis" was also used but mostly for metaforical purposes, like when we say in English "under the auspices..." , which actually derives from the word "aspis". Nice video. Thank you

@petergaskin1811

10 ай бұрын

The Spartans always referred to the shield as an Aspis, but they were more Dorian than most.

For those of you speaking french, "sur le champ" has an excellent video pointing out the same but for pike warfare and how most of the time the warfare style of the wars of the diadochi is applied incorrectly to Philip's and Alexander's conquests

I've gone through a few of your videos now and just needed to say: This is some of the best historical content there is on youtube. I adore how you are bringing histography into the conversation. To see this amount of substance while being easy to follow and quite decently presented is a treat.

Historian here from Brazil. Your video was excellent. Thanks for your effort.

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much!

THIS! This is the content I want KZread, this is the stuff I’m looking for. Excellent video, more than earned my sub!

It makes more sense that the thight phalanx emerged due to many soldiers not being professionals. It is much easier to make a group that has little training reasonably effective if armed with spears or pikes. Any modern soldier, professional, conscript, part-time etc, can tell you how bloody hard it can be to get a squad to keep proper distance to one another. When humans are worried or scared they tend to try and seek comfort in the proximity to one another. The macedonians adoption of the sarrisa is really cunning in this regard, and shows a profound knowledge of this basic principles. The mass of troops could project their pushing force through their sarissas, which also provided a very good deterence towards enemy cavalry. The forests of shafts provided some extra protection, or maybe more important, an extra feeling of protection against missiles too. This meant you could have the green troops rather safely learning the ropes in the middle of the pack while the more expirienced ones formed the frontline and brought up the rear. In the age of pike and shot people talked about the push of pike. The rear in a pike formation was made up of nco:s using their shorter polearms held diagonally and litterary pushing on the backs of the men in front to make sure the formation did not budge. The idea was to first cause disorder in the enemy formation ahead to give your pikes an edge. The push was done with the pikes so it was a deadly one, but the big killing did not start until formation broke. A weaker formation would try to give way slowly in order to maintain coherence and stay alive.

I think it may help to look at the much later european heavy infantry tradition and the concept of the "push" of pike to understand the Othismos, it is using the same word after all. In pike warfare the push refers to a coordinated movement by the formation as a whole, striking not by the force of individual swings, but pushing the spears into the enemy by the force of marching into them. So the usual way of fighting was to line up just outside of deadly range, and "fence" with the pikes, with individuals and smaller groups jostling for openings and driving forward and falling back to stay safe. While the push was a coordinated manouvre to break such a stalemate, and in the push the men behind you wouldn't physically oush you onward, but the fact that you had a deep formation of allies marching forward behind you is part of how you motivate the front rank to do it, the masses behind you being both a carrot and a stick, as they provide a sense of protection and safety, but also you dont want to be the one guy who freaks out and embarrass yourself infront of everyone, in addition to the physical impetus of such a move, where those behind can take your place if you stumble or fall. To me, at least, this has always made the most sense as a way to understand what the greeks might mean. Sure its anachronistic and not exactly the same gear, but it sure seems more relevant than a rugby scrum...

I’d say a general maxim in military history is that if a tactic seems suicidally dangerous, it likely wasn’t used in the way we think it was. The othismos strikes me as an example of this

@Montaggg33

Жыл бұрын

Well think about the spearmen in XV and XVI century, they were literally standing in front of each other and poking the other side xd

@sryan9547

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, you either win with almost no casualties or you get completely crushed and everyone dies... why would anyone take a risk like that? Doesn't make sense.

Very nice video. Its crazy that the process you describe in 5:00 -5:30 applies to every single thing we know about the archaic period in Greece. Almost all of our evidence for _everything_ comes from Herodotus and the 5th century.

@stratosk6408

Жыл бұрын

But is more realistic to believe a guy who lived in 5 century bc from the guys who's lived 2500 years after him

Babe wake up, it's time for historians craft new episode

Hoplites' tactics were described in the orthodox view as the pike push of the Swiss two thousand years later...

Subscribed. I particularly appreciate your concise presentation of both the past and the current thinking on the subject. Having fought as an infantryman in a more recent war I would subscribe to the notion that at this time only the first few ranks engaged in combat if only because of the injuries that would be suffered by troops in the succeeding ranks during a pushing contest. The question is, did the front ranks fight to the death for honor and glory or was the phalanx sufficiently open for them to fall back when exhausted or seriously injured?

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

It'd be tricky in the extreme. If the sub wasn't in there instantly the enemy could open a gap and you'd get rolled up. Some suggest that lulls in the fighting just happened spontaneously as both sides would tire at roughly the same rate, which might give you chance to go for a smoke and a pee.

@nottoday4866

Жыл бұрын

I wonder how often the case was that one side would break and flee at the moment of contact, like how later bayonet and cavalry charges would worked. Obviously, there was a strong financial incentive to be in the forward ranks as well as honour and such. The thing any Hoplite really relished was when the enemy broke, and the opportunity to take captives or secure loot became available. As you were not being regularly paid this represented your only chance to secure recompense and you could literally go from a relatively poor man to a rich man in only a few minutes. I'd bet money that most of the times you formed up it would not result in clash too. Hurry up and wait, poor bloody infantry. You'd only attack if the general felt it was to his advantage. Good way to get social prestige to be on the front rank, we know that fights would break out over who got to be on the right of the line.

@rangda_prime

Жыл бұрын

From what I've read about Napoleonic warfare - from which written sources exist in vast amount - the consensus of how formations and especially attack columns broke was this: The front ranks fought, and if one side started getting pushed back by musket fire or bayonet, the ranks behind them with the less sanguine troops also fell back. At this, the rearmost ranks started trickling away, the columns broke from the rear. As more and more of the rear rankers shirked away from the losing scrum up front, the trickle became a flood and the front men were no longer held in place by those behind them and as such also ran. While black powder warfare was different to ancient such, some truths about human psychology ring true across the ages. Similarities that can be noted is that musket troops preferred to stand at range and exchange volleys to charging, and in ancient times troops seem to have preferred to stand at range to throw missiles, or do long range sparring with the tip of their spears. Caesar notes how hard it was to get his legionaries to close with the enemy if the front rankers and centurions had suffered heavy casualties from prolonged fighting. Ancient combat is nowadays believed to have been characterized by short, vicious bouts of close fighting, followed by long periods of standing just out of range with desultory missile exchanges while both sides tried to psych themselves up to do a concerted charge again. We see the exact same pattern with musket armed troops. Getting the front rankers forward in a concerted, solid attack with leveled spears or bayonets was the main way to get the enemy lose ground, it was sort of a game of chicken. If the enemy stood, you'd fight a short while until someone gave way. If they backed off at once, all the better but the key then was to not lose control of the attacking force so it wouldn't lose cohesion. And as noted above, the event of having the front rankers give way or suffering many casualties, would erode the morale of the men behind them and could at any time turns from being merely giving ground to flight.

Hoplites probably had a whole tool kit of fighting stiles. From looser Spear and shield fighting, chasing routs with their swords to traditional Phalanx's. Though fighting to save a field from destruction or being plundered would also make sense, farms store grain and an army marches on its stomach. Hence why battles would often take place on the plains. The extra troops were simply like extra material being fed in, as the front ranks were killed, the Phalanx reserves would be fed in till the army or its morale broke.

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

They probably didn't. Bear in mind most of them were amateurs, militia at best who didn't have time to train as special forces. Only the Spartans and perhaps some mercenaries could be considered anything like full time.

@AlexG1020

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it's very similar they acted in the manner that Charlemagne's forces did but on a more local level. Close order Phalanx warfare was a ritual representing those old battles which grew into the battles themselves.

Very interesting topic, enjoyed the video. I think that one should study the shields used by the heavy infantry of the day to determine how they fought. By the time of the Roman Republic there seems to have been 3 major types. Many cities used the hoplite phalanx with the round/convex Aspis shield. This was strapped to the forearm and relatively heavy and unwieldy. It was good for bracing or pushing and forming a shield wall. It forced the hoplites to remain in close formation. I do not think it was easy to throw a javelin while bearing such a shield. Some cities used a two-handed pike phalanx where the shield was small and hung from the neck by a strap. This was a powerful formation but rather fragile if the men did not keep order. The last type of heavy infantry used a large center boss shield held in the left hand. This was a light and handy piece of equipment, perfect for missile protection and one on one dueling. It was also easy to throw a javelin while using such a shield. They fought in a slightly looser formation than the other types. The Celts, Romans, Iberians, Samnites, and Carthage are among the many peoples who used this system. It was flexible and forgiving. I agree with the statement that light/missile troops and cavalry were present in large numbers in all the armies of the period. They just did not get any of the glory.

I've been thinking about this ever since I read in more detail about the lesser known battles of Thebes vs Sparta. Specifically the battle of Tygera, in which Pelopidas runs into two full moras of real genuine Spartans (not "Spartans", but actual Spartans). So, Pelopidas and their men were scared shitless, and immediately formed a plan to escape. Pelopidas decided to form his troops into extremely deep ranks with the purpose to punch a hole through the Spartan line, in order to escape. It worked way better than expected. From the description of what happened, it was like the Spartans got hit by a sledge hammer. Both Spartan officers where killed on impact. The two Spartan formations were smashed out of formation. Noticing this, Pelopidas then changed plans on the fly and decided to attack, rather than use that hole to escape. It was the first time the Spartans were defeated by a numerically inferior force. (and these were real Spartans). My personal theory is that Pelopidas drew inspiration from a previous battle during which the Theban army were losing then started to panic, and in their panic, the ensuing mob routed right though through the Spartan line by unintentionally punching a hole in the Spartan line. Later, when Pelopidas needed to escape, he drew inspiration from the previous accidental escape. After Pelopidas's unexpected victory at Tygera, other Theban generals used and built on Pelopidas's new trick. The oblique order evolved battle by battle from Pelopidas's new trick. Which to me says that before this specific battle, it never occurred to anyone that pushing could be so effective. Meaning that there wasnt much pushing before this. All this development in new tactics culminated in Epaminondas's battle of Luectra. In which he defeats the Spartans by creating an insanely deep rank on the left (where the Real Spartans are located in the "Spartan" army.) The Spartans again get hit like a sledge hammer. Again, Spartan leaders die soon after impact. The extremely deep ranks that the thebans used were unseen and unheard of before this war (in known pitched battles). Also, by the time of Iphicrates, warfare in Greece had evolved into something different (something closer to what Philip would employed right after he returned home from being a hostage in Thebes...which means that Phillip's "innovations weren't really innovations... Phillip was merely part of an evolution). Which to me says that warfare in Greece was always evolving...that it is instead the classical idea in everyone's heads of Hoplite warfare that remained stagnant. All era's of Greek Warfare got painted in the color of the golden era of Greek Warfare. So my theory is, that the idea we have of Greek Hoplite warfare, only existed during a brief slice in a spectrum of evolution. Plus, why were the most elite and deadly infantry of Macedonia equipped like Hoplites, while being used for versatile and mobile purposes? I personally think that the Macedonian infantry elite, who were dressed like Hoplites, armed like Hoplites, but are not allowed to be called Hoplites, is an example the most common use of Hoplites. More mobile and versatile and the phalanx wasn't their only or perhaps even their primary trick. Plus, what's up with the shape of the Theban shield? Why do they have oval shields with cutouts on the sides? Why do some others have oval and smaller shields? This to me says that Greek warefar was also not homogenous throughout Greece, in either space or time. It's our incorrect perception of Greek warfare that's erronously homogenous across space and time in Ancient Greece.

@geremynakhone826

Жыл бұрын

A ❤❤ was ❤ and ❤wanna❤

1. somewhat like fighting like rugby players or american football. (closest modern example.) i typed this before watching the video. lul 2. they were farmers up on hills/rocky areas(goat/sheep herders) but im sure their crops yields weren't that good. 3. (i forgot the third) 4. truces are still common to this day most famous ww1 and modern day india-pakistan border fights after fights 1-3 men with a white flagg will gather the dead. 4.5 japanese samurai fights were often individual duels. 5. good video as always. o7 6. wow this video popped off congratulation from a regular viewer on this video. (resaw video number count after 2 weeks)

@cseijifja

Жыл бұрын

that was pre mongol invations, sengoku samurais adn furthers fully fought in coordinated, foramtion fighting, by teh 1600's they were dead ass using pike and shot.

Much awaited, much appreciated excellent insights as always.

Just stumbled on your channel and subbed. Great stuff! Thanks!

While there is much valid arguments within revisionist approach, I feel the whole approach is somewhat forced, as is often the case in academia. The exact minutia of the hoplite battle is not that important-different cities (let alone mercenary groups) surely fought in somewhat different local styles over time and space, depending on a level of available training, discipline and preferences. But the question if there was more pushing or swordfighting in the first ranks is secondary to the effect that we are after all talking about massed heavy infantry that is actively engaged in the close combat which is not that usual over the cultures and require certain level of both organizational culture and martial ethos. There is a reason why Greek hoplite mercenaries were a fixture of late Egypt and most of Persian warfare, tough both had their own (more or less) heavy infantry, and I don't just mean political expediency, but clear battlefield utility also. Also, I feel this theoretical over-reaction was in part triggered by initial oversimplified view of hoplite warfare based on Herodotus, which ignores that there was a long tradition of dense spearman fighting going all the way to Mycenaean times. Granted-those bronze age spearman weren't hoplites in a classical sense, but but they were antecedents and through all the centuries this tradition probably survived at least in part, and evolved into hoplite warfare later on. Again, exact mechanics of those systems are not that important (and are in any case epistemologically impossibly to penetrate due to lack of sources), but one thing can be taken as rule of thumb-tactics can, and indeed must change on a battlefield, but doctrinal notions are much slower to change. So we are talking about level of granulation here.

@chamuuemura5314

Жыл бұрын

@Cirkhan I was looking for this comment. It’s hard to make a title “why we don’t know” then throw in an antithetical view with little evidence that only changes a timeline slightly. My conclusion is I’m glad I wasn’t born in ancient Greece.

My personal view is that the Greeks actually employed mechanized infantry, nuclear artillery, T-rex riders, snowspeeders and battlemages in a combined arms formation as part of their warfare.

@doorkey73

Жыл бұрын

Weirdly enough, you could be MOSTLY right.

Fantastic video! The "othismos" view of the entire phalanx pushing is obviously absurd and a physical impossibility! Even in bronze armor, many ranks pushing on the ones in front would result in many of your own troops being crushed to death. We see this even today and concerts and other events where large amounts of people are channeled into places where their movements are dictated by a 'crowd flow.' There's no practical way to use a human stampede this way, at least so far I can understand.

@TimL1980

Жыл бұрын

My thoughts exactly! I'd certainly be found in the front ranks if the army was raised from my peers - but even 8rows of weaklings pushing from front and back will make it extremely difficult to move a spear or a shield in any directed fashion... possibly even crushing everyone in the middle outright.

@SusCalvin

Жыл бұрын

I don't understand it either. I would have to jog up, run into and past the reach of your spear and just stand there shoving with my shield.

@andymac4883

Жыл бұрын

I had the same thought. Especially with formations as deep as described, all supposedly pushing forward very deliberately on the ranks ahead with their shields, it's hard to imagine how the front ranks would manage to avoid injury or death from the crush. Now I admit that I don't know nearly enough about the mechanics of bronze armour and how it might protect against such things, so somebody could say that it would be more survivable, but as it stands now I have serious doubts about the practicality of a 'shove' style of battle.

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

A phalanx was only 8 men deep, they were trained, and the body armour gives at least some resistance to crushing - it's rigid, not like mail. So exactly like a sports crowd, except it's not.

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

@@SusCalvin You could run into the spearpoint if you prefer.

Phillip II: "Do you see those men with shields and pointy sticks?" Parmenion: "I believe the word you are looking for is 'Hoplite' but I see them." Phillip II: "Okay, now hear me out... what if we got our own shields and pointy sticks... _but we made the pointy sticks extra long like way longer than everybody else_ ??" Parmenion: "... You're a gods damned genius. I'll have my best men on it."

@wankawanka3053

Жыл бұрын

Uh weren't the Macedonians already using regular phalanx before phillip changed it

@attemptedunkindness3632

Жыл бұрын

@@wankawanka3053 You must be the life of the party, explaining why a chicken wouldn't actually cross a road for that reason or another and the like. I'm so glad you took your own keen observational skills, and without regard for contextual social cues you simply applied you and your studied knowledge to a joke. With such jabbing bon mots I am certain the women and men alike must replace their underwear after communicating with you without fail, such talented in the arts of humor you are. That was sarcasm by the way, I am also blocking you because I don't want to see your social faux pas loving social war crime committing ass on anybody else's jokes.

There's a great book on this subject called "A Storm of Spears;" I can't recall the author. In any case, it's a very detailed reporting of modern tests conducted by historians using ancient Greek kit and various hypothesized tactics.

@khalidcabrero6204

Жыл бұрын

Read it a while back. Very unconvincing. Rested on a very flawed and limited understanding of how people actually fight with shield & spear.

@gatorroids3933

Жыл бұрын

@@khalidcabrero6204 how so?

@Don_Juan89

Жыл бұрын

​@@khalidcabrero6204what? I'm not sure we read the same book....

@TemenosL

Жыл бұрын

Khalid Cabrero is right. Storm of Spears is old news, widely and almost universally ridiculed in the historian/International Hoplite discussion forums today. Please read Hoplites At War instead. In contrast, it has not been debunked soundly for almost a decade. :) SoS is deeply flawed for many reasons. The author demonstrates that they cannot properly strike overarm by insisting that the overarm thrust necessarily arcs downward from the initial point of hold, which shows you that they're ice-picking the spear in that arcing motion, which is literally not how anyone uses or should use a spear in general. As a thrusting weapon, your point should move in as direct a line as possible into the target, not arc, as you're essentially hacking with a spear's blade at that point. To my understanding, the author at some point brings a statistical analysis of the method of hold on vase images but that actually works against him, as more vases depict overarm being used. I believe the nail on the coffin is the author's suggestion that the spear needed to be able to penetrate through the bronze cuirass and wooden shield in order to kill the hoplite so he fashions out some kind of absurd notion that men get close to each other and crushed themselves into the enemy, forcing by sheer body weight of the deep formation, their spears forward and into/through their opponents, as this would have the necessary force to defeat the armor. Please do correct that last bit if I'm wrong, but if that is a claim he makes, I shouldn't have to say that that is probably some of the most absurd nonsense I've ever heard. (It may not be though, grain of salt.) However... he did do a good job with analysis of the relative size of the socket heads for spearheads when compared to those of sauroters, which goes to assist the pictorial evidence that shows that hoplite spears were significantly tapered and rear-weighted.

@gatorroids3933

Жыл бұрын

@@TemenosL I haven't read the book which is why I was asking, but I know the dude personally. My understanding of his theory was that the front ranks of the hoplites pin the other formation by pressing their spears against the opposing shields. The back ranks then try to stab at the faces of their opponents who can't raise their shields. Like you, I could be remembering this wrong and it could be his theory has changed over time. The reason I am skeptical on the overarm theory though is that I find it a bit lacking in the shock factor that the phalanx was known for in battles like marathon. How does it account for it's superiority against the Persians? Just better armor and morale?

12:35 Keep in mind that troops will become exhausted in the front ranks after even just 10 minutes of heavy fighting. Having deep ranks mean your formation has more stamina; personally, I hold the Orthodox view, but I think that most of the professional historians that adhere to it haven't picked up anything heavier than a book in their entire lives. The role of Cavalry & Archers/Slingers are completely ignored, which is something that's always irked me in discussions of ancient Greek warfare.

@MajinOthinus

Жыл бұрын

That is because especially slingers and other lightly armed missile troops have little use in a battle of relatively equal forces. They can't reasonably be placed in front of ones's own phalanx as they can't retreat to the rear without fatally disrupting one's own fornation at the critical moment, meaning they'd have to withdraw towards the sides while the enemy was still at a great distance. They could theoretically harry the enemy from the flanks by shooting diagonally, but there is little evidence that this happened often or at all. Finally, you can place them to the rear of your formation, which was indeed done sometimes, but shooting/slinging unaimed projectiles in high arc from behind your own troops yielded relatively little effect, discounting special circumstances. Also bear in mind that most Hoplites, being of generally wealthier class and thus not in their prime anymore had a lightly armed servant or companion with them, to help them on the march and perform ancillary duties such as helping one's own wounded, killing or capturing enemy wounded and so on the battlefield behind the main formation. While generally lightly armed, they would also on occasion throw or shoot missiles at the enemy. Now, missile troops would do a number on an enemy that didn't bring his own missile troops, as in that case, they can just attack from the front and avoid open battle, but if the enemy did bring his own missile troops, both sides would just be occupied fighting their opposing numbers. Cavalry on the other hand was immensely dangerous to a phallanx and its flanks; the problem here lies with the fact that cavalry was also quite expensive to maintain and usuitable in many Greek terrains (which for example doomed the Persians at Marathon, where the Greeks constructed obstacles on one flank and had the other protected by a terrain feature). Nevertheless it was used to large effect in multiple documented cases (an example would be during the siege of Korkyra in 373 BC).

@bustavonnutz

Жыл бұрын

@@MajinOthinus I get it, but places like the Balearic Islands were literally famous for their Slingers, & Archers were pivotal in sieges. I think it's just historical bias; the usefulness of a unit is purely contextual, while armies that the Persians fielded were infamous for their mass deployment of Archers. Regardless, Greek cavalry is still woefully underappreciated any way you slice it. They didn't appear on as many surviving vases, but they were pivotal in most great battles in Greek history. Alexander was definitive proof of the quality of Greek cav, yet there is this assumption that the tradition came out of the aether rather than being a continuation of a longstanding tradition of Horsemanship among the Greeks.

@MajinOthinus

Жыл бұрын

@@bustavonnutz "but they were pivotal in most great battles in Greek history" That's the thing: they weren't. There are some battles where they were pivotal and Alexander used them to great effect, but battles in classical Greece were overwhelmingly won by one phallanx breaking the center or turning the flank of another one.

@bustavonnutz

Жыл бұрын

@@MajinOthinus Were you there bro?

@MajinOthinus

Жыл бұрын

@@bustavonnutz Were you?

I've just gotta say that I love the hell out of this channel. I just can't get enough. Maybe I'm a bronze-age addict. And our host has a way with his own craft.

I must admit, most intriguing title I've seen in a long time

This video only hinted at, but did not explain, the "hoplite revolution". Archaic Greek warfare was aristocratic warfare - as described in Homer (c.800). Full-time trained warriors - i.e. nobles - chasing each other around in chariots on the field, and engaging in heroic duels with other nobles. The masses of "soldiers" in the Homeric epics were negligible - very poorly armed peasants, who were of very little consequence in Homer's time. They did little more than follow the wake of the nobles around the field and cheer them on. Battles were won or lost by the nobility - ergo the privileged places they enjoyed in archaic Greek society. It was upon the nobility that their freedom rested. But the hoplite revolution of the 600s changed everything. It introduced bronze armor to farmers, and a method of fighting that completely nullified nobles-on-chariots. It not only ended the central role of the nobility in warfare, it consequently also ended the privileged place of aristocrats in society. Once peasants became armored, warfare became entirely a numbers game - not who has better soldiers, but simply who has more soldiers. A hoplite does need any training - he is just a peasant whose only duty is to stand in line, hold up his shield and point out his stick. Any bozo can do that. The hoplite is the anti-aristocrat. There is practically no skill and no tactics in hoplite warfare. You stand tight in line and go only in one direction - forward. It is warfare for armored dummies. And that's all that hoplites were or needed to be - armored dummies, arrayed and pointed in a direction. The hoplite's only obligation is to keep his place, and not open holes in the line, i.e. (1) don't flee, (2) don't get out of line and try to engage in heroic duels. This is reflected in the two basic ethical tenets emphasized in classical Greek philosophy - courage & moderation. And classical philosophy duly derided the Homeric values of heroism and passion precisely because they were so incompatible with the steadfast mores needed for classical hoplite warfare. The nobility has no role in this kind of warfare. Nobleman or peasant are indistinguishable. They stand alongside each other in the same ranks, and have the same duties - stay in line and keep your shield up. There are no heroic duels, no feats of valor, no glory to chase. The nobility is no longer special in the classical hoplite battlefield. Whether a battle is lost or won does not depend on them anymore. And not being special in the battlefield means they're no longer special back home either. Weren't the Spartans special? Yes, Spartan soldiers were full-time soldiers and trained, but they were not noble heroes. They were simply braver-than-average hoplites and had (by training) the ability to actually conduct somewhat more elaborate military maneuvers in the middle of a battle. Hoplites of other nations did not train. There are no known mentions or descriptions of training, no evidence of training fields. They were just armored farmers with shields mustered at a moment's notice. As a result, they had no hope to do anything more complicated than just stand or go forward. But that was enough. It is becauseof the social changes brought about by the "new" hoplite warfare that the Greek politics changed. As warfare now depends on large numbers of armored farmers, the pressure mounted on the elites to open up and grant political privileges to peasant farmers, lest they refuse to show up (hoplite warfare is a numbers game remember ? you need every man you can get, or you lose). The political revolution was in the 500s, not the 400s as the video mistakenly insinuates. Ergo why the Homeric epics were so doted on by the Greek elites in classical times. It described a type of warfare that had long disappeared, one that extolled the nobility, their ancestors, and gave them prominence of place - a role they no longer had. The hoplite revolution changed Greek society thoroughly.

@squidmanfedsfeds5301

11 ай бұрын

Well said This situation reminds me of the introduction of firearms to the battlefield Nobles no longer were the most important piece in medieval warfare now it was just using large numbers of regular footmen with firearms once again emphasizing the need to have superior numbers advantage But also giving regular lower class people an easy way to defend themselves and increasing their societal standing

Can't believe nobody expected someone called Hoplite Heresy to revolt

this was very interesting, great video!

Really well done. Not dumbed down or overly partisan. Claims well supported. Vivid images. A rarity on the web, for sure. I'll be watching more.

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! My only caution would be that, if you’re watching earlier videos, those tended to be off the top of my head and not always scripted

Have you considered Roel Konijnendijk's Classical Greek Tactics in this video? His argument revolves around classical Greek armies being little more than heavily armed mobs with the Spartans being the proverbial one eyed amongst the blind.

@absalomdraconis

Жыл бұрын

"Heavily armed mobs" would admittedly have been a semi-common class of armies all the way up to the mid 1800s at least. Your average defensive army was largely that, as medieval serfs for example would largely only be mobilized in case of immanent invasion. Professional armies (like the Spartans) existed, but were not a particularly trivial group to maintain.

Absolutely passionating topic. When I was a kid, I watched a documentary in which they said warfare in Ancient Greece was more a ritual than a rational affair, which can make sense: the fighters were the landowners (often the direct stakeholders in theh conflict) so the damage and the duration must be limited so they can go back to their work, the conflict happened among peers (same people with similar culture and customs and thus respect the same rules and principles), it was not a logic of annihilation but sort of a resolution of a local, material issue. The documentary also mentioned the fights were often were short, a mere few minutes before one of the parties fled and the other pursued and massacred it. What if in ancient warfare, the shock and physical contact were the exception rather than the rule? What if they were in fact the specialties of the most trained/best equipped troops? I have read an argument that one of the reasons Macedonian phalanges used long sarissa and had very deep formation was because they WERE NOT elite soldiers and they needed to be reassured on the battlefield (effect of mass, longer reach of their weapons). Their elites troops were on the contrary equipped with shorter spears and they sought contact. This reasoning is further reinforced by the role of Alexander's heavy cavalry that would be the hammer while the phalanges were the anvil.

@AlexG1020

Жыл бұрын

By the time the Macedonian phalanges were inherited by Alexander they were absolutely elite soldiers, some were long time veterans with decades of experience. Two handed pole weapons especially that long require a lot of discipline to march with in battle-order as Alexander's troops have reported to have done for long periods of time. Due to their nature as the anvil they just had to 'pin' the enemy, and so that is probably why there is a convention they aren't the 'elite' soldiers since they are the ones getting the glory. It wasn't until during the mid-late maniple system that that level of discipline had been seen again since Alexanders/Diadochi's time.

@Hell_O7

Жыл бұрын

Here's something I keep: "The Lakedaimonians had no shortage of people to kill; for then the god granted them an achievement beyond their wildest prayers. To have a crowd of enemies delivered into their hands, terrified, panic-stricken, showing their unshielded sides, none of them caring to put up a fight, but doing everything they could to aid in their own destruction-how could anyone not see it as a divine gift?" - Xenophon. Hell. 4.4.12

@MrSchluck

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexG1020 I may say professionals but not necessarily elite. These soldiers knew how to maneuvre as a phalanx AND as skirmichers as they were also said to use javelins and other weapons. As professionals, their main goal is to survive on and in between battlefields, not necessarily go for the killings. Their particular equipment being more designed to keep ennemies at a distance than seeking contact makes sense to me. I also read that in the confrontation between the Roman legions and Macedonian phalanx suggest the latter had the advantage during physical confrontations. But the Macedonians lost the war to Rome because the social structure that allowed for the maintenance of the phalanxes was insufficient whereas Rome could replenish its legions mroe easily (and of course there were other factors).

Excellent video. Heard this mentioned by Dan Carlin and I rly appreciated getting a better outline of this debate.

It makes a lot of sense really. Missile warfare actually requires larger areas of relatively flat ground because for missile units distance is your best friend. You can think of it as a tower defense game, as long as there's distance between you and the enemy you have the advantage, but once the horde closes in you get overwhelmed and defeated. Also, missile units are actually more deadly and typically leads to higher casualty rates than shock units like heavy infantry. However shock units, as the name would suggest provide greater shock, or psychological, value. It's less personal and more random to have the person next to you get hit with an arrow then it is to see the person next to you get his head hacked off his body. I'm not an expert in this stuff, but I have read a few things written by Xenophon, an ancient Greek writer and soldier who led ten thousand Greeks out of Persia, and some of the things you say he seems to contradict. For instance he says part of Greek warfare, after the initial charge was hand to hand combat and that their spears would often have been broken in the initial charge. Are you very familiar with his work? To me at least, he seems more knowledgeable here and overall a more reliable source than Herodotus is.

Othismos as a primary method combat is mildly insane. It takes only a handful of people to create a lethal crush. Could you imagine the nightmare of being on the front lines if multiple rows of heavily armored men pushing from both sides? It might have happened on occasion but to go into battle with that as the main plan is hard to swallow.

@SlimeJime

Жыл бұрын

It just doesn't make any sense because the Greeks said they put their most important citizens/soldiers on the front rank. If they just get shoved together by a dozen guys behind them... don't you just suffocate every notable citizen in every battle?

@HH-dd2xq

Жыл бұрын

In my opinion, the othismos was probably only attempted after a period of spear fencing when one side thought that the other side was wavering enough that they could be overwhelmed and routed by a final massed push forward.

@patnor7354

Жыл бұрын

osthimos may have been used figuratively, just as we use "pushed back" about modern warfare. I'm pretty sure little actual pushing takes place there...

@dywirnach783

Жыл бұрын

It’s not other than a shield wall we have a lot of examples trough all 1st century after the fall of Rome… I don’t find odd the system , staying all together help to fight and don’t run away .. How many warriors were so brave to lunch themselves against enemy troops , a formation make sense to fix all of this problem

@TemenosL

Жыл бұрын

All of you, George M, Slime Jime, Pat Nor. This concept has already been tested on multiple occasions. It started with a history nerd and enthusiast with a deep passion of the subject, (and a very well-read understanding) theorizing about how othismos might happen if it did. Borrowing from modern understandings of crowd disasters where panicked mobs cause suffocation and trampling of many, and it also borrowed from a concept revolving around the very peculiar and unique shield that followed hoplite warfare around more or less since its conception to its end point, the aspis. Suffice it to say that, while we absolutely cannot pretend to state with any certainty what exactly an 'average' hoplite v. hoplite engagement looked like to a high degree of detail, we can pretty reliably say that the crush of the othismos itself, will not kill you so long as your aspis survives the pressure, because the bowl of the aspis, together with its offset and robust, strengthened rim, allow your diaphragm to continue to expand and contract. First, the initial theory as championed by Paul B.: hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008/10/aspis-surviving-hoplite-battle-part-1.html (click "newer post" at the bottom of the page when done to move to part 2). And, video of bits of the initial tests (there have been a few more by now): kzread.info/dash/bejne/qqx6rtumkqq6j7w.html

Any idea how this can explain how the Thebans defeated the Spartans at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC? The Thebans used a 50-man deep left wing to "smash" through the 12-man deep Spartan right wing. If the heretical view is arguing against a "push" or "sheer force" as the standard tactic of the the full phalanx (and just the first few rows engaging one another), then the Thebans extra rows of hoplites don't really add any advantage other than an attrition tactic against the Spartans. Great talk by the way!

@xeroprotagonist

Жыл бұрын

A couple of other possible advantages to deep ranks aside from what Kanada Dry said - the soldiers in the rear ranks may have javelins they can throw or other missile weapons they could use such as slings, which would rarely have been emphasized in stories or depictions of battles, so the 50 ranks deep formation might hit the opposing force with a relatively enormous number of projectiles when engaging. And if as we've been told, battles lasted for hours, perhaps with repeated engagements and disengagements and the front ranks cycling back to the rear when they were exhausted, a 50 rank deep formation could continually rotate fresh ranks to the front and beat their opponents through physically exhausting them over the course of a few hours. In a 12 rank formation you'd be in the front 3 ranks actively fighting for 15 minutes per hour and that number would go up as casualties mounted, but in a 50 rank formation you'd need to spend less than 5 minutes there per hour. If you attacked at dawn and never let the enemy catch a break, the 12 rank formation would be dead on their feet by noon while the 50 rank formation would be full of energy pretty much regardless of each side's skill in combat. Worse yet, everybody would know this was happening and that'd devastate morale on the side with the shallower ranks, probably leading them to break even sooner. I've seen football and basketball teams with high levels of physical conditioning use similar tactics against less fit teams so that by the end of a game they could score points almost effortlessly against opponents who could barely stay standing. Like, imagine being told you were playing several back to back football games against 4 teams who would each play against you in one quarter per game. I think the 'othismos' crowd crush effect may have happened sometimes just as the natural consequence of two large densely packed groups of men heedlessly running into each other, but most often, both sides would slow down and stop before impacting to avoid getting speared, or one side would break formation and run while the other continued charging and it would turn into a rout or massacre, at least of the front ranks, with some soldiers maybe being trampled. I think we have clear descriptions of all of those things happening on battlefields all through history - that's what happened with a lot of bayonet and cavalry charges much more recently. I think that's the only way to explain a lot of what we know and the explanations of why push of pike was called 'bad war' and produced such terrible casualties - if both sides approached each other at a run which we're told they did, and neither side slowed down, then it would just turn into a crowd crush where everyone was carrying spears pointed at each other. It would have been more like an industrial accident than the contest of bravery and martial prowess they wanted battles to be, which is why it horrified a lot of contemporaries. The people who charged at enemy formations at a run without slowing down almost certainly didn't expect this to happen every time and were probably convinced that their enemy would break first; it's basically a game of chicken if you think about it and usually one or both sides would flinch, but sometimes they didn't. And I bet a lot of ancient Greek armies could have been particularly disinclined to flinch compared to more modern soldiers, if the consequences for defeat were undoubtedly slavery or death.

@lhpoetry

Жыл бұрын

Concentration of force...

Great vid!!

As a student of history who studied this specific topic, this is a very good summary

I believe that we have some evidence of armor changing with the development of the hoplite formation: additional protection for arms and shoulders was more common. When they started to organize in a formation instead of fighting duels, the armor got reduced. I'd love to find the source, but the only thing that I can remember clearly is that an illustration, probably from G Rava, sparked this debate in a forum.

I believe since other people (even barbarians like the illyrians) adopted greek hoplite equipment, it wasnt a matter of battle formation but personal safety which dictated a more heavily and slow style of fighting, on the other hand poorer people that did not have the possibility for better equipment fought in a totally different style.

This was very interesting. I've read a number of books on Greek warfare without thinking too much about infantry tactics. Most of what I read dealt with overall strategy and perhaps I focused more on naval battles.

Love your videos! I'd love to see more of your long-form vids though, they're what I clean my house to, haha

I am in the "extended" camp, and have been arguing this point for years and years. I think exactly when it begins isn't as much a problem as what it could have evolved out of, or been a re-imagining of. As others have stated in the comments here, the idea of skirmishes using lighter, shorter spears and shields, much like those used by everyone around the Greeks and by Greek light troops, seems not only plausible but highly effective for the style of war that would have come after the Bronze Age Collapse. In a place like Greece, after the "Achaean" and their hegemony fell apart, you want from small kingdoms somewhat united by cultural ties, to a lot of tiny settlements barely scraping by, to those settlements finally coming out of a period of societal collapse just before the Archaic Period. Going from warfare that would have been closer to the tribes of Illyrians and Thracians that neighbored them, but when defending their homes from raids became more and more necessary as these settlements grew, they simply adopted heavier equipment. With that came units that were more like the later Thureophoroi, lighter troops that could skirmish somewhat effectively, or pull together into a phalanx. Or, maybe not a phalanx yet, just an early, proto-phalanx; a defensive, tight formation using larger spears and larger shields. We always hear a lot about the battles between Athens and ___, Argos and everyone, Corinth and Thebes and Sparta and Plataea, and these other big names. But there were hundreds, maybe thousands of smaller poleis, and I think more likely than not, they never really abandoned that early style to adopt the heavier phalanx as the core of their military strength. It is just that the hoplites, the battles, are what we get the writing about. The 15 poor, non-citizens, and a dozen freedmen, doing small raids, doing the economic damage that FORCED the battles in the first place, this is an incredibly important part of warfare. And I honestly believe the phalanx simply evolved out of this, by ~750 we are looking at a core of hoplites utilized for battle, the citizens who need to protect their farms, but you also have the lighter troops forcing the battles. They are only very, very slightly lighter at this point. 6ft spears, parma, no armor. Maybe they had some early cloth armor with some actual padding, I don't know yet at that period, but probably not. Maybe going back to the 800s this started to occur, wealthier people buying larger shields, spears rather than javelins, helmets, while the poorer and non-citizens worked as psiloi. The distinctions began to break down leading up to the adoption of the phalanx, until finally the reverse happens sometime at the end of the archaic period; psiloi are not hoplites, hoplites do not fight like psiloi. The idea of the shoving match is just ridiculous. Probably they did shove into one another at times, especially if they believed they saw a gap they could press. But having men a couple feet apart stabbing at each other just makes so much more sense. Especially given the really small casualties reported from the warfare, when compared to the casualties reported (sometimes even by Greeks) in Italian warfare. And similar casualties in extremely close quarters combat in China, and with the Anglo-Saxons and Franks and Goths and Vikings and other "shield wall" using peoples when we get realistic reports of their casualties. In the people who were known for their close-quarters charges, like the Gauls and the Dacians, their morale and stamina never lasted. It isn't as though having discipline gives you superhuman stamina, if you are in tight formation with your friends to the left and right of you, constant pushing is still going to wear you out quickly. And constant push PLUS thrusting, PLUS keeping a large shield up, and blocking, and interlocking. Reenactors trying it are exhausted in 10 minutes, and sure they aren't farmers who work in the fields all day, but top athletes couldn't do it for very long. Especially in full kit, surrounded by 1000 other people, in the Mediterranean Spring or Summer. And if the pushing match was all it took, if it was a battle of mass...why did the lesser numbers win sometimes? Also, how did the Macedonian phalanx work, and how did the Greek phalanx manage to hold against it numerous times, even win on this flank or that at a few battles against a Macedonian phalanx. The Macedonian phalanx had more depth often, but even without it, shouldn't the side with the little shields not have been able to protect against the spears well at all if they were shield to shield? So many problems.

One problem I have always had with the normal idea of the phalanx is that if you had two groups of men 4-7 or more deep both pressing against each other everyone in the front 1/3 or so of the ranks on both sides would just be crushed to death. The idea of them falling and being trampled couldn't even happen as they'd just be crushed to death on their feet. But if fighting was a guarantee of dying then no one would fight in the front ranks.

@lucagerulat307

Жыл бұрын

During an early roman battle (on a bridge) its described that the man in the first line died but remained standing because they were stuck between the guy behind them and the enemy in the front.

@naturalbornpatriot6369

Жыл бұрын

Hmm, no one would fight? Take for example the reputation of the Swiss Guard, they are still in use to this day (granted, ceremonial and tradition more than practical security). They earned the reputation during the pike and shot period. I have read that pile formations when meeting, usually lifted their piles and engaged in close combat, otherwise, both sides are guaranteed mutual destruction. The Swiss however, they did not lift their pikes, and instead would continue into the opposing formation knowing they were going to die. It’s interesting how one group of people or another, can gain such reputation, by simply doing what the other side would not do or was not willing to do. Point is, yes, most anatomically modern humans can and used logic and the instinct of self-preservation more often than not. However, to say “no one would fight in the front ranks” is just not true. More recent history shows that. Seeing how that warfare compared to Classical Greek doctrine (at least common consensus) is similar in some ways, one could argue, “who has more courage than the other?” The side that is willing to die for their diplomatic goals, and their are countless examples that refute your “but if fighting guaranteed death no one would fight in the front ranks”. Men from 2k years ago, not as numerous as today, but far more of them had more courage than todays men.

@jimmydesouza4375

Жыл бұрын

​@@naturalbornpatriot6369 What an incredibly long winded bit of garbage. Here's two facts; A) People don't fight if they know they're going to die. B) If you are leading a phalanx you need your best men at the front and at the rear, simultaneously because they're all going to die you DON'T want your best men at the front you want your disposables as you want to keep your trustworthy and reliable men alive so they can be useful later. Both of these would lead to phalanx warfare, if it was something that was a massive press, not being done. Also the swiss guard and swiss pikemen in general are two different things. And the garbage you typed is not why Swiss mercenaries were wide spread and renowned. The reason why Swiss pikemen were well regarded was because they were a large body of well trained professional infantry in a period where professional soldiers functionally didn't exist. The Swiss produced a large number of them because Switzerland itself could barely sustain its people and becoming a mercenary was one of the most reliable ways to not starve to death (there was other factors, such as it being easier to hire mercenaries than levee). That's why other groups of professional soldiers were then raised to counter them, like the landsknechts. The Swiss Guard itself is a tradition because the Italians and particularly the Vatican were along with the French heavy users of Swiss mercenaries and so having a swiss mercenary guard became a tradition.

@naturalbornpatriot6369

Жыл бұрын

@@jimmydesouza4375 Wow, instead of debating you call my view and understanding garbage? I’m not even going to take the time to read the rest of your response. Jimbo

@jimmydesouza4375

Жыл бұрын

@@naturalbornpatriot6369 Your view and understanding are though. Additionally the problem is more you wasting both of our time typing it.

As a medievalist I should point out that Greece was not the only mountainous or hilly country which favoured long or even longer spears. Caesar tells us that the Swiss tribe, the Helvetii, favoured the long spear while the weapon also turns up in the late Roman/post Roman period in Scotland in the hands of the Pictii. Moving forward again in time, the North Welsh - in the steep Snowdonia hills - used long spear with accounts even suggesting they could see off charging Norman horse. Scotland had retained (or rediscovered) the value of the long spear in the hands of Scots troops fighting Edward I. See the Battles of Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn. The weapon failed at Falkirk because they fought out in the open against English cavalry and longbowmen but at Bannockburn we know that Robert the Bruce created a 'mountain pass' by putting out traps and trip ropes to the flanks. In effect he planned to funnel the English attack onto the spear points but the English compounded this by forming up in a constricted space which allowed no manoeuvre. So the Bruce attacked down his artificial mountain pass. Meanwhile the medieval Swiss went through various periods of favouring shorter spears, then halberds and finally the true pike. If you are fighting in hilly/mountainous terrain the spear, long spear or pike appear almost the 'go to' weapons. And need I remind everyone that the the hills of Macedonia produced the Macedonian pikemen of Philip and the Alexander? Warspite

Great video. I would like to see more content about the Diadochi and later hellenistic phalanx.

Hi, I appriciate your interest and the information you bring here about the greek way of fighting. At 11:35 you mention that othismos was not as intense. But as in a battle between Spartans and Thebaians the multiple rows of the thebaian phalax pushed the phalanx of spartans. But the lines of the spartans did not crashed, and all of the spartans formation rotated. Also you already mentined that there is no meaning to have multile lines without any particiation. I believe that the painters can adjust reality to fit to their plans. 🙂

I watched the movie Zulu the other night, and really how far would Archaic hoplites be from impis? Do they both embody a transition from javelins and stylized distance dueling to mass melee warfare? check. Did they co-occur with a transitional state in the host society? check. The pattern is similar, although the materials and environment constrain the form of the armouries and garb respectively.

What people tend to forget, is there are many purposes of warfare. The hoplite skirmishes described by Herodotus, was not meant for large scale wars like between Greeks and Persians. But between clans within states, fighting locally about farmland. This kind of fighting was quite common among the land owners, and it then influenced how they fought elsewhere. In large wars though, we also see Citizens and Peasants fight, and they use other styles of fighting. Especially the peasant class since they cannot afford heavy armor and weapons. Also note, that the way nobility have fought each other, are often based more on honour, than on tactical manoeuvres. So they would be picking a fair place to fight rather than a place that would give them a tactical advantage. When Greeks had to fight the Persians, they were not only be fighting for the whole existence of Greek culture, but also a type of military that did not match their system of honour, and so their way of fighting them, had to be adapted.

One thing that immediately struck me about the Orthodox view of pushing-centric Hoplite warfare is that having many rows of men pushing each other as hard as they can sounds like a good way to induce a Crush. That is, the folks in the middle being _literally crushed_ by the force of so many men. You see it sometimes in crowds that panic, where those caught between the mob and a hard place get injured or die. Not just through the iconic "fall and get trampled underfoot", but just from being pinned between so large a mass of bodies. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a tightly packed mass of soldiers who are TRYING to all push in one direction would lead to a lot of crushes. As such, it seems unlikely to be just the standard method of warfare for whole cultures. Why would anyone consent to being in the parts of the formation most likely to be crushed between two armies? It's not even a matter of volunteering for the front, because you're brave and seek glory. Being at the middle of a "Crush Generator" sounds suicidal in a way that doesn't appeal to even the most glory-starved. The "Heretical" view, therefore, seems more likely to me. Where only the foremost ranks of each side ever push together, while the hindmost ranks rush to reinforce or pepper the enemy with thrown javelins.

I had the great pleasure to take a course on Greek warfare in about 2004 from Hans Van Wees (roughly center book in that image of recent historiography on the topic). I was thoroughly convinced that the recent view gets it a lot more right than the orthodoxy. It’s telling how much of that orthodox view was spawned by Victor Davis Hansen, who proved to be a pretty enormous nut. Besides convincing evidence for a slow-burn evolution, so much comes down to-as elucidated extremely well in the video-the nature of the othismos and really of any shieldwall. Hansen et al would have it that men fought in a nonsensical way with no thought to the gear they took with them into combat. A literal drunken shoving match that more resembled a human stampede than any other shield wall formation we know of.

To be fair, it's always been a little strange that we should think that a people would adopt a form of fighting that remains strictly adhered to over centuries. Even within the containment of technological advancement or stagnation, tactics never stop changing in response to established norms. Barely a decade goes by without some army somewhere coming up with some new method of overcoming the established form of war. Rome provides perhaps the clearest near example to the Greeks. Generally speaking, with a fair nod towards the technology of the time, Roman soldiers from the late Republic to the East Roman periods do not substantially change their gear as such. Spears, swords, forms of armour, darts, cavalry, etc. are relatively interchangeable with the odd exception, but what changes between, say, the famous Marian reformed legions of the early principate, and the legions that emerge from the third century crisis, is one of change, not to technology, but to necessity. The old method of planted legions, and thus their methods of fighting or formation, became insufficient to meet the demands of the day, thus the formation of limitani and comitatensis units. In ancient Greece, we get inklings of this change in tactical thinking across the centuries, with the introduction of units such as peltasts, or tactical maneouvres like the deepened flank at the battle of Leuctra, or indeed the Macedonian sarissa. It therefore seems unlikely that such changes weren't taking place across centuries of time when Greeks were supposedly fighting the same way with the same general tactics.

Well done. Seeing anyone actually look at something logically is a bonus.

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

This is so cool! I love history. please more videos

The classical hoplites had to hold and thrust their spears overarm when engaging in phalanx warfare, for many reasons: 1) To spear the enemy you had to try bypass his shield, thus you had to lift the weapon over arm and thrust downwards over the enemy's shield to hit the head or torso. 2) You cannot thrust your spear any other way, without hitting the ranks behind you, with the back of your spear. Plus you wouldnt have room to do so anyway. 3) The rank 2 and three has to fight over arm, so their spear can reach the enemy, over their comrades heads fighting in rows 1 or 2. 4) You also have the option to throw your spear at the enemy, if you deem necessary to save a comrade. Imagine how powerful shoulders these people must have had.

@ryankolick4117

Жыл бұрын

This is true with the use of some types of spears but the surviving artifacts do show a slightly different view. Many of the surviving spear parts dated to the late archaic early classical era have a light head with a relatively small diameter socket and a much more massive butt spike with a larger socket than the head. The weight difference would bring the center of balance away from the center and the difference in size of the sockets point to the probability of a tapering shaft which would also bring the center of balance even farther back. This change I where the balance point changes a few things on how one can use the spear 1. It gives a much shorter butt end meaning an underarm or fore-grip with the shaft going along the forearm space to not stab the man behind you 2. It drastically increases reach and while this has benefits to any grip type the over arm grip has some downsides and it actually makes stabbing over the shield a bit harder do to the angle created by the arm. 3. It's likely that this balance and reach allows for the more rear ranks to be more effective. But only really if they use a grip in line with the forearm so as to get reach and not just bonk their comrades on the head with the shaft Not saying the over arm grip wasn't used they were as smart as we are and did this more often. It's entirely possible they used multiple different grips on the spear depending on their position in phalanx and distance to the enemy. To argue against point 3 the pike walls of the medieval and Renaissance periods show the technique thrusting over the shoulder and not the head of the front ranks. As for point 4 a spear like the dori is not a good spear to throw. It can be done but while I see people make this argument I have yet to see a persuasive benefit to the the phalanx formation nor any source of this being done from the phalanx in the later archaic period and early classical

@bingobongo1615

Жыл бұрын

That is all assuming they fought in super tight formations...

@Tonnyman1993

Жыл бұрын

This is nonsense, overarm makes your reach nonexistent because you have to hold your spear in the middle. When holding your spear underarm you can actually grab it by the end and you wont hit anyone behind you. When holding the spear overarm you absolutely will hit someone behind you because you have to hold it at the middle. Get an actual spear and hold it overarm before you talk nonsense theory. And no you do not need to bypass someones shield to hit them. You hit guy on your right because he is holding the shield in his left hand.

@Hades-im1ml

Жыл бұрын

@@Tonnyman1993 when you hold overarm your spear you do no trust. You strike with a sliding technic that allow you to thrust hard an quick. Cf : ThegnThrand made a lot of video about it, and even if I was in underarm team, I change my mind about that. The two grip had pros and cons tough.

What happened was a mix of both shoving and thrusting. It went down like so: Step 1 - Front lines close in to eachother slowly, first rows start engaging by spear thrusting. Step 2 - Front rows have collided and are shield to shield, spear thrusting continues, also in certain cases swords are used for close quarters stabbing. Second row starts spear thrusting as well. Shoving match begins as all rows push forward. Step 3 - Front rows probably have seized attacking by now, and are more focused on their shields, trying to defend, shove back the enemy, and definetally not fall down. Most of the thrusting at this point is done by the second and third rows from each side. (This is the most violent and horrific phase of phalanx warfare). This continues for a short while until one side breaks formation. Step 4 - The side whose formation breaks last, wins the day.

@monadsingleton9324

Жыл бұрын

I think you got it backwards with step 4 - the side that breaks first is the side that loses.

@SusCalvin

Жыл бұрын

That sounds horrifying. You'd have to run up into and past the reach of enemy spears and play shield-rugby while the bloke behind your opponent tries to stab you around the shield.

@therat1117

Жыл бұрын

This seems unlikely for several reasons: 1. Why would the front rows progress from Step 1 to Step 2? It's easier to kill the other guy with your spear at a distance, and getting closer puts you more in danger of being stabbed from the sides by the other guys in the enemy line. This is reinforced by the fact that Greek spears got *longer* over time, not shorter. 2. What purpose does a shoving match have in a battle when each side can simply draw their xiphos and stab each other in the neck when trying to shove, particularly as the aspis is not designed to be held away from the body? 3. If ranks are supposed to break due to demoralisation from stabby stabbing or whatever, then why are so many hoplite-block battles often decided by outflanking, according to ancient authors?

@monadsingleton9324

Жыл бұрын

@@therat1117 1) The other side is just as heavily armed and armored as you, and the panoply was very good at protecting hoplites from spear thrusts. 2) The _xiphos_ was a back-up, the primary weapon was the spear. If that sounds silly, keep in mind all this equipment you're wearing and carrying weighs half as much as your body weight. The fighting season was in high summer, when its really hot, add to that Greek helmets - unlike Roman helmets - severely limited vision and hearing. Its really quite impossible to maneuver, as a phalanx or as an individual hoplite, your options fighting in a phalanx really are limited to advance, push, and stab. 3) Battles where the phalanx was outflanked are rarer than you think. The only three I can think off the top of my head are Thermopylae (480 BC), Chaeronea (338 BC), and Cynoscephalae (197 BC). At those engagements, the enemy the phalanx engaged fielded cavalry and light infantry. In battles that are strictly between phalanx and phalanx, the majority of phalanx battles, the side that holds formation longer during the push wins.

@therat1117

Жыл бұрын

@@monadsingleton9324 1. That is a non-sequitur. The panoply being designed for protection from spears strongly indicates that the main danger a hoplite faced, was spears. This is evidence against the idea of a general close into shoving range. 2. Yes, I know the xiphoi were side-arms, but you still haven't answered the point. If you are literally shield-to-shield with your opponent and you have a 40-60 cm xiphos to hand, why not just stab the man in the exposed neck, leg, or whatever else instead of just shoving more? Also Greek panolpy was not *that* heavy, your number is silly. The corinthian helm was 2.5kg, the aspis was around 8kg max, the doru was around 1-2kg, and the thorax weighed around 5kg. That in total is around 15kg, probably more like 10kg at most minus the aspis. On a 70kg man, that's not that much at all. 3. That is a very lacking assessment. Leuctra (371 BCE) and Mantinea (362 BCE) were won through clever formation tactics (and in Mantinea's case, an envelopment), Delium (424 BCE) resulted in the Athenians enveloping the coalition left wing so thoroughly the Athenians mistook each other for the enemy resulting in a friendly fire incident, then were defeated themselves when outflanked by cavalry, Mantinea (418 BCE) was mostly victory by manoeuvre (complicated to explain, but manoevring errors created holes in both sides' lines which led to multiple cases of routing by outflanking and the Spartans won basically on troop discipline), Marathon (490 BCE) whilst Greek-on-Persian, was won with a double envelopment. Plus, hoplite formations were noted as being extremely vulnerable when not properly screened with skirmishers and cavalry, with the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War losing multiple battles to peltasts, which whilst unrelated to the flanking issue indicates the dynamic nature of the Classical period battlefield. You don't get Macedonian tactics out of a static infantry-bloc combat environment. Also, Cynoscephalae didn't have hoplitai involved at all, only phalangitai.

Spartans and their colonial allies had access to special type of heavy peltasts, called skiritai. Skiritai soldiers were hoplites who carried javelins as their primary weapon and acted as flanking phanalanx formation on the far left, where opponents would have decisive advantage by positioning under normal phanalanx. Basically skiritai's job was to break enemy's morale before main fight began.

In the grim darkness of the dark past, there is only war

So ... the movie "300" was 100% accurate in every regard? Got it! 🙂

What about the Peltist? They appeared in increasing numbers indicating the importance of “lighter” troops on the field of battle

@SusCalvin

Жыл бұрын

One interpretation I've read was about status and ideals. The chroniclers of the time portray their ideal of a soldier and aren't in the business of writing dry army manuals. The kit for a skirmisher is a lot cheaper, so this is where juniors and poorer citizens are channeled when buying your own kit is required.

@robertkalinic335

Жыл бұрын

It might be the same case as for romans, light skirmishers are poor guys without good equipment.

@tomclayton5699

Жыл бұрын

Light skirmishers were generally the majority of troops all throughout the classical period, they just dont get a lot of focus because they were poor and less dramatic

@absalomdraconis

Жыл бұрын

The hoplites probably also got more specialized over time, taking light-duty roles otherwise left to skirmishers ever less as time moved on.

@khalidcabrero6204

Жыл бұрын

They were usually foreigners (at least the good ones were). Skirmishers & slingers actually require skills, the kind of skills mountaineering herdsmen were likelier to have, with long practice against wild animals. The armies of the Greek polis were mostly lowland farmers, and farmers are not particularly practiced hitting anything at distance. But herdsmen from the highlands, particularly those of NW Greece (Arcanania, etc.) and Thrace, were highly valued But they were introduced quite late (during the Pelops war) as flanking harassers. They were practically worthless head-on - a hoplite phalanx is a solid bronze wall. But deployed in the high ground on either side of the battle plain, the peltasts could hit the advancing enemy hoplite line behind their shields with devastating effect. And there's no way heavily-armored hoplites could climb up those high grounds to catch up with them. To counter peltasts, you need to hire your own peltasts against them. Or horses. That was the only reason horses were also introduced at this time - to go after and chase away those damned peltasts. But these combined arms are very late. Early hoplite warfare did not have them. The value of peltasts against hoplites were allegedly first 'discovered' in 429 during Cnemus's campaign in Arcanania.

I have followed the othismos debate since the mid-eighties. Prof Bardunias' theory of hoplite battle is the most plausible concept I have come across. Unfortunately, how hoplites actually fought in a set piece battle will never be able to be proven, one way or the other.

Some of the funniest modern fantasy/artistic interpretations of Greek warfare I've ever seen, among the quasi-contemporary Greek decorative art... thank you for those!

There was a TV series “The Deadliest Warrior” that pitted fighters who never would meet in real life against each other in a computer simulation after testing their weapons and tactics. Samurai vs Roman Centurion for example. It was interesting but I always thought it unfair to compare a warrior such as a hoplite who fought in formation in single combat.

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, it was tripe.

@MrJeffcoley1

Жыл бұрын

@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 They did have some fun episodes though. A few of my favorites: Waffen SS vs. Viet Cong (SS won, the hosts apologized); Al Capone gang vs. Jesse James gang (James gang won - more accurate shooting); and Spetsnaz vs. Green Berets (Spetsnaz won, due to better individual combat skills). That last was really interesting because they got actual Spetsnaz and Green Beret veterans for the testing and evaluation part of the show

@absalomdraconis

Жыл бұрын

@@MrJeffcoley1 : As I recall, they also had Spartans winning against Samurai, essentially because of the shield. They'd apparently expected the opposite, as it was bronze vs iron/steel.

@gradycdenton

Жыл бұрын

The show was entertaining but there was some hokey pseudo science like testing the M16 vs AK47 by shooting cinder block instead of ballistic gell. Yes the AK gets better penetration against blocks but anatomically people are not like block walls lol.

@MrJeffcoley1

Жыл бұрын

@@gradycdenton The Spetsnaz vet was named Sonny. He had perhaps the best line ever. Describing full contact combat training, "once you've developed a tolerance for mayhem, you can ramp it up quite a bit."

Nearly all classical era and medieval times battles are depicted incorrectly on tv and on film. Even a well trained man in superior physical shape could only keep fighting continuously for about 3 minutes. So no battle was fought with close formations pushing against each other, or there would have been massive casualties every time - mainly from people getting choked to death or being trampled over by the masses of fighting men. It appears much more plausible to me that only the first few ranks were engaged in actual combat, with the rest both armies' formations standing a few steps back, in reserve, for when the men in the first and second line were killed, wounded or simply exhausted.

@rippervtol9516

Жыл бұрын

The Romans had an entire system for rotating out the front rank so no one was engaged for more than about 30 seconds if needed out of a 100 man unit.

@AudieHolland

Жыл бұрын

​@@rippervtol9516 Yes I know, I have seen Rome (2005-2007).

the hoplites shield was called hoplon (όπλον) thus and their name, aspis used more by hypaspists a sword unit later than hopliter with roles usually covering phalanx flanks . bodygards, special roles (this units name means in free tranlation under-shiede-r). interesting and great video tnx

Brilliant video

The 8-rank deep phalanx never makes sense to me; the 16-rank deep phalanx used by Epaminondas to beat the Spartans at Leuctra makes even less -- unless pushing is indeed the point. The Roman checkerboard, with soldiers depending mainly on swords, and throwing pila at the beginning of an engagement to disrupt the enemy line, makes a lot more sense -- but they still seem to be several ranks, (4?), deep. Were they stepping in for tired first-rankers? There's still something we're not getting.

@ShummaAwilum

Жыл бұрын

Replace loses and maintain the formation. If the line is just a few guys deep it has no staying power and is vulnerable to getting broken up. Most of the guys in the formation probably won't use their weapons in the actual fight, but their presence at least keeps the guys at the front from having to worry about enemies getting through the line and attacking them from behind.

@TorianTammas

Жыл бұрын

Daniel they dir, get wounded or are othwerwise no longer able to fight. So you need replacements. Not to mention that hundreds of men throwing pila a moment before they contact is more devastating then dozens A line several deep can be flexible to fix holes without need fir a second unit behind them.

@SusCalvin

Жыл бұрын

I like the maniple. It's a formation where you can move forward and not get stuck on terrain pieces. If you are a single solid line of blokes moving forward at a slow walk and there's a few trees or a rock in the way, you got to figure out how to part around them.

@therat1117

Жыл бұрын

The strategy at Leuctra was a stepped line where the very deep rank at the far left formed a swept-wing backwards to an under-strength centre and left. This essentially split off the Spartan right wing as the Spartans couldn't form an even line, and then the larger numbers of the Thebans meant that their line could essentially outflank the broken-off Spartan right with their far superior numbers by simply extending their line, whilst the Theban cavalry had already routed the Spartan cavalry such that the Theban left could not be outflanked themselves. The rest of the Spartans broke once they saw the right flank getting mauled, even though they could have destroyed the Theban right and centre. No shoving match required.

What about the 'Boeotian shield'. Later discarded and used lastly one supposes by the Boeotians. A broad oval, not quite round, and with a bite out of each side to allow the arm to pass with greater ease across its front surface in a similar way that these can be an occasional aid to a musical bow used on a bass or cello. In a full tight interlock of shields this feature would be useless. And so perhaps hints at a slightly looser formation in the earlier period.

@Divertedflight

11 ай бұрын

Addition; "In a full interlock of shields this feature would be useless." Possibly worse than useless. One can't put one's arm through the gap for fear of the shield to my right sliding and trapping my arm, and it provides a handy mostly stationary hole for my opponent to stick his sword through. To quote Jill Bearup; "Just stab me now!"

It's a bit of a stretch, but one of the texts about warfare from the Early Archaic Period is the Iliad, where heroes threw their spears rather than holding on to them as thrusting weapons. As far as I know, the debate continues as to just how accurate the Iliad is in depicting the Late Bronze Age as opposed to the Early Archaic (not to mention the stand-alone duels of heroes in chariots versus "the rank and file" phalanx, so often slaughtered whenever a hero looks for something easy to do), so it's obviously not perfect evidence either way. But it's certainly interesting to consider when placed next to the information you give us here.

Very interesting video, do you have the sources you used when making the video?

If you stop to actually think about it, the Greek way of warfare is entirely different from that of other peoples living in hilly/mountainous terrain. Peoples like the Samnites specialized in loose-order light infantry tactics, same with the Celtiberians, Scots and others. And what about the Greeks of Magna Graecia, how did they fight given that they were mostly facing non-Greek enemies? The Romans abandoned the phalanx early on when it failed against the Celts. One would suppose that the Greeks themselves would have encountered similar challenges.

@eazy8579

Жыл бұрын

Slight correction, but the phalanx was abandoned by the Romans after failing against the Samnites, though the phalanx was used and did fail against the Celts in the 500s, but the phalanx was abandoned in the 390s during the Samnite wars; regardless, an excellent point, and one we need to consider

@hedgehog3180

Жыл бұрын

Actually there are plenty of examples of peoples living in hilly or mountainous terrain developing ways of fighting based around tight spear formations. The Scots that you mention were famous for their spear formations and developed their own tactics based around it and Swiss pikemen went down in history as the force that kicked off the infantry revolution. The key is that tight polearm formations far from being anethma to ambush tactic and light infantry actually complement them. Spear walls are the perfect tool for blocking passes and setting up ambushes and they can serve as a safe haven for light infantry against cavalry. The Greeks themselves did that at Thermopylæ and the use of spears to protect light infantry is exactly what formed the basis for pike and shot warfare. The downside of such formations in hilly country is of course that when maneuvering they easily break apart but if you're just mindful of that and avoid manuevering too much then you can avoid it.

@ShortT-RexLikeArms

Жыл бұрын

Samnites did fight in a looser order compared to a phalanx, but considering their equipment they were closer to medium or heavy infantry.

@matthiuskoenig3378

Жыл бұрын

@hedgehog3180 assuming the infantry revolution even happened (which is contested), the Scots did not start it. Adtionally they (and the north welsh, who were famous for 'long spear' formaitons too, long before the Scots did it) only adopted tight spear formaitons in reaction to cavalry. The Greeks did not. Orginal scot and welsh infantry tactics for fighting infantry is light-medium infantry, especially with javelins. Which is the historical norm for mountain peoples.

@TorianTammas

Жыл бұрын

@@hedgehog3180 The greeks died at Thermopolis and the persians sacked Athens and many other cities. It was a delay of the persian forces that was rather inefficient. The Persians reached at least 90% of there war goals. The only serious loss they suffered was that of the fleet and that was decisive.

This is definitely something that would be best examined through actually *doing* it. Get a bunch of sweaty gym bros and some archaeologists, hand them the kit (give them nerf spears and eye protection tho), and organize them into two phalanxes, and let them have at it. Joking aside, all these claims about how a phalanx would work optimally *are* empirically testable.

I wasn’t aware of the competing viewpoints of the Phalanx in Greek warfare. Overall history should be received with an open mind knowing that just like science, it is imperfect and due to change. Similar to the Clovis first doctrine and how wrong it was. Thank you for such an informational piece!

I've always thought the Linothorax was small scales covered by cloth to keep them flat. The shape of the shoulder doubling strongly indicates this to me.

I'm stoned and this is great

@TheFallofRome

Жыл бұрын

:)

Can you do (or have you done?) a video on why the Macedonians under Philip were able to field such massive armies compared to what the Greek city-states were doing just one generation previously? Was there some big change in agricultural technology that supported a bigger population?

@midweekcentaur1050

Жыл бұрын

Well, Phillip was a king of a large territory. The much larger amounts of land with small farming villages providing many men to join the many lower class positions of the army. Manpower didnt seem to ever be an issue for Macedonian infantry till nearring Alexanders conquest. We see a pretty steady increase in the reported size of the Macedonian infantry. And only a few specific instances of the cavalry getting a size increase.

@chubbymoth5810

Жыл бұрын

Rather than increased productivity, I think you should think of a social difference in the status of soldiers of Macedon.

@TorianTammas

Жыл бұрын

Money, man power, many wars = professional, large, well equipped army. Philip had a large territory, silver mines and the will and ability to wage many wars.

@SusCalvin

Жыл бұрын

@@midweekcentaur1050 The greek city-states aren't united. I thought that any invading empire could try to eat them up in pieces, one city after another.

@SusCalvin

Жыл бұрын

@@xunqianbaidu6917 It depends on what the goals of Persia were. If it was to mount a punitive expedition on a couple cities, that was a success.

Language is such a funny thing. We still use the term "push" today in the military to describe attacking with guns, artillery, and aircraft. Never once when I was involved with a "push" did I actually physically push an enemy combatant. And that's just in modern English with no translations and time for the meaning of the words to evolve. I think too many historians put too much weight on too few poetic descriptions and take the language way too literally.

Excellent!

Sad that you mentioned linothorax, but not spolas, which is probably a more common armor they used. You should read the linothorax article by Paul Michael Bardunias How does the Chigi vase show overlapping shields? Its clear on the left side. Right side is overlapping due to the angle

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

From the derisive tone he probably assumed it's just like a shirt, when in fact they were multiple layers thick and glued together forming a very early composite material.

@gintarassim3239

Жыл бұрын

@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 You should read the article yourself or maybe even The History of the Idea of Glued Linen Armour by Sean Manning. There is 0 evidence suggesting that Linothorax was made out of glued linen. Its a very modern idea and is not even rooted in linothorax, but gambesons in general. Going into any serious discussion in places like International Hoplite Discussion Forum and saying that linothorax is made out of glued linen would probably be taken as a joke and laughed at or be taken as trolling. Either way, not permitted in rules, so banhammer. Edit: Bardunias article delves more into spolas and linothorax, explaining that both leather and linen were used, but nobody can say how. Current consensus on linothorax is that its made from twined linen of which we have actual archaeological evidence being used as armor.

@saraathena

Жыл бұрын

@@gintarassim3239 I tried to find the article from s. Manning and the one from Paul Michael but didn’t find them anywhere. Could you provide a link or something to the site to read those?

Waw, fantastic, Subbed.

When discussing Hoplites and Phalanxes, I find some aspects are always left out: 1. As you aptly mentioned in the video, Greek citizen had to stand and fight since their livelihood was at stake. Then it stands to reason that the hoplite and phalanx evolved because that was the heaviest gear they could produce/buy to ensure the best survival of the individual. 2. Heavy infantry is said to be hampered by rough terrain, but at the same time pack the mountain pass leading to the rival city state full of hoplites and the terrain becomes your ally, even opening the possibility of defeating greater odds. Plus you have the benefit of not trampling over your plowed fields when you fight. 3. As all Greek soldiers were expected to buy their own kit, there are 2 assumption I am comfortable to make: a.) Because of the high price of their gear, greater hoplite numbers could only be fielded, when a city state found ways to increase the wealth of their citizens or find ways to produce cheaper gear(e.g Linothorax). So then a gradually expansion of the hoplite core seems logical. b.) Since equipping oneself to be a hoplite was expensive, we can also assume, that there had to be a significant portion in every army, of troops we would today classify as light troops. My personal opinion is that Hoplites were the pinnacle of Greek warfare, as long as equipment had to be purchased by the individual, the wars stayed regional and seasonal.

@cliffordjensen8725

Жыл бұрын

A Roman legion of the early Republic had about 1200 light troops to 3000 heavy troops. So, 40% of all troops were light. I would guess about a similar percentage for the Greek city states.

@vonPlosc

Жыл бұрын

@@cliffordjensen8725 Exactly, and don't forget the romans heavier troops range ability, which show that the heavier troops could easily support and augment the light troops ability

The phalanx pushing theory annoys me so much because it shoukd be obvious from pure deduction that it wouldnt work. The front ranks would just be crushed. Also whats the point having 8ft spears if youre just going to push eachother anyway.

I’ve always believed the images of Hoplites holding “spears” over hand odd. It’s not an affective way to use a spear , but if it was actually a javelin then it makes a lot more sense. Maybe they fought like a muniltipul line system. The first line running, throwing and then crashing into the enemy. And then if the first line tiers or is inactive the second line repeats the charge

@himoffthequakeroatbox4320

Жыл бұрын

Ok, the shields overlap. So you have to go low (like below the thigh) or high (over the top). Then bear in mind that there's your comrades behind you, and they have legs and stuff. You do know that when you hold a spear, a fair bit of it is behind your hand, right? The overhand jab is the same action as throwing, only _you don't let go_ - you have a lot more control of it than you would down by your knees. As the icing on the cake, guys as far back as the 4th row can have a jab at the enemy too.

@therat1117

Жыл бұрын

It's also not a matter of simply ineffective use, but the fact that holding an awkward 1-2kg weight overhand for hours will tire you out phenomenally compared to underhand grip. And the Greeks for some reason would have to be the only people in the world who used an overhand grip in spear formations for reasons unknown to gods or men.

@khalidcabrero6204

Жыл бұрын

It's an extremely effective way to use a spear. In fact, it is how practically all traditional spear-and-shield fighting is done in anywhere in the world. The spear is always held overhand. That's also how it is shown in nearly all historical depictions (e.g. Bayeux tapestry). That is, if you use it as a spear, and don't think of it merely as a glorified sword. Trying to use a spear underhand while holding a shield in the other is stupid. For starters, you'll hit your own guys behind you with your butt. More dangerously, you can't actually thrust without opening your (big round) shield and exposing yourself. Underhand spears are more awkward, require more strength to hold, less likelier to hit anything and are easier to be grabbed or get stomped by the enemy. Spear held overhead is thrust down from above the shield, allows you to maintain your shield defense, hits no friends behind you and gives you much more power & reach (esp. by letting it slide forward in your hand - a major advantage of a spear), with less risk losing your spear. If you want to stab underhand, then use a sword (more blade, less butt). And narrow your shield (don't expose).

@nathanbrownell1036

Жыл бұрын

@@khalidcabrero6204 I’m sorry my friend but you’re totally wrong. You should go a watch some videos of other KZreadrs that have proven that underhand spear use is far more affective. One the comes to mind is Lindybeige. There are countless others that have show this to be true also🫳🏿🎤

@nathanbrownell1036

Жыл бұрын

@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 as before you should go and watch some of the aforementioned videos. And in this video they clearly state that tightly packed row was not actually how they fought. You bash with your shield then open it out and thrust with your spear underhand.

Reading M.A. Christopher's 'Storm of Spears' I was struck at how silly the old orthodox views of hoplite warfare and equipment had been. It seems that none of the 18-20th century professors had ever wielded a spear or shield nor worn a helmet because they had very silly ideas about how they would have been used.

@jeffreyhenion4818

Жыл бұрын

But they played team sports on the grassy pitches of countless public schools and universities. Coincidence? 😊

Great video. What is the name/provenance of the painting shown from 10:13 to 10:37?

Is Hoplite Heresy a joke on Horus Heresy from Warhammer 40,000?! It seems like it?