Hoplite Charge

[Al Amos]

I'm engaged in a discussion as to if hoplites charged/ran into battle.

 

Did hoplites charge/run into battle the last few hundred feet, or not?

 

I believe they did. In his Osprey book "Greek Hoplite 480-323 B.C." Nicholas Sekunda he states they did and called it the epidrome. I believe him.

 

Thanks for any information.

 

al amos

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

I'm engaged in a discussion as to if hoplites charged/ran into battle.

 

Did hoplites charge/run into battle the last few hundred feet, or not?

 

I believe they did. In his Osprey book "Greek Hoplite 480-323 B.C." Nicholas Sekunda he states they did and called it the epidrome. I believe him.

 

Thanks for any information.

 

al amos

It depends on how you think hoplite fight worked. But most current models consider that the most important thing in such kind of formation was the cohesion of the unit, a cohesion that a run would most likely disturb, except maybe for very, very well trained units (as Spartan or Theban Sacred Band units). Also the almost complete lack of light infantry and distance weapon (at least early on) did not make a charge useful to diminue time under fire. Finally it is generaly considered that the time of contact was closer to american football contact or british rugby melee, with two great corps pushing against each other and using weapons in an overhead fashion to try to cut (and thus exhaust) the enemies in the first ranks in order to split the enemy formation which would then crumble and flee, giving their back to slaughter...

What use would thus be a final run in the last few hundred meters ? None. But a higher walking pace on the sound of music to provide an equal step to all and some increased velocity for the crash of contact, well described in our sources, is something we can (and in fact must) consider as probable.

[Melvadius]

It depends on how you think hoplite fight worked. But most current models consider that the most important thing in such kind of formation was the cohesion of the unit, a cohesion that a run would most likely disturb, except maybe for very, very well trained units (as Spartan or Theban Sacred Band units). Also the almost complete lack of light infantry and distance weapon (at least early on) did not make a charge useful to diminue time under fire. Finally it is generaly considered that the time of contact was closer to american football contact or british rugby melee, with two great corps pushing against each other and using weapons in an overhead fashion to try to cut (and thus exhaust) the enemies in the first ranks in order to split the enemy formation which would then crumble and flee, giving their back to slaughter...

What use would thus be a final run in the last few hundred meters ? None. But a higher walking pace on the sound of music to provide an equal step to all and some increased velocity for the crash of contact, well described in our sources, is something we can (and in fact must) consider as probable.

 

I would tend to agree with Byraxis here given that any unit 'charging' would need to be able to keep control of their weapons and keep or at least redress their 'order' before contact with the enemy. The Hoplite Association who attempt to re-enact both the equipment and fighting styles of the period are definately of the opinion that given the shields were 'locked' together and the spear used overarm the only way to make 'first' contact with an enemy successfully is in a controlled block.

 

To me this requirement would tend to strongly mitigate against any attempted rapid advance such as by a charge. From watching other forms of re-enactment the most likely movement that may have been attempted would be a short forward step with one foot follwed by the rearmost foot coming up behind the first in a step together motion.

[caldrail]

In phalanx, nope. A deliberate paced advance only, because otherwise the formation would break up and in any case, running with such long pikes would be ridiculous. Using spears or swords, of course they would charge if it was considered advantageous by their leader. In that case, keeping formation is irrelevant, because you're effectively trading formation (essentially defensive in nature) for 'punch' and aggression.

 

Would they charge? Not if cavalry were anywhere around. That requires defensive thinking, and thus a foirmation is necessary for mutual protection.

[caldrail]

But of course the phalanx isn't a defensive formation I'm suprised no-one pulled me for that bloomer. Please pay attention people

[Maty]

But of course the phalanx isn't a defensive formation I'm suprised no-one pulled me for that bloomer. Please pay attention people

 

Erm, the Macedonian phalanx was. it pinned the enemy infantry while the cavalry worked round the sides. That was the general theory anyway.

 

But returning to the Greek version, note that an Olympic event - the hundred yards - had to be completed while wearing full armour. And we know of at least one hoplite charge at a full sprint, which is the one that took the Athenians under the Persian volley at Marathon.

 

And I'm speculating here, but I'd imagine a wedge of hoplites running into a battle line might disrupt it somewhat.

 

My two bits. I'll now await correction from people who actually know what they are talking about ...

[caldrail]

A phalanx is a phalanx. The whole point is to push long spears into the face of the enemy by weight of numbers, or in the case you mention, keep them busy whilst cavalry took advantage of an opportunity. Not defensive at all.

 

Exercise value apart, running at the charge into an enemy is not about keeping formation, it's about aggression. Wedge formations are however something of a grey area. They're almost always described as offensive in nature yet make far more sense as a defense against frontal cavalry attacks, persuading horses to flow either side rather neatly. There really isn't any advantage in setting your phalanx as a wedge or a column when advancing on the enemy, and arguably the column attacks across a broader front from the off thus is less easily defended against.

[Kosmo]

But of course the phalanx isn't a defensive formation I'm suprised no-one pulled me for that bloomer. Please pay attention people

 

Erm, the Macedonian phalanx was. it pinned the enemy infantry while the cavalry worked round the sides. That was the general theory anyway.

 

But returning to the Greek version, note that an Olympic event - the hundred yards - had to be completed while wearing full armour. And we know of at least one hoplite charge at a full sprint, which is the one that took the Athenians under the Persian volley at Marathon.

 

And I'm speculating here, but I'd imagine a wedge of hoplites running into a battle line might disrupt it somewhat.

 

My two bits. I'll now await correction from people who actually know what they are talking about ...

 

I believe that classical hoplites were trained only for the phalanx formation and that this formation was used in attack or defense. Classical Greek armies were composed of hoplites that clashed in a head-on assault with the opposite hoplite phalanx without any fancy maneuvers. The use of different types of soldiers, tactics and formations became important only with Epaminondas, Iphicrates and Philip II.

[Centurion-Macro]

Maybe, but I think they focused more on holding their formation together, and presenting a steady line of spears at the enemy. It would have been tactless in my opinion for them to run, as it would disrupt the formation and possibly allow the enemy to get among them.

[caldrail]

I would add that 'charging' in phalanx, whilst laughably impracticle, is also unnecessary. The weight of numbers advancing remorselessly behind multiple ranks of pike heads was more than effective enough to compensate for any loss of aggression.

 

Now, as to whether a phalanx is defensive, that can only be the case when facing them from the front. Arguably it was possible for the formation to reverse direction relatively easily, possibly even left or right, but they can only present pikes in one direction. In each over aspect they are vulnerable.

 

This is of course why armies using phalanxes advanced in line, so that each phalanx was 'protected' by the one next to it, and also a good reason for winning the cavalry confrontation on the wings.

[barca]

Now, as to whether a phalanx is defensive, that can only be the case when facing them from the front. Arguably it was possible for the formation to reverse direction relatively easily, possibly even left or right, but they can only present pikes in one direction. In each over aspect they are vulnerable.

 

According to Appian, the phalanx at Magnesia attempted to maintain a defensive front in all directions:

 

[

[caldrail]

Present pikes in all directions? Strictly speaking that's no longer a phalanx and should be considered a square. A different formation, one that remains stationary and attempts to fend off any cavalry in the area. The Romans were of course correct. What they needed was plenty of missile troops to whittle down the defenders - and I see they did exactly that.

 

The phalanx is not a unit type. It's a specific formation for using long pikes in a particular way.

[barca]

The phalanx is not a unit type. It's a specific formation for using long pikes in a particular way.

 

 

Alexander's phalangites were capable of getting into various formations:

 

circle, square, concave line, convex line, wedge, pincer, etc.

 

Are any of these formations consistent with your specifications for a phalanx?

[caldrail]

Any unit composed of any soldiers you like can form phalanx if they have spears/pikes of sufficient length. Roman legions had a flirtation with phalanxes for a while. The phalanx is a formation. If the unit assumes another formation, it isn't a phalanx anymore. How hard is that to understand?

[Centurion-Macro]

Any unit composed of any soldiers you like can form phalanx if they have spears/pikes of sufficient length. Roman legions had a flirtation with phalanxes for a while. The phalanx is a formation. If the unit assumes another formation, it isn't a phalanx anymore. How hard is that to understand?

I agree with this. If it assumes another formation, say a wedge, it is no longer a phalanx, but a wedge.

 

~I personally hate the phalanx tactic. It is a dirty way of fighting in my opinion, as you never really connect with your opponent. You just stab your spear and hope you hit someone, while in turn hoping not to get hit. The Roman way of fighting was a lot more flexible and successful.