![]() If the hoplites were not locked i would think that the pike phalanx would had an easy time. Your logic is correct.pikes could keep heavy infantry at range but why that disproves locked shields?the opposite i may suggest.A locked shieldwall of 1 metres shields would cause surely a stalemate.Cause sarissas would stab over and over again against the hoplons.After some times some would break the hoplons some would be breaked by theri selves.At some point the pike phalanx would cause casualties at other point hoplites would come closer and closer.If they could reach at dory reach all was over.however this was very rarely the case. By extension, spears must also be good at keeping enemies at a fair reach and so locking shields was uncommon." As you say though that was not ordinarily the case. If they had not been then the phalangite's comparatively inferior close-quarters equipment would have caused their defeat. If the battles were such close affairs then the pikes must have been very effective at keeping enemies at a long reach. "Linking that back to my original post on why I don't believe most Greek battles involved locking shields with the enemy that only supports my claims. The best we can do is make conjectures and models with the limited tools we have available As the stronger formation drove into the weaker one, the latter's ranks would be somewhat disorganized and broken.īut I'll freely admit I have no Idea what I'm talking about as all we have to work with are old quotes with ancient translations, modern analysis, and our own logic. I've also read that there are references to this "shoving" to be an actual trained and calculated maneuver. ![]() ![]() If not then the back ranks could slowly push the front ranks to close to locked shield distance where the front rank might then draw their swords and the second and third ranks could continue to use their spears. A battle could possibly be won at this range if one side was broken. They may start out at spear distance with the first few ranks jabbing at each other. My very uneducated and amateur guess would be that hoplite battles could take place in any number of ways. More directly, later writers talk about the men in rear ranks of a Macedonian-style phalanx using the weight of their bodies to push those in front forwards (Polyb, Asklep, Tact, Ael)" "Xenophon advocates that the best men should be placed in front and rear of a phalanx so that the worst men in the middle could be 'led by a former and shoved by the latter'. 4.3.19) suggests that the opposing lines, having crashed into each other, shield to shield, literally started to shove, and shoving (othismos) evidently was a feature of many a battle." "Xenophon's description of the second encounter at Koroneia (Hell. "Xenophon's description of the Spartans and Thebans at Second Koroneia, when 'crashing their shields together, they shoved, fought, slew and died' "If neither side gave way in these preliminary exchanges, the pressure from the rear would sooner or later force the opposing front ranks to close right up to each other, shield to shield, and many sources mention the crash when this happened. I really have no idea what an engagement between two forces of hoplites looked like and I haven't read this entire thread so maybe these ideas have already been countered but here are some quotes from Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience i find relevant 2K A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia.846 A Total War Saga: Fall of the Samurai.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |