Ave, I'm new to the forum. I tried searching, but couldn't find anything about a comparison between the Hoplites (or hypaspistai, if you prefer) and Phalangites, and thought I would pose the question about their tactical differences.
There are of course many obvious differences, and from these we can make assumptions as form follows function. However, these appearances can be deceiving, so I thought it would be better to ask. For example, one might see that the sarissa is longer than the dory, and thus assume phalangites always win in a frontal engagements due to their advantage in reach, but I have not read enough about engagements between them to say.
To give another example, Phillip did place the hypaspitai on the wings of the phalanxes, and they were the more elite troops, so we could try to surmise several tactical differences from this; that the hoplites were considered more flexible than the phalanx. The fact he used his better troops for this role could be something telling about hoplite formations -- it is a popular conception that pike blocks are suitable for less-skilled men, these days -- but it could also simply have been because he wanted strong men on the flanks.
I could convince myself of all sorts of theories on the matter, and my minor experience and reading could give credence to these ideas... but I would much prefer to know what the community has studied on the matter.
Thank you for taking time to consider this and being patient with my ignorance.
There are of course many obvious differences, and from these we can make assumptions as form follows function. However, these appearances can be deceiving, so I thought it would be better to ask. For example, one might see that the sarissa is longer than the dory, and thus assume phalangites always win in a frontal engagements due to their advantage in reach, but I have not read enough about engagements between them to say.
To give another example, Phillip did place the hypaspitai on the wings of the phalanxes, and they were the more elite troops, so we could try to surmise several tactical differences from this; that the hoplites were considered more flexible than the phalanx. The fact he used his better troops for this role could be something telling about hoplite formations -- it is a popular conception that pike blocks are suitable for less-skilled men, these days -- but it could also simply have been because he wanted strong men on the flanks.
I could convince myself of all sorts of theories on the matter, and my minor experience and reading could give credence to these ideas... but I would much prefer to know what the community has studied on the matter.
Thank you for taking time to consider this and being patient with my ignorance.
