Was the Greek Phalanx unique in its way?

[Sean Manning]

What is the difference between the Greek hoplite phalanx and the closed, packed formations of other peoples, like the Sumerians, which today also go by that name? Is there even a fundamental difference in terms of armour, weapons or tactics?

We don't know so much of the Sumerian phalanx; it is best known from sculpture. The main difference, I would say, however, is the social embeddedness. In Greece, war was the business of the entire citizenry - or at least the male half as far as it could afford a panoply. In Sumer, warfare appears to have been the job of the king and his men. Another difference: Bronze Age versus Iron Age. Greek weapons were better.

I believe there are also hints of a militia in Sumer- several early epics talk about an assembly of warriors.

Obviously the equipment varies a bit between cultures and periods. In terms of social embeddedness, Kelly De Vries has pointed out that medieval phalanxes did best when the gentlemen got off their horses to fight in the front ranks (or when the phalanx was dismounted men-at-arms). Since medieval society was aristocratic, that reflected society. Medieval infantry tended to do poorly on the offensive, but that may have been because they faced such ferrocious cavalry- I'm not sure the Greeks were any better drilled on average. The exception was the Swiss, who had a sense of solidarity in their communes rather like the people of a polis or Roman citizens, and who often won with a sudden charge.

In terms of battlefield role, I think there were fundamental similarities between all well-protected close-order infantry armed with hand-to-hand weapons.