Spartan hype?

[PMBardunias]

Of course you don't !......and we can debate until doomsday without reaching consensus........ .

I will cease if this is really saddening you.

[Paullus Scipio]

Not at all ! I am merely saddened that, human nature being what it is, we are neither of us likely to change our views/opinions, hence we are unlikely to reach consensus........!! :lol:
I am all for a good debate, as you keenly observed. :wink:
And the universe won't come to an end just because we disagree about a subject that cannot be definitively proved either way !
As I said, the fact that the evidence is poor and doesn't allow factual conclusions, hence much speculation, is half the fun of these endless debates.........
Only fair to say though, that I have had this debate many times, which in part frames my views, but I am always open to a new piece of information, or a novel interpretation, which might change my mind and lead to a eureka! moment !! :o o
So put your case....but be prepared to back it with sources !!

[F. Antili Oregensis]

I'd say that confronting the Spartans head on was one of the more interesting aspects of Theban tactics. I've seen more than one comment that the Spartans tended to send their least reliable allies against the best of the enemy troops. That could be part of the complaint against the Spartans.
Didn't the Spartans initially want the Athenians to fight the Persians at Platea, as an example?

[Paullus Scipio]

....indeed. It was customary, and a jealously guarded priveledge, for the 'senior' Ally/Unit to take post on the right, traditionally the post of honour. This led to the strongest units tending to face the weaker units of the enemy's left (the least honourable post).
On that basis, one would have expected the Thebans and Spartans to have taken the right, facing their opponents respective left.
To tackle the Spartans head on, by taking the left, was a bold decision on Epaminondas' part - his contribution to victory - and it so nearly failed, as related above.
At Plataea, the Spartans 'gave way' to the Athenians ( a signal honour) on the basis that they had bested the 'barbarians' earlier - at Marathon.

[PMBardunias]

Ah, your double-sad emoticons confused me. I thought I had guessed wrong and insulted you.

Quite right ! Once the half-files moved up into close order 'shield to shield', no manouevre other than advance was possible - one of the main reasons to do this, along with creating a solid fighting 'wall'.......so your psiloi had better have been recalled before you closed up !!

First thing, let me make sure I understand your position. When exactly do you think they "closed up?" I thought You believed that they came onto the battlefield, stood in files of 12, and advanced in this depth and loose spacing. Then upon contact with the enemy phalanx, the rear 6 men of the file filtered between the lines to form a close-packed 6 deep phalanx. Let me know if I am misunderstanding you.

I won't just gloss over Isocrates comment since there is no reason that he would not have followed the ranking convention and labeled them as a "2" by your scheme.

Nonsense, I could teach recruits to do this type of manouevre by ranks i.e. open order to close order and back in half an hour( and have done! ), let alone by files/half-files, which is much easier. Xenophon describes how it was practised by the files going to their mess etc.The Ten Thousand, hoplites from all over Greece, and not Spartans don't seem to have had any trouble moving from open to close order and vice versa.
Any Hoplites could do this in a heartbeat.

But could they do it once they had run 200 meters and their front line had engaged? I doubt it. If you are into the literature on this, as you seem to be, you'll know that most authors assume that the phalanx cannot keep its formation and spacing through the charge. The usual tendency is to assume that they spread out, but this is not true. They extend along the line of advance and contract laterally. This is simple herd dynamics, if they cannot maintain their spacing, they will invariably become more compact. At the end of the charge there would be no room for files to filter into. Thukydides comment makes it clear that the spacing is not opened during the charge, but tightens as men seek their neighbors. Even he did not fully understand what was occurring though, the men could not but be biased right by the position they advanced in.

Why ? He had obviously studied the subject and had access to more and better sources than you and I. His and the other 'drill manuals' are really all we have to go on, so why disregard them in favour of modern, totally theoretical ideas ??.

I don't dismiss him, but we have to acknowledge that he has certain biases based on the fact that he grew up in a specific tactical doctrine. The word phalanx for example did not have the same meaning that it did to Xenophon. I don't think you'd deny that both you and I probably have a better understanding of Mycenaean warfare than homer.

And if you read it carefully, he is describing hoplite warfare, almost pure and simple, and in particular addressing the Thebans and their tactics, as well as what the Spartans should do in his fictional battle of "Thymbrara".

It is Thymbara that makes me question its utility. The Cyropaedia often digresses into a fantasy world of cavalry action and missile warfare that went beyond what was common in Greek battles. What this was was Xenophon reflecting on what could be done with cavalry of the type that he knew from Anatolia- and that Agiselaos formed. In this it almost has more in common with what was to come from Thessaly and Macedon than Sparta. If he meant the assyrians at Thymbara to be Thebans, then he, like Cleombrotus, misunderstood what the Thebans were doing and percieved it to be an attempt at envelopment. I like to give him more credit, and the date of the Cyropaedia is fairly late, so I think it is mostly fantasy, but I believe the way his forces hit the advancing column in the unshielded side is what the Spartan plan was at Mantinea. To hit them on the right as they pushed the Mantineans back.

That 'shoving' by groups here and there took place is possible, even likely, see e.g. footage of riots, but on a co-ordinated lengthy front, never !!

I think you overestimate the amount of coordination needed. Anyone who has been to a sporting event has seen a long linear crowd coordinate to do a "wave". All the coordination is local and in small sections. The synchronicity is only important from the rear to front ranks, not laterally along the line. The clashing lines may well have looked like a writhing snake from above.

How do you explain 'counter-marching' ?
'Doubling' (a.k.a halving) the file ?

But when? Once the lines had met? Not likely since if they could do this they could do such things as fight in relays instead of closing up. I don't doubt that they could move in half files, only that this was the depth they engaged in.

Each lochagoi leading his file 'two by two'? - Cyropaedia
The references to files of 'tens and fives', and 'twelves and sixes' ? - ibid
The Ten Thousand's "Battle formation" i.e. close order as four deep?.....

I think Xenophon's 4 ranks formations against non-hoplites are the exception that prove the rule. There was little fear of extended othismos against the ill-equiped asiatics- even egyptians who could push but would have been unable to bear such pressure long. thus the hoplites did not need their usual depth and formed for maximum length.

[Paullus Scipio]

...sorry,Bardunias, but, as we say here in Oz, are you taking the p*ss ?
Or just being deliberately obtuse? )
You don't address the points put forward, nor do you put up an alternate viewpoint, supported by the sources. Is this RAT's answer to the "Mall Ninja" ?? :lol:
At any rate, I set out the mechanics, as I saw them, of Hoplite drill, in "Warfare in the Classical World" as long ago as 1980 - have a look at that if you are confused. All manouevring had to take place in open order, but the final approach/charge into the enemy would have taken place from just outside missile range, say 50-100metres, once the psiloi had been recalled/spontaneously withdrawn after running out of missiles. At that point the general would have given the order ( probably passed on by trumpet) to close up, and the final advance/charge commenced in close order - the "moment of truth", the commitment to battle , as it were, was the order to close up to 'battle formation' since no further adjustment was then possible.

"run 200 metres.."? Where did you get that idea? That would be a recipe for disaster, arriving 'blown', out of breath and in disorder !! :o Only at Marathon did Hoplites advance to battle over any distance, and both the distance involved, and whether it was at a run or fast walk, are hotly debated matters.

I don't believe Arrian misunderstood the meaning of phalanx, nor had its meaning changed much since Xenophon's day - 'a body of men in linear battle array'; but perhaps you have? :?
And if Arrian has bias, doesn't everyone?
I most certainly would not have the temerity to suggest that we know more about Mycenean warfare than Homer !! Even if he was simply heir to a long verbal tradition; and arms and armour, and tactical methods were different from his own day, so that he was "wrong"in part, once again, he had access to sources, long lost, that we do not. I have said elsewhere that it is a good precept to believe the sources, unless they are demonsrably wrong in some particular and even then, only discard that particular, not the whole.
Isocrates means what he says - a single line.
"most authors assume......". Evidence? citations? sources?
" herd dynamics" ? This is not a flock of sheep we are talking about here but professional, trained, Spartan Hoplites!! Even Asiatics fought in formations not 'herds' or 'blobs'. The whole point of drill is to get men to overcome their fear in the stress of battle and function. A battle is lost once cohesion/disciplie goes and mob/herd behaviour takes over. This is emphasised over and over since time immemorial.......
"Thymbrara" was Xenophon's opportunity to explain how to deal with Spartan'envelopment' tactics as well as Theban'column' ones, and , as you say an opportunity for an experienced cavalry commander to expound on cavalry and light troop tactics in the the light of his Anabasis experience.
Sorry, but you must put forward a hypothesis/alternate theory, cite your sources, and explain the matters I have alluded to in some alternate way if worthwhile debate is to continue.

[geala]

Maybe your very interesting discussion has reached a point where only a big field experiment (rather impossible) or the find of new sources (hope never dies) can solve the problems?

I would like to make two remarks:

The Roman legionaries moved and fought with 6 feet order according to Polybios. That this man was wrong here is absolutely not convincing cause he said they faced two phalangites this way which fits perfectly with our other knowledge. If these part time soldiers could match moving in at least a kind of open order, the Spartans (and other hoplites) would have been able to do this too.

Othismos is in my opinion the only way to receive a rather fast and decisive victory in classical phalanx battle when the enemy phalanx had not broken before contact. The enemy lines standing a metre or so away from each other and stabbing at the nearly totally protected hoplites would have resulted in long fights, like in some medieval battles (Towton f.e.). Hoplite battles mostly seem to have been rather short affairs. With pressure you could bring the enemy out of order which could result in panic and rout. The goal was not to push the whole enemy phalanx back but to achieve breaks in it locally.

[PMBardunias]

You don't address the points put forward, nor do you put up an alternate viewpoint, supported by the sources. Is this RAT's answer to the "Mall Ninja" ??

Or perhaps simply a Mall Rat. No need to get so fiesty.

At any rate, I set out the mechanics, as I saw them, of Hoplite drill

Well I am glad you clarified this since I was under the impression that you were one of those who believed that hoplites clashed in opened order. Thus we have far less difference of opinion now. I believe that enomotia of 36 men formed close order by splitting in three, you believe they did this by splitting in 3 and then in 3 again. If you are correct, this in no way alters my perception of phalanx combat,it simply thins all ranks equally.

J.K. Anderson wrote a paper on Xenophon's Rep.Lac. 1.11.10. He describes the enomotia of 36 being drawn up in 3's 12 deep, or alternately in 6's 6 deep. It is clear that these are Alternate battle formations and not formed loose and close respectively.

I don't believe that they had to be formed loose in order to conduct a Laconian countermarch. They turn right, then the man at the end steps forward and all the rest move out in fromt of him in order until the filelleader is at the fron of the file facing the new direction. This was not a "U" turn in which the file doubled.

"run 200 metres.."? Where did you get that idea?

This is what the Thebans did at Coronea. Goldsworthy specifically states that 100-200 yards was a common distance that the charge was initiated. Do you have this paper? even though I chopped it apart, it is a good paper for details.

'a body of men in linear battle array'; but perhaps you have?

Fair dinkum mate, but the function of the "linear array" is implied in the understaning of the word. The Fulcum is a linear array and it's mechanics are in no way simmilar to a hoplite phalanx. Surely you can see the semantic problem of asking Arrian, Wellington, and Patton what a battle-line is? You can have a "phalanx" of peltasts or cavalry, but the connotation is not the same as a hoplite phalanx.

I most certainly would not have the temerity to suggest that we know more about Mycenean warfare than Homer !! Even if he was simply heir to a long verbal tradition; and arms and armour, and tactical methods were different from his own day, so that he was "wrong"in part, once again, he had access to sources, long lost, that we do not.

But we have access to much more than he had. We have the benefit of Archaeology from all over the region, comparative material from Egyptian and hittite sources, etc. We also do not have to color our interpretation for dramatic effect and to flatter contemporaries- unless you are Frank Miller of course.

"most authors assume......". Evidence? citations? sources?

Start with Xenophon's description of Coronea or Cunaxa to understand the upper limit to when they broke into a charge and the consequences. Then read at least two papers, Goldsworthy (97) and Luginbil's othismos paper- between them they cite most everything of interest.

" herd dynamics" ? This is not a flock of sheep we are talking about here but professional, trained, Spartan Hoplites!! Even Asiatics fought in formations not 'herds' or 'blobs'. The whole point of drill is to get men to overcome their fear in the stress of battle and function. A battle is lost once cohesion/disciplie goes and mob/herd behaviour takes over. This is emphasised over and over since time immemorial.......

This is not true, order can be lost and reform. Hoplites can begin a charge formed, lose formation as they advance and reform on contact. This is because hoplites fought synaspismos, a formation that is self-assembling like lego blocks. Hoplites were very much a crowd. If hoplites did run in the charge, then what I described had to have occured. I know of no one who believes that they could maintain spacing and ranks while running.

"Thymbrara" was Xenophon's opportunity to explain how to deal with Spartan'envelopment' tactics as well as Theban'column' ones, and , as you say an opportunity for an experienced cavalry commander to expound on cavalry and light troop tactics in the the light of his Anabasis experience.

I agree completely, thus he presents something beyond what was possible for the hoplites of his day. We should not expect a reader to think he could break through a column AND maneuver around the rear of the opposing force with a troop of hoplites in time to be relevant to the rest of the battle. So his writing does not translate directly to greek hoplite tactics.

Sorry, but you must put forward a hypothesis/alternate theory, cite your sources, and explain the matters I have alluded to in some alternate way if worthwhile debate is to continue.

If you don't see that I have, then perhaps you are correct that we should not continue. We can never solve this problem by citing sources alone, though I have given you many, and assumed you were familiar with others I drew information from- like the 200 yd charge at Coronea. If you read the various papers on how hoplites fought, you'll see that both sides cite exactly the same passages. We need to look beyond them to such universals as psychology, physics, and battlefield mechanics to get beyond the impass.

[PMBardunias]

I'd say that confronting the Spartans head on was one of the more interesting aspects of Theban tactics. I've seen more than one comment that the Spartans tended to send their least reliable allies against the best of the enemy troops. That could be part of the complaint against the Spartans.
Didn't the Spartans initially want the Athenians to fight the Persians at Platea, as an example?

I have always found it interesting that the Spartans placed the Mantineans on the right at Mantinea. My feeling is that they intended to allow the Mantineans to soak up the advance of the deep Theban phalanx, and then take them in the unshielded flank as they forced the Mantineans back. This might explain the high casualties among Theban officers, who I presume would have been stationed on the right. This would have been a difficult maneuver both to time and to carry out and was obvioulsy not wholly successful.

[Paullus Scipio]

Maybe your very interesting discussion has reached a point where only a big field experiment (rather impossible) or the find of new sources (hope never dies) can solve the problems?

Agreed, inpart at least! I don't believe a field experiment is necessary, because the sources make it relatively clear how matters developed, at least to me, though others differ of course !

I would like to make two remarks:

The Roman legionaries moved and fought with 6 feet order according to Polybios. That this man was wrong here is absolutely not convincing cause he said they faced two phalangites this way which fits perfectly with our other knowledge. If these part time soldiers could match moving in at least a kind of open order, the Spartans (and other hoplites) would have been able to do this too.

I think we are probably all agreed on this.If they couldn't move in "open order", why would it be described ?

Othismos is in my opinion the only way to receive a rather fast and decisive victory in classical phalanx battle when the enemy phalanx had not broken before contact. The enemy lines standing a metre or so away from each other and stabbing at the nearly totally protected hoplites would have resulted in long fights, like in some medieval battles (Towton f.e.). Hoplite battles mostly seem to have been rather short affairs. With pressure you could bring the enemy out of order which could result in panic and rout. The goal was not to push the whole enemy phalanx back but to achieve breaks in it locally.

Yes, I agree, pushing was probably done 'locally' so to speak, with a view to 'breaking' into or through the enemy, thus breaking the enemy's cohesion.What makes you think Hoplite battles were short ? Off-hand, I can't think of times being given, other than vague ones such as 'they broke immediately' or 'the battle lasted a long time'. And what do you have in mind by "short"? Just minutes, or something like an hour? [/i]
I would agree that spells of combat would of necessity be short - a few minutes at most( c.f. boxers/martial artists/fencers - humans can't keep up combat for long ) and that abattle might consist of a series of these, until one side had enough - modern riots give us some idea of the mechanics of battle ( as we have discussed elsewhere).

[Paullus Scipio]

Or perhaps simply a Mall Rat. No need to get so fiesty.

.
I wasn't - that was a joke - note the LOL. My previous remarks were because your lack of a hypothesis led me to suspect you were 'egging me on'/'winding me up'/'pulling my leg'. My apologies for my paranoia!

J.K. Anderson wrote a paper on Xenophon's Rep.Lac. 1.11.10. He describes the enomotia of 36 being drawn up in 3's 12 deep, or alternately in 6's 6 deep. It is clear that these are Alternate battle formations and not formed loose and close respectively.

Not sure what you are referring to here ? Do you mean Xenophon xi.4 "These regiments at the word of command form sections (enomotia)[ in single file] sometimes two, sometimes three, and sometimes six abreast." ??
If so, this tells us nothing about 'close' or 'open' order, since it clearly refers to moving in a column of varying widths, and nothing to do with Battle formation.

I don't believe that they had to be formed loose in order to conduct a Laconian countermarch. They turn right, then the man at the end steps forward and all the rest move out in fromt of him in order until the filelleader is at the fron of the file facing the new direction. This was not a "U" turn in which the file doubled

Sorry ? I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here, it sounds as if you are describing is a movement 90 degrees to the flank. All counter- marches (as opposed to 'about turn/face') involve marching to the rear, which is physically impossible in close order ( as anyone who has performed drill can tell you), especially if the troops are carrying aspis !Each man would have to barge through the ranks behind him ! It is only physically possible in open order!!

This is what the Thebans did at Coronea. Goldsworthy specifically states that 100-200 yards was a common distance that the charge was initiated. Do you have this paper? even though I chopped it apart, it is a good paper for details.

Ah, Coronea ! I'm glad you mentioned that since it is a good example of a Hoplite battle and proves a number of my points. Xenophon's account is worth looking at in full,the notes in black are mine:-
15] Those who were now drawn up against Agesilaus were the Boeotians, Athenians, Argives, Corinthians, Aenianians, Euboeans, and both7 the Locrian peoples; while with Agesilaus was a regiment of Lacedaemonians which had crossed over from Corinth, half8 of the regiment from Orchomenus, furthermore the emancipated Helots from Lacedaemon who had made the expedition with him, besides these the foreign contingent which Herippidas commanded( the balance of the “Ten Thousand), and, furthermore, the troops from the Greek cities in Asia and from all those cities in Europe which he had brought over as he passed through them; and from the immediate neighbourhood there came to him hoplites of the Orchomenians and Phocians. As for peltasts, those with Agesilaus were far more numerous; on the other hand, the horsemen of either side were about equal in number. [16] This, then, was the force on both sides; and I will also describe the battle, and how it proved to be like no other of the battles of our time. They met on the plain of Coronea, those with Agesilaus coming from the Cephisus, and those with the Thebans from Mount Helicon. And Agesilaus occupied the right wing of the army under his command, while the Orchomenians were at the extreme end of his left wing. On the other side, the Thebans themselves were on the right and the Argives occupied their left wing.
[17] Now as the opposing armies were coming together, there was deep silence for a time in both lines; but when they were distant from one another about a stadium(or stade, about two hundred yards – to charge from this distance was unusual, which is why Xenophon makes a point of it, and indicates that perhaps the Theban side were nervous and anxious), the Thebans raised the war-cry and rushed to close quarters on the run. When, however, the distance between the armies was still about three plethra,( about 100yards – a typical distance, as I referred to in a previous post) the troops whom Herippidas commanded,(the very experienced “Ten Thousandâ€

[PMBardunias]

...because your lack of a hypothesis

I never claimed to have a hypothosis about how they got into their fighting array- only that I don't believe for a myriad of other reasons involving the mechanics of hoplite battle that they fought in 4's and 6's.

Others might say that they stood in enomotia (36) during what you refer to as opened order, then deployed in 3's or 6's depending on what frontage and depth they wanted. I think 6's was rare and a specialized formation. We know they could face light troops in an even deeper deployment of Orthioi Lochoi or stacked Lochoi.

Why have 6's at all you might ask. If you envision how you turn a 36 man enomotia into lines of 12, you'll need to peel off sections of six from 2 lines of 18.

Fair dinkum mate
I'm afraid this expression is somewhat obsolete, so the sarcasm falls a little flat ! But good try !

You obviously have not been to the Top End or Kimberly recenty- I had a research site in Darwin- though I admit that Prior to my research there, Benny Hill's Digger Blue sketch was my most formative Australian experience. I even have a hat with dangling corks- to go with my Hawaiian shirt, american tourist uniform.

The whole point of forming up is to arrive together, and I very much doubt if any formation can 'reform' when each individual is busy fighting for his life !

No, the whole point of a Spartan advance is that they arrived together in good order- this why spartans were famous. If everyone could do this so easily then why make a big deal of spartans who marched slowly in time to flutes? I have a paper somewhere showing an experiment where 10 men in line could not keep formation above a 200 yrd run. I have a hard time believing that 12 (or 6) ranks of men could for even half that when we add in the odd boulder and rabbit hole.

I brought up Koronea because you sad they never charged from 200 yards. I presented the upper limit. Obviously the short charge was better for keeping order, but the something-less-than-a-mile charge at marathon was done as well and has to be fit into the same tactical scheme. By the way, were I Persian I'd take offence at you placing the range of my archers at 50 meters! Thracians could out throw me!

(send me an email, I am happy to send you copies of all of these that you have not read. This just a friendly argument and I truly respect your depth of knowledge and wish to feed it.)

The warriors charge in a line and arrive in a line (admittedly in 'open order' !! )

Thank you for making my objection. Opened order is no order for phalanx combat. They did not fight in opened order. If they arrived in "opened" i.e. staggered lines, the gaps between would immediately be filled by men from behind as they caught up.

Hoplites never fought synaspismos AFIK , because the sources say so, and because it would have been physically impossible !! ...Since the Hoplite shield is 2cubits, 3 ft, 90 cm or so across, and sticks out around 1 cubit, 18 inches 45 cm to the left of the soldier, synaspismos is not possible for Hoplites, and even if it were they certainly couldn't run in this formation

Keep your Macedonian drill out of my Hopites. I mean just what the word says, then fought in othismos with overlapping shields. That they could not run like this in formation tells you why they could not keep formation when they ran. the only limit to how tight they could pack was their shoulders- tighter perhaps since they had one arm raised.

except maybe a slow shuffle forward - it was a defensive formation

The slow shuffle forward is the phalanx offensive formation- but I cannot go deeper into this portion of the arguement at this time.

I agree we need the sources, just as we need the pictorial evidence, but though they form our base we cannot be slaves to them.

[Paullus Scipio]

I'd say that confronting the Spartans head on was one of the more interesting aspects of Theban tactics. I've seen more than one comment that the Spartans tended to send their least reliable allies against the best of the enemy troops. That could be part of the complaint against the Spartans.
Didn't the Spartans initially want the Athenians to fight the Persians at Platea, as an example?

I have always found it interesting that the Spartans placed the Mantineans on the right at Mantinea. My feeling is that they intended to allow the Mantineans to soak up the advance of the deep Theban phalanx, and then take them in the unshielded flank as they forced the Mantineans back. This might explain the high casualties among Theban officers, who I presume would have been stationed on the right. This would have been a difficult maneuver both to time and to carry out and was obvioulsy not wholly successful.

This is not correct, in my opinion. After Leuktra, one would have expected the Spartans to be champing at the bit for a chance to show the Thebans who was 'top dog'. Xenophon tells us the reason why the Mantineans had 'the post of honour' on the right.
"As for the question of leadership, they arranged on the spot that each state should hold it when inside its own territory." Xenophon, 'History of my times' VII.5.3.
The battle took place in Mantinean territory, ergo.........

[Paullus Scipio]

I never claimed to have a hypothosis about how they got into their fighting array- only that I don't believe for a myriad of other reasons involving the mechanics of hoplite battle that they fought in 4's and 6's

..a pity wink:
Failing a hypothesis, how about setting out some of your 'myriad reasons', or would that be anticipating your Ancient Warfare article??

You obviously have not been to the Top End or Kimberly recenty- I had a research site in Darwin- though I admit that Prior to my research there, Benny Hill's Digger Blue sketch was my most formative Australian experience. I even have a hat with dangling corks- to go with my Hawaiian shirt, american tourist uniform.

Nope, haven't been up there for years - but if someone said "fair dinkum", they were most likely using an old phrase to set up an ozzie stereotype - a 'leg pull' probably, Australians having a taste for dry, laconic and subtle wit. 'Hat with dangling corks'? 'Hawiian shirt'? Priceless !
You must love a good cliche! oops: )

No, the whole point of a Spartan advance is that they arrived together in good order- this why spartans were famous. If everyone could do this so easily then why make a big deal of spartans who marched slowly in time to flutes

Oh dear ! Going to have to disagree with that too ! I think the point about the Spartans here is that they supposedly cold-bloodedly marched, probably cadenced, into battle to the sound of the flute, while others needed a war paean, and a charge, to work up their courage.

I brought up Koronea because you sad they never charged from 200 yards

No I didn't ! At least not exactly. I said if you charged from that distance, you'd arrive blown and disordered, and doesn't Xenophon's account tend to bear this out ?

By the way, were I Persian I'd take offence at you placing the range of my archers at 50 meters! Thracians could out throw me!

Don't want to digress about missile ranges, (yet another fascinating topic!)Pysics and experiments show that Persian bows had a maximum range of 175-200m. Effective range on the other hand, was less than 100m, and more like 50m - this is why slings, arrows and javelins all had their uses on the battlefield, because their effective range was not too different.

send me an email, I am happy to send you copies of all of these that you have not read

Done !! D

Keep your Macedonian drill out of my Hopites. I mean just what the word says, then fought in othismos with overlapping shields. That they could not run like this in formation tells you why they could not keep formation when they ran. the only limit to how tight they could pack was their shoulders- tighter perhaps since they had one arm raised

Shan't ! As you yourself acknowledge in the "Othismos" thread, phalanx warfare was an evolutionary process, and as such the drill manuals are relevant, as being close to the final developed form of phalanx warfare. Perhaps it began as Hoplites only able to form up in close order, and march forward, but by Xenophon's day it involved sophisticated drill (e.g. Laconian counter-march) - and not just Spartans either (e.g Athenian innovation at Marathon). I'm having trouble following your premise here. First you say they charged at the run, herd instinct takes over and they lose formation, then you say they fought with overlapped shields in synapsismos 'locked shields' - 1 cubit per man fontage, 18 imches, 45 cm , packed tightly and only able to shuffle forward slowly? ? If so, known battlefield frontages would make no sense! I might be able to just about believe this of the Theban column struggling to break through the Spartan line at Coronea, but not as a general rule ! :? shock:

Perhaps the "Ancient Warfare no.3" article will reveal more ! We wait with bated breath!

[PMBardunias]

This is not correct, in my opinion. After Leuktra, one would have expected the Spartans to be champing at the bit for a chance to show the Thebans who was 'top dog'.

By this logic the Spartans should never have agreed to the accord described above. Had they beaten the Thebans, it would have looked like a Mantinean victory. As it is the ancients (mostly athenians, and not since the Phocians drove off the persian assault aimed at annihilating their phalanx above Thermopylae has has an ally dropped the ball like the athenians at Mantinea) went out of their way to give the honor of killing Epaminondas to one of a variety of Mantineans. Diodorus's tale of thrown spears just as he won is pure drivel. Personally I buy the story of the spartan with the sword since the author claims that privaledges were still being granted in reward to his ancestors generations later in his own time.

I think you sell the Spartans short tactically- but most do. I agree with what you posted before about the Cyropaedia. It was describing how to beat such a column, because Xenophon knew Spartan tactics, and it worked. Not in time to save the battle, but to end the war.

Compare what Xenophon says about how Agiselaos should have attacked the rear or flank during stage 2 of Koronea. (yes back to that battle again :lol: )