Was the Greek Phalanx unique in its way?

[Eleatic Guest]

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?

[Jona Lendering]

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.

[hoplite14gr]

Packed ranks of spearmen negated the martial talents of the aristocracy.
Lined spearmen top protect archers existed from the Bronze Age.

King Pheidon (if we trust Herodotus) collected the massed spearmen, armed them with a heavier shield with porpax and antilave, drilled them to move in formation and used them as an offensive weapon.

So far no contemporary culture had tried this thing.
The residents of Italy were the first to follow suit.
The Persians later prefered to hire these type of troops rather than develop them themselves

The innovation was when Phil 2nd used offesively pike armed troops

At later time most spear armed medieval infantry was operating as preclassical spearmen until the time when the Swiss adopted pike tactics.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

A basic difference with most other tightly packed troops was the shield wall produced by overlapping round and curved heavy shields with double grip. There were many oddities in the greek phalanx. But of course as Jona said,there were also fundamental differences. The Phalanx and the city were two closely related terms. As for the weapons quality,I wouldn't say it plays a big role,except for the shield idea.
Khaire
Giannis

[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.

[Jona Lendering]

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).

I like to know more about this. Can you name the title of the book?

[Muzzaguchi]

Hi Jona and all,

Well, I don't think that that observation is original to De Vries.

In the Old English poem the battle of Maldon the commander, Byrhtnoth dismounts and takes the place among his hearthtroops although it is clear several of the men rode to the battle but all fought on foot. At the opening of the poem (as it survives) Byrhtnoth instructs his men to drive their horses away. I think that the details of the poem and the corroboration from other sources (such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Liber Eliensis) make the poem a very reliable source (and in fact it is the best source for Anglo-Saxon shield-wall warfare as well as the transition of the Germanic comitatus found in the Agricola into a later age). At the crux of the battle one of the retainers, Offa, flees the battle on Byrhtnoth's horse - indicating that they were not kept far from the battle line.

There is also one instance (I think it is at the battle outside Antioch during the first crusade) where the number of dismounted knights (due to the deaths of their irreplaceable warhorses) took thier stand with the foot troops - I think the Gesta Francorum explicitly states that the reason the infantry held firm was because of the presence of the aristocratic knights. Is the situation the same for the English at Agincourt? (I can't remember)

There must be more examples

Anyone

Cheers

Murray

[Jona Lendering]

There are more examples of knights joining the infantry: the Battle of the Gulden Spurs is a well-known case; the Battle of Vlaardingen is less well-known.

[Sean Manning]

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).

I like to know more about this. Can you name the title of the book?

I was thinking of Kelly De Vries, Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century: Discipline, Tactics, and Technology (The Boydell Press: Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1996). Its definitely in the tradition of J.F. Verbruggen's great book.

Well, I don't think that that observation is original to De Vries.

In the Old English poem the battle of Maldon the commander, Byrhtnoth dismounts and takes the place among his hearthtroops although it is clear several of the men rode to the battle but all fought on foot.

I think you're right, Muzzaguchi. The Strategikon mentions that the Frankish cavalry have a habit of dismounting and forming a defensive ring when they face heavy attack. However, it doesn't say anything about them joining their infantry. I think you're right that there are some examples from the First Crusade.

The English knights definitely dismounted at Nothalerton in 1138, and fought among their spearmen and archers against the attacking Scots. At Agincourt, the English men-at-arms fought on foot because that was normal defensive tactics, and the French immitated them because they thought that would be more effective.

[Kineas]

At the risk of paraphrasing Hanson, the Greek phalanx would be distinguished for most of its history by the fact that its members were the landowners and politically active men of its society. Sumerians--or even Macedonians--had considerably different "stakes" in their societies, and that, rather than a technological issue, is probably at the root of their difference.