The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paullus Scipio]

I would find myself largely in agreement with Paul B.'s post here, but would comment as follows....

Fred wrote:I would propose that each warrior type, hoplite and phalangite, had its strengths and weaknesses, with the former offering better offensive potential at greater expense and the latter offering excellent defensive characteristics at lower cost. Ultimately, just like in modern trench warfare, defense ended up ruling the day; once pikes got long enough, it was simply too hard for hoplites to cut their way through their overlap and kill/wound the phalangites holding them.

I don't think there is such a solid trend in sarissa lengthening for you to correlate against. Don't forget the simple dominance of Macedonian-derived militaries. Just as the US derived 5.56mm has replaced other calibers- some of which would have been superior in the Gulf war setting- there was surely cultural pressure to rearm that was not of neccesity tied to peformance.

I agree with this. I have (so far unpublished) evidence that strongly suggests that in fact ‘Sarissa’ length did not vary anything like as much as supposed…but largely stayed around the optimum 16-18 ft .As I have suggested elsewhere, changing your equipment isn’t necessarily about ‘better technology’ but often about the ‘perceived success’ ( e.g. of first ‘pike and pelta’, then of ‘scutum and pila’) or responding to ‘perceived threat’, and sometimes just soldiers thinking brandishing ‘enemy’ weapons is ‘macho’.

Fred wrote:

This probably was what prompted a revival of the throwing spear, which could (like the Roman pilum) project offense forward into fronting phalangites and, perhaps, give the hoplite a chance to disrupt and get at some of the pikemen (note, however, that such missiles would have been carried only in additon to the dory, which was retained for its shock combat value).

Be careful, I know of no battle where thrown spears were significant in breaking formed sarissaphoroi. You'll need to correlate thureophoroi-vs-phalanx battles, being sure to recall that phalangites could be longche armed as well. Where the Romans, who were essentially thureophoroi, succeeded was in having the tactical flexibility to exploit terrain effects and attack a phalanx with smaller modular units.

I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest ‘double arming’. Either ‘sarissa’ OR longche were employed, never, AFIK, both together. I agree with you about some of the factors for Roman success though ( see also previous post)

Fred wrote:

Protected like hoplites, but more flexible and well able to take advantage of disruptons in the Macedonian array over rough terrain or as devloped during the course of a battle, the Roman swordsman put an end to the phalangite era, causing Hellenistic armies to adopt Roman gear and techniques after 168 B.C. -Fred

Polybious (here I should be giving you the reference) is clear that Romans could not stand up to the frontal assault of a phalanx. Remember that the hastatii that first faced a phalanx was rather poorly armored, and the scutum was often "pinned" by the sarissa.

Polybius XVIII.30-32….(Inter alia) “So it is easy to see that, as I said at the beginning, nothing can withstand the charge of the phalanx as long as it preserves its characteristic formation and force…”