Hoplite Charge

[Melvadius]

Present pikes in all directions? Strictly speaking that's no longer a phalanx and should be considered a square. A different formation, one that remains stationary and attempts to fend off any cavalry in the area. The Romans were of course correct. What they needed was plenty of missile troops to whittle down the defenders - and I see they did exactly that.

 

The phalanx is not a unit type. It's a specific formation for using long pikes in a particular way.

 

Actually as has already been noted variations on the 'phalanx' formation have been tried and how you describe them depends on how the unit is formed and consequently is not necessarily based on a square or rectilinear formation. The Scottish Schiltron was a circular formation which made use of 12 foot long spears to reasonable effect although while it was a basically static defence against mounted knights and not primarily intended as an attacking formation.

 

The real crux of the question is that a phalanx formation is now usually seen as a single mass of troops with forward facing spears/ pikes which were best employed against similar armies or as the core of an army with supporting troops on the wings where the phalanx's were used as the 'anvil' against which opposing armies could be broken or break themselves.

 

The Roman's experimented with this formation notably in the earlier Republican consular armies but with limited success and soon started the series of reforms which led to the development of the more mobile legionary armies.

[caldrail]

The phalanx is very specific in terms of composition although numbers vary. The important point is that solid mass of men advances with multiple ranks of pikes presented to the fore. Other formations had other names but the problem is that the phalanx was effective in its heyday and thus became the predominant formation for infantry until some leaders (Romans amongst them) realised the shortcomings of this rather inflexible attack strategy and formulated means to counteract it.

 

Warfare has a triangle of options that has always applied whether in ancient or modern times. Firepower, Protection, Mobility. Any unit (or machine if you want to include the modern day) can only have a certain maximum potential which is shared among the three factors with differing emphasis. If you wear more armour, you're better protected, but your mobility will suffer. And so forth. With the phalanx, the emphasis is on 'firepower', albeit limited to the forward direction, the idea being that it's difficult to stop a big block of men closely packed together with row after row of sharp points ahead of them.

 

There are other ways of attacking with pikes, but essentially that means you've opted not to form Phalanx. Unless you have better protection or mobility, the only way to counter a line of phalanxes is to form phalanx and advance back at them (may the sturdiest phalanx win).

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Also one has to remember that the Phalanx is born in a place of narrow valleys where peoples defended the access to their town and, even more, fields against their foe, engaging in rather flat places where their aspect would be one of a wall of pikes in the way, a wall that could only be broken by another compact formation such as the phalanx. Later, when number of men grew from some hundreds to thousands of troops, the fighting moved to larger plains and valleys but always, as much as possible, on flat ground. It is only in the late hellenistic period that fighting in rugged terrain became more common, and especially against a specific foe : the Romans.

[barca]

~I personally hate the phalanx tactic. It is a dirty way of fighting in my opinion, as you never really connect with your opponent. You just stab your spear and hope you hit someone, while in turn hoping not to get hit.

 

 

Interesting aside comment.

 

Is any type of warfare really "clean"? The entire business of killing people is dirty no matter how you do it.

 

If comming face to face with your enemy and exchanging sword thrust is "clean" and everything else is "dirty":

 

shooting an arrow, throwing a pilum or javelin-- all dirty

 

flying a bomber and dropping bombs on cities below-- real dirty

 

...and then you have land mines -- outrageously dirty per WT Sherman

[caldrail]

It's a matter of personal perspective. Many might consider a one on one fight to be honourable regardless of weaponry - that's often a facet of human psychology displayed in our everyday activities. At the other end of the extreme, whilst I personally abhor the use of land mines, I do recognise my enemy might regard them as a convenient means of killing and injuring their hated enemies. It's always different if you're on the receiving end.

[okamido]

I'm engaged in a discussion as to if hoplites charged/ran into battle.

 

Nicholas Sekunda he states they did and called it the epidrome. I believe him.

 

Thanks for any information.

 

al amos

 

 

Epidrome is one of the Greek words used for "suprise attack" and basically meant a type of raid. I haven't read the book you referenced in a while, but if Sekunda is referencing the final charge at Marathon, I can see it as being proper usage as the Persians may not have thought that the Athenians would break formation and charge them, thus being a massive suprise. It may be a stretch but without knowing the context of how it was used, I am just guessing. In reference to its specific uses as a named charge, I can't recall anything ever stating that it specifically meant that; it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist of course, just that I have yet to come across it.

 

Prokatalambanein, and Klope could also be used for "suprise attack".