Re: HUH?

Discuss the culture of Alexander's world and his image in art

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: HUH?

Post by amyntoros »

Hi Paralus,Oh, I'm sure he's wrong - just find it amusing that this comes from a professor's website that is probably used in his classes. I have NO idea from where he got this information, but there's no archaeological or literary evidence to support this as far as I'm concerned.ATBAmyntoros
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: HUH?

Post by Paralus »

Quite so Amytnoros.The hoplite spear was a stabbing spear GÇô much in the same way the Macedonian cavalry used its xystons.In classic hoplite confrontations it was push, shove and stab down at the eyes and throat or up and under the shield at the opposing phalanx.How anyone thinks this is achieved with a sixteen-foot spear is beyond comprehension.As you say, evidently an error. But, an error of understanding or a silly manifestation of some strange form of pike related dyslexia??And on his website no less!And here's silly me according Philip the kudos for this revolution in phalanx tactics all this while.Back to the booksGǪ.Paralus.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: HUH?

Post by Paralus »

Just one more observation Amyntoros. The good doctor makes another rather strange point.Whilst stating (correctly) that the Macedonian phalanx was Philip's creation 'extended by Alexander", he goes on to make the observation that the Greeks still fought in what he terms their three battle lines.Now, since I assume he does not mean three fronts, he must be referring to depth in relation to the phalanx. If there was anything traditional about the depth of classic Greek phalanxes, it was that they were eight ranks deep, hardly three.In fact, it was the massing of the Theban phalanx on the one wing that carried the day at both Delium (424) and Leuctra (371). It is assumed this massing (at least a Leuctra) was some sixteen to twenty deep.As to the well-drilled aspect, I suspect the Spartans in their pomp might have taken issue with that. Indeed their maneuvers at Mantinea (in 418) show considerable "flexibility" and drilling. They were somewhat past their best then.Philip was also well aware of what the well-drilled Theban hoplite was capable of GÇô three lines deep or no.Paralus.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: HUH?

Post by amyntoros »

****As to the well-drilled aspect, I suspect the Spartans in their pomp might have taken issue with that. Indeed their maneuvers at Mantinea (in 418) show considerable "flexibility" and drilling. They were somewhat past their best then.****
Indeed. Not to say that the Macedonian phalanx wasn't well-drilled, but if Polybius (Book XVIII. 28 GÇô 32) is to be believed, it was their very "inflexibility" which made it possible for the Romans to beat them. The good professor at Boise claims that the strength of the Macedonian phalanx was "its many formations and maneuvers." Formations, yes, but maneuvers? No, not in my opinion. Lengthy sarissae extending past the bodies of five men would make it difficult, if not impossible, to change the direction of attack while in the throes of a heavy battle. As Polybius says: ". . .it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength." The solution, again according to Polybius: "The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemyGÇÖs reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. "
Of course, the Macedonians fought the Romans under lesser commanders than Alexander and on battleground which wasn't always suitable. It performed to perfection on the wide plains of Persia and India, but failed in the mountainous areas of Macedonia. To quote Polybius again: "If the enemy decline to come down into it, but traverse the country sacking the towns and territories of the allies, what use will the phalanx be? " A part of Alexander's genius was *his* flexibility. He would never have used the rigid phalanx formation in the kind of situation which allowed for enemy reserves to fall upon their flank and rear.
Best regards,

Amyntoros
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: HUH?

Post by Paralus »

Couldn't have written it better had I done so myself Amyntoros.The inflexibility of the formation was, in the end, its downfall. Especially under commanders not privy to Alexander's genius for tactics and planning.Or that of his father's for that matter.Methinks the good professor's a might confused.Paralus.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: HUH?

Post by marcus »

Apart from being surprised that so much correspondence can be generated by such an error :-), it does seem to me that military history most certainly isn't this particular professor's forte ... and perhaps he should leave well alone!ATBMarcus
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: HUH?

Post by amyntoros »

Hey, Marcus, please donGÇÖt make fun of us! :-) WeGÇÖre still discussing sarrisae which means that for once we have remained on topic!Yes, military history may not be this particular professorGÇÖs forte, but as he is teaching a college course in European history from ancient times to the modern era GÇô well, one would expect him to have to cover military matters at some point, donGÇÖt you think?ATBAmyntoros
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: HUH?

Post by Paralus »

G'day Marcus.Not his forte one might conclude.And yes, we did - even given the participation of the dinner party conversation version of natural selection - stay on topic!!Paralus
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: HUH?

Post by marcus »

Well, yes, one would expect him to cover military matters - which perhaps he ought to get one of his colleagues to do :-)At this dinner party, can I come and sit at your end of the table, please?M
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: HUH?

Post by Paralus »

The invitation is cordially extended.Now, given the constraints of time and distance, why don't I sit here with a decent South Australian Shiraz and you uncork whatever seems to fit.Undoubtedly Amyntoros will uncork a Napa red of some description.Ahh, I'd be having breakfast though. Bit of a worry that....Paralus.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: HUH?

Post by amyntoros »

No, no Napa Valley wine for me, thanks. After years of learning to appreciate the quality wines of the world, I choose instead Mavrodaphne of Patras, a very sweet, aromatic Greek import that is designated the lowest of the low GÇô red table wine. I love it though and canGÇÖt help thinking that something similar must have been a favorite of the ancients, given their propensity to add honey to wine. So . . . Marcus . . . you donGÇÖt want to sit with *me* at the table? I will remember this . . .:-)Amyntoros
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: HUH?

Post by marcus »

Oh, I thought you and Paralus would be sitting at the 'cool' end together, discussing AtG, Sarissas, et al.If you're at different ends, then I'll just have to be one of those 'flitters', who keeps moving seats to make sure I join in all the conversations.But my request was in response to your post, anyway ... (pass the spade!)M :-)
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply