Re: Yelmalions are wimps,

From: Lee R. Insley <maelstrom_at_usa.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:56:40 -0500

Jeff Richard:
>>There is also no reason to think that tactics could not be developed even
>in 50 years. The Macedonian >system was developed under Alexander's father
>(Phillip) in his lifetime. This system was something >fairly new to the
>Greeks and very complicated - combined warfare and actually using tactics!
>
>Umm. . . not true. The Peloponnesian War spelt the death-knell of
>Classical Greek hoplite warfare. Who can forget the humiliation of Spartan
>hoplites by Athenian peltast mercenaries at the battle of Sphacteria in 425
>BC. Xenophon, Iphicrates and Chabrias all rejected the classical model of
>hoplite warfare - indeed, reread the Anabasis to see the Greek army use
>skirmishers throughout the march out of Persia. Between 404 and 359 BC
>there was a remarkable revolution in Greek warfare - witness, Epaminondas
>use cavalry to good effect (in disrupting Spartan manouevres) at the battle
>of Leuctra in 371 BC. Indeed, many historians believe that Phillip learned
>the art of warfare while he was a hostage in Thebes. Phillip's great
>contribution to Greek warfare was not the Macedonian phalangite but his
>revolutionary use of Macedon's one great resource - cavalry - armed with a
>lance not dissimilar to that employed by the Napoleonic lancers.

No question that the need for changed was evident in the Peloponnesian War, but no one really implemented any real changes until Epaminondas and then Phillip. Up until Epaminondas, the hoplite tactics hadn't changed during or since the Peloponnesian War (a span of 100 years). Even then, Epaminondas main contribution to military tactics was not his use of cavalry put his use of a deeper hoplite formation (some say 50 man deep on one of the flanks) and the use of echelon tactics. Yeah, his cavalry helped at the battle of Leuctra, but all indications are that the cavalry was used mainly as a screening force and the real outcome depended on the use of the Theban deep left (I know the Theban cavalry defeated the Spartan one - but I don't see any references as to the cavalry doing anything beyond that). Some even say that he used longer spears along the lines of the Macedonian phalanx, but that is not certain. Essentially, however, he used the old hoplite style of warfare where the two sides meet and the one that can bowl over the other wins. Yes, it was the start, but Phillip made the major changes.

When I said the Macedonian system, I wasn't refering to strickly the Macedonian phalanx. The Macedonian system was one where the infantry, cavalry, and peltasts all worked in harmony to bring the cavalry to bear on the enemy by outflanking and outmaneuvering him. Many historians call this the hammer and anvil tactic. The phalanx would hold the infantry *in place* and the cavalry would drive into them from the sides or behind. Up until Phillip, the peltasts and cavalry were not used to much effect. The only time they really came into play is when one side significantly outnumbered the other in that arm - hence why they were still important to any hoplite arm. Your example of battle of Sphacteria being a good example - - however this was a unique situation as well as the Spartans were trapped on an island.

Essentially, you are supporting my point that a military system can be developed in 50 years. If you assume that Greek tactical changes started at the end of the Peloponnesian War (404 BC) and essentially ended before the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), you are talking about a span of 66 years.  I am sure the changed took place in even a shorter amount of time than that.

---