Why didn't everyone use phalanx? How hard is it to tell guys to stick together...

>The phalanx required extremely well-trained and coordinated armies to pull off.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon

amazon.com/Western-Way-War-Infantry-Classical/dp/0520260090

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_warfare#The_Hoplite_Phalanx

>I will now post a bunch of irrelevant links and win this argument

Idiot.

There were very few professional hoplites, and those are usually mercenaries. The majority of them were citizen militia who bought their own equipment and drilled in fixed terms in a year.

This is basic fucking history.

Idiot.

You suck a million dicks and drink gallons of cum every day.

This is basic fucking history.

>I am far too stupid to read English, or understand what is relevant and what isn't.

Sparta aside, you didn't have professional armies in the Classical Greece period. Somehow, Athens, Corinth, Thebes, Argos, hell, even tiny polities like Platea used hoplites and phalanxes, and did so effectively. They won major battles against outsiders like this, like Marathon.

The foremost scholars in the field of classical warfare all seem to think that levied armies used phalanxes, and if you delve into the subject (I would recommend A War Like No Other), they tend to claim that the decline of the Phalanx went hand in hand with increasing professionalism, not the other way around.

You are either ignorant or retarded, and very probably both.

Sparta didn't have professional armies you moron.

And what kind of retard logic are you using to conclude that
>professional armies are well-trained
>therefore only professional armies are well-trained
kys desu senpai.

Romans made phalanx's obsolete.

>Sparta didn't have professional armies you moron.

Oh, I see, you're a troll. Good day.

>celtic
>tactics
>hurr le charge xD

>he thinks standing army means professional army
Oh, I see, you're a retard. Good day.

>I act like I was a troll the whole time to make it seem like i haven't lost the argument

Then why people in middle ages didn't use roman tactics? Why suddenly everyone went full retard and knew only basic shieldwall?

>If I say I'm right enough times I've won the argument

Gee, a standing army that was compensated by the state with a piece of land and others to work it, and who were expected to do nothing but drill in times of peace.

Exactly how are the Spartiates NOT a professional military?

Because people then realized mobile warfare might actually be a thing.

A big part of the middle ages was a loss in disciplined troops. If you dont train your troops you can no longer complete any semblance of maneuvering.

>How hard is it to get hundreds of men from across the land to leave their farms for a few months to train, who have enough wealth for good equipment, and who need to be supplied with food for all that time, who also need experienced men to lead and train them.

Quite hard, it takes a state with a strong central authority and wealth.

No, hoplites trained for a couple of months a year, there were special buildings for this.

> The entire point of the Phalanx was that it allowed otherwise not very well trained soldiers to be effective in battle,
No, they had to be trained. The entire point of the Phalanx was that it allowed well trained soldiers to easily beat untrained warrior type cultures. Then those started doing it, soon everybody doing it, and then it evolved into a low intensity way of warfare among rival states who secretly prefer to compete and have petty wars rather than wiping each other out.

But what's so hard about locking fucking shields and marching in the same direction?

What Greece had that rest of yurop hadn't?

Kek Celtic charges did break Hoplite Phalanxs.

Turns out a cunt with a heavy javelin fucking up your shield and subsequently charging at you with a short sword and a long shield while you're there, fumbling with a weighed down pierced aspis and struggling to keep your spear straight.

Nothing, but those are phalanx tactics, not Roman. The Romans actually fought quite spaced out in their formations to allow the individual soldier his own combat space (like 3 feet on both sides iirc). The Roman system of combat was quite different from the phalanx in that it emphasized movement and maneuverability. This is why it was able to beat the static formation of the phalanx all the time.
To be able to maneuver, utilize wings, flanking, etc. your troops have to be disciplined though.
Phalanx soldiers were not disciplined nor trained together as a professional army would have been. I can get out my textbooks if you'd like on this issue. Whether they trained personally is a different issue, but most hoplites would not have been undergoing disciplined military training.

>What Greece had that rest of yurop hadn't?

Civilization?

>But what's so hard about locking fucking shields and marching in the same direction?

It doesn't take a lot of skill, but it does take a lot of discipline and confidence in your comrades. And everybody has to go along with it, with no weak links.

>What's so hard about making a fucking metal tube
Decent metallurgy
>and sticking some black powder
Step 1:
Figure out black powder.

All these things aren't easy to figure out, without prior knowledge.

>le every Celt had a sword meme xD

don't forget ebin Samurai charging with katanas :D

Germanics also had a glorious civilization, especially Scandinavians. Ever heard about vikings?

Yes, they did. Every Celtic warrior had a short sword.

Hell, its weird how the axe is associated as the barbarian weapon, but Celtic short swords outnumber military axes in finds.

>Le forestnigger maymay.

Because it requires enormous training and discipline to form a fucking phalanx order it around and having it work together along with the other phalanxes.

This.

The phalanx was an immensly dense formation of soldiers. It was very immobile and had obvious weaknesses. It did not really work that well against mobile armies.

>Sparta aside, you didn't have professional armies in the Classical Greece period.

Yes, you did. Mercenaries are professional soldiers and the Mediteranean was teeming with greek mercenaries.

>Yes, you did. Mercenaries are professional soldiers and the Mediteranean was teeming with greek mercenaries.

Yeah, by about 400 B.C. When the Phalanx was originally developed, they were hardly common.

True, but classical antiquity ends at Hellenism. From 480 B.C. onwards there were plenty of greek colonies and mercenaries throughout the area.

Offhand, I can't think of any mention of mercenaries in the Wars of the Delian league, so you'd think it would be a bit later than that, which is why I gave 400, not 480.

But I'll admit this is hardly an area I'm an expert in, and I'm half remembering stuff I read years ago.

[citation needed]

Chill out dude, I'm not even the guy your responding too.

discipline wasn't something you could give some conscripted peasant the night before battle, retard.

Good thing peasants weren't conscripted night before battle retard.

*see pic

Ballistas

Because society changed. There were no longer any large nations that could employ standing armies. So the easiest thing to do was to just hand the peasants a spear and a shield, tell them to drill every once in awhile and that they better show up next time there's a battle.

Meanwhile, the nobled elite trains year around and keeps horses. They're the knights. They don't need to shield wall.

...

They DID. The phalanx is so fucking old the sumerians had it.

>The phalanx was an immensly dense formation of soldiers. It was very immobile and had obvious weaknesses. It did not really work that well against mobile armies.
Except the entire persian military, sure.

Aside from nobles having horses, nothing you said is correct.