Hoplite's didn't, and probably couldn't use their spears underarm while in phalanx formation

See:
Kinda hard to refute that when the Ancient Greeks themselves told us this.

Who are you even responding to with this? Under armed wasn't used until after Iphikrates invented the sarissa.

from wikipedia:

>he replaced the heavy hoplon/aspis with a lighter pelte that could be strapped to the forearm, freeing the left hand to help hold the lengthened spears.

the Sarissa specifically needs to be underarm and needs a strap on the shield due to its length,its doesn't specify other dory

You need to employ better reading comprehension. You are taking literally what is nothing more than the refrain common to every era of man, of indiscipline and decadence. And what might possibly have been true for Athens and Corinth was certainly not true for infantry powerhouses like Argos and Thebes.

The problem with your assessment is that we have literally no proof that hoplites ever trained for war for most of the classical period aside from Sparta. Aristotle tells us by the late 4th century BC that the City States just started providing military training to their hoplites. He bluntly tells us that the Spartans used to stand out, not because of their training, but rather they're the only ones that trained.

And to add to this Xenophon also mentions the same, that only the Spartans trained for while the rest of the city states were citizens, armed yet without training.

Source:
Xenophon, constitution of the lacedaemonians 13.5

If you can find me sources refuting this I'll gladly go to bed

He won't say it, but thanks for actually providing a source for your argument. Makes a nice change from the usual shitflinging and youtube/wiki links.

"This was what the soldiers of Alcibiades cast in the teeth of Thrasyllus' men, vaunting themselves and their general, and refusing to share either training or quarters in camp with them." - the life of alcibiades

There now I just disproved your vague quote, they trained

You do realize that was written by Plutarch in the 2nd century AD, right? That's centuries past Classical Greece. Meanwhile I have sources both from Xenophon and Ariostatle that claim the oppose of what you just posted, both men who lived in Classical Greece.

As I said, find me a contemporary source from the Classical Era, not something written in the 2nd century AD. Next you'll be telling me the Spartans did practice infanticide via selection when Xenophon writes the completly opposite of that.

you do realize you posted vague, badly translated and very short quote right?? And you are clearly twisting their meanings like the Memorabilia 3.5.15 one, where xenophon whine about the kids not respecting their elders and skipping TRAINING.

>apperantly men were afraid to train with their weapons in fear of beign ridiculed.

come on john green

This. Plutarch is worlds apart from Xenophon and other 5th/4th c. sources. Also, I don't think anyone is denying that a limited number of people in other city-states trained during mid-early 4th century. I think it's a tad unfair to say Spartan hoplite training was nothing special, though, given that they instated it at an earlier period and in a broader sense than other city-states.

perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekFeb2011&getid=1&query=Xen. Lac. 13.5

If you want the full context for the Xenophon quote.

Ariostatle's:
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0058:book=8:section=1338b

Hello, fellow Lindybeige viewer!

The dialog with Laches literally begins with Melesias and Lsyimachus bemoaning their fathers not teaching them to fight in armor, with an implication that this was the normal cause of action, and that

>Someone directed us to the particular accomplishment of fighting in armor, as being an admirable one for a young man to learn; and he praised that man whose performance you were just watching, and then urged us to go and see him.

You don't have a debate as to whether or not learning how to "fight in armor" is something worth learning if the facility to learn as such is not available in the Athenian cultural sphere.

From what we know so far all of the Spartan military training amounted to basic formation drill and physical exercises. Again, Plato tells us that Sparta was nothing exceptional. He says that the other Greek City-States surpassed Sparta both in gymnastic and in military contests because they start training and what made the Spartans stand out in the past was the fact that they were the only ones that trained.

There's also zero evidence that the Spartans did any weapons training, Plato straight up tells us the Spartans did not practice weapons training. What made the Spartans special was the propaganda they built around the 300, their basic formation drill, and their organization. When you compare it to the militaries of the Romans or the Hellenics it comes out looking rather primitive. But we have to look at it through the context of the time and that context is that the Spartans had some training in a world of amateurs.

The fact they fought in close formation IS proof they trained, fuckwit.

Here's the context of the dialogue. They later start talking about hoplomachia and it's merits.

Plato, Laches 182e-184c

How is that proof that they had training? Again, and I will ask you the same as I asked the other guy, cite me contemporary sources.

How does the fact they fought in well-coordinated ranks under close orders prove they must have been trained? Shit idk dumbfuck, try using your brain.

>Here's the context of the dialogue. They later start talking about hoplomachia and it's merits.
Yes, I've read it user, they say that it's a waste of time, cultivates cowardice and sloppiness in war, and that it is not a virtuous act.

That there were these "experts in arms" who did try to teach (at least in Athens) You have guys like Stesilaus who make fools of themselves, and Socrates seems dismissive of the concept. But the very fact that there are such figures to deride means that THEY EXISTED, so your claim that there were no training in hand to hand combat is simply wrong.

Then of course, you have the existence of mercenary units, especially in the Peloponesian war which is around the context of dialogs like laches. books.google.com/books?id=53d_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT199&lpg=PT199&dq=Mercenary units in peloponnesian war&source=bl&ots=xaNeFvPGgm&sig=m6P2Itc8ACR2GAoMohTvXx6Ca7s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7icShnc_YAhUCvVMKHcsQCKYQ6AEIZDAI#v=onepage&q=peloponesian war&f=false

Why would ANYONE hire mercenary infantry if "nobody but the spartans trained" and these mercenaries are just the same fucks you can levy for free in your own polis?

Well, the thing is that a mercenary who makes soldering a profession is going to be different from the levy of the polis. Mercenaries are always a valuable commodity. The army of the Ten Thousand is a good example of professionalism in the Greek world.

And of course hoplmachia intructurs existed. However it was not something the average Greek placed faith in. As I type earlier, the foundation of the phalanx wasn't based on martial skill or drill. It was built upon valor, it was suppose to make men equal since any man regardless of skill could be good at it, all it required was valor.
As I wrote here earlier:
Most hoplites were levies, usually farmers, and these men just didn't have the time nor energy to train.

Why so hostile user? I'd wager this is a welcoming break from all the mayamys thrown around and unsourced claims.

>well coordinated ranks
no such thing existed until the Macedonians. Greek hoplites weren't really exceptional, they had analogs across the Mediterranean and middle east

But they didn't fight in well-coordinated ranks. They were unable to carry out any maneuver more complicated than attacking the guy infront of you. They never marched in step or had the ability to change formation on the move. They drew up in a single unbroken line and than charged, like they did in Marathon.

Only the Spartans could pull of anything more complicated than simply charging at the enemy in front of you.

>Greek hoplites weren't really exceptional, they had analogs across the Mediterranean and middle east
Yes, and they ALL trained. If you just gather up a levy of peasants, you get a mob like the Celts fielded, not an ordered rank of soldiers who fought in a coordinated manner and who maneuvered according to per-arranged musical signals.

Have you ever used in a spear in war? Have you ever read the illiad?

And that's not what the majority of the Greeks had. You're talking about the Spartans. Other Greek City-States had no such level of organization. They were unable to do anything more complex than charging at the enemy in front of them. They simply lacked the training to do this.

And I ask you again, where are you sources? I have given (you) the full context of both sources. I'd expect for you to back up your claims.

>completely untrained men are capable of fighting and charging in line without falling out of formation
I bet you think that because highschool football players aren't professionals, they must never train?

Except they did fall out of formation. When the hoplites charged it often turned into a mob of screaming men charging at each other. They didn't charge in formation.

Again, as I said, there was no training. There was a disdain for training as I already cited sources. Here's a famous example prior to the battle of Lades

Herodotos 6.11-12
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0126:book=6:chapter=11

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0126:book=6:chapter=12

You can't fight in the hoplite manner out of formation you dumb coon. Fuck off with your dimwitted idiocy, you have shit this thread to hell with your moronic cretinism.

hes literally right, which is why the macedonians fucking shitstomped them

Well, they did do that. As I said despite the sources I've presented you refuse to believe that the hoplite levy was an untrained amateur in war. You discard the word of Xenophon, Aristotle, and Plato despite the fact that they're bluntly tell us this.

Yet I'm the moronic one? You can't even find me one source that states the opposite, instead you cite me the works of Plutarch from the 2nd century AD. I'll try to find the sources which will show you the limited capacity of the Greek phalanx. I'll see if I can find them again.

Not him but you're retarded. Charges, routes break the formation. Even disciplined and trained troops have a problem keeping formation under certain circumstances as a sudden charge or retreat (of a part of the army)

Yes, EVEN disciplined and trained troops find these things difficult, yet this buffoon is claiming the hoplites somehow managed them with NO training? Fuck him, and fuck you for defending such a retard.

The truth probably is somewhere between the Spartan way of training in matters of war every day, and the other extreme stance that other Greeks never trained anything. Greek culture was already obsessed with beauty in a way that manliness and being Veeky Forums was a thing they would strive for. They probably did train individually if nothing else. The thing is, its easy to start out in a formation. Everyone knows how to line up even with minimal training, the problem is keeping your formation and fighting as a unit while the battle progresses. This is where the Romans shined for instance. I highly doubt that state militia was able to keep the fight degrading to a brawl after some time. Even the accounts tell us that Greek armies would break relatively easily and that it wasn't really fighting to the death/getting pushed into a lake, but literally having the nerves of staying on the field of battle long enough for the enemy to just start running.

So you're saying all the sources that I cited were written by buffoons? You discard the word of men who wrote about the subject in their time?

All I did was present you with sources, if you choose to ignore them, fine. But the way you behave just shows me that even if I show you the way the Greek Phalanx fought you would still deny it.

The state provided no training, that's what I'm saying. There was no training by the state. No hoplite was taught how to actually fight, not even the Spartans.
As I mentioned some posts up, the art of hoplite training was regarded as pretentious. There's literacy evidence showing us that people who tried to practice with their weapons were ridiculed. Plato in Laches claims that a man most have extrodanary valor if he practices with his weapon otherwise he risks being the laughing stock.
And the Spartanway of training was just practicing formation drills while on campaign and excercissing. It wasn't some hardcore warrior regiment. Could it be possible that some people did train? Sure. But in general that wasn't what the Ancient Greeks valued. The foudation of the phalanx was that any man could be good at it, as long as they had valor. It cut through many social classes.

The point that I'm making is that people percieve the Greek hoplite as being an unflinching soldier, capable of marching at a slow and steady pace while on formation and being unbeatlable from the front. And yet there's no sources that tell us this. All I'm doing is presenting what the ancients wrote, if you want to discard it that's fine.

you don't know anything about spear form, shield form, and are literally an armchair general. You hack. I'd sooner trust a nigger in Alabama on his opinions, then you're retarded retelling of military rumors.

Lmao what does that have to do with anything?

I haven't finished reading the OP but dude, although what you are saying is reasonable enough, if you want to be taken seriously, you are really not doing yourself any favors by writing hoplon when you mean aspis. I know it's an old and widespread error but it's still an error.

>Well, the thing is that a mercenary who makes soldering a profession is going to be different from the levy of the polis. Mercenaries are always a valuable commodity. The army of the Ten Thousand is a good example of professionalism in the Greek world.
ANd where do they come from? What sets them apart from the levy? How did they get that professionalism? Somewhere along the line, they had to have trained and drilled for that. And if nobody outside the Spartans does that, how the fuck does it happen?

>And of course hoplmachia intructurs existed.
Well then, you're disagreeing with your precious Xenophon and Aristotle.|

>However it was not something the average Greek placed faith in.
How do you get that? Since when are Socrates's opinions universal among not only Athens, but the entire Greek world?

>Most hoplites were levies, usually farmers, and these men just didn't have the time nor energy to train.
Not the part that was addressed to me, but you can say the same thing about say, the fyrd of the Anglo-Saxons that existed in 1066, and a good chunk of THOSE guys, who yes, were levied farmers, did train occasionally. Not to the same standards as real professional troops, but they somehow found the time and energy to train. Why can't a Greek farmer do the same, especially since hoplites are usually drawn from the wealthier sorts of farmers, the ones who usually have a servant accompany them on campaign to carry that extensive and heavy panoply.

>. They were unable to do anything more complex than charging at the enemy in front of them.
Explain the battle of Sphacteria. How do "troops that only are able to charge at the enemy in front of them" manage to constantly maneuver out of the way of the Spartan forces trying to come to grips with them while mantaining enouch cohesion to force the Spartans to do the same all the while the lighter troops are harassing them with fire from higher ground until the Lacedemonians crack?

Mercenaries get their experience out in the field, they develop a sense of comradeship and gain experience from the battles they fight. For a mercenary, war is their profession. Veteran mercenaries were capable of things way past the capability of even the Spartans, like the Ten Thousand.

Just because instructed existed does not mean the art of hoplite training was taught at any city states. We never hear of this and we do hear of these instructors being ridiculed and called frauds.

Because as I typed earlier, valor was the foundation of the phalanx. A phalanx in theory makes all men equal regardless of skill.

Because training was not something the Greeks did. Those were their values, I already cited to you sources that state this. No city states aside from Sparta provided formal training to their levy.

The battle of Sphacteria was won by light infantry. But even if it was hoplites maneuvering over a static and entrenched opponent is not the same as maneuvering during battle.

>Mercenaries get their experience out in the field, they develop a sense of comradeship and gain experience from the battles they fight. For a mercenary, war is their profession. Veteran mercenaries were capable of things way past the capability of even the Spartans, like the Ten Thousand.
What, and levied troops don't? How would they even acquire this experience in the first place, make themselves out as a worthwhile hire if they haven't been in a war to acquire it in the first place? Why would anyone hire a group starting out? Or even afterwards, since greek warfare was frequent enough that local polises would have experienced men (usually placed in the back)

>Just because instructed existed does not mean the art of hoplite training was taught at any city states
So, instructors existed, but they didn't actually teach? That's a new level of stupid. What do you think these guys DID?

>We never hear of this and we do hear of these instructors being ridiculed and called frauds.
By literally one person. Since when does Socrates/Plato speak for all of Athens? Or all of Greece?

>Because as I typed earlier, valor was the foundation of the phalanx. A phalanx in theory makes all men equal regardless of skill.
No, it doesn't. There is actually a fair amount of skill involved, if for nothing else than marching without falling out of order, and for the coordination necessary for a proper othismos.

>The battle of Sphacteria was won by light infantry. But even if it was hoplites maneuvering over a static and entrenched opponent is not the same as maneuvering during battle.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Spartans attempted to close with the Athenians after the failed negotiations after the naval loss. They were not just hiding in their fortification would just lead to starvation. They were unable to do so. That means that the Athenians MOVED out of the way, or that the Spartans somehow failed to walk in a straight line.