The amaturism of the Greek Hoplite

And on top of this Greek hoplites refused to submit to military discipline. They not only lacked training to do anything more simple than to run at the enemy, they lacked the discipline to stay in formation even when marching. Most Greek formations were static in nature. They couldn't do anything more complex than an unbroke thin line or a static square. Instead the Greek hoplite relied on his aggressiveness, his courage, and his enthusiasm for battle.

And to add another one.

And yet the Spartans, who were of all men past masters in the art of war, trained and accustomed themselves to nothing so much as not to straggle or get into confusion upon a change of formation, but to take anyone without exception as neighbour in rank or in file, and wheresoever danger actually threatened, to seize that point and form in close array and fight as well as ever. Plut. Pel. 23.3

Notice that Plutarch remarks that the Spartans were "masters of war" for their ability to stay in formation. He doesn't say anything else on them but the only praises he gives are their abilities to maintain cohesion on formation and being able to maneuver in formation.

In the battle of Amphilopolis the Athenians attempted to wheel their right flank
>He went to the spot and saw for himself; but, not wishing to hazard a regular engagement until his allies arrived, and thinking he could get away soon enough, he gave a general signal for retreat, at the same time ordering his forces to retire slowly on the left wing, which was the only direction possible, towards Eion. [4] They appeared to linger; [5] whereupon he caused his own right wing to face round, and so with his unshielded side exposed to the enemy began to lead off his army. Thuc. 5.10

The result is that the Athenians did not have the training to do this and the Athenian ranks end up in chaos, in which the Spartans are all to happy to exploit. This just show how primitive in warfare the other Greek city-states were.

how did the greeks repel the persians if they were so shitty at fighting?

It also seems that Greeks believed that fitness was all that was needed.

>After this, when spring was just coming on, he gathered his whole army at Ephesus; and desiring to train the army, he offered prizes both to the heavy-armed divisions, for the division which should be in the best physical condition, and to the cavalry divisions, for the one which should show the best horsemanship; and he also offered prizes to peltasts and bowmen, for all who should prove themselves best in their respective duties. Thereupon one might have seen all the gymnasia full of men exercising, the hippodrome full of riders, and the javelin-men and bowmen practising. Xen. Hell. 3.4.16

Make not that the hoplites only perform physical exercises. However the men with ranged weapons do not, they actually practice with their weapons and horsemen engage in horsemanship.

> As for numbers,' he said, `of course as great a force might march out of some other city also; but armies made up of citizens1 include men who are already advanced in years and others who have not yet come to their prime. Furthermore, in every city very few men train their bodies, but among my mercenaries no one serves unless he is able to endure as severe toils as I myself.' Xen. Hell. 6.1.5

Here Xenophon complains that the levy of the city-states include too many old and young people, and people who aren't Veeky Forums enough.

>Also experience renders them the most efficient in inflicting loss on the enemy without sustaining it themselves, as they are skilled in the use of arms, and equipped with the best ones both for attack and defence. [8] So that they are like armed men fighting against unarmed, or trained athletes against amateurs; for even in athletic contests it is not the bravest men who are the best fighters, but those who are strongest and in the best training. [9] But professional soldiers prove cowards when the danger imposes too great a strain, and when they are at a disadvantage in numbers and equipment; for they are the first to run away, while citizen troops stand their ground and die fighting, as happened in the battle at the temple of Hermes.3 This is because citizens think it disgraceful to run away, and prefer death to safety so procured; whereas professional soldiers were relying from the outset on superior strength, and when they discover they are outnumbered they take to flight, fearing death more than disgrace. But this is not true courage. [10] Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1116b

In there professional soldier refers to mercenaries.

Anyhow, I think I made a fair case, even if there's more I can post.

I hope this guy sees these sources and takes a critical look at himself.

Could be their sheer aggressiveness. Just how the Thebans defeated the Spartans despite their rather primitive tactics. They beat them through sheer brute force. But that's not to say the Greeks had an easy time.

And to conclude I think it's fair to say the Classical Greek Phalanx was little more than a slightly organized mob.

>discussing history in the history board is autism
The absolute state of Veeky Forums

good thread

Bad thread

So based on this the level of Greek tactics was to simply bumrush people?

I noticed a good number of these are from Xenophon, and I'm wondering why. If these attitudes were widespread, surely more historians and chroniclers would have noticed? What would have made Xenophon more likely to note the poor discipline of the hoplites than his contemporaries?

Thanks for the follow-up, that was a good thread and I find the phalanx controversy really interesting.
Do you know any good books on the subject? I already have the books by Christopher Matthew and Hans van Wees on my reading list.

The three hundred of Sparta had discipline that is not attainable in armies today. The Trojans held ranks that stood against an empire for nine and a half years. Thracians were capable of letting their own comrades die by their commander's broadswords and kept fighting. All of this is proof of superior greek and hoplite fighting styles. Even if persia did the retarded top-down descipline training which is not required to make descipline they all got destroyed on the field.

>All of this is proof of superior greek and hoplite fighting styles
It is not. The Greek hoplite was a clumsy and lacking any tactical ineptitude. Instead of being like this:
They have more in common with the guys in the OP:
The sources talk about this, the Greeks themselves wrote on this. They wrote about their lack of training, their defiance to submit to discipline, their lack of tactical aptitude. Most hoplites were incapable of doing even the most basic maneuvers instead relying on rushing the enemy and hoping to scare him away. Their typical battle plan was simple to charge at the enemy. Their extend of their tactical prowess was to simply stand in a line but even that dissolved since their preferred method was to simply charge at the enemy. At best they could form a square but it was static.

>Don't you see what good discipline they maintain in their fleets, how well they obey the umpires in athletic contests, how they take orders from the choir-trainers as readily as any?” “Ah yes, and strange indeed it is that such men submit themselves to their masters, and yet the infantry and cavalry, who are supposed to be the pick of the citizens for good character, are the most insubordinate.” Xen. Mem. 3.5.18-19

>But the Athenian infantry, which has the reputation of being very weak, has been deliberately so constituted: they consider that they are weaker and fewer than their enemies Ps. Xen. Const. Ath. 2.1

Therefore the hoplite was little more than an organized mob. These men who were simply people in arms, who were by all accounts untrained and amateurish.

>I tell you, because military training is not publicly recognised by the state Xen. Mem. 3.12.5

tldr
Can you guys direct me to the closest pregnant Anne Frank thread?

>OP makes several lengthy posts with primary and secondary sources
>thread hidden
kys

What exactly allowed the greeks to be succesful against the persians in warfare?

Sparta was a bit of a fringe case among the Greeks, you can hardly compare their system to what was typical in the Hellenistic world

>good information with primary/secondary sources
>a problem on this board
Holy shit unfuck yourself.

it is the ultimate form of warfare. For you can attack and defend as a unit, simeltaneously. And they can perform all roles of a battlefield including chariot chrages.

>>>/reddithugbox/

Not OP, but the Persians were just as amateurish; the idea of professional militaries hadn't really caught on by the day and age of the Greco-Persian wars, for both political and economic reasons.

In additions, the Greeks tended to be well armed and armored by the standards of their day, and one of the things about Hoplite warfare is that it's *simple*. You stand in a line, you lock hold out your spear, and you run (or usually walk) forward. Even idiots can't screw this up. When you're dealing with non-professional armies, poor communications, amateur leadership from the top, and the general chaos of battle, the fewer moving parts to your army, the better.

The Macedonian army was built out of decades of combat and experience. The persians hadn't fought a war in three decades. Training to be competent in war is always done on the field, not in the barracks.

>You stand in a line, you lock hold out your spear, and you run (or usually walk) forward
Wrong. There is a martial art called proper form that teaches how to use every weapon that hoplites used. And spear and shield was not done so simply, read the illiad.

The Persians had enormous degrees of trouble with the Greeks well before the Macedonians came along. The Delian league ran them ragged for decades, and created a de facto Persian policy of never trying to fight the Greeks directly, instead trying to pay them off to war among each other and hiring Greek mercenaries.

The Iliad did not feature hoplite warfare, and if it has any degree of accuracy in it, it is almost certainly speaking of a much older style of combat, which seems to have a lot of skirmishing; spears in the Iliad are inevitably throwing weapons, not melee weapons.

> There is a martial art called proper form that teaches how to use every weapon that hoplites used.
What the fuck is this even trying to say?

Also, the common hoplites who went up against the Persians sometimes had previously battle experience, and were sometimes joined by the fit and trained Spartan hoplites.

Also, the 300 did not fight as a phalanx. The Spartans function more akin light infantry in the time of the Greco-Persian War.

Herodotus and Plato both write about their method of fighting.

>The Lakedaimonians fought memorably, showing themselves skilled fighters amidst unskilled on many occasions, as when they would turn their backs and feign flight. The barbarians would see them fleeing and give chase with shouting and noise, but when the Lakedaimonians were overtaken, they would turn to face the barbarians and overthrow innumerable Persians. Herodotos 7.211.3

>For they say that at Plataea, when the Spartans came up to the men with wicker shields, they were not willing to stand and fight against these, but fled; when, however, the Persian ranks weree broken, the Spartans kept turning round and fighting like cavalry, and so won that great battle. Plato Laches 191c

did you not read the book? because at the start of every abttle before Hektor breaks the Akhain lines they both fought in phalanx formation.
>what is proper form?
it teaches you how to use a spear and shield, a lance and chariot, an ajax, light armor, heavy armor, shortsword, etc.

> because at the start of every abttle before Hektor breaks the Akhain lines they both fought in phalanx formation.
I have read the book. Nowhere does it mention phalanxes, or of people using spears as thrusting weapons, not throwing weapons. There are no such verses describing such.

>it teaches you how to use a spear and shield, a lance and chariot, an ajax, light armor, heavy armor, shortsword, etc.
Again, what the FUCK are you talking about? There is no surviving manual of hoplite weapon techniques, they didn't use lances or chariots, and Ajax is a guy's name, not a piece of equipment.

your posts are compeltely lacking in experience in the field. You should actually use a spear and shield, learn what heavy vs light armor is, before you start trying to play thought police on Veeky Forums. At this point there are so many military typos that I don't care to correct them. But warfare is art, not rules. Which includes the phalanx and greek style, who were great artists which lead to being great fighters.

Sparta was not a member of the Delian league, user. The Spartans ceased their war with Persia with the capture of Byzantion.

you are a foul-mouthed imputent child. You should stop being an armchair historian and learn what happend all those years ago when those wars were fought against the scum you like to lower the greeks to.

I'm not seeing a citation. And your posts are barely coherent nonsense. Again, what is this "Ajax" you refer to as to how people learn how to use it in "proper form"?

>an ajax

...I said the common hoplites were "sometimes" accompanied by Spartans. That's true even if we're just restricting this discussion of greek hoplites vs persians to the early 5th century; Spartans were present at a few battles.

it is the strongest weapon

its where I fuck your mother like a slut. armchair faggot

>free men were free to fight for who they wanted
SEE SEE THEY DIDN'T TRAIN
>Youngs are getting lazier
SEE SEE THEY DIDN'T TRAIN
>Professional don't risk their lives compared to people who defend their homeland
SEE SEE THEY DIDN'T TRAIN
>people lie and cheat to get into power and that's bad or hot headed people in power is bad
SEE SEE THEY DIDN'T TRAIN

Dude your ability to see what you want in every quote you come across is amazing

Except the sources are explicit about it.

>“I tell you, just because the state does not publicly train for war, you must not cultivate it any less yourself". Xenophon, Mem . 3.12.5

>And we know of the Lakonians(Spartans) that while they persisted by themselves in their hard exercises they surpassed all others, but now they are left behind by the rest both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used to stand out, not because they exercised their young men like this, but only because they trained, and others did not. Aristotle, Politics 1338b

>"No such group training or competition now exists in any city-state at all, except maybe in a very small way."
Plato, Laws 831b

>I tell you, because military training is not publicly recognised by the state Xen. Mem. 3.12.5

Could an indivual train by himself? Sure. But there was no state run military training. Instead you find sources were Greek expliclty believe they don't need milirary training.

Some even taking pride in their amatuer ways.

>"Where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger." Thucydides 2.39.1

Again, if they did train how do you explain all their amateur ways? How do you explain the Athenian failure here:
In which they fail a simple formation move. How do you explain others praising the Spartan for even being able to maneuver? How do explain Xenophon constantly mentioning the poor quality of the hoplite?

The Greeks had a disdain for authority and training. Here's a story from the battle of Lades. I'll post it next post.

Then the Ionians who had gathered at Lade held assemblies; among those whom I suppose to have addressed them was Dionysius, the Phocaean general, who spoke thus: [2] “Our affairs, men of Ionia, stand on the edge of a razor, whether to be free men or slaves, and runaway slaves at that. If you now consent to endure hardships, you will have toil for the present time, but it will be in your power to overcome your enemies and gain freedom; but if you will be weak and disorderly, I see nothing that can save you from paying the penalty to the king for your rebellion. [4] Believe me and entrust yourselves to me; I promise you that (if the gods deal fairly with us) either our enemies shall not meet us in battle, or if they do they shall be utterly vanquished.” Hdt. 6.11

More next post.

your sermons gay.

The fact they complained about it so much suggests it was at least accepted as something important.

>And we know of the Lakonians(Spartans) that while they persisted by themselves in their hard exercises they surpassed all others, but now they are left behind by the rest both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used to stand out, not because they exercised their young men like this, but only because they trained, and others did not. Aristotle, Politics 1338b
Also this quote contradicts what you are saying. If Sparta stopped being special once other city states started training then at some point others must have started training more.

>"No such group training or competition now exists in any city-state at all, except maybe in a very small way."
So does this. It seems that training was kept alive by a small cadre which could be expanded in times of war as you would expect. You don't maintain a constant state of mobilization.

(You) (You)
>When the Ionians heard this, they put themselves in Dionysius' hands. He then each day put out to sea with ships in column, using the rowers to pierce each other's line of ships,1 and arming the fighting men on board; for the rest of the day he kept the fleet at anchor; all day he made the Ionians work. [2] For seven days they obeyed him and did his bidding; but on the next day, untried as they were in such labor and worn out by hard work and by the sun, the Ionians began to say each to other: [3] “Against what god have we sinned that we have to fulfill this task? We have lost our minds and launched out into folly, committing ourselves into the hands of this Phocaean braggart, who brings but three ships; and having got us he afflicts us with afflictions incurable. Many of us have fallen sick already, and many are likely to suffer the same thing; instead of these ills, it would be better for us to suffer anything, and endure this coming slavery, whatever it will be, rather than be oppressed by that which is now upon us. Come, let us obey him no longer!” [4] So they spoke, and from then on no man would obey. As if they were an army, they raised tents on the island where they stayed in the shade, and they were unwilling to embark upon their ships or to continue their exercises. Hdt. 6.12

Notice in this passage how Dionysius had to convince the men to train. He had to persuade them to do it despite knowing that battle was a possibility. And for seven days they trained till they refused. Xenophon also mentions of men who refuse to obey and there's nothing the generals can do. They're elected into their position, being unpopular was not in their interests. Xenophon himself was brought to charge because some of his soldiers claimed he beat them. There was little if none ways officers could force these men to train or be obedient.

Yes, Xenophon did in fact think Athens should've adopted the Spartan formation drill. He constantly bemoans Athens for sticking to their amateur ways.

>That means that it is a long march for our city to perfection. For when will Athenians show the Lacedaemonian reverence for age, seeing that they despise all their elders, beginning with their own fathers? When will they adopt the Lacedaemonian system of training, seeing that they not only neglect to make themselves fit, but mock at those who take the trouble to do so? Xen. Mem. 3.5.15

Whoever, you may also notice here that the Athenians actually mock those that try to train. In Laches a veteran Athenian general claims that men who trained with their weapons are the laughing stock.

>Also this quote contradicts what you are saying. If Sparta stopped being special once other city states started training then at some point others must have started training more.
The Greek City States do start training programs by the end of the Classical Era. The first attested mandatory training regime is the Ephebe in 330BC. Xenophon does mention it off hand but he talks about exercising there which might mean it was a program for the wealthy. The Ephebe, describe by Ariostatale, does describe weapon training and such. But this is all towards the end of the Classical Era and well into the Hellenic Era. Ariostatle in that passage recognizes that he lived in a world of untrained hoplites.

>So does this. It seems that training was kept alive by a small cadre which could be expanded in times of war as you would expect. You don't maintain a constant state of mobilization.
At best it would be physical exercises. Nothing about drill is ever mentioned.

>autism speaks

Were other, non-Spartan Greek states more significantly disciplined than the Athenians?

did they exercise in general? Not that it's gonna help much with hoplite combat, obviously.

Bump

Excellent argument, really liked the part in your 4th paragraph where you used sources to counter his points and confronted his ideas rather than attempting some sort of lazy as hominem.

Each individual hoplite carried his shield on the left arm, protecting not only himself but the soldier to the left. This meant that the men at the extreme right of the phalanx were only half-protected. In battle, opposing phalanxes would exploit this weakness by attempting to overlap the enemy's right flank. It also meant that, in battle, a phalanx would tend to drift to the right . The most experienced hoplites were often placed on the right side of the phalanx, to avoid these problems.
There was a leader in each row of a phalanx, and a rear rank officer, the ouragos (meaning tail-leader), who kept order in the rear. The phalanx is thus an example of a military formation in which the individualistic elements of battle were suppressed for the good of the whole. The hoplites had to trust their neighbours to protect them, and be willing to protect their neighbours; a phalanx was thus only as strong as its weakest elements. The effectiveness of the phalanx therefore depended on how well the hoplites could maintain this formation while in combat, and how well they could stand their ground, especially when engaged against another phalanx. For this reason, the formation was deliberately organized to group friends and family closely together, thus providing a psychological incentive to support one's fellows, and a disincentive through shame to panic or attempt to flee. The more disciplined and courageous the army, the more likely it was to win – often engagements between the various city-states of Greece would be resolved by one side fleeing before the battle.
A Hoplite is able to fight only in tight formation that is a hint of professional warfare, not only you perform historical revisionism (calling a form of organised warfare amateurish in a historical period where personal distinction and man-wave tactics were used) you cite only ancient Historians (no modern ones) ,Xenophon for example was known for being Spartan aligned regarding other Greek Poleis as inferior.

The thing is he does not have any ideas he resorts to goebbelism in order to prove what he personally wants, he oes not perform questions or search he picks what sources he prefers (mainly Xenophon who was aligned with Sparta and even spent time there during the Peloponnesean war speaking ill for Athens since he was a known Oligarch) , the whole thread is historical revisionism, a Hoplite phalanx formation was a professional way of fighting for its historical period and proved its worth during the Greco-Persian wars. Anything else is small talk.

>All of this is proof of superior greek and hoplite fighting styles
It is not. The Greek hoplite was a clumsy and lacking any tactical ineptitude. Instead of being like this:
They have more in common with the guys in the OP:
(OP)

You are being a fucktard.

An actual history thread on Veeky Forums?

Xenophon, while having tendency to favor Sparta, was also a veteran of the mercenary army of the Ten Thousand. He had years of experience out in the field and he clearly saw the piss poor quality of the other hoplites.

It's not only Xenophon. Thucydides reports this line said by Pericles

>Where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. Thuc. 2.39.1

Thucydides, who also tells us that marching in step was a foreign concept to most Greeks.

>After this followed the battle. The Argives and their confederates marched to the charge with great violence and fury. But the Lacedaemonians slowly and with many flutes, according to their military discipline, not as a point of religion, but that, marching evenly and by measure, their ranks might not be distracted, as the greatest armies, when they march in the face of the enemy, use to be. Thuc. 5.70

Thucydides who explicitly tells us the Athenians failed to do the basic military maneuver of wheeling their right flank.

>He went to the spot and saw for himself; but, not wishing to hazard a regular engagement until his allies arrived, and thinking he could get away soon enough, he gave a general signal for retreat, at the same time ordering his forces to retire slowly on the left wing, which was the only direction possible, towards Eion. [4] They appeared to linger; [5] whereupon he caused his own right wing to face round, and so with his unshielded side exposed to the enemy began to lead off his army. Thuc. 5.10

How about Plato who explictly tells us there was no training among the city states?

>"No such group training or competition now exists in any city-state at all, except maybe in a very small way." Plato, Laws 831b

How about the sources I posted from battles? The sources never mention any tactful maneuvers, only the crudest kind of tactics.

1.You cite a statement out of context and historical reference, furthermore you twist its purpose to suit your narrative, Pericles here underlines the indisputable power and influence of the city-state of Athens, these words are used to gain the approval of the Athenian public for the upcoming Peloponnesean War, "We are not uncivilized warmongering barbarians yet we are prepared to silence any threat, we are the city of Athens, the civilization that rules the waves from Sicily to the shores of Asia Minor and the black sea coast." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League

2.Its tiresome to explain the necessity of discipline needed for the concept of Hoplite simply to exist, the fact that Hoplites were raised from the middle to upper class of the citizens, provided their own armor and were trained periodically in arranged by their respectable cities gymnasiums, or the constant state of warfare between the Greek city-states which provide experienced militia.

3. Marching step a foreign concept?
google.gr/search?q=picture of hoplite phalanx&rlz=1C1GIGM_enGR736GR736&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiosa2Jst3YAhUGQZoKHQXxAngQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=918#imgrc=agchCY7hri9qwM:
google.gr/search?q=picture of hoplite phalanx&rlz=1C1GIGM_enGR736GR736&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiosa2Jst3YAhUGQZoKHQXxAngQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=918#imgrc=YHhPdvPvQT6c3M:

4.Reference for historical battles of Hoplite Warfare :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sphacteria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuctra
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaeronea_(338_BC)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cunaxa
historyofwar.org/articles/wars_persian_spartan.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agesilaus_II

Every thread is a pregnant Anne Frank thread

>1.You cite a statement out of context and historical reference, furthermore you twist its purpose to suit your narrative

I'm not taking anything out of context. If you want the full context of that section, here it is. This is part of Pericle's speech at a funeral oration:

>If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. Thuc. 2.39.1

Please make careful note that he actually takees pride in their lack of discipline, in the fact that they live as they please and can take on any threat.

>2.Its tiresome to explain the necessity of discipline needed for the concept of Hoplite simply to exist
Than provide sources rather than linking to wikipedia, I've done you the common courtesy of actually providing sources to prove my point and a lot of them paint the completle opposite. That most Greeks refused to submit to discipline. Again, you're making a lot of assumptions with little evidence.

>3. Marching step a foreign concept?
What is your google image suppose to prove? Are you suggesting Thucydides is daft for suggesting Greek armies, aside from the Spartans, couldn't match in step? I think he's being awfully clear here with two things. First, most Greek armies couldn't march in step, and second, the use of flute players to help others march in step was an alien concept since he tells the reader it's not a religious practice.

>4.Reference for historical battles of Hoplite Warfare :
Wikipedia is not a refrence. On Agesilaus, I already posted a source on how he trained his army:
Notice that all he does is have his infantry do physical exercises. Not mention of anything more.

When you say "All he does is have his infantry do physical exercises" you presume to know what those physical exercises were; you conclude they didn't constitute something we'd consider hoplite training.

Yet, we know that Spartan training (Agesilaos II being a Spartan) included hand to hand combat, group competition, exercising under arms, and drill. The real question is to what extent these people imitated Spartan ways when they tried to impress the Spartan king (I suppose they could have retained non-spartan trainers, too).

You seem to think that riding a horse constitutes cavalry training, so therefore the above practices would constitute hoplite training. Further, the text doesn't explicitly state the horsemen casting or swinging weapons.

The King is offering prizes to the hoplites who have the best bodies, to the horsemen who are the best at riding their horse, and to the peltasts and archers who are best at being bitches.

Everyone is energised and heads to the gym or else gets to work producing the armaments. The text then says that the hoplites go to the gym to perform gym-related exercises, the horsemen go to the horse track to ride, and the skirmishers and archers go to practice their aim.

Going to the gym to do gym stuff could encompass all sorts of training, including strength and agility training, one on one physical combat, group competition, exercises under arms, and drilling. Remember, too, that they're trying to impress a Spartan monarch and they are specifically focused on serving as hoplites.

This is later reinforced by a part that you did not quote:

"And an inspiring sight it would have been to watch Agesilaus and all his soldiers behind him returning garlanded from the gymnasium and dedicating their garlands to Artemis. For where men reverence the gods, train themselves in warfare and practice obedience, there you surely find high hopes abounding."

"train themselves in warfare and practice obedience"

>user posts quotes and sources
>armchair historians and pop culture retards freak out
Please change Veeky Forums.

I am not one of those who claim that every greek engaged in noteworthy hoplite training throughout the Classical period, and it seems we all understand that Spartans and 4th c. mercenaries and elites were special. I just think that the occurrences described in Xenophon's Agesilaus are special.

you're an armchair historian and a revisionist

Truly a powerful, well thought out post. Thank you user for making this board a better place.

autism. You keep posting thought police garbage understandings of your sources. It's pathetic and you're a revisionist.

There's nothing wrong with being a revisionist, user. Sometimes people need to that a more critical view of the source material.

Do you have any actual evidence to the effect that the average hoplite was well trained or that hoplites fought in a disciplined formation?

Cos the other guy has posted a fair amount of evidence to the contrary

I don't need any. You have to prove thsee retarded delusions because the superiority of greek armies is self-apparent in the ancient era .

He has though, repeatedly and quite convincgly

And no greek armies were not obviously superior in the classical period

The greeks colonized and annexed the known world. Fought to the last man, sacrificed their lives to deliver messages across marathon, founded the city of Rome which wen't on to become the Roman Empire, and used the ultimate form of warfare. The Spear and shield. Your spam is wind to that.

the greek phalanx was not unique. heavy spear infantry in tight formation could be found in every corner of the Mediterranean. historians generally agree greek militaries were nothing special.
Spartans were not heavily trained in tactics, only in fitness, and when other cities started doing fitness regimens the spartans suddenly became mediocre. Trojans weren't Greek (they were probably subjects of the Hittites) and they predated your concept of phalanx by 700 years. Thracians didn't even engage in typical hoplite warfare as much.

First of all the large Hoplon was not used for all of Greek history and its not even remotely debatable that the Greeks weren't the only ones who fought in dense formations.

>The greeks colonized and annexed the known world.
Same can be said of the Phonecians and like the Phonecians most of their colonies were peaceful trading colonies that integrated well.
>Fought to the last man
on like one occasion? and on many other occasions surrendered to each other and the Persians as well as other outside forces?
>sacrificed their lives to deliver messages across marathon
you mean one guy in an apocryphal tale?
>founded the city of Rome which wen't on to become the Roman Empire
ahahahahahahaha
>and used the ultimate form of warfare
is that why it was replaced by Macedonian combined arms tactics and then again BTFO by roman tactics?
>The Spear and shield.
oh wow the most common used infantry equipment in all of history? used for millenia before and after the greeks? oh wow ooooo

You shouldn't stutter like a gibbering dumbass when you debate. As for your points against me, they amount to
>my fanfictions
read the illiad and get a clue
or
>it was ONE TIME!
no it wasn't. Marathons are common in greece as are battles fought to the death. They're called annihilation.

>it was not special
they were the only ones who could actually use it to its potential
>it was replaced
no it wasn't. Sure there were horses, but those horses didn't conquer the ancient world twice over, it was greek styles of warfare which romans had used since Troy
>phonecians
they lost like scrubs and got murdered because they didn't use it. They were abominations who focused on trade and human sacrifice, instead of piety and warfare.

>Spartans were not heavily trained in tactics, only in fitness, and when other cities started doing fitness regimens the spartans suddenly became mediocre

No, both false and exaggerated. Spartans were never "mediocre", rather they increasingly lacked sufficient numbers of spartiates due to their social structure degrading and their foreign obligations. Further, they didn't just train "fitness", you make it sound like they just did a lot of cardio and pull ups to the exclusion of everything else. See: Spartans were obviously a distinct group, though, especially early on.

Please tell me this is trolling and that you’re not actually this much of a braindead 300 kiddie

Alexander’s cavalry conquered the world, his phalanx was less innovative than his heavy cavalry tactics, of course after reading this thread I’m convinced you’ve never read a book and are perhaps the most uninformed and aggressively stupid poster I’ve ever seen. Mods should delete your posts and ban you as an example to other shitposters that low effort garbage like this is not tolerated, but alas I doubt that will happen.

test

How am I being a fucktard? Instead of petty name calling I'd like you to explain your points? Are you mad that instead of considering most Greek armies disciplined I called them no different than the guys in the OP? It can not be stressed that most Greek armies consisted of normal people in arms who had little to no discipline and training. This is something I've stressed with what I've posted and I'll stress it again. From there you can call me whatever you want but I'd like you to refute my points. I'm going to repost what I posted but I will post why I did.

First things first, discipline. I already posted plenty of sources but I'll explain my points and organize them:

>Generals, too, differ from one another in this respect. For some make their men unwilling to work and to take risks, disinclined and unwilling to obey, except under compulsion, and actually proud of defying their commander: aye, and they cause them to have no sense of dishonour when something disgraceful occurs. Xen. Ec. 21.4

What you should take away from this passage is that if one didn't want work he didn't have to. Here is the fact that Xenophon is telling us that they take pride on being disobedient. The biggest takeaway here is that there is no military authority. In the eyes of the soldiers it was not considered valid. If they refused to do something they didn't have to do it.

>Mods should delete your posts and ban you as an example to other shitposters that low effort garbage like this is not tolerated, but alas I doubt that will happen
you are reddit trash that lost its way. Go back to your garbage site.

This attitude is shown in this passage I linked earlier:

> Then, without delay, he also made changes in the form of government, establishing thirty rulers in the city and ten in Piraeus. Further, he put a garrison into the acropolis, and made Callibius, a Spartan, its harmost. He it was who once lifted his staff to smite Autolycus, the athlete, whom Xenophon makes the chief character in his ‘Symposium’ ;1 and when Autolycus seized him by the legs and threw him down, Lysander did not side with Callibius in his vexation, but actually joined in censuring him, saying that he did not understand how to govern freemen. But the Thirty, to gratify Callibius, soon afterwards put Autolycus to death. Plut. Lys. 15.5

Lysander was the man who installed the puppet government of the Thirty Tyrants. The Spartan Callibius was the commander of the garrison. Notice when Callibius struck Autolycus with a cane and Autolycus dropped him on the floor that Lysander takes the side of Autolycus, scolding Callibius for not "knowing how to govern freemen."

This story here:
Again, their general has to CONVINCE the men to train despite knowing that battle may be coming. And the men agree to it only to refuse to do it a week later.

if you think that those battles and events did not happen you are a moron revisionist

>For obedience to the officers has been enjoined equally upon us all, and whoever shows himself prompt to comply, I observe that he receives honour from Cyrus. Again, to be brave in the face of the enemy is not a thing to be expected of one and not of another, but it is considered far the noblest thing for all alike. Xen. Cyrop. 2.3.8

Xenophon's fictional account of Cyrus the Great is much more about the Greeks than it is about the Persians. It was written in Greek, for a Greek audience and scholars have pointed out it has parallels to Xenophon's own world.
What you should be noting here is that the men are given honors by Cyrus just for merely obeying orders from their officers.

>perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0206:book=6:chapter=2:section=27
Xen. Hell. 6.2.27-32
This passage here has mundane activities pass off as training which Xenophon endorses.

>“If then, Socrates, I am plainly the best horseman among them, will that suffice to gain their obedience?”

“Yes, if you also show them that it will be safer and more honourable for them to obey you.”

“How, then, shall I show that?”

“Well, it's far easier than if you had to show them that bad is better than good and more profitable.” Xen. Mem. 3.3.10

>“Do you mean that in addition to his other duties a cavalry leader must take care to be a good speaker?”

“Did you suppose that a commander of cavalry should be mum? Did you never reflect that all the best we learned according to custom — the learning, I mean, that teaches us how to live — we learned by means of words, and that every other good lesson to be learned is learned by means of words; that the best teachers rely most on the spoken word and those with the deepest knowledge of the greatest subjects are the best talkers? Xen. Mem. 3.3.11

>And men can be made more obedient by word of mouth merely, by being shown that it is good for them to obey. Xen. Ec. 13.9

>To ensure that the men have a firm seat, whatever the nature of the ground, it is, perhaps, too much trouble to have them out frequently when there is no war going on; but you should call the men together, and recommend them to practise turning off the roads and galloping over all sorts of ground when they are riding to quarters or any other place. For this does as much good as taking them out, and it is less tedious. Xen. Cav. 1.18

>t is useful to remind them that the state supports an expenditure of nearly forty talents1 a year in order that she may not have to look about for cavalry in the event of war, but may have it ready for immediate use. For with this thought in their minds the men are likely to take more pains with their horsemanship, so that when war breaks out they may not have to fight untrained for the state, for glory and for life. Xen. Cav. 1.19

The takeaway here is that one has to be persuaded to obey and train rather than being forced to do so.

Yeah I guess it was all luck

Despite this being written in the Hellenic era it still applies to Classical Athens:
>The fact is that most of those who hold this office of Hipparch, either, from being without any genius themselves for cavalry tactics, do not venture to enforce necessary orders upon others; or, because they are aiming at being elected Strategus, try all through their year of office to attach the young men to themselves and to secure their favour in the coming election: and accordingly never administer necessary reprimands, which are the salvation of the public interests, but hush up all transgressions, and, for the sake of gaining an insignificant popularity, do great damage to those who trust them. Sometimes again, commanders, though neither feeble nor corrupt, do more damage to the soldiers by intemperate zeal than the negligent ones, and this is still oftener the case with regard to the cavalry. . . Plb. 10.22

Here lies one of the biggest factors in why officers lacked the means to do anything about it or even bothering. Because they dreamed of achieving higher office and they needed the support of their men. Their men also had other means of protection such as taking their commanders to court or even attacking them.

You are an assbalsted shitskin armchair revisionist. You belong on Vox

I heard that before the Marian reforms, these armies were just militia.