You will never be a hoplite and fight in phalanx formation

>be surrounded by hostile neighbors who want to sell your wife and children into slavery
>fight in a glorified shoving match wearing horrendously uncomfortable armor for no wage or recompensation,
>having to supply your own equipment, and if you get taken prisoner of war, you have to pay your own ransom or be worked to death in a rock quarry.
No thanks, I’ll take, toilets, cars, internet, and peaceful neighbors

>you will never have someone pierce your thigh with a spear so it gets infected and you die over the course of two weeks, your body and mind gradually collapsing, only coming back near the end to hear your sons fight over inheritance, powerless to speak up

Its even worse than that. Ideally you would be killed in the rout and not taken as a prisoner. But in the case you did end up prisoner you might be casually murdered or most likely be sold as a slave. The classical Greeks in general did not ransom prisoners of war.

You got the wrong guy. Thats not me and the reason I didnt respond was because I was busy. I thought about making a new thread but decided against it. And i would hardly boast. You tried weasiling your way when showed that long pursuit was desiarable and the Greeks did seek the destruction of their enemies. I also showed that siege warfare and destruction was a reality in archaic Greece. I even showed more than five succesful sieges in the archaic era.

Attached: rou.png (3724x1904, 2.15M)

>Research regarding what exactly Thucydides and Xenophon meant with the term 'Orithmos'
sites.psu.edu/thehopliteexperience/the-othismos/
jstor.org/stable/25598486?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096834459700400101?journalCode=wiha

>inb4 >reddit
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5nn2su/historians_like_hans_van_wees_and_peter_krentz/
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5nn2su/historians_like_hans_van_wees_and_peter_krentz/
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4khcr9/did_greek_hoplites_thrust_overarm_or_underarm/
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2sw3t5/othismos_or_pulse_which_is_the_consensus_model_of/

>And for some more extensive reading:
amazon.com/Hoplites-War-Comprehensive-Analysis-Infantry/dp/1476666024
amazon.com/gp/aw/d/161200119X/ref=sxts_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521035785&sr=1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65

Lift yourselves out of ignorance.

I am cool with that

completely cool with that

Did you seriously just post an image of a Total War game to support your argument?

Hey, retard, nobody's going to 9 sites for this stupid Veeky Forums thread. How about you distill it and make a point instead of posting a wall of links.

kek

Hey retard. The guy literally asked me to prove that there is a shifting consensus of historians and these links show historians that are challenging the traditional model. The reddit links distill the argument pretty cleanly down, especially

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5nn2su/historians_like_hans_van_wees_and_peter_krentz/

Secondly, are seriously complaining about having to read on a history board?

Then post a paragraph about the consensus, jesus christ dude. If you want to follow links instead of hear an opinions, we'd all be on google, not Veeky Forums.

Yes, yes he did.

You realize he was joking, right? I wouldn't even call it trolling, you guys are just retarded.

It's a good mod.

>Everyone that makes stupid posts is joking
Was he? DEI is a good mod though but has the unfortunate hurdle of being stuck on a buggy version of warscape.

Ignorance? The exact sites that you cited state that there is no a current historical consensus on how Greek hoplites fought and in fact the historians and the view you so much cherish are in fact being critisized, not to mention your ridiculous statements about greek and persian warfare and the fact that you mix mycenaean-dark age-archaic-classic-peloponnesian-hellenistic type of warfare and sources all at the same time.

Plus it is spelled "Othismos" : "ὠθισμός", for being interested in ancient greek warfare and its primary sources you are pretty ignorant of its vocabulary.

I am not the guy you contested with by the way but he pretty much silenced you in a number of his posts.

From an outside perspective the literal interpretation of Othismos seems a bit silly. The pushing analogy has always been used in warfare, up to the present day, across countless languages and cultures.

I never said anything about persian warfare nor did I say anything about mycenaean or dark age warfare. In fact, I think the links pretty well contain their definition to around 800 BC to post-peloponnessian Greece and Greek on Greek warfare. The historians there also mention how it is primarily emeritus professors doggedly maintaining this traditionalists view and the current wave of "practicing historians" have either a heretical view or mix of the two, meaning the traditionalist view is dying. You'd know this if you read more than the first sentence in one reddit post of the links I provided. But, alas, you didn't so in ignorance you shall remain.

>You make very well-articulated points backed by evidence that are difficult for me to argue but alas you made a spelling mistake so this allows me to escape this rhetorical corner I find myself in.

>i will never huddle together with a mass of smelly and hairy greeks pushing against each other
Hot, yes homo

I can't distill the argument down to a single paragraph. If just want an overview of each side traditionalists view hoplite warfare as organized and ritualistic with agreed upon battlefields, few to no skirmishers, tightly packed gay blobs shoving each other as groups, and strict ethic codes for combat and post-combat. Heretics think pretty much all of that is an idealized view pushed by Homer and Herodotus but not actually what occurred: less tightly packed, more emphasis on 1 on 1 combat, no strict ethic rules and whoever was most brutal won. And a large part of this debate is about interpretation of what's depicted on a vase.

I can't get any more condensed than that and even then I did a disservice to both sides.

This vase to be precise

Attached: A_reconstruction_of_the_Chigi_Vase.jpg (720x564, 98K)

>more emphasis on 1 on 1 combat, no strict ethic rules and whoever was most brutal won
>1 on 1 combat
This seems really contradictory to me, if you're not adhering to any rules then you won't be duelling, you're going to try to get the guy who isn't looking at you.
I'd say that considering we have good evidence that dense formations were used, and that the term phalanx (at least at some point in classical history) was used to refer to them. For example, Caesar describes Gauls forming up into a dense "phalanx".
Huddling up in a dense formation is also just an intuitive thing to do, both from a practical and psychological perspective. Standing near one-another helps you assist each other in combat, while also giving you a sense of security.

So I'd say that if the terrain allowed it, they probably preferred to fight in close order, trying to find targets of opportunity to attack with their spears from a fair distance. If the terrain was too rough for this, (we're talking about Greece here!) it's very plausible that they were also well equipped for fighting in a looser, more individualistic fashion. This doesn't mean that it was one-on-one. Even in such situations cooperation is still paramount.

I can't emphasize enough to read the links but it's not a binary of dense formation or single combat, but rather spectrum. Traditionalists view that both sides in combat strove to hold formation compact at all times to the point where the spear arm was the only moving part in many engagements since you'd be pushing with all your weight into your shield into the man infront of you, basically a proto-Macedonian phalanx. Heretics think the phalanx was looser than that and while shoving may have occurred there was more thrusting and parry with the enemy in front of you.

Also Caesar's usage of the word would have to no relation to Greek notion of the word. Phalanx is a catch all term that really means little more than a dense formation. Still used together for modern warfare.

heh, dick-swinging faggios

I’ll have you know hoplites would run into battle rather than march in ordered formation

In what way did he silence me? His original post was that because fortified positions were hard to take in the archaic age most city states did not bother much with war and fought limited warfare. In which I showed him the opposite. The Greeks of the archaic era waged destructive all out war. Another point he makes is that the Greeks didnt go chasing each other in long routs and that they didnt seek to destroy each other. Again, he tried to weasel his way put by saying how long the routs were and something about Germany. As for any other point, I could elaborate later if you want me to.

The problem with the chigi vase is thst it is unique. Not only that but its not even from Greece, it is from Italy. The vase was found in the grave of an Estrucan noble as well. Since it is unique and it may have been made for an Estrucan audience we can't really take it as proof of the emergence of the phalanx in the 7th century BC. Other vases of the era depict similar battle styles as those found in Homer. But another point to make is that its not even depicting a phalanx. Those hoplites are carrying two spears and the black speara have a throwing loop.and are shorter than the thrusting spear. On top of that there is an irregular number of people in both rows and its doubtful the piper is marching them in step since we dont hear of that until Thucydides account of the Spartans.

A good read on this can be found here:
academia.edu/29666767/Development_of_the_hoplite_phalanx.pdf

>The problem with the chigi vase is thst it is unique. Not only that but its not even from Greece, it is from Italy. The vase was found in the grave of an Estrucan noble as well. Since it is unique and it may have been made for an Estrucan audience we can't really take it as proof of the emergence of the phalanx in the 7th century BC. Other vases of the era depict similar battle styles as those found in Homer.

The vase is greek in origin to the extent of my knowledge. Just because it was found in Etruria doesn't mean it was Etruscan made or made for an Etruscan audience. Furthermore it's significance is that its the earliest example.

>But another point to make is that its not even depicting a phalanx.

This is, at the very least, a controversial statement. You will be hard pressed to find a large sect of historians, traditionalist or heretical or a mix, that agree with this statement. Most of the big scholars debating this subject operate under the assumption it is depicting a phalanx. If it is not, then it is more troublesome for traditionalist arguments because it is depicting hoplite garb on peoples conducting warfare that is contrary to the honor system established by traditionalists.

>Those hoplites are carrying two spears and the black speara have a throwing loop.and are shorter than the thrusting spear. On top of that there is an irregular number of people in both rows and its doubtful the piper is marching them in step since we dont hear of that until Thucydides account of the Spartans.

Yes this is a routine traditionalist argument. The counter argument is that the warriors are holding the spear 2/3 of the way back which heavily implies it is being thrusted rather than thrown, their distance is shorter than normal throwing range, and that the depiction of a secondary spear and no sword is more proof that hoplite warfare was not this semi-religious monolithic ritual that remained largely unchanged until the post-peloponnessian era.

>you will never be a hoplite and fight in phalanx formation

Your weekends sound boring. Grab some buddies, grab your aspis, and get out there.

Attached: 71fa.jpg (545x409, 62K)

a play-fight isn't a fight

And you're not a fighter. Works out great, doesn't it?

But for real, Get a decent helmet, an aspis, and one of these knifecenter.com/item/CS92R95Z/cold-steel-92r95z-spear-head-rubber-trainer-10-67-inch-blade

I painted mine with bronze latex paint for looks. You get some friends together, and you can at least have some fun drilling and practicing.

Attached: a939.jpg (545x409, 64K)

To be fair he isn't far off from the real thing. Hell if you gather everyone posted here and gave us a spear and shield we can be hoplites too.

Hey since you do reenactment s do you think the aspis is only useful in formation and useless in single combat? Have you tried using it in a sideways stance?

Attached: 1520915126681.png (1420x815, 599K)

I'll be honest, I HATE the Aspis. I have used one in both formation, and single combat, but no matter how you angle it, you're fighting around it, rather than with it. It is an incredibly protective shield, but I prefer my thyreos (I do Etruscan anyways)

Ima be real here: I would do this in a heartbeat. How do I find people to do this with?

>The vase is greek in origin to the extent of my knowledge. Just because it was found in Etruria doesn't mean it was Etruscan made or made for an Etruscan audience. Furthermore it's significance is that its the earliest example.

Ah, you're right. The Chigi Vase was painted by a Corinthian painter. However the fact that it was found on the grave of an Etruscan noble shows that it may have been a vase made for an export market so as I said, we can't be for sure if it was made for a Greek or Etruscan audience.

With that said, I think people are abusing that little vase. The style depicted in the chigi vase is unique, it is not found elsewhere in vase art in 7th century Greece. Out of the many vases of the era this is the only one that depicts this type of style of combat. It seems inane to me to put much stock in it and in fact it may have been an artist experimenting with a new style. In fact later vases also don't show this type of style of combat. To assume the chigi vase shows contemporary combat styles means we have to assume that the style of warfare feel out of style past the 6th century BC.

>This is, at the very least, a controversial statement. You will be hard pressed to find a large sect of historians, traditionalist or heretical or a mix, that agree with this statement. Most of the big scholars debating this subject operate under the assumption it is depicting a phalanx. If it is not, then it is more troublesome for traditionalist arguments because it is depicting hoplite garb on peoples conducting warfare that is contrary to the honor system established by traditionalists.

Actually most people who subscribed to the heretical view, such as Hans van Wees, do not think it's depicting a phalanx, like at all. I made a crude drawing to illustrate what I mean, Hans van Wees makes a few additional points in the pdf I linked to.

Attached: ChigiVase.jpg (1099x570, 292K)

Correction here:
>To assume the chigi vase shows contemporary combat styles means we have to assume that the style of warfare feel out of style past the 7th century BC.

In addition we shouldn't assume the warriors in the center are all that huddled together. They're clearly armed with both a throwing spear, represented by the black spear, and a thrusting spear, represented by the longer and white spear. So if they're chugging javelins at each other they're most likely at a distance and not as packed as the vase suggest, this is just how the artist depicted the scene. There's also more to suggest this like on the right we can see the men have their throwing spear lowered while on the left the other men have their throwing spear pointed up and we even see a few guys barely getting ready for combat. We also see two javelins here. So we can't really take it at face value that they're as close as the vase implies. On top of all that the men of the left side are running, just look at their feet while the men on the right aren't. The uneven number of men between the groups show that this isn't any type of formation.

For real, I would buy a Corinthian helm and a spear head right now, if I had people to do this with.

Where to cop an aspis tho?

>Heretics think pretty much all of that is an idealized view pushed by Homer and Herodotus but not actually what occurred: less tightly packed, more emphasis on 1 on 1 combat, no strict ethic rules and whoever was most brutal won

Actually the idealized view comes from later sources in the Roman and Hellenic period. At least most of them do, I'd have to look at my notes again.

Basically I find the whole pushing business to be a load of bull. Along with the overlapping shields shieldwall. Since most of our sources show that hoplites were clumsy, lacked training and couldn't even maintain cohesion while moving I really doubt they would've been able to maintain a shield-wall of overlapping shields on the move. Most of this comes from Thucydides saying that men look on the protection of the men to his right. However this is what Peter Krentz has to say:

>A single passage in Thucydides' account of the battle of Mantineia is the real foundation of the traditional view, since Thucydides says he is describing the norm (5.71.1): All armies, as they come together, extend toward the right wing, and each side overlaps the enemy's left with its own right, because in their fear each man brings his uncovered side as close as possible (ὡς μάλιστα) to the shield of the man stationed to his right, thinking that the best protection is τὴν πυkνότητα τῆς ξυγkλῄσεως. This passage is less helpful for the study of hoplite formation than at first appears. What did Thucydides consider a (ὡς μάλιστα). How compact did a formation have to be for a hoplite to feel safe? The next paragraph (in which Thucydides uses the verb ξύγkλῃσις twice) makes it clear that a lack of ξύγkλῃσις can mean a gap large enough to hold 2/7 of the Spartan army; a compact ξύγkλῃσις therefore, need hardly have been as tight as three feet per man. Thucydides' (ὡς μάλιστα) is little help without a more specific context.''

Basically Thucydides provides no actual context here. We do not actually know what he meant on how close they had to be within each other. The fact that most hoplites battle tactics was to simply charge at their enemies in battle makes it seem highly suspect.

And of course the belief that the aspis provides no real protection without your buddy's shield to help you out. As shown here:
The aspis, if used in a sideways stance, does end up providing good protection by covering your center mass.

The whole imagining Greek battles also is weird. Xenophon in his Cyropedia writes this:
>So instruct your captains and lieutenants to form a line with each separate platoon two deep.” “And do you think, Cyrus,” said one of the generals, “that drawn up with lines so shallow we shall be a match for so deep a phalanx?” “When phalanxes are too deep to reach the enemy with weapons,” answered Cyrus, “how do you think they can either hurt their enemy or help their friends? For my part, I would rather have these1 hoplites who are arranged in columns a hundred deep drawn up ten thousand deep; for in that case we should have very few to fight against. According to the depth that I shall give my line of battle, I think I shall bring the entire line into action and make it everywhere mutually helpful. Xen. Cyrop. 6.3.21-23

Basically here Xenophon, as Cyrus, argues that two ranks are ideal because only the first two ranks can actually do something. Later on, and his own tactics, he betray this. But the big takeaway is that he mentions only the first two ranks do anything in battle. He doesn't mention someone shoving you from behind.

Why do they look like persians?

Also in his Cyropedia this two rank deep phalanx actually manages to hold an Egyptian phalanx that is formed up 131 ranks deep ( Xen. Cyrop. 6.3.21-3, 6.4.17, 7.1.33-4).

Xenophon also writes this:
>By this manoeuvre the men that remained standing in their places were at once given more courage, for the depth of the line was thus doubled; and those who had fallen back were likewise rendered more courageous, for thus those troops which had been kept standing had now come to face the enemy, and not they. (...) And this arrangement of the lines seemed well adapted both for fighting and for keeping the men from flight. Xen. Cyr. Xen. Cyrop. 7.5.4-5

Notice that absent from the advantages of a deep phalanx is the mentioning of shoving. Instead Xenophon mentions that a deep phalanx raises the moral of the men and keeps them in the fight longer.

At Leuctra the Spartan 12 deep phalanx manged to hold against the Thebans 50 deep phalanx until the Spartan king and some of the officers were killed. In fact it is mentioned that the Spartans managed to drag their king away from the battle line. This would be next to impossible if Greek battles were giant shoving matches.

Wait, not 131 deep but 100.

And as for any strict rules of battle, I point to you to this to know that is a load of shit:

>I never said anything about persian warfare nor did I say anything about mycenaean or dark age warfare.
You did and in fact you mixed all of them, as if the pelloponesean war represents all hoplite warfare through the ages when in fact this was the time that the thureophoroi and the light skirmishers started to appeal more due to the brutality and total war character of the conflict.
I support no thesis, i said that their is a debate as the links you cited show, not a stagnant view that you boast.
>But, alas, you didn't so in ignorance you shall remain
Unlike you i have read the Historiae of Thucydides and Xenophon, not some quotes of it, there is more there than your biased view.
He wrote more than this.

Nevertheless the Persians made a good use of hoplite warfare, in the battles if Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela the center and most highlighted infantry unit of the Persian army were the Greek hoplite units.

Attached: Battle_issus_initial.png (738x563, 34K)

Don't want to start a new thread so I might as well ask here. What is up with formulations like "Phrygian Apollo"? Is the worship of greek gods different, so they get these local, regional adjectives, or do they only serve to make clearer distinctions? It is strange to my post abrahamic religions mind to think of the worship of Bavarian Jesus. So?

Phrygian Apollo is likely used for the Phrygian equivalent of Apollo.

if you mean Epithets like Zeus Nikator or Athena Nike, these in general are used for the "function" these gods posses. Greek worship of Gods was different.
In Crete there was a shrine to Zeus "who judges the dead". There was also Aphrodite Aria, the war goddess.

when it comes to Greek religion you need to forget about the myths

>ywn smell the latrine pit of 5000 sweaty men packed into a pallisade

>tfw no hop-lee-tay gf

Attached: hoplite gf.jpg (744x451, 66K)

Gay

>an idealized view pushed by Homer and Herodotus but not actually what occurred
>more emphasis on 1 on 1 combat, no strict ethic rules and whoever was most brutal won
have you read the Illiad? There's a lot of 1-on-1 fighting and the heroes do savage shit constantly
>When the Greeks lose their star fighter, Achilles, they’re playing at a serious handicap. In desperation, they send two undercover operatives, Diomedes and Odysseus, to slaughter the Trojans in their sleep. It’s a low blow, but it gets the job done: while the Trojans are cuddled up all snug, the two Greeks eviscerate twelve of them, spilling their guts on the ground. “Unholy shrieking rose from them as they died,” Homer says, “and the ground ran red with their blood.”

Yes. That is the Greek way.

Great article addressing that very subject

warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/classics/students/modules/warfare/essays/the_homeric_way_of_war_1.pdf

The short response though is that not all combat = phalanx/hoplite warfare but it definitely in Homer and formed the foundation for this myth of honorable greek warfare.

A good read.

Another interesting tidbit is that Herodotus never uses the word Phalanx in his works and neither does Thucydides. It's first usage in the context we know it comes from Xenophon in the 4th century BC.

There's a curious case to be made since at Marathon since Herodotus mentions that the Greeks there were the first Greeks to run. This is puzzling because that's what pretty much the Greek phalanx did, run at their enemy. It was their hallmark trait.

However, as others have argued, this may have been the first time a phalanx was used by the Greeks. A lot of modern scholars make the assumption that a phalanx was already developed by the time of the Persian Wars and yet nothing in Herodotus account hints at this.

>since Herodotus mentions that the Greeks there were the first Greeks to run.

god you are so fucking stupid

> Another point he makes is that the Greeks didn't go chasing each other in long routs and that they didn't seek to destroy each other. Again, he tried to weasel his way put by saying how long the routs were and something about Germany. As for any other point, I could elaborate later if you want me to.

I was in that thread. He literally posted lines from the Western Way of War flat out stating that most of the deaths in a hoplite combat would be caused in the rout and chase. He stated repeatedly that you quote out of context lines concerning the inability of hoplite chases to last very long, and rarely ending in the complete annihilation of the enemy, as some sort of evidence that they did not happen.

I would direct you to that thread's posts # 4255986, 4255988, and 4270416, which is incidentally the final one in the thread.

>traditionalists view hoplite warfare as organized and ritualistic with agreed upon battlefields, few to no skirmishers, tightly packed gay blobs shoving each other as groups, and strict ethic codes for combat and post-combat
lol no

>emphasis on 1 on 1 combat
laughable, this is war we're talking about
champion combat fits more with the strawman model you peddle in all these threads
>whoever was most brutal won
cringe

I know Hanson describes some killing after the rout. However what Hanson does not mention is that the victors would chase their routing foes to great distances and until nightfall.

My original point is what I've highlighted in red here. Notice that Hanson claims long drawn out pursuit was rare. This is false on the grounds that the Greeks, if it was safe, would chase their routed opponents until nightfall and in some cases even the following day.

The second post is that the Greeks were not aiming for the complete destruction of the enemy army. Again, false. See image here:
Again the guy kept talking about how come they didn't kill everyone or something like that. Again, limitations come into play. Still, Hanson claims that the Greeks didn't seek to destroy each other in the field. By all accounts, this is false. Not only did their after battle rituals emphasize the slaughter of the enemy army, even written works reflect this:

>For, you know, when states defeat their foes in a battle, words fail one to describe the joy they feel in the rout of the enemy, in the pursuit, in the slaughter of the enemy. What transports of triumphant pride! What a halo of glory about them! What comfort to think that they have exalted their city! Everyone is crying: `I had a share in the plan, I killed most'; and it's hard to find where they don't revel in falsehood, claiming to have killed more than all that were really slain. So glorious it seems to them to have won a great victory! Xen. Hiero 2.15-16

On top of all that a 5% lose of men for the victors and a 14% loss for the losers in pitched battle is a pretty big deal despite Hanson underplaying it. As pointed out by John Dayton in Athletes of War this rate of casualties is much higher than those found in the early modern period and even the middle ages.

Attached: WWW2.png (508x656, 210K)

I live in Florida, Greece sounds really comfortable.

He describes the killing after the rout as the bulk of the killing in the battle.

>Notice that Hanson claims long drawn out pursuit was rare. This is false on the grounds that the Greeks, if it was safe, would chase their routed opponents until nightfall and in some cases even the following day.
And he compares it, in the passage you've just cited, to Napoleonic level pursuits, which lasted a hell of a lot longer. Ever think that his definition of a "long pursuit" might be grounded in say, Napoleonic era norms, since he did after all draw a comparison to it? Take a look at the battle of Leipzig sometime, where Napoleon's post-battle retreat past the Rhine took over 2 weeks, with running fights almost every step of the way, some of which were themselves large enough to be considered battles in their own right, such as Hanau.

You can easily say that a pursuit lasting until the dark comes is not long at all.

>The second post is that the Greeks were not aiming for the complete destruction of the enemy army. Again, false. See image here:
The second post of the ones listed, 4255988 talks about how in the pursuit, lighter troops become more valuable than they were previously so in the main melee. I fail to see how you can possibly read it as claiming that the Greeks were not aiming for the complete destruction of the enemy, nor how the picture you're posting, talking primarily how it is that they set up the trophies only after completely securing the field and engaging in a pursuit, even addresses the points.

>Again the guy kept talking about how come they didn't kill everyone or something like that. Again, limitations come into play.
Yes, I seem to recall him talking quite a lot about the weight and the heat exhaustion involved and how it made long pursuits impossible.

Attached: Post 4255988.png (1846x320, 42K)

>14% loss for the losers
So was that total loss during the battle?
Or does that percentage include both losses in battle and deaths during the rout?

>Still, Hanson claims that the Greeks didn't seek to destroy each other in the field. By all accounts, this is false. Not only did their after battle rituals emphasize the slaughter of the enemy army, even written works reflect this:

Referring to the post you've JUST called attention to, you are in fact noting that after the battles, the Greeks tended to.

A) Loot.
B) Set up a trophy
C) Arrange a truce that the losers could claim their dead. This didn't always happen, but was regarded as something customary.

That is not pursuing the enemy to their uttermost defeat, and given your incredibly bad misreading of things as simple as Veeky Forums posts, I suspect that you're misreading again. |

>On top of all that a 5% lose of men for the victors and a 14% loss for the losers in pitched battle is a pretty big deal despite Hanson underplaying it
How is this relevant?

>As pointed out by John Dayton in Athletes of War this rate of casualties is much higher than those found in the early modern period and even the middle ages.
Literally who? I'd be interested in seeing the data behind this, because it certainly seems unintuitive. I can only speak to a hobbyists interest with the later HYW, but if you look at the battles say, after Jean shows up on the scene, we have casualty rates of (winner's then loser's after a /)

Orleans: 21%/54%
Herrings: 4%/12.5%
Jargeau: No reliable contemporary casualty information
Patay: 6%/50%
Gerberoy:3-4%/33%
Formigny:16%/58%
Castillon: 1.4%/40%.

Those seem, actually a lot worse on average than 5% to 14% spread. Maybe the HYW end was exceptionally bloody compared to other 15th century wars, but I've never seen anything to make that claim.

I'm not this imaginery user you've conjured. Also I'd tell you to read the links but it's likely to fall on deaf ears.

I'll respond to this in a bit.

Both rout and deaths during battle.

>Referring to the post you've JUST called attention to, you are in fact noting that after the battles, the Greeks tended to.

>A) Loot
Yes but the chasing of the enemy army was of the upmost priority. Some may have stayed behind to loot while the rest gave chase.

B) Set up a trophy
Which was only set up AFTER the chase, this is important. The trophy was NOT a marker to celebrate victory but a celebration of the slaughter of the enemy and of unrestrained bloodshed.

>C) Arrange a truce that the losers could claim their dead. This didn't always happen, but was regarded as something customary.
Which the truce was a custom of humiliation, not some noble affair between two armies.

>That is not pursuing the enemy to their uttermost defeat, and given your incredibly bad misreading of things as simple as Veeky Forums posts, I suspect that you're misreading again. |
As I said, there is a limitation to what one can do. Wanting to destroy your enemy completely and making it happen are two different things. I think in history is very rare to find an army completely destroyed in the aftermath of pitched battle.

>How is this relevant?
It's relevant because those casualty rates are high. Consider that the Greeks in general would prefer to just kill you during the rout and even as a prisoner you could still be killed rather than sold to slavery.

>Literally who?
independent.academia.edu/DaytonJohn

I'd go look for the data.

>ABC responses.
You're missing the point. Yes, when they were chasing, they were serious about it. They slaughter people they can catch. Then they stopped eventually, probably from exhaustion.

THEN they do a bunch of things that are not conducive to wiping out the enemy, like arranging truces to recover their dead. They want to humiliate the enemy instead of just eliminating him. That's what is being claimed.

> I think in history is very rare to find an army completely destroyed in the aftermath of pitched battle.
If you mean 100% losses, of course, that almost never happens. If you mean the complete erasure of that enemy formation as a coherent fighting force, it varies a lot by period, but that does happen reasonably often.

>It's relevant because those casualty rates are high.
Nobody in this thread or the last one being referred to claimed that the battles were bloodless. It is literally irrelevant to the points at hand.

1/2

>Consider that the Greeks in general would prefer to just kill you during the rout and even as a prisoner you could still be killed rather than sold to slavery.
Okay, I'm considering it. Consider that this is true up until about the late 19th century in pretty much the entire world. How does that make Greek battle any more unrestrained?

>Literally who?
Maybe you're unfamiliar with Veeky Forums lingo, but when someone says "literally who?" they're not actually asking who that person is. I was dismssing him as someone of repute. Let me ask you something, since you're a lot more familiar with him than I. How many papers have you seen someone actually citing to Dayton's work?

>I'd go look for the data.
As far as I can tell, his paper you're referring to doesn't even pre-1600 warfare as a point of comparison to hoplite warfare,and furthermore, makes certain methodological errors; he simply cites Bodart, who used some really sloppy methodology for calculating his ACW losses; overall casualty figures divided by overall troops committed, instead of breaking it down battle by battle to avoid counting people who were never in a danger zone; and invoking a 3:1 wounded to killed casualty ratio only applies to killed on site. If you count the ones who would later die of their wounds, it no longer holds. thomaslegion.net/americancivilwarcasualtiesfatalitiesbattlestatisticstotalskilledwoundedcasualtyfatalityfacts.html

I cannot be certain, of course, but I am less than sanguine about the notion that ancient sources, when computing casualty tallies (and actually computing them as opposed to just making them up) wouldn't count people who got wounded in battle, got infected, and died the next day. And if you in actuality have some 56% of combat casualties as fatalities, as well as a smaller base to sample from since not all soldiers would see combat the numbers go WAY up. This leads me to suspect that some of his other research is also not rigorous.

I loved those books when I was a kid. The art in it was spectacular.

>thomaslegion.net/americancivilwarcasualtiesfatalitiesbattlestatisticstotalskilledwoundedcasualtyfatalityfacts.html
Minor amendment; total killed on site as fraction of overall killed+wounded would equal around 30%, not 56%. That rate would climb as the wounded who would not survive would start to drop off. It also assumes that nobody reported missing would die, which is again extremely optimistic.

>Stab him in the face, crab guy!
>Shut up teacup guy, protect weird face guy you're making a gap!

Sounds like the perfect metal concert to me

Fag

got

>why live?
because you will never be a hoplite and fight in phalanx formation.

Sounds fsir

hey fukface id rather fight in a 14th century swiss pike square.

I'm going to try to find those books again.

Attached: thegreekarmies.jpg (848x602, 259K)

>He describes the killing after the rout as the bulk of the killing in the battle.
True.

>And he compares it, in the passage you've just cited, to Napoleonic level pursuits, which lasted a hell of a lot longer. Ever think that his definition of a "long pursuit" might be grounded in say, Napoleonic era norms, since he did after all draw a comparison to it? Take a look at the battle of Leipzig sometime, where Napoleon's post-battle retreat past the Rhine took over 2 weeks, with running fights almost every step of the way, some of which were themselves large enough to be considered battles in their own right, such as Hanau.
But we're not talking about a Napoleonic context and the size of armies in the Napoleonic era easily dwarfs those in Ancient Greece. Plus it's pretty disingenuous to think being chased for hours on end by the bloodthristy victors isn't a long-drawn chase.

>The second post of the ones listed, 4255988 talks about how in the pursuit, lighter troops become more valuable than they were previously so in the main melee. I fail to see how you can possibly read it as claiming that the Greeks were not aiming for the complete destruction of the enemy
Those are the claims VDH makes, not me. I even highlighted them in red in the page and I can highlight more examples if you want. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, he writes that the chase was not crucial which goes against what the Greeks wrote, the chase and slaughter was the only way to utilize victory. The picture I posted was meant to highlight the fact that the Greeks did seek to destroy their enemies.

I already wrote in that topic about fortified attacks and how they were NOT rare. Not during the classical period nor the archaic period. Written works by poets speak of this, the oral traditions collected by Herodotus speak of many successful sieges, and even hymns to the Gods speak of sacks of cities in the archaic period.

Also wars were destructive. To have your cities captured by the victor meant three things. To have your population enslaved and scattered, for adult men to be killed and women and children enslaved, or to face exile. All these practices date back to the archaic period and they are attested in the classical era. To say this isn't destructive is inane.

And for the hell of it, some bad history told by VDH that I have compiled for fun:

Calling the aspis "hoplon", saying it provided poor protection, thinking the Greeks stopped chugging javelins by the 9th century BC which is false even the famed chigi vase in the 7th century shows this , saying rear ranks pushed the front ranks while Xenophon writes the opposite, only the first two ranks do any real fighting, saying hoplites were impregnable from light infantry and cavalry on flat free ground which in fact this type of ground is where light infatry shone and where cavalry ruled. The hoplite did not own the open plains, cavalry did. I point to you this saying in Athens:
>Calling Socrates to an argument is calling cavalry into an open plain. Plat. Theaet. 183d

Thinking the Greeks only fought with heavy infantry during the Persian Wars, see:
>So the total of all the light-armed men who were fighters was sixty-nine thousand and five hundred, and of the whole Greek army mustered at Plataea, men-at-arms and light-armed fighting men together, eleven times ten thousand less eighteen hundred. The Thespians who were present were one hundred and ten thousand in number, for the survivors1 of the Thespians were also present with the army, eighteen hundred in number. These then were arrayed and encamped by the Asopus. Hdt. 9.30.1
Thinking the Persians were all lightly armed:
> the Persians were equipped in this way: they wore on their heads loose caps called tiaras, and on their bodies embroidered sleeved tunics, with scales of iron like the scales of fish in appearance Hdt. 7.61.1
This is where Herodotus contradicts himself, saying there is such thing as a hoplite class which is wrong. Hoplites came from all manner of backgrounds such as the poor who could barely afford a spear and shield to the wealthy man who couldn't afford a horse:
>do you not suppose it often happens that when a lean, sinewy, sunburnt1 pauper is stationed in battle beside a rich man bred in the shade, and burdened with superfluous flesh,2 and sees him panting and helpless3 Plat. Rep. 8.556d
Claiming lack of cavalry and light infantry during the Persian Wars.
See: (Hdt. 9.22.2, 9.60), (Hdt.5.63.3–4), (Hdt. 9.22.2, 9.60), (Hdt. 3.39.3 and 3.45.3) for the usage of archers and horsemen in Greek armies during the Persian Wars and before.
Gelon of Syracuse offered significant support of light infantry, heavy infantry, cavalry, archers and slingers in the fight against the Persians. (Hdt. 7.158.4)

Claiming in page 97 that "ambushes, surpirse attacks and entrenchment were not popular options" and so is the notion that battles were fought in open plains due to this, in page 13 he claims the Greeks had a disdain for "tactics of evasion", in that same page, he writes "There is in all of us a repugnance, is there not, for hit-and-run tactics, for skimishing and ambush". In page 14 he writes "The Greeks of past (...) had no interest in victory through tricks and deceit". This is wrong because Greek warfare is chalk full of things like this and I'll list them to show how wrong this is. In fact it's the other way around, pitched battles in the open plains was the last option for Greek armies if they couldn't find another way to fight their opponents. I'll give some examples

In 546 BC Peisitratos regained his tyranny by attacking his enemies during rest following breakfast (Hdt. 1.63.1). No condemnation for this act from Herodotus and in fact we find out a seer had a role in the ploy (1.62.4).

Early in the 5th century BC the Phocians anniahlated a force of Thessilians by a night attack. To this we find that another seet was behind the ploy. The victors dedicate their spoils at Delphi and Abai (8.27.3-5).

The Spartans rebuild the Phocians' wall at Theyrmoypalia and fought from there (Hdt. 7.175-177).

In 418 BC both Argos and Sparta go to battle, the first thing both sides do is not seek out a flat plain to duke it out but instead seize a hill in which the Argives hoped to catch the Spartans alone before their allies arrived, instead King Agis breaks camp at night and sneaks away (Thuc. 5.58.2) To this King Agis instructs his allied horsemen to attack the Argives on the rear when they were engaged with the Spartans (Thuc. 5.58.4). However they were saved in the last minute by two men who went to ask for a truce (Thuc. 5.59.5). However both sides became mad at this (Thuc. 5.60.2, 5) since they both believed they had the perfect chance to crush their enemy. For his part on the truce Thrasylus was stoned by the men to which he managed to escape so he had his property confiscated instead (Thuc. 5.60.6).

Shortly after both armies marched out to war. The Spartans invaded the lands of Argos' ally, Mantineia. The Argives and allies take up position on a hill (Thuc. 5.65.1-2). The Spartans stage a withdrawl to force the Argives and their coalition off the hills and this ploy works (Thuc. 5.65.5).

Isocrates writes
>For experience has shown that when you go to war with people who are gathered together from many places, you must not wait until they are upon you, but must strike while they are still scattered. Isoc. 4 165

Timolaus urges his allies to attack Sparta itself before Sparta's allies could gather using the analogy of a river, weak at the source but get stronger as other rivers empty into them (Xen. Hell. 4.2.11).

Xenophon praises Jason for advancing deep into Beotia before they could gather their forces in which Xenophon writes "speed rather than force which accomplishes the desired results" (Xen. Hell. 6.4.21).

The use of walls:
Thuc. 5.59.4
Xen. Hell. 3.5.18-19, 5.3.5, 4.53
Aeneas the tactican writes:
> Again, if such places do not exist, it is necessary to occupy near the city other points of support, so that you may both fight to good advantage and also be able easily to withdraw from the place whenever you wish to retreat to the city. Aen. tac. 16.18

The Spartans threatened to divert the waterwork to flood the enemy territory to lure the Argives out of the hills (Thuc. 5.65.4).

The Spartans provoked the battle of Nemea by invading Corinthian land before the coalition was ready to march out (Xen. Hell. 4.2.13-14)

The Spartan king Agesilaos used deception against the Persian Tissaphernes by speed and misdirection (Xen. Ages. 1.16-17, 29).

Agesilos applies this methods in Greece as well. In 390 BC he managed to draw away the garrison at Piraeum by pretending to march unto Corinth (Xen. Hell. 4.5.3).

Agesilos plays a similar trick on the Thebans by pretending to march unto Thebes. When the Thebans try to catch up to him some of his forces attack them on the flank (Xen. Hell. 5.4.50-51).

The Spartan Cleombrotus invaded Boeotia via an unexpected route, forcing the Thebans into pitched battle at Leuctra (Xen. Hell. 6.4.3-4).

Epaminonodas tried to take Sparta by surprise when the Spartans were entrenched at Mantinea (Xen. Hell. 7.5.9-10).

Xenophon writes:
>Sometimes it is proper to tackle the enemy while his troops are at breakfast or supper or when they are turning out of bed. For at all these moments soldiers are without arms, infantry for a shorter and cavalry for a longer time. Xen. Cav. 7.12

Timoleon attacks his enemies while they were setting up camp (Plut. Tim. 12.4-8)

Thrasybulus surprise attack at dawn (Xen. Hell. 2.4.5-6).

Epaminononodas surprise attack at dawn in which he manages to get his men to arrive just as the watch was changed (Xen. Hell. 7.1.15-16).

The Arcadians dawn attack against the Eleans (Xen. Hell. 7.4.13).

Demosthenes night attack against the Ambraciots (Thuc. 3.112.1).

Boeotian exiles ambush the Athenians while on the road to which the Athenians are defeated (Thuc. 1.113).

Peisistratus in the 6th century BC set up an ambush against the Megarians who were attempting a night attack. (Aen. Tact. 4.8-9)

Iphicrates was know for being a master at ambush (Xen. Hell. 4.4.15, 8.35-9, 5.1.10-12).

Camps could also be set up in irregular terrain:

Hills:Plataia (Hdt. 9.19), Lyncos (Thuc. 4.124.2-3), Amphipolis (Thuc. 5.7.4) Coroneia (Xen. Hell. 4.3.16), Leuctra (6.4.4, 14). Ravines: Olpai (Thuc. 3.107.3) Rivers: Olympia (Xen. Hell. 7.4.29)

King Agis refused to do pitched battle against the Argives without his allies (Thuc. 5.58.2)

The Athenians refused to engage Brasidas at Megara since they believed the dange was not equal (Thuc. 4.73.4).

The Chians left the countryside to the Athenians after losing three times (Thuc. 8.24.2-3).

The Thebans refused to engage Agesialos in the open plain and instead stayed in their fortifications (Diod. 15.32.3).

The Corinthians charged at the Athenians while they were disembarking from their ships (Thuc. 4.43.1).

The Thebans formed up their army behind a hill, away from the eyes of the enemy (Thuc. 4.93.1, 96.1)

Brasidas hoped to keep his troops out of sight and make an unexpected charge at the Athenians (Thuc. 5.9.6-7, 10.2)

The Athenians did a surprise attack against the Corinthians at Megara (Thuc. 1.105.6).

Giving this thread a bump because I am composing a long rebuttal and I don't want it to slide off the catalog before I am finished.

no homo

Attached: MV5BMTI2OTA1MTEzMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzg1NTIyMw@@._V1_SX1777_CR001777927_AL_Spartans.jpg (1777x927, 262K)

>True
So then you admit that your claim from the last thread, post 4254808, in which you said, and I quote

>However it's still a widely held belief that the Greeks didn't chase each other following the rout
And then you followed up with post 4255571, in which you said, and I quote
>Is it not what he writes in his little books?

Is in fact wrong.

>But we're not talking about a Napoleonic context and the size of armies in the Napoleonic era easily dwarfs those in Ancient Greece.
He literally compared it to Napoleonic contexts in the passage you cited. "Unlike Napoleon". It is the intuitive reading of the passage that he is using that as a standard of comparison for what a "long drawn out pursuit" is.

>Those are the claims VDH makes, not me.
The claim YOU made, in this post, is, and I quote:
>The second post is that the Greeks were not aiming for the complete destruction of the enemy army. Again, false. See image here:

referring to this post, which referenced three posts. The second one has absolutely nothing to do with your claim. Your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible.

> I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, he writes that the chase was not crucial
No, he doesn't.

>I already wrote in that topic about fortified attacks and how they were NOT rare. Not during the classical period nor the archaic period. Written works by poets speak of this, the oral traditions collected by Herodotus speak of many successful sieges, and even hymns to the Gods speak of sacks of cities in the archaic period.
Please, show me your framework for deciding how many references need to exist before any event is decided as common or rare.
Nothing you've said addresses any of the points made. When did anyone in this thread or any other referenced, make a claim, quoting VDH or any other scholar, that wars weren't destructive? Why do make nonsense claims like this one:

1/?

>As pointed out by John Dayton in Athletes of War this rate of casualties is much higher than those found in the early modern period and even the middle ages.
When Dayton (a nobody) makes no such claim whatsoever regarding medieval warfare, and his claims concerning early modern warfare are completely unsupported, citing to this work,

ia802607.us.archive.org/16/items/lossesoflifeinmo00bodauoft/lossesoflifeinmo00bodauoft.pdf

which gives no indications whatsoever as to the source of its casualty data Dayon cites religiously, and then goes on to actually malign the points made in it as well. From page 80 of the pdf in the link you provided.

>and the wounded/killed ratio reached the traditional 3:1, a proportion which works remarkably well for battles from the mid-seventeenth century until WW1.

He cites Bodart pages 18-19, and 119 for these assertions.

Let's look at Bodart's page 18-19, shall we

>A comparative investigation of several hundred battles of modern and recent times with respect to the proportion of killed and wounded shows that the relation may be expressed by the numerical ratio of 10 to 35. That is, out of every 45 men put out of action, 10 on the average are killed, or about three times as many are ordinarily wounded as killed outright.

Interestingly, he forgets to mention

>Normally, from twelve to fifteen per cent of the wounded later die of their wounds; in the case of the Japanese, the figure is almost 22 percent.
And the only three wars referenced (with zero internal citations) are the Franco-Prussian war, and Russo Japanese war. Because two wars makes a pattern, right? And of course, the level of medical care and technology would be constant in a late 19th or early 20th century war and say, something that Louis XIV was fighting

2/?

Page 119 gives a casualty list for a selection of battles in the Napoleonic wars, with incidentally no breakdown whatsoever of killed to wounded, you'll also note that Bodart's previous assertions about killed to wounded ratios are only asserted for modern and recent wars, with no criteria given for if something like the Napoleonic war even counts as such. There are again, zero internal citations demonstrating where he gets this information.

I am not an academic. I am an interested amateur, and it took me about 15-20 minutes to notice how sloppy Mr. Dayton's work is. Why are you citing to him? And why are you making claims that he doesn't even make as if they'd support your point, which is irrelevant to what is being claimed anyway?

>saying it provided poor protection,
Really, where does he say this? Why does luna.cas.usf.edu/~murray/pdf/Hanson-01.pdf, page 50, say

>The Hoplite's most important piece of defensive armament was his shield, a rounded, concave piece of wood some three feet in diameter, the exact size somewhat depending on the length and strength of the individual wearer's arm.

Oh, you're looking at this passage, from chapter 4 of the Western Way of War.

>Yet, despite the shield's great weight and size, well over half a man's height, its round shape offered poor protection for the entire body, unlike the rectangular model of the later Roman legionary or the body shield of the earlier Dark Age warrior;

Do you actually contest what is claimed? That it's poor IN COMAPRISON to a Roman Scutum or the shields used in the dark age?
3/?

> thinking the Greeks stopped chugging javelins by the 9th century BC
Where does he claim this? Are you sure you're not confusing a claim about hoplites as hoplites fighting in a phalanx with a rather larger and more ridiculous claim that they stopped using javelins entirely?

What do you think is meant by passages like this one, from WWW chapter 12, page 140
>Lastly, there was always the fear of missile attack. Most infantry knew of the damage inflicted even to armored men by well trained slingers, archers, and javelin throwers. There was no desire to stay still and allow the enemy to fix his aim on a stationary target;

>saying rear ranks pushed the front ranks while Xenophon writes the opposite

Funny, in Memorabilia, (3.1.8) we have our youth saying that you have to put your best men in the front and the rear, so that the formation can be led by the van and pushed by the rearguard, and neither Xenohpon nor Socrates seem to think there's anything wrong with this statement. Which actually does imply that the rear ranks are doing something. For that matter, if a phalanx is only supposed to be two ranks deep, exactly who is in the middle? And if arranging your phalanx deep is such a bad idea, let's continue talking about Leuctra. Hellenica 6.4.12 very explicitly states that the reason the Thebans are massing so deeply in one portion of the line is that they're betting that if they can break the part of the phalanx that Cleombrotus is personally in, the rest of the Spartan army will collapse. If those guys except in the first two ranks don't really do much, why were the Thebans making this calculation? If only the first two, maybe three ranks actually can spear the enemy, and all other considerations are useless, what are those other 47 or so ranks doing?

4/?