h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The correct spelling is 'hoplite'.

Noggin

Its all done.

Hoplite was found in the mountain in the mountain of paper labelled spartan resarch (thanks anyways noggin)

The correct spelling of Phalagite (which ive probibly spelt wrong here) has been sorted.

Gosho -
My point about the difference relates basically to the spartans. The Hoplites were to some extent a militia, they weren't employed as soldiers (i think that some of the greek philosophers faught in the phalanges). The Spartan Homoioi (warrior class for those who ive confused here) were professional soldiers payed for by the state. Ill have a dig around the big dictionary at college and see what i come up with.

I think soldiers is too military a term to use, agree there. Men was a bit of a wide-sweeping term in my opinion, but in the case of the history it really was men wasn't it? Old men, young men, men with one eye and so forth. How about "conscripts" or something similar?
PGHF

Perhaps, although i dont know. Let me think on it awhile and get back to you. Conscripts again doesnt sond right


Whilst were on the subject of Sparta..
I came across this A745715. Now if i do Sparta, its going to go over some of this (such as marrage in the Homoioi and womens enteries, and several other bits). Basically im mentioning it now because i dont want to rip off his work. And its not like i can contact him because he hasnt posted in nearly two years...

That one isn't an edited entry, so you're free to write whatever you want about Sparta for the Edited Guide right now. If you use any of the material from that entry you could always credit dwight as a co-writer. Let us know if you're unsure about how to do that.

'Conscripts' would be a good compromise if they were truly were conscripts, but if not then I'm happy with 'men'

ill see what the sub says. Theres not much difference either way to be honest. Its probibly conscripts, but then that would be linked to a guide entery on conscripts during the last few wars (which would be pretty irrelevant)

Brilliant Entry IMO.

HELL

Cheers hell

I'd go with men. Conscript gives an inaccurate impression of the way peasants were forced into military service - soldiers does perhaps give an impression of professionalism that would be present.

Is 'troops' a good compromise between conscripts and soldiers?

Just a thought. I scooted through the entry and liked it a lot. Good one, Asmodai. Not to add to the writing, but is the phalanx in any way related to the Shiltron...ak...

it's the Scots formation of long pointy sticks that was developed to counter English armoured cavalry and was terribly effective. It ends up being employed right up to Napoleon and beyond as the Infantry Square...so the legacy of the Phalanx goes on.

Also, the shipboard anti-missile weapon used on American warships is called Phallanx. It's a HUGE gatling gun affair and looks terrifying. Just some random musings inspired by a good Guide entry!

not really. Troops sounds mainstream soldiery.

Not sure, i shall look into it.

Indeed the legacy of the phallanx went onup until quite recently, but it was never a phallanx again, it was just simply a regiment of pikemen. The scotish formation was so effective because they formed into circles and not rectangles (meaning that it has no flanks, but then again, has no were to run). And even later in its use it was just against cavalry and not against infantry.

What has to be remembered is that in greek hoplite warfare, if there was a battle, the phalanges would storm towards each other, push each other slightly, two men would die and then one side would bugger off home (the casualties in hoplite warfare were usually something stupidly low like 5%)

Perhaps changing the entery name to the phallanx formation, as to not get it confused with the weapon (which i though was a British one..)


Cheers gradient

Its my understanding that the Carthaginians under Hannibal still used phalanxes and defeated Roman legions on several ocasions. The phalanx lacked mobility and flexibility but was unbeatable on open level terrain. With a skilled general like Hannibal who took great care to manouvere his foes into fighting on ground of his choosing it could still beat the legion.

Ill have to check in to that but i very much doubt it. Unless he reverted back to the traditional greek phallanx (the more armoured kind) then he still would have stood a chance (those nice big sheilds are lovely for smashing through walls of pikes). iirc hannibals victories had more to do with cavalry, and being able to hit and run (along with elephants of course), although it is quite possible that he used a regiment of pikemen or two.

It was easily beatable on flat ground, Alexander the great proved that. The Phallanx to the front was unbeatable to some extent, but to the sides and rear it was useless. A unit of quick, light cavalry like that emplyed by alexander proves this.

I will look into this and confirm my suspicisons (or make myself look quite foolish one or the other)

Okay i dug into it but theres slight conflict in what ive seen.

It is said that he did use a phalanx, but these were never his own men (the source i found says that he used italians, reinforced with some of his own men). And then after that every source points towards Hannibals superior generalship rather then the actual composition of his forces to win the day.

Like i said in the article, and on here a few times, regiments of pikemen were broadly used, and i have no doubt that Hannibal probibly did use a regiment of pikemen/spearmen. But they would not have been phalanges.

From what ive found, it points to Hannibal using regiments of pikemen (which have been dubbed phalanges by the sources) to some extent. To warrant a proper mention then id ask for evidence of Hannibal having the core of his forces as phalanges.

Thats the problem with history - half the accounts come from some untrained passer-by.

How about putting a bit more detail into the development of the phalanx into various defensive formations, or its utilisation by generals under special circumstances, however the phalanx was effictively ended as a GENERAL military formation by.....

Whaddya think ?

that'd warrant a seperate entery IMO, simply because they were no longer phalanges any more.

Warfare turned from phalanx vs phalanx (long distance, few loses) to legion vs everything else (very close, very messy, lots of bodies).

It was used after, but mainly against cavalry (pike regiments) because of the fact that they could be used to protect the gunners from cavalry regiments (waterloo iirc) and because they were horrifically effective against heaby cavalry (braveheart anyone?)

I'd say rather than the phalanx being useless it was Hannibals skillful use of different types of troops that made it useful. My understanding is that it was his Libyan troops who were equipped as phalangites, at least originally. Of course the Romans learnt from their mistakes at battles like Cannae, and appointed better commanders like Fabius Maximus and Scipio who were not foolish enough to let Hannibal choose the battlefield.

Okay i dont want to appear to question your knowledge on the subject (this exact period is at the limit of my knowledge).

"I'd say rather than the phalanx being useless it was Hannibals skillful use of different types of troops that made it useful."
Exactly. Phalanx warfare was pretty much that. Battles of phalanges. Little if any cavalry was used, and only a few skirmishers and scouts were used on top of that.

"My understanding is that it was his Libyan troops who were equipped as phalangites, at least originally."
Please give more detail. The phalangites were from the macedonian phalanx (so i assume you mean they were equiped the same). In which case they wouldnt have formed the mainstray of his forces. Used in a similar way to alexander (pinning opponents in place) they had a perfect place in Hannibals forces, but they simply couldnt have been the main unit (after all, alexander was a brilliant general and yet he couldnt beat the romans with the same formation)

Yes, I'd have to accept that the phalanx was no longer the dominant force it had once been

At Cannae Hannibal's army included:

a) Libyans equipped as phalangites. Best disciplined of Hannibals troops. Although usually referred to as Libyan most would probably have come from modern Tunisia.
b)Numidian light cavalry. Excellent skirmishers, rarely closed with an enemy.
c)Iberians. Provided both infantry and cavalry.
d)Gauls. Good but undisciplined infantry who the Romans were used to fighting and beating.
e)Balearic Islanders. Excellent slingers.
f)Elephants. Perhaps a few although most died crossing the alps.

Apart from the Gauls all had served with him in Spain and were used to operating with each other. At Cannae he put his weaker Iberian and Gallic infantry in the centre and the steadier Libyans on the flanks. As the troops in the centre gave way but didn't break the Libyans began rolling up the Roman flanks. When Hannibals cavalry returned from routing the Roman cavalry and attacked the Roman rear the slaughter began. Accounts vary of how many troops the Romans lost, but it was undoubtedly the largest defeat they'd suffered at that date in their history. It was a classic example of using different troop types to complement each other.

It was greatly helped by incompetent Roman leadership and the poor quality of Roman cavalry.

Okay let me think about this and get back to it.

Im in the process of writing but id like to know a few things.
a) date of the battle of cannae (or even the campaign period would be better)
b) was hannibal carthigian?(sp)