Hawk_eye

I beg to differ:
The study of homoeroticism in ancient Greece has been the subject of serious study for the past 20 years since Sir Kenneth Dover's groundbreaking (and still seminal) work, Greek Homosexuality (1978, now in a 1989 revised edition).
Other important work in monograph form includes Marilyn Skinner's Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture (2004), James Davidson's Courtesan's and Fishcakes: the Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (1998), John Winkler's The Constraints of Desire (1990), and David Halperin's 100 Years of Homosexuality (1990). Yet none of these mention Alexander much, if at all.

For further reading please reffer to: http://pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=42

Also coming to his leadership:

Alexander had a highly trained, disciplined veteran army ogranized around units of pikemen armed with sarissas, fourteen-foot-long pikes twice the length of normal spears. Supporting the sarissa units were highly mobile light infantry and cavalry troops prepared to attack the flanks or to exploit breaches of enemy defenses created by the pikemen. Units of engineers, capable of quickly erecting catapults and siege machines, supported the main force.

Alexander quickly won the battle at the Granicus River in 334 B.C., besides being outnumbered by several thousand with casulties of only a few hundred men.

Alexander met King Darius III at Issus now syria, Darius's army outnumbered Alexander's army three to one and some say even ten to one. Alexander clenched victory even when the original attack by the phalanx was unable to break the huge persian front and his cavalry had failed in their flanking attempt, regardless he rallied his troops and lead a direct attack towards darius. The persian lian folded to the superior Macedonian cavalry charge, and darius hastily withdrew. With his troops not far behind.

Another noteworthy battle was that of Alexander's encounter with the Indian King Porus, Porus employed more than two hundred war elephants against the Macedonians in the Battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander and his army still secured victory and defeated Porus. Alexander is known my many a soldier and general as the General who never lost a battle.

Truly, he in my humble opnion, he diserves the title Alexander the Great!

And as for the Rome V Greece Debate, it is true that the Romans did defeate Phillp V and drove back Antiochus, Greece was invaded three time by Rome the Third being the the Third Macedonian War (172-168 BC).

However i will say one thing!

While Rome was engaged in internal politics and the conquest of Italy, the Macedonian Greeks first conquered the Greek mainland and peninsula, and then, literally, the whole of the world. By 324 BC, when Rome still didn't control much of Italy and the city was still struggling with friction between the patricians and the plebeians, the entire world east of Rome, everything, was under the control of a single man, Alexander the Great.

__________________
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/8...taneditres.jpg

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a [person] does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses their intelligence.
--Albert Einstein

lemontree

The Pincer movement, always works.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Praxus

Hawk_Eye Polybius say's that the pikes were 21 feet tall. Do you mean that the part in front of them is 14 feet or the whole thing is?

Rome conquered Greece and liberated it, from itself. Stoped all of it's internal fighting and complaining and unified it under Roman Law.

The Roman Chorort/Maniple was supperior to the Greek Phalanx. This gave the Romans an advantage on broken and rugged terrain.

Hawk_eye

Well actually this is quite speculative The length of the sarissa, according to Delbrück, may have been up to 24' long or as short as 14'. The more traditional view is that all of the sarissas were the same length. Delbrück argues that not all of the sarissa's used by the phalanx were of the same length. In his view the first rank fought with a spear in the Hoplite manner. The following ranks wielded progressively longer sarissas so that all points came to about the same plane in front of the first ranks.

The sarissas of the first 6 ranks are shown below.


To the far left is the 6th rank. Since the sarissas from this rank would not project beyond the first rank they are held pointed up at an almost vertical angel. The sarissa for the 6th rank is shown foreshortened.

The sarissas of the first 5 ranks all project to about the same distance. They are 21', 18', 15' and 12' in length. The spears in the first rank are 9' long.



The drawing shows how the formation would have looked. Each rank is colored to make them easier to distinguish.

The hedge of 5 pike points per file would certainly have presented a formidable front.

Each rank is slightly staggered so that the sarissa can project over the shoulder of the ranks in front. This works on paper but in practice the lines could not have been kept so neatly. Since the phalanx is always described as tightly compressed it would seem that the sarissas would have to have been pointed above the heads of the ranks in front. Were this the case they would not be particularly effective against the charging Romans who could easily slip under them.


The same concern expressed above about the sarissas clearing the heads of the ranks in front would apply here.


A major difference with this formation is that the first line of sarissa points occurs not 4' from the first rank, as above, but as much as 10' to 16', thus keeping the Romans well out of effective sword range. In the drawing to the left the sarissas of the first rank project 11'.

However they were held, the length of the sarissa would have made them difficult to maneuver. The butts projected behind, the shafts were either between the heads of the ranks in front or over their heads. Any large movement of the sarissa would have resulted in a collision either behind or in front.


John Warry, in Warfare in the Ancient World, shows the phalanx in a more open position in which the pikes of each rank have a clear field to the front. This formation is shown below. The difficulty with this solution is that the phalanx is always described as a tight formation, with only 1'6" to the file. This formation has as much as 4' between files.

Praxus

Thanks for the information. From what I have read it seems that the Phalanx was deemed more or less invincible in the front when the line is not broken. The problem with this is that the line at some point is going to obstruct. It is near impossible to choose land where you can have 10,000+ troops lined up without having some obstacle, which would break up the front edge of the Phalanx. The Roman Army could exploit this, once the phalanx is broke, the Greek soldiers would have to pull out their Xiphos and engage the Romans in a manner where the Romans had a distinct advantage.

Further more Polybius states that the pike is 21 feet, 15' in front and 6' in back. He gives credit to the Romans being victories in the follow statement...

"What then is the factor which enables the Romans to win the battle and causes those who use the phalanx to fail? The answer is that in war the times and places for action are unlimited, whereas the phalanx requires one time and one type of ground only in order to produce it's peculiar effect. Now if the enemy were compelled to position themselves according to the times and places demanded by the Phalanx whenever an important battle was imminent, no doubt those who employ the Phalanx would always carry off the victory for the reason I have given above. But if it is quite possible, even easy, to evade it's irresistible charge, how can the phalanx any longer be considered formidable? Again, it is generally admitted that its use requires flat and level ground which is unencumbered by any obstacles such as ditches, gullies, depressions, ridges, and water courses, all of which are sufficient to hinder and dislocate such a formation. There is a general agreement that it is almost impossible, or at any rate extremely rare, to find a stretch of country of say two or three miles or more which contains no obstacles of this kind."

Well I don't think it is, I would take the word of someone alive when the Phalanx was still being used (in the same manner as was used by Alexander) over the opinion of someone who lived 1000+ years after the final use of the Phalanx. In fact Polybius was a Greek and had first hand experience with both the Roman and Greek militaries.

The Chap

Bribery, subversion, blackmail, co-option, assasination and Mutual Assured Destruction. And seduction. Y'gotta love the honey trap ...

Why? Because they save lives.

__________________
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

lemontree

Sure, you are right. But these tactics are not used by soldiers but by politicians and spooks, and you know what these guys are made off.

Parihaka

yeh, they're the guys who hopefully do their job right so the soldiers don't have to fight at all...

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Nurhrachi

I have been told about Alexander and I am adding my part on the talk about his sexuality. Greek army generals had the belief that they were not worthy to lead troops until they, 'bung-holed' a boy. Thank g-d that isn't the case now.

And on the case of the sarissa's length. I have heard that the average sarissa was 18ft. long. I wouldn't doubt that they would be shortened for mountain warfare, or that they might of been made in a rush, but I know the sarissa to be usually 18ft. long.

Great picture of a 256 (16x16) Sarissa unit


My favorite formation is the Gates defensive formation. Defensive formations made a unit timid (it still does), Attacking gave them corrage (it still does), and if a unit could hold this formation and still be worthy of it's orchestras, then it was a good unit.

By the way I'm new and this place is great for someone like me to learn more about war tactics present and past.

JAD_333

Awesome picture.

Were there any effective tactics to counter units armed with the sarissa?

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

deadkenny

The Persians didn't manage to cope with it too well. For that matter, neither did the Greek city states themselves. However, the Romans did manage to handle it. Part of the key to Alexander's success was the combination of the sarissa armed phalanx and effective heavy cavalry. By the time the Romans were fighting Macedonia and the Hellenistic successor states, no one opponent had an effective combination of phalanx and cavalry as Alexander had enjoyed. Tactically, the way the Romans would deal with the sarissa armed phalanx would be for the legion to 'bombard' them with a salvo of pila and then move in with their shortswords. No doubt, some of the legionnaires would get 'impaled' on the spears, but that would facilitate the others getting 'inside' the long spears, and start to 'break up' the phalanx.

Kansas Bear

Battle of Pydna 168 BCE

THE THIRD MACEDONIAN WAR

zraver

Historical accounts also show the Macedonians were terrfied of the gladius use din a chopping motion (vs the normal stabbing method) when the legionares got inside the Phalanx.

glyn

Go to Introductions and tell us about yourself, then complete your public profile.

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Big K

i like the Greek tactics

and the Crescent Formation of Turks,

Battle of Manzikert 1071
Byzantine vs Seljuks

"The battle

Romanus was unaware of the loss of Tarchaneiotes and continued to Manzikert, which he easily captured on August 23. The next day some foraging parties under Bryennius discovered the Seljuk force and were forced to retreat back to Manzikert. The Armenian general Basilaces was sent out with some cavalry, as Romanus did not believe this was Arslan's full army; the cavalry was destroyed and Basilaces taken prisoner. Romanus drew up his troops into formation and sent the left wing out under Bryennius, who was almost surrounded by the quickly approaching Turks and was forced to retreat once more. The Turks hid among the nearby hills for the night, making it nearly impossible for Romanus to send a counterattack.

On August 25, some of Romanus' Turkish mercenaries came into contact with their Seljuk relatives and deserted. Romanus then rejected a Seljuk embassy and attempted to recall Tarchaneiotes, who was of course no longer in the area. There were no engagements that day, but on August 26 the Byzantine army gathered itself into a proper battle formation and began to march on the Turkish positions, with the left wing under Bryennius, the right wing under Theodore Alyates, and the centre under the emperor. Andronicus Ducas led the reserve forces in the rear. The Seljuks were organized into a crescent formation about four kilometres away, with Arslan observing events from a safe distance. Seljuk archers attacked the Byzantines as they drew closer; the centre of their crescent continually moved backwards while the wings moved to surround the Byzantine troops.

The Byzantines held off the arrow attacks and captured Arslan's camp by the end of the afternoon. However, the right and left wings, where the arrows did most of their damage, almost broke up when individual units tried to force the Seljuks into a pitched battle; the Seljuk cavalry simply fled when challenged. With the Seljuks avoiding battle, Romanus was forced to order a withdrawal by the time night fell. However, the right wing misunderstood the order, and Ducas, as an enemy of Romanus, deliberately ignored the emperor and marched back to the camp outside Manzikert, rather than covering the emperor's retreat. Now that the Byzantines were thoroughly confused, the Seljuks seized the opportunity and attacked. The Byzantine right wing was routed; the left under Bryennius held out a little longer but was soon routed as well. Romanus was injured, and taken prisoner when the Seljuks discovered him"

__________________
When i say, there will be no effect but i am not willing to remain silent.
-Fuzuli