[dugfromthearth]

it took, for the Athenian hoplites, almost half an hour to go from Athens to Marathonas, a distance almost 40km

are you really saying that the Athenian hoplites traveled 80km per hour? I think either your numbers are off or your source is lying.

Hoplites were slow compared to light infantry and cavalry. Hoplite phalanxes were even slower as they relied upon close formation.

But as noted by another - most importantly hoplite formations were extremely hard to maneuver. This was mostly because the soldiers were militia. The Spartans were noted for being able to wheel their formation without it breaking apart.

The real weakness of the greek military was (also as noted by another) that it used the hoplites almost exclusively. It had amazing heavy infantry but lacked effect other arms.

Not only did the Romans defeat the phalanxes, Philip of Macedon defeated them when they were essentially at their height.


Dionysys got the name The Besieger for his siege of Rhodes - a Greek city.

And the Spartan phalanx was defeated by Thebes and the Sacred Band.

The Spartan phalanx was good. As elite heavy infantry they were very good. As was the Sacred Band, the Varangian Guard, the Praetorian Guard, the Teutonic Knights - and any other unit of elite heavy infantry or cavalry. The spartan phalanx looks especially good because they were facing either light troops or militia. Remember that there were never more than 9,000 total Spartans. The most they ever fielded at one time was 3,000. Most of the "Spartan" army was actually allies.

The Greek hoplites were equipped with swords. They knew how to wield them and fight against them. What the Romans had were steel swords and a new way of fighting with them.

[Panagiotis-Hector]

are you really saying that the Athenian hoplites traveled 80km per hour? I think either your numbers are off or your source is lying

Sorry i typed it by mistake.I wanted to type almost one and a half an hour...Believe me or not...Sorry about that wrong piece of information.

This was mostly because the soldiers were militia.

There were many militias, but there were also a lot of professional soldiers.

Philip of Macedon defeated them when they were essentially at their height

OMG!What are you talking about???Almost all of the Greek cities were ''crippled'' by the Peloponnisian war.Even the winner Sparta was in a stage of deep decline.

Dionysys got the name The Besieger for his siege of Rhodes - a Greek city

Rhodes was a Greek city, but it was built by Greeks of the Asia minor area who went there.They are the eastern people i was talking about.I see why you're confused.If i was refer to the people of Irak-Iran-Syria area i would say Eastern kingdoms.The eastern Greeks of Asia minor used to raise walls.I mean stone walls.Just Athens and a few other cities of the Greek main land had stone walls.

And the Spartan phalanx was defeated by Thebes and the Sacred Band

I didn't said they were invincible.

As was the Sacred Band, the Varangian Guard, the Praetorian Guard, the Teutonic Knights

Yea....the only difference these troops had was that the Spartans killed all sick babies and trained the males from the age of 6 'till 60 to fight.Oh, and that they never thought that they have lives.They were machines built to kill and protect their country.

The spartan phalanx looks especially good because they were facing either light troops or militia.

Every Greek soldier was considered as light trooper.They never used these iron buckets like in the dark ages.These were heavy troops.And militias???sure, but militias were not all the army.Almost every city had at least a few professional soldiers.

Remember that there were never more than 9,000 total Spartans. The most they ever fielded at one time was 3,000. Most of the "Spartan" army was actually allies

Actually 10.000.The most they ever fielded was 10.000(i think all of Sparta???) at the battle of Plataea.The Spartan army was the 10.000 Spartans.The rest allies were just allies, not in the Spartan army.

The Greek hoplites were equipped with swords. They knew how to wield them and fight against them. What the Romans had were steel swords and a new way of fighting with them

The Greek hoplites knew how to fight with them, but not as a main weapon.They had their spears as main and they used them against the Romans.And yes the Romans had a ''new'' way, the way of ''open the way for me'' as i call it they were using their swords to move the spears and advance within the Phalanx.The hoplites didn't figured a way to deal with that, and that's why they lost.

Actually, I was thinking of Dionysius of Syracuse.

Oh, ok then.

It wasn't. The cavalry and chariots were the stars of the Assyrian army, though the infantry was actually its battle-winning unit. Sort of like the tanks and infantry of the Nazi Wehrmacht

Yea...like that.
So the stars were not really stars?Why was the infantry the battle-winning unit, if the stars were the cavalry and the chariots?

[Potemkin]

So the stars were not really stars?Why was the infantry the battle-winning unit, if the stars were the cavalry and the chariots?

The cavalry and chariots would be sent in first, to soften up the enemy, before the infantry were sent in to actually win the battle. To the losers, it would seem that the Assyrian army consisted mostly of cavalry and chariots, with the infantry in a supporting role, whereas the reverse was actually true. The same was true of the Nazi invasion of France, for example - it must have seemed to the French that the Wehrmacht consisted almost entirely of tank divisions, which was not the case at all. The cavalry and chariots were the 'stars' of the Assyrian army because of the Assyrians' innovative and extensive use of these units, but it was almost always the infantry which would actually strike the decisive blow against the enemy.

[dugfromthearth]

Philip of Macedon defeated them when they were essentially at their height

OMG!What are you talking about???Almost all of the Greek cities were ''crippled'' by the Peloponnisian war.Even the winner Sparta was in a stage of deep decline.

The cities were in decline, but the military wasn't. The soldiers were very professional, more professional than ever before. There were a lot of mercenaries by that time who had been serving in active service for years. The armies of the time were far better than the armies during the earlier periods.

As was the Sacred Band, the Varangian Guard, the Praetorian Guard, the Teutonic Knights

Yea....the only difference these troops had was that the Spartans killed all sick babies and trained the males from the age of 6 'till 60 to fight.Oh, and that they never thought that they have lives.They were machines built to kill and protect their country.

Yes, the Spartans killed all the sick babies - except when they didn't. One of their kings was lame, they didn't kill him as a baby because their population was so low. But the others recruited the elite from a much larger population. So the spartans tried to train everyone born in their city to be elite, and the others just recruited those proven to be elite.

Every Greek soldier was considered as light trooper.

By whom? I have never heard this claim from anyone.

Actually 10.000.The most they ever fielded was 10.000(i think all of Sparta???) at the battle of Plataea.The Spartan army was the 10.000 Spartans.The rest allies were just allies, not in the Spartan army.

I believe the 10,000 Spartans includes the Perioikoi who are normally listed as Spartans. The 10,000 is not just the homoioi who had the military training from 6, etc. According to the reforms of Lycurgus the land was divided into 9,000 parcels and there should not have been more than 9,000 homoioi.

[Panagiotis-Hector]

he cities were in decline, but the military wasn't. The soldiers were very professional, more professional than ever before. There were a lot of mercenaries by that time who had been serving in active service for years. The armies of the time were far better than the armies during the earlier periods

You can't have a city in ruins and a great army.Especially in Athens the army was almost unexisting.The Plague had killed nearly 2/3 of the population.In Sparta the army might have been more experienced, but it was also reduced and that's why the suffered defeat from the Thebans at Leuktra.

The armies of the time were not better than the armies right after the defeat of the Persians.

Yes, the Spartans killed all the sick babies - except when they didn't. One of their kings was lame, they didn't kill him as a baby because their population was so low. But the others recruited the elite from a much larger population. So the spartans tried to train everyone born in their city to be elite, and the others just recruited those proven to be elite

As you said he was a king, but if you search better you will see that there were 2 kings in Sparta, one for military leadership and one for administration.They kept him alive due to reduced population, but he was the ''administrating king'', not the military leader.
The Spartans were trained under a strict control of every aspect of their lives.That way the city was able to make the best soldiers, because the kids never suffered ''father issues'' or anything like that, which some of the others(Sacred Band, the Varangian Guard, the Praetorian Guard, the Teutonic Knights) might suffered from.Spartan soldiers had no psychological problems,mainly because they had no feelings but that's another story.

By whom? I have never heard this claim from anyone

It's probably not written anywhere, but if you take a look at the arms and armors of ancient Greece you will understand that they were all light troops.The only true heavy troops were the Macedonian Phalanxes.

I believe the 10,000 Spartans includes the Perioikoi who are normally listed as Spartans

No, 10.000 were the true Spartans, the Perioikoi were the slaves or the ''outsiders''(which were everyone from every other city) who were leaving outside the city.The Perioikoi could be many thousands.They were never listed as Spartans.The same goes for every other city with slaves.The slaves were not listed as locals.The only times that happened it was when they were sent into battle.Still they were not considered as Athenians, for examples, just people in the Athenian army.(for example, Athenian army had 10.000 and was consisted of 5.000 Athenians and 5.000 others.)

[Doomhammer]

It's probably not written anywhere, but if you take a look at the arms and armors of ancient Greece you will understand that they were all light troops.The only true heavy troops were the Macedonian Phalanxes.

Hoplites had breast plates (except Spartans, apparently), shields, helmets, spears and swords (kopis or xiphos). What are your definitions of light and heavy infantry?

Also:

It's probably not written anywhere,

Antiquity
[edit] Ancient Greece

In ancient Greece the Hoplite was a common form of heavy infantry, armored with a bronze helmet, breastplate, and bronze-coated shield, all of which were designed to block arrows and blows from spear points and swords. Hoplites would act as both a city watch and as an army in the field. Hoplites were thought of as a force to be reckoned with because they would form a phalanx, a tight band of spearmen, which aided them against lighter infantry and cavalry.

Link

because the kids never suffered ''father issues'' or anything like that, which some of the others(Sacred Band, the Varangian Guard, the Praetorian Guard, the Teutonic Knights) might suffered from.

lol

[Potemkin]

Hoplites had breast plates (except Spartans, apparently), shields, helmets, spears and swords (kopis or xiphos). What are your definitions of light and heavy infantry?

I believe the armour worn by a hoplite changed over time. They started off heavily armoured, but later dropped most of the armour in order to become faster and more agile. They were always regarded as heavy infantry, however.

[dugfromthearth]

It's probably not written anywhere, but if you take a look at the arms and armors of ancient Greece you will understand that they were all light troops.The only true heavy troops were the Macedonian Phalanxes.

You have that backwards. The hoplites wore heavy armor, breastplates, helms, etc. The Macedonian phalanx did not wear wear heavy armor. The Macedonians did have the hypsaspists which were their elite infantry that did wear heavy armor - they were probably equipped as hoplites.

No, 10.000 were the true Spartans, the Perioikoi were the slaves or the ''outsiders''(which were everyone from every other city) who were leaving outside the city.The Perioikoi could be many thousands.They were never listed as Spartans.The same goes for every other city with slaves.The slaves were not listed as locals.

You are confusing the perioikoi with the helots. The helots were the slaves of Sparta. The Perioikoi were freemen but non-citizens as only homoioi were citizens. Perioikoi served in the army and are normally listed as part of the Spartan troops.

[Captain Sam]

Hoplites had breast plates (except Spartans, apparently), shields, helmets, spears and swords (kopis or xiphos). What are your definitions of light and heavy infantry?

Spartiate Hoplites did wear breastplates. The movie 300 is not an accurate representation.

[Potemkin]

Spartiate Hoplites did wear breastplates. The movie 300 is not an accurate representation.

I find it difficult to believe that the Spartans would have concealed their magnificent manbreasts behind armour.

[Doomhammer]

Spartiate Hoplites did wear breastplates. The movie 300 is not an accurate representation.

I read that in a book (the part about not wearing armor) but you could be right.

[Captain Sam]

I read that in a book (the part about not wearing armor) but you could be right.

Spartans wore the same equipment as other well-armed hoplites. Bronze breastplates and all. The difference being that Spartans also wore crimson attire.

[Potemkin]

Hoplite armour changed over historical time. It's not enough just to say 'hoplites wore this' or 'hoplites didn't wear that'; it is also necessary to specify during which time period they did or didn't wear which item. The hoplite tended to become more lightly armoured over historical time, while always remaining classified as heavy infantry.

[Captain Sam]

Hoplite armour changed over historical time. It's not enough just to say 'hoplites wore this' or 'hoplites didn't wear that'; it is also necessary to specify during which time period they did or didn't wear which item. The hoplite tended to become more lightly armoured over historical time, while always remaining classified as heavy infantry.

Hoplites have always worn what was considered heavy armor. During the Rise of Rome, what few Hoplites there were at that time, still used a bronze/steel cuirass. Maybe some used leather cuirasses, but never did hoplites wear no armor.

[Doomhammer]

Greaves. I forgot to mention greaves. I know that Athenian hoplites from the times of Perikles wore them.

[Captain Sam]

Greaves. I forgot to mention greaves. I know that Athenian hoplites from the times of Perikles wore them.

All Hoplites wore greaves. As far I I know, Greek heavy infantry have been wearing greaves since before the Mycenaen empire.

[dugfromthearth]

although it was noted in ancient times that the reason for wearing greaves was so your shield didn't hurt when it banged into your leg, not to prevent enemy attacks