Soldiers and Ghosts: A Review

When you have a hobby, you tend to get cocky about it.  You think about how smart or skilled you are to be pursuing something because you enjoy it and not because you're in school or because it's your job.  If you're not careful, you eventually begin to think that you can't possibly learn anything new about your subject.

I purchased Soldiers and Ghosts with an Amazon Gift Card last year, and I finally got around to reading it, thinking that it would be fun to read a fresh account of Cannae or read Hannibal's life story.  Again.  What I wasn't expecting was a psycho-cultural analysis of the motives behind the tactics of ancient warfare, starting with the early Greeks.  And I certainly wasn't expecting the first battle I read about to have taken place during the Vietnam War.

Spoiler Alert: the Ancient Romans weren't even involved in the Vietnam War for some reason.

It is a common assumption that warfare has always been about practicality and pragmatism.  The Greeks used the phalanx with great success, and we assume that they chose it primarily for its effectiveness.  However, we often forget that the Ancient people lived in a very different world than ours; a world of augury and divination, of mysticism and heavenly conflicts, of invisible forces that haunted their every step.  They did not look at the Olympic Pantheon as a rustic mythological belief system; it was what they believed.  It stands to reason that their motivations went way beyond simple pragmatic strategy.

My first clue to the Romans' lack of pragmatism is that they all seem to be wearing their baseball caps backward.

But J. E. Lendon puts it best when he explains it this way: "These [people of Papua New Guinea] are peoples who fight wars in ways we call ritualized, meaning they allow their beliefs to dictate a mode of fighting less ruthlessly efficient than we could devise for them.  There are other ways, too, in which beliefs draw modern armies away from purely efficient methods of killing: the reluctance, since World War I, of many armies to employ poison gas and the practice of preserving the lives of prisoners.  Such restraints are powerfully reinforced by the scorpion sting of the Golden Rule: soldiers do not want to be gassed themselves, and they want their own surrenders to be accepted.  But such restraints are grounded also in shared belief: the belief that war has rules, however fragile, and that there are appropriate ways of killing and methods of killing too horrible to be used." (pp.3-4, emphasis mine)

Other highlights and insights include:

• "Sometimes the glory of the victor depends not only upon his observed performance, but also on the excellence of the defeated; this is a second, quite separate, mechanism for gaining glory in battle." (p. 26)
• "But the ethos that lay underneath this cooperation [of the phalanx] was only superficially cooperative, for those who fought in the seemingly unheroic phalanx conceived of what they were doing in Homeric terms . . . if grave reliefs were our only evidence we would never imagine that the Greeks fought massed in the phalanx rather than as heroic individuals." (pp.44-45)
• "Amidst the showers of spears and arrows and stones, amidst the running to and fro and confusion and stabbing by surprise, men of high standing would go down, killed anonymously by stray missiles and the spears of low wretches, trampled by horses, or crushed ingloriously by stray chariots.  In the confusion the high deeds of the brave would go unnoticed, along with the cringing of the cowardly." (p. 46)
• "Yet it is not in spear fighting in which the hoplite competes but holding his place in the line, and the courage of holding one's place is perhaps the form of martial behavior whose success in the real world is most in the hands of the warrior and subject to the least external influence." (p. 53)
• "The irony of Thermopylae is that, although the Spartans went to their deaths according to the hoplite code, they did not in their last hours fight entirely as hoplites, bravely holding their ground." (p. 66)
• "Xenophon urges the hiring of foreign mercenary cavalry chiefly to inspire a sense of rivalry in the Athenian cavalry." (p. 103)
• "Macedonian leaders had to fight with their own hands because that is how they commanded the obedience of their soldiers." (P. 137)
• "Soldiers fight well not because they are compelled from above but because they do not want to let down their comrades." (p. 171)
• "For disciplina [Roman Discipline] was not primarily a system of imposed or felt rules to make an unwarlike people place themselves in danger or to do something unnatural to them . . . it is conceived primarily as a brake to overly aggressive behavior." (p. 177)
• "The Roman soldier did not primarily think of himself as part of a team, and he was not treated as such by his officers.  Rather, he regarded his comrades as his competitors in aggressive bravery." (p. 185)
• "The manipular legion was the fruit of compromise resulting from the meeting of an imported method of fighting, the phalanx, with a people whose martial values, whether inherited or new-acquired, made fighting in the phalanx a heroic challenge for them." (p. 190)
• "After a loss a Roman general might be prosecuted for personal cowardice, but not for tactical stupidity." (p. 207)

So, yeah.  I highly recommend reading this book if you're ready to go beyond the surface-level of Ancient-world tactics and strategies to learn about the cultural forces that drove them.  I'm pretty busy with other plans at the moment, but I'll probably have a few blog posts related to the claims in this book coming up in the near future, so look forward to that.

It's All Greek To Me!

How do you know what you know? Seriously, think of something you are sure is true right now. How did you come to know that truth? Do you believe that humans are basically good or evil? Do we have souls, or are we purely material, and what is the meaning of life? Is there a God, and is she in a good mood? With the economy the way it is, it's unlikely that most of us have had a lot of time to ponder the deeper meanings in life. Socrates would be greatly disappointed in us for this. And so would Archimedes.

The Socratic Method is the practical application of Socrates' belief in self-examination. It began circa 430 BCE, so the story goes, with a bunch of young Athenians who were trying to find the answers to life's biggest questions. They sought out Socrates, a bricklayer and veteran, who had a most curious way of discussing matters of truth. Rather than making quotable statements or using flowery words to push his point across, he asked questions. For example, if one of them stated that “Love always gives and never seeks to receive,” Socrates might answer, “If love never receives, what will it have left to give?” His entire point in life was to make people say, “Hmmmmm . . . .”

While he was mostly concerned with ethical and spiritual matters, he did use his questioning method as a way of trying to understand the world around him. Archimedes was born hundreds of years after Socrates' death, but it seems obvious from his discoveries that he used the same principles of critical thinking. One of the most famous stories (though it's believed to be Apocryphal) is that of the riddle that King Heiro II posed. A local goldsmith had forged a golden crown, and the King was suspicious that it was a fake. He asked Archimedes to find a way to prove it, so the mathematician went to work. He thought deeply about the subject, but couldn't come to a good conclusion, so he took a bath to relax before going at the problem again. While in the bath, he observed the water rising and falling, and realized that he could use the principle of buoyancy (which he basically created) to determine whether the crown was real or a cheap knock-off.

Greek thinking started with how to think, and it was only when the ancients strayed from the art of questioning that they plunged the known world into an intellectual dark age, with only a few bright lights like Archimedes to lead the way. Aristotle, a student of Plato (who was a student of Socrates) went about using inquisition to determine the natural world. After Alexander the Great, his student, took that knowledge with him to every place he conquered, it became concrete fact for the next thousand years. History loves irony, and so it stands that the scholastic line of Socrates ends with someone claiming absolute truth over the natural world.

Pax vobixcum

Technology Tuesday: The Scythed Chariot

If you ever read accounts of early white American colonists and their scuffles with the native peoples, you may be surprised to find out just how often the colonists won battles despite being outnumbered by huge margins. Sometimes, this was because the colonists would target women and children instead of warriors, but when they did face native warriors, they won because of weaponry. Now, if you've ever watched a demonstration of a musket from the 1600's, you know that hitting anything with that unwieldy, smooth-bored weapon would be pretty impressive, even from ten feet away. But the shot itself is only half of the musket's usefulness; the other half is the bang. The Native Americans had a natural fear of smoke during battle because fire is an uncontrollable force of nature. The muskets give a loud report followed by clouds of white smoke and even if it didn't cause mass casualties, it usually caused enough fear to lead to a rout within a few volleys, often less. So it was with the ancient world that there were some weapons useful for their practical effectiveness in battle and others which, though they did not inflict great physical damage, caused fear and panic.

One such weapon of fear is the Scythed Chariot, brought to Asia Minor from Persia during the Greco-Persian wars. Civilian chariots were a status symbol in Rome, and in most of ancient Europe. Owning a horse was an expensive venture by itself, much less owning enough to pull you comfortably along in your little convertible boxcar. They were also used in races in the hippodrome, as seen on Ben Hur. The design of the chariot varied considerably depending upon its use, and the Scythed Chariot's use was to plow through tightly packed enemy formations to break them apart and to slaughter men in large numbers.

A typical Scythed Chariot was built very heavy, since it was made for combat. Four horses (usually heavily armored) would pull a large, sturdy boxcar with two or three soldiers inside, one to drive and the others to protect the driver. The wheels of the chariot were large and spoked, and attached to both sides of the axles were one or more three-to-five foot blades. You can imagine the carnage that would ensue if even one of these monstrosities successfully charged a tightly-packed Phalanx.

Spears, and especially the long Macedonian spears, could be effective in slowing the charge, but only by a coordinated defense could these frightening inventions be countered. Each had the charging power of four heavy horses, and even if the first two were injured, the momentum they created would still cause the bladed wheels to tear through men like fire to dried underbrush. Alexander the Great faced them when he pushed into Persia during his conquest, and he formulated an effective containment solution. His Phalanxes would move into an E-shaped formation, focusing the small center column against the vicious chariots. When the densely-packed group would slow the chariot's initial charge, The outside columns would flank it and kill the drivers and horses. This was effective, but costly, and not every center column was able to stand their ground as they needed to.

The Romans had a better counter: move out of the way. Their army was structured like their society; efficient. Their forces were disciplined, and they had a clearly-defined command structure. Their flexible formations gave them a great advantage over these heavy weapons, which were not easily maneuverable.

During the Mithridatic Wars, Mithridates VI made the mistake of using his Scythed Chariots in an initial charge, thinking to thin the Roman lines for his foot troops. Instead, the Romans moved out of the chariots' way at the last second, allowing them to pass through their ranks and into rough ground behind them that they had lined with stakes. Many of the chariots stopped in time, but were pretty easily dispatched by a few Triarii who were waiting for them. The Roman army taunted their Pontic enemy, cheering for the chariots as if they were watching a race. This fearful weapon had failed to bring victory, and Mithridates ended up losing that battle, his troops being demoralized to see their fellow soldiers slaughtered and mocked.

The Scythe Chariot was not finished with history at this point, however, and Mithridates' son Pharnaces II actually utilized them effectively against a Roman army himself much later. However, they were costly to maintain and the fear they created wasn't sufficient to infect Roman troops, so as Rome conquered the East, they fell out of style and practice as a suitable weapon. Eventually, the Romans thought of better things they could place on the chariots instead of blades; siege weapons. Yes, they later strapped ballistae (kind of a big crossbow) to the backs of their wagons and used them as the world's first known mobile artillery.

Pax vobiscum

Military Monday: The Early Army of Mithridates VI

The army of Pontus reflected the Kingdom itself, and even its king: it was a mixture of different fighting men with different styles, cultures, and ideas. In the best of circumstances, this mix led to sweeping victory, but in the end, it led to ultimate defeat. Fancying himself the heir of Alexander the Great, Mithridates VI followed Alex's tendency to augment his army with whatever kind of troops he conquered along the way. While this worked well for Alexander, it should be noted that Mithridates lived considerably longer and this region had been changing for almost three hundred years since the young Macedonian conqueror.

Asia Minor was and remains a land of many peoples. Considered prime colonial ground by the Greeks, it had an unmistakable flavor of Hellenist-style learning, fighting, and worship. However, there were also Persian colonists there, left-over from Darius' invasion years before Alexander. And this is all in combination with the native peoples, who were primarily tribal, though growing more and more agrarian and urban, forsaking their nomadic ways. In order to unite these people, Mithridates would often resort to xenophobia, at least the anti-Roman variety, thus giving them a common enemy. Here, truly, was a wise student in the art of war.

After he had conquered some of the Balkan region to the North, Mithridates looked to securing his borders in the south. So he made plans, along with Nicomedes III, the king of western neighbor Bithynia, to divy up the area called Cappadocia, just south of Pontus, between the two of them. Mithridates' sister was ruling as regent because her husband had just died. Nicomedes, being a cunning king himself, decided to marry the sister instead, leaving one of his sons in charge of the region.

The two men sent representatives to Rome to resolve the dispute, leaving Nicomedes in a position of comfort, thinking that there would be no battle until their dignitaries returned. Mithridates waited for a time, then invaded Cappadacia outright, and its puppet king was killed in the ensuing fight. This enraged the Romans in the area, who helped Nicomedes raid and burn several towns and settlements in southern Pontus as punishment for his invasion.

Mithridates was more than capable of stopping this looting, but instead he allowed it to happen. Nicomedes ravaged the countryside while the Pontic king merely took reports and made preparations. He knew that the Romans would likely move against him on the pretense of aiding Bithynia, and so he spread word far and wide that those villages had been pillaged under Roman advice, thus uniting the varied people of Pontus against Rome, and Bithynia, her handmaiden. Raising an army was easy for him at this point; those who had their crops and livestock stolen by the Bithynian raiders were only too happy to take up a spear and get some of it back, with interest.

Sure enough, the three Roman generals whose armies were in various parts of Asia Minor all moved against Pontus with the hope of quelling Mithridates VI. The three armies were probably about forty thousand each, along with Nicomedes' army which was reportedly fifty thousand foot, six thousand horse. If they had all joined together to take on this rogue Pontic despot, they may have had a chance. But in their anger, and without waiting for orders from the Roman Senate, they took him on individually, along with his army of two hundred and fifty thousand foot and forty thousand horse. He crushed them one by one, capturing their generals and subjecting them to horrible, humiliating treatment.

His footmen were likely Phalanx pikemen at the core, along with lighter armed auxiliaries and javilineers. The javelin-throwers of Pontus were legendary for their accuracy, and the deadliness of their weapons. The horsemen he employed were mostly, probably all, javelin-armed and heavily armored, capable of forming a kind of highly-mobile Phalanx which disrupted enemy formations with missiles before charging home at their flanks. His tactics were most likely pin-and-fork, using the heavy spearmen to hold the enemy in place while his horses harassed their flanks and caused a rout. He may have also had some Scythian horse archers in his ranks, recruited when he defeated them in the Bosporus up north, and if that were the case, their contribution would have been immeasurable. They were a Steppe people; born in the saddle and taught to ride and shoot from a very young age. Their accuracy was high, and their tactics were notorious: they would pretend to retreat in a panic, only to outrun their pursuers while shooting them with their poisoned arrows. No matter Mithridates' tactics, the comparatively small armies of Rome and Bithynia didn't stand a chance.

Because of this conquest, all of Asia Minor was under his control. He moved swiftly to secure the loyalties of Greek colonies in the western regions, and sent representatives to gain alliances with the Greek cities, who had been living almost a hundred years under Roman hegemony. They eagerly agreed, giving Mithridates a buffer region with which to hold back immediate Roman retaliation.

Unfortunately for him, when Rome did retaliate, they took all of Greece back, but signed a treaty with him that left him in control of Asia Minor. Though he accomplished much and did a lot to unify such a diverse group, it seems that their divisions were stronger than a mutual hatred of Rome. Mithridates the Great himself spoke at least twenty-two languages, which apparently was necessary just to communicate with all the captains in his army!

In the ensuing Mithridatic Wars, the Romans repeatedly punished Pontus with their manipular legions and flexible tactics. Eventually, trouble within his own household was Mithridates' undoing as he was betrayed by Pharnaces, his illegitimate son.

Opinion of this warlord varies, depending on the source. Some look upon him as just another petty king trying to build an empire and advance his own name. Others see him as a kind of freedom fighter against Roman imperial oppression. Personally, the jury's out for me. I think he was much smarter than the average despot, yet his cruelty toward Romans, both military and civilian, cannot be overlooked. It should be noted, however, that he never referred to himself with the surtitle “the Great.” That was something the Romans did shortly after he died. It seems that though they were enemies, there was something about this man that they deeply respected.

Pax vobiscum

Famous Friday: Mithridates VI, Alexander's Last Heir

I don't blame Rome for conquering the world. Sure, they did some terrible things along the way and their very name became synonymous for oppression, but I don't really think it was all their fault. Rome, not unlike Sparta, had the practice of ensuring its security by serious, disciplined military training, and using slaves to handle the menial work of growing food and tending to the livestock (although Rome's slavery was nowhere near the scale of Sparta's!). This meant that, in the same way that the Peloponnese city-states all wanted to be Sparta's ally when it was strong, the emerging powers of the Mediterranean wanted to be counted among Rome's friends. When a conflict would break out involving one of Rome's allies, they would often call for help and Rome would send and army. Eventually, to save on time and travel expenses, the Romans just built an outpost nearby and eventually saw to all that nagging day-to-day governance stuff.

Ergo (+100 Latin bonus points!), if there was a destabilized area in the Mediterranean from about 200 BCE onward, you could bet that it wouldn't be long before the Romans would lend a hand. Asia Minor circa 90 BCE was one such area where local conflict and civil strife were both common. It was a land of many cultures, having been conquered by both the Persians and Greeks respectively over the previous 500 years, and there was still a significant local population who had their own customs and philosophies. To the Romans, who admittedly had begun to look toward the expansion of their already impressive empire, it looked like a good land for up-and-coming politicians to get noticed through conquest.

So it was that Lucius Cornelius Sulla found himself far from home on the Asian frontier facing off against a mighty Pontic king who had somehow unified these diverse people and formed an army. Mithridates VI, also called Eupator, stood before him proud and defiant, refusing to repent for his slaughter of Roman civilian colonists in the terrible massacre that Appian refers to as the “Asiatic Vespers.” It is important to note that though this act certainly qualifies Mithridates VI as a cruel, petty despot, it was not without pretense from the Romans themselves

Though they admired Greek thought and borrowed their mythology, the Romans were notoriously merciless in their dealings with Greek settlements. In 167 BCE, the Greek colony of Epirus was sacked and all its inhabitants enslaved. In 146 BCE, they destroyed Corinth. Not to mention the slaughter of Archimedes at Syracuse. Though I don't believe the Romans always sought the wars that entangled them, they certainly didn't go to war without real commitment.

Before continuing our tale of the small kingdom of Pontus versus the mighty empire of Rome, let's explore Mithridates as a person, that we might better understand this man and why he did such terrible things. First of all, let's explore the area where he was born.

The light purple is his empire at its most expansive. The dark purple represents where he started. Clearly, this was a man who knew how to exert his influence without the aid of Roman interlopers. His heritage probably has a lot to do with his disdain for all things Roman.

Mithridates was a descendant of Alexander the Great on his father's side, and this was a fact he took great pride in. It helped him to recruit the Greeks living in Asia Minor, as they grew up hearing stories from their parents about mighty Alexander and how he conquered the world. On his mother's side, he was a descendant of Darius I, a mighty Persian conqueror. This helped him to win support from Persians, and also from the Asians. Thus, Mithridates set himself up as the heir of both the Macedonian empire and the Persian empire, which was a powerful political and rhetorical weapon.

His father died when he was only 14, and it is believed that he left his home soon afterward for a time. His mother ruled in his stead as a regent, and meanwhile sold large portions of the Pontic territory to Rome, who was eager to stake their claim on the East. The city of Laodicea is named after her.

Six years after his father's death, Mithridates VI either came of age or returned to his throne (since it's unclear whether he ever really left) and threw his mother in prison. He did not approve of the partitioning of the kingdom, and he especially didn't want to involve the Romans. He desired to defeat them, to overturn a hundred years of virtually unchallenged Mediterranean hegemony and establish a new Helleno-Persian Empire that would rule in its place. But first, he would have to unite Asia, carefully maintaining a balance between diplomacy and outright conquest.

First, he turned his eye to the north, knowing that it would be impossible to reunite Asia without a base of power in the form of money. So, in exchange for protection, he raised and sent an army to drive the Scythians out of Crimea and the Eastern Baltic region. The Bosporans, who lived in that area for many years, eagerly accepted this help because the Scythians had long been their bitter rivals; mostly horse archers who fought with poison arrows and had a raiding-based economy. They were kind of like ancient land-based vikings. Mithridates' army succeeded, thanks to the leadership of Diophantes, one of his greatest generals. Thanks to him, the Rhoxolanoi, a Scythian ally, also accepted Pontic rule. Now that he had cut his teeth on northern politics and warfare, he was ready to mix it up with the locals.

Nicomedes III ruled Bithynia at the time, and Mithridates initially meant to ally with him. Nicomedes proved himself a friend of Rome, however, and so a war broke out between them. Mithridates met Nicomedes on the battlefield, and the Pontic army consistently defeated the poorly-trained Bithynians, who were scattered like chaff in the wind. So it was that Nicomedes chose to enlist Rome's help directly, corresponding with them and begging for relief from the Pontic tyrant. Rome, having received a request for help, gladly obliged and thus began Mithridates' direct struggle with the Empire.

Next week, we will take a detailed look at the tactics and customs of the Pontic peoples, with their Greek Phalanxes, Peltasts, and Scythe Chariots. As this week turned out to be a “Greek Week,” next week will be mostly a “Mithridates VI Week.” Stay tuned, and stay safe.

Pax vobiscum

Technorati Tags: ancient, history, Mithridates, Eupator, empire, Rome

Spears of the Ancient World - More than Just Pointy Sticks

Thousands of years ago, a hunter was looking for a better way to kill things. So, he found a long stick and tied a sharp rock to one end of it, and used it to kill some food. From such humble origins, the spear has been humanity's weapon of choice for millennia, and that tradition is carried on today (sort of) with bayonets. For the sake of clarity and brevity, today I will focus on three kinds of spears common to the ancient world – 2 Greek and 1 Roman.

Dory – This five- to ten-foot weapon with a iron leaf-head point is the spear of the original Hoplite. It only weighed between 2 and 4 lbs., making it a very versatile and nimble tool. It was the choice weapon of the Greeks, and it served them well for generations. A big bonus to the shorter Dory is that you don't need a lot of training to use it. Sure, you may want to know where to stab people to cause the most damage, but its small size makes it easy to wield and self-preservation does the rest.

While the levies could get away with using instinct in battle, the line soldiers had to be disciplined in both its use and the execution of a solid Phalanx. The Dory had a small bronze spike on the butt which could be pinned into the ground during an enemy charge. Also, if your Dory broke, you could just flip the short spiked end around and use it as a short-range spear.

The longer Dory was used by professional soldiery in the Greco-Persian and Peloponnesian wars. Being heavier and more unwieldy, it took some training to use properly, and you also needed Phalanx training. These spears allowed the Greeks to drive off Xerxes' invasion since they were longer than their Persian counterparts. Once again, longer spears = greater killing range = victory (usually). The Dory served the Greeks well for hundreds of years, but it was outmatched by evolution, which brought about a longer spear that made a 32-year-old Macedonian into the ruler of the Eastern world.

Sarissa – The mighty spears of Phillip II and Alexander the Great could measure between 13 and 21 feet and weigh between 10 and 15 lbs. Because of its size and weight, soldiers needed a lot of training to both use the spear effectively, and march in Phalanx with them. Without a disciplined army, you may as well use your Sarissas to build a wall instead.

Being a very long and heavy spear, Hoplites needed to use both hands to wield it, leaving them more vulnerable to arrows and javelins. The solution was an uncomfortable one: the soldiers would wear a shield that was slung around their necks. Like their predecessor, the Dory, the Sarissa also had a bronze “lizard killer” spike on the hilt to prevent charges and to provide a secondary weapon if (more like when) the spear would break.

The Sarissa evolved into the pike and lance in later times, but never really made it into widespread use the way that the Dory did. The most obvious reason for this is the training commitment. If you have a village full of hunters and farmers, you can hand them Dories and teach them the Phalanx and you won't have too rough of a time. If you give them a two-handed spear and a heavy shield to wear around their neck, however, you have a lot more work to do. The Phalanx peaked with the introduction of the Sarissa, and gradually became outmoded by other types of warfare.

Hasta – The Roman spear evolved from the Dory without a doubt, but they went in a different direction. The average length for a spear like this was 6 ½ feet long, while they opted for larger, oval-shaped shields to defend themselves. The Roman Phalanxes, which comprised early Rome's army, never went toe-to-toe with the Greeks (as far as we know), which is why they could keep their spears short.

The Hasta varied depending on the wealth of its owner. The wealthier Romans used spears with Iron cores, making them near-impossible to break. The less-wealthy opted for simple wood-and-bronze spears, with the butt-spike necessary to stop charging enemies. Every man in early Rome's army possessed a spear, however, since they also used the Phalanx tactic of the Greeks. But the Romans, unlike the Greeks, didn't allow military tradition to dictate the composition of their army.

The Roman weapons and tactics were based on who they were fighting and where. The mountainous terrain of Italy doesn't lend itself to the shoulder-to-shoulder formation of the Phalanx, so they needed flexibility or they would have no hope of defeating local tribes like the Samnites (more on them next week!). So they looked into different weapon technology while continuing to use the spear as a staple.

That is not to say they just moved on! The possession of a spear, and the knowledge to use it effectively, was paramount to early Roman armies. Though little is known about their origins, their mythology indicates that they were a martial people, and they clearly took spear training as a serious matter. Though they modified their Hastas later into javelins and cavalry lances, the spear remained their symbol of war and pride.

Pax vobiscum

Military Monday: Phillip II's Phavorite Phormation

Say you're an ancient Mediterranean warlord getting ready for a campaign and you've mustered a few thousand spear-men through levies and conscription. Now what? You could just march them straight into combat, that is, if you enjoy playing dice with peoples' lives. Or, if you are serious about gaining a victory with minimal losses, you'll use a disciplined formation; you will teach them the Phalanx.

Several ancient cultures, especially the Greeks and Romans, utilized this formation as the core of their strategy. A Phalanx is a group of spear-men who stand in rank shoulder to shoulder and shield to shield, their spears pointed in a unified direction, creating a wall of spear-points. If something happened to the front rank, the second rank would step up to take their place. It started as a simple idea, but simple ideas have a way of evolving when they come into contact with the right people.

The Phalanx came into its own with Phillip II of Macedon, a charismatic, smart Greek warlord and Alexander the Great's absentee father. Under his leadership, the Kingdom of Macedon expanded and conquered much of the Greek peninsula, and he showed no signs of slowing down. Macedon had been a relatively obscure power until he came along, after being educated in warfare while he was a hostage in Thebes. He had learned how a simple switch in traditional strategy had given the Thebans victory over the mighty Spartans and therefore, hegemony over the entire Greek world.

The Spartans always placed their most experienced and elite forces on their right-most flank, but this was a tradition with no strategic purpose. The Thebans took advantage and placed their most elite directly against them, bolstering those ranks with common soldiers as well. The Spartans' right flank crumbled and the rest is, well, history.

The Phalanx was more than just a bunch of guys with spears playing follow the leader though: there were several strategies that they could employ to adjust to their situation. Marching against archers? Bunch up closer to give a smaller target. What if the enemy infantry charges? Macedonian Spears, or sarissas had a short spike on their hilt (called a “lizard killer”) which you could stick in the ground, allowing the enemy to impale themselves on your spears without giving ground. Good order in a Phalanx generally led to victory, and likewise bad order led to certain defeat.

One-sided formations work well as long as the enemy is only attacking from that one direction. However, the sides and rear of the Phalanx were wide open, and unless the lieutenant saw a flank coming and had time to turn the men, they would most likely be scattered and routed by a charge of cavalry or even lightly-armed reinforcements.

Heavy armor was essential for the Hoplites of Phillip's (and later Alexander's) army. Their early conquests were against fellow Greeks who also employed Phalanxes, albeit with inferior equipment (more on this tomorrow). In Phalanx vs. Phalanx, the most important things are quality of weapons, durability of armor, and the discipline of the troops. They would march to each other and then repeatedly strike using brisk stabbing motions, hammering away at their opposition. If a front-rank soldier became afraid, there was nowhere to run, and panic nearly always leads to crushing defeat.

When Phillip II returned from Thebes, he secured his realm and immediately began a rigorous training program for his soldiers. They became experts at the Phalanx, which their leader used to a devastating effect on the battlefield. Their discipline gave them a sense of security on the field, while their leader's charisma gave them confidence.

Alexander the Great owed much to his father. But, although Phillip II built the machine, young Alex would drive it to great fame, which the ancient Greeks desired above all else. This wasn't just a case of a spoiled teenager winning a race with daddy's Bentley, however. Alexander improved on his father's tactics and made them work so well that he regularly won against superior forces. The main way he accomplished this was by a tactic similar to what the Medieval strategists called the Pin and Fork. One of Alexander's Phalanxes would engage an enemy Phalanx, while another unit would flank them . . . or Phlank them [/pun]. However, he did not allow the power of the Phalanx to seduce him into relying on it alone. As he passed through Asia minor, (and by passed through, I mean conquered) he would add local units to his army, taking advantage of their strengths and leading even his vanquished to victory. Using the Phalanx as a core, this young man was able to conquer all of Asia Minor, Palestine, the entire Fertile Crescent, and get all the way to the border of India. Then he drank himself to death, or was poisoned, at the age of 32 while returning home to take a break between victories.

Of course, all things must come to an end, and progress is no respecter of tradition. The Romans, who had also grown very powerful by utilizing the Phalanx, set their eyes on expanding further. They began using larger shields, javelins, and a 3-line infantry tactic that could crush an army of Phalanxes by flanking, dividing, and conquering. Using these and other techniques (stay tuned, kids!), they drove many of the Greek colonists out of Italy and ruled over those that remained. And just as the Phalanx began in Greece and spread to India, Rome's tactics met with success the world over.

Pax vobiscum