Fighting is very unrealistic

What was the deal with the phocian wall? Did Leonidas rebuild this up before the battle started? Was it alraady up from an earlier battle? "They" say Leonidas used it as a defensive blockage to protect his flank.

Phocian wall was an old wall (in ruins) by the time Leonidas came with his army. It was one of the defenses Phocians built to shield themselves against invading armies (mostly Thessalians). But it is said that neighbouring Malians found a way around it, through the same(?) mountain pass Xerxes' army followed later, during the battle of Thermopylae. So, even though Greeks knew the weak points of their position, they decided to rebuild the wall and protect their camp (behind the wall, to the East) and/or retreat. As it happened on the last day.

And what the reasoning that the Greeks didn't use a phallanx as its been defined...it is because there's no mention of it anywhere or because there's mention of different styles other than that one?

Both, in fact.

The idea of Greeks using phalanx (which originally meant simply a body of men in Greek, nothing more specific) is a relatively new one. Early 20th century academia produced this idea which is a backward projection of later, Macedonian tactics onto a period with significantly less 'technical' details in sources. Up to 5th century BC sources were more concerned with narrative and drama. 'Phalanx theory' became popular in academia and wider audience because it fits with our notions of good, well trained armies having high level of organisation and discipline, and suppressed individualism. And while discipline is indeed important, maintaining precise formations is anachronistic for 480BC, and suppressing individualism absolutely incompatible with Greek ethos of the time.

Situation became bad for researchers after some influential scholars who particularly liked the idea of disciplined formation (because of certain political implications)started misusing vague evidence and interpreting them in a way that would seemingly reinforce the idea of super disciplined Greeks in neat shield wall formations 'marching as one' to meet chaotic easterners.

Original evidence, however, speak of no such formations. The battle of Thermopylae marks an end of an epoch called Archaic era in Greek history. And during that cca. 300 year era, during the rise of Greek civilisation from so called 'Dark Age', an aristocratic warrior called hoplite (armed with a large shield, bronze helmet, breastplate etc.) became the standard infantry man and a status symbol of an 'upper middle class' for lack of a better term. Some were full aristocrats, most were not farmers but farm owners. Spartans, for example, were among wealthiest on average. Wealthy usually = better trained, and they were happy to show off their valor, their skill and their wealth.

Greeks were competitive, and egalitarian ideology many impute to Spartans in particular through their 'phalanxes', didn't exactly exist at the time. Even Herodotus who is our best source for Thermopylae mentions the official recognition of best, second best, third best warrior as a known practice during the day. They fought for their state and certainly had a sense of patriotic duty, but maybe even more for their own renown and 'immortality' that came with battlefield glory. Not something you expect in a unit where everyone holds the same line and has their exact place in line.

Only later, decades after Thermopylae, with huge economical crisis following a political one, and Greeks abandoning heavy armour and personal symbols of wealth, armies becoming much more numerous and warriors less trained, less 'knight like', did formations become denser, more organised with clear separation between light and heavy troops. But it wasn't until Philip II of Macedon in 4th BC that proper phalanx in our modern sense of the word was introduced.

Earlier artistic evidence always show chaotic fighting, with archers, horsemen, even chariots in the thick of it. Very dynamic movement of soldiers, kneeling, jumping, evading, fighting multiple enemies, wrestling, showing off their individual skill etc. So we can conclude Greeks fought sometimes bunched up, sometimes more spread out, sometimes both in the same time along the line as it happens when any two crowds clash, but with enough space for all those actions to happen (300 movie excluded one of the most epic scenes from history which was fighting for Leonidas' body after he fell early on the last day - four times his body was dragged away by Medes/Persians and four times recovered by Greeks in that chaos).

Literary evidence agrees with artistic ones and also describe combat that is incompatible with neat formations, and is much more dynamic, fluid. The only time men bunch up or stand 'shield to shield' is when they are defending a position or are surrounded, or inside cities/camps (though we should assume it happened on other occasions, spontaneously, as it does with any crowds clashing). Not by default, not on command as a part of some trained maneuver. I might expect that warriors fought in denser crowds in Thermopylae, because of the terrain and the defensive position Greeks took, but even the densest crowd had to be fluid enough to allow for Spartan feign retreat maneuvers for example and especially all what happened on the last day of battle.

So, phalanx in modern sense is nowhere to be found in any of the evidence for a period before and well after Thermopylae battle, and what is more, it is incompatible with evidence we do have. It is a modern invention, and one of the ideas that needs to be abandoned since it makes us misinterpret many other aspects of Greek society.

reply share

add reply

formatting help