[Bosnjak]

Is this true that the old greeks cleared their differences in wars but wars with rules, where each side had the same amount of soldiers this inside war?

[Igor Antunov]

No.

However the Greeks did clear their differences with war.

[Doomhammer]

I can't comment on rules but know that wars could be triggered by trivial causes. As to the conduct of war, I recall there was a good Victor Hansen book on hoplite warfare (well, the guy mostly talks about agriculture but hoplites are there too).

[pugsville]

There are a number of recorded incidents of both parties agreeing to equal numbers of troops but it is pretty small number compared to the number of recorded engagements. There have been many periods of history were there have been rules & conventions about how war is to waged , but from what we know these have often been cheerfully ignored as often as they have been followed. The problem with the recorded Greek engagements is there isnt a whole lot of evidence to examine these incidents to be sure they happened as recorded.

[Corporatios]

I've never heard that, but if it is true it would be happenning in the time of the Mycaeneans and before. There are mentions in Iliad about engagements that were defined by a man-to-man combat. Also it wasn't allowed to kill somebody if not facing him, unless he was fleeing.

[Nattering Nabob]

Is this true that the old greeks cleared their differences in wars but wars with rules, where each side had the same amount of soldiers this inside war?

According to Herodotus this happened in 547 BC between the Argives and the Lacedaemonians, to decide the outcome of the war and the annexation of Kynouria, with three hundred men each.

[Panagiotis-Hector]

Well about the war between the Argives and the Lacedaemonians we can clearly understand that the Lacedaemonians where ''cheating'' since the Spartan(or the Lacedaemonian)army was clearly much more superior than the Argives'.I suppose we all know that the Spartan army was the most formidable and effective in the ancient world.It's said that one Spartan was as five Athenians in battle, so we understand the cheating.

Now, about the main theme...Yes, from what i' ve read there where a few times where they talked about the size of the armies, but that's just the exception and not the rule in ancient Greek warfare.There where though some other rules such as, after a battle each side was allowed to collect their dead, i order to bury them properly.Also it was not allowed to fight during the Olympic games period, and the outlawed city suffered consequences, mostly trade embargo from all the other cities.In addition there was a rule about taking over cities and villages.The conqueror should not burn the houses and generally the settlement, but there where many conquerors who didn't really cared about that, mostly because it was a morale rule...and those men are renounced as murders and malevolent rulers, and this was the worse punishment in ancient Greece, for your name to be remembered as something bad or evil.

[dugfromthearth]

Warfare between Greeks during the Hoplite era was fairly formal due to the limitations of their forces and the social politics involved.

The Hoplite was politically important, so they did not really look to have other unit types play a significant role during the classical period.

Hoplite formations were large, slow, and hard to manoeuvre. So they would find a suitable plain and line up and charge one another.

It wasn't so much that they had rules, as that they had customs and a very limited military capacity.

[Panagiotis-Hector]

Hoplite formations were large, slow, and hard to manoeuvre. So they would find a suitable plain and line up and charge one another

You're wrong, hoplites were not at all slow and hard to manoeuvre.By the time Xerxes' ships were unloading soldiers, it took, for the Athenian hoplites, almost half an hour to go from Athens to Marathonas, a distance almost 40km.And they were quite fresh for battle.So how were they slow?

[Smilin' Dave]

You're wrong, hoplites were not at all slow and hard to manoeuvre.By the time Xerxes' ships were unloading soldiers, it took, for the Athenian hoplites, almost half an hour to go from Athens to Marathonas, a distance almost 40km.And they were quite fresh for battle.So how were they slow?

While you might be right about them not being slow, I think the victories experienced by the Romans against the phalanx shows how un-wieldly the formation could be. Consider the battle of Cynoscephalae, where the Romans were able to detach a small body of troops from another wing to attack the flank of the Macedonian formation.

[Doomhammer]

You're wrong, hoplites were not at all slow and hard to manoeuvre.By the time Xerxes' ships were unloading soldiers, it took, for the Athenian hoplites, almost half an hour to go from Athens to Marathonas, a distance almost 40km.And they were quite fresh for battle.So how were they slow?

In formation. Hoplites were probably as fast as any other grunt on the field but the phalanx, as dugfromtheearth said, is a cumbersome formation. Phalanxes were generally effective only against other phalanxes and generally whatever loose formation that got in their way. Phalanx battles were usually pushing matches. When one side sustained enough casualties, the phalanx would break up and withdraw.

The idea of attaching yourself so closely to the men next you meant that many of the hoplites were dragged... I mean, once a phalanx began to sustain casualties, the dead bodies would be dragged along the formation - that's how tightly some phalanxes were formed. The other thing: a phalanx' vanguard was formidable but the rear and flanks were always at peril. And the legionary... the natural killer of hoplites. Legionaries easily closed the distance between themselves and the hoplites (and their pikes) thanks to their shields and natural awesomeness (from being Roman). Suffice to say, the Romans were superior swordsmen and made short work of the hoplites when they reached them.

I think phalanxes are a bad idea.

I suppose we all know that the Spartan army was the most formidable and effective in the ancient world.

Assyrians? Romans? Alexander's? What are they? Chopped liver?

The conqueror should not burn the houses and generally the settlement, but there where many conquerors who didn't really cared about that, mostly because it was a morale rule.

They didn't have problems with burning crops and laying waste to the surroundings of cities though, as I recall (hopefully correctly)?

mostly because it was a morale rule...and those men are renounced as murders and malevolent rulers, and this was the worse punishment in ancient Greece, for your name to be remembered as something bad or evil.

I wouldn't say, for example, Archidamus of Sparta was evil for laying waste to Attica.




I find the idea of withdrawing your army in certain seasons to help collect harvests very interesting. I think Spartans and most other Greek armies did that.

[Panagiotis-Hector]

I think the victories experienced by the Romans against the phalanx shows how un-wieldly the formation could be

By the time the Romans were invading Greek lands, the Greek cities were either corrupted or generally declined.Plus as doomhammer said, the Romans used swords and swords against spears are quite effective.Also the Greeks had little experience on how to fight against swords, before the Romans.So they didn't knew any good strategy for that kind of battle.

Phalanxes were generally effective only against other phalanxes and generally whatever loose formation that got in their way

You don't think that Phalanxes were effective against cavalry???

I think phalanxes are a bad idea

Not at all.Phalanxes were an amazing formation.If the Romans had attacked Greece before the Peloponnisian war, when most of the Greek cities were at their peak, they might not make it through as.Or at least they would have a pretty bad time against Greeks.

Assyrians? Romans? Alexander's? What are they? Chopped liver

First of all...Assyrians???really???
The Spartan phalanx was the best unit of the ancient world and i think there is no doubt about that.These men were taken from home by the age of 6 and they were trained to be the absolute soldiers.To have no fear, no mercy(perhaps this was bad for everyone else), always at the top physical condition.Every other city's army was scared the hell out of the site of them.And the reason was clear.They had seen what the are capable of.

They didn't have problems with burning crops and laying waste to the surroundings of cities though, as I recall (hopefully correctly)

No they didn't.This was part of strategy to force them to surrender.They didn't used these tactics just for the fun of it.And as i said, because of course there were some generals who did this just for the fun of it, they are written in the dark pages of history.

I find the idea of withdrawing your army in certain seasons to help collect harvests very interesting. I think Spartans and most other Greek armies did that

Well the truth is that they withdrew the armies to oversee the slaves, they were collecting the harvests.The slave masters were just sitting on a couch and talking about Philosophy.

[Potemkin]

First of all...Assyrians???really???

Yes, really. The Assyrians terrorised the whole of the Middle East for nearly 700 years. They invented the horsed lancer (which only became obsolete in the early 20th century), and they were masters of siege warfare. They were seriously badass.

[Panagiotis-Hector]

Yes, really. The Assyrians terrorised the whole of the Middle East for nearly 700 years. They invented the horsed lancer (which only became obsolete in the early 20th century), and they were masters of siege warfare. They were seriously badass

Sure, but they did nothing more that just pillaging and destroying.The importance of a civilization is measured on the cultural and generally civil progress.

[Potemkin]

Sure, but they did nothing more that just pillaging and destroying.The importance of a civilization is measured on the cultural and generally civil progress.

Absolutely false. The Assyrian Empire was the most successful multi-ethnic empire that had ever existed up to that time, and it established the framework followed by the Persian and Roman multi-ethnic empires. And no empire could survive for nearly 700 years just by pillaging and destroying everything. Nineveh was one of the greatest cities of the ancient world, and some scholars now believe that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were actually located in Nineveh. And then there is the famous Library of Ashurbanipal, which preceded the Library of Alexandria by many centuries, and which preserved the remains of the Sumerian and Akkadian cultures. Without the Assyrians, we would not have the Epic of Gilgamesh; most of Sumerian culture and mythology would be a mystery to us. The Assyrians made great cultural and civil progress in their time.

[Doomhammer]

By the time the Romans were invading Greek lands, the Greek cities were either corrupted or generally declined.

I blame the Peloponnesian War, which sorta paved the way to Alexander and to further Greek decline. In a similar way, Rome's awesome was apparent to all. Even the Greeks were well aware of Rome establishing itself as the dominant force in the world (Mediterranean). Polybius, a Greek, even later wrote on this very phenomenon (after Greece became a part of the Roman world).

Regardless, corruption did not and could not have anything to do with military performance. The Greeks were using an archaic system and Romans weren't. And to be fair, the Roman army was still far from its heyday. Marius' comprehensive reforms came long after the conquest of Greece.

Plus as doomhammer said, the Romans used swords and swords against spears are quite effective.Also the Greeks had little experience on how to fight against swords, before the Romans.So they didn't knew any good strategy for that kind of battle.

Well, these aren't excuses now, are they?

You don't think that Phalanxes were effective against cavalry???

Phalanxes were superb against cavalry but only if the cavalry charged straight at their spears. Cavalry was fast and if they managed to outflank (i.e. charge at the sides and back) a phalanx, then a massacre generally ensued.

If the Romans had attacked Greece before the Peloponnisian war, when most of the Greek cities were at their peak, they might not make it through as.Or at least they would have a pretty bad time against Greeks

That could not have happened because the Romans were still far from establishing themselves in Italy and pacifying the Samnites and other none Roman Latins. For the record, the Romans did "pwn" the Greeks and their colonies in Southern Italy and Sicily.

And yeah, the Romans fought of the armies of Pyrrus of Epirus, which was a fairly impressive feat as well.

First of all...Assyrians???really???

Yes. Really. Potemkin has already explained it far better than I could.

No they didn't.This was part of strategy to force them to surrender.They didn't used these tactics just for the fun of it.And as i said, because of course there were some generals who did this just for the fun of it, they are written in the dark pages of history.

Not for fun obviously. If I was besieging a city, I would cut off all supplies too. Heck, I'd take the precaution of taking their food and burning their crops (or taking the crops, whatever) just in case my army had to go somewhere else.

Well the truth is that they withdrew the armies to oversee the slaves, they were collecting the harvests.The slave masters were just sitting on a couch and talking about Philosophy.

No. Spartans weren't really into philosophers, at least not like the more "liberlol" cities like Athens.


For the record, I've researched extensively on the Peloponnesian War(s) and I think Sparta is badass.

[Panagiotis-Hector]

Regardless, corruption did not and could not have anything to do with military performance. The Greeks were using an archaic system and Romans weren't. And to be fair, the Roman army was still far from its heyday. Marius' comprehensive reforms came long after the conquest of Greece

I believe that if the city is corrupted, the army is in bad shape.First of all, the money goes to the corrupted and not to were it's supposed to(one part is the army budget), and second, there is hatred amongst the army and depression so morale is low therefor the army has low military performance.About the Roman army you're right, but still they were fighting with swords and swords can win spears, if used correctly and the Roman army of the time might not be professional but they were good at the art of war.

Well, these aren't excuses now, are they?

It's hard to deal with something you don't know don't you think?Especially when the enemy is advancing so fast and when you are not in your upturn.

That could not have happened because the Romans were still far from establishing themselves in Italy and pacifying the Samnites and other none Roman Latins. For the record, the Romans did "pwn" the Greeks and their colonies in Southern Italy and Sicily

I meant if everything had happened earlier.If the Romans had conquered Italy and started the attack against Greece before the Peloponnisian war.

And yeah, the Romans fought of the armies of Pyrrus of Epirus, which was a fairly impressive feat as well

I expected that.Pyrrus was strong at the time, but not as strong as the Romans.And he was almost alone.Just the declined Macedonians joined him and....well they were declined.

Not for fun obviously. If I was besieging a city, I would cut off all supplies too. Heck, I'd take the precaution of taking their food and burning their crops (or taking the crops, whatever) just in case my army had to go somewhere else

I was been sarcastic.Obviously not just for fun.As i said it was so that they may surrender with no casualties.(for the besieging army)

No. Spartans weren't really into philosophers, at least not like the more "liberlol" cities like Athens

Spartans were not all Greeks.The rest of cities withdrew their armies to keep an eye on the slaves and the Spartans were doing the same thing, but so that they may exercise more.The slaves were taken care of by the women of Sparta.In fact a lot of times that the men of Sparta were gone the slaves revolted and their revolts were suppressed by the women.(they were like Mice Tyson )

For the record, I've researched extensively on the Peloponnesian War(s) and I think Sparta is badass.

Sure, but if you take a look, just a look not a deep one , at Athens' strategy.....man....that's some badass!
EVERYONE WHO IS AGAINST US MUST(!!!!) BE EXTERMINATED!!

Absolutely false. The Assyrian Empire was the most successful multi-ethnic empire that had ever existed up to that time, and it established the framework followed by the Persian and Roman multi-ethnic empires. And no empire could survive for nearly 700 years just by pillaging and destroying everything. Nineveh was one of the greatest cities of the ancient world, and some scholars now believe that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were actually located in Nineveh. And then there is the famous Library of Ashurbanipal, which preceded the Library of Alexandria by many centuries, and which preserved the remains of the Sumerian and Akkadian cultures. Without the Assyrians, we would not have the Epic of Gilgamesh; most of Sumerian culture and mythology would be a mystery to us. The Assyrians made great cultural and civil progress in their time

You're absolutely correct.I phrased it wrong.The Assyrians had a great culture.I never meant to say anything degrading about them.I just meant that the Spartan Phalanx was the mightiest unit of the ancient world.The Spartan Phalanx was just a supreme killing machine.The Assyrians were an empire(a great empire if you want).You can't compare heteronyms.If you compare the Spartan Phalanx and the Assyrian horse lancer, then i believe we can say that Spartan Phalanx was better than the Assyrian horse lancer.OK?

You should calm down.I don't mean to lower the value of other cultures besides mine.You should pay more attention to what i am talking about.For example, i was comparing the army units, not the whole state.And as i said, sorry about before, it came out wrong.

[Potemkin]

If you compare the Spartan Phalanx and the Assyrian horse lancer, then i believe we can say that Spartan Phalanx was better than the Assyrian horse lancer.OK?

But the Assyrians never used the horse lancer exclusively; that unit was used mainly to ride down and kill an enemy which had already been routed and was fleeing from the battlefield (like Alexander, the Assyrians believed in being thorough). The key to the Assyrian military successes was their use of differentiated and co-ordinated armies, with the infantry as the core. The Greeks tended to use the phalanx almost exclusively (with cavalry support, of course) and they were far inferior to the Assyrians in siege warfare, at least until the time of Dionysius.

[Panagiotis-Hector]

The Greeks tended to use the phalanx almost exclusively (with cavalry support, of course) and they were far inferior to the Assyrians in siege warfare, at least until the time of Dionysius

They used infantry and missile troops, cavalry was just to run down enemy routing troops, and they were poorly armored and armed.
They were inferiors because the Greek cities were poorly walled.In eastern kingdoms walling cities was primary i think.Dionysius was a general of Alexander and he became known due to the besieges of eastern(walled) cities.

But the Assyrians never used the horse lancer exclusively

I never said they used this unit exclusively.I just think that this was the star of the Assyrian army(i'm not sure).That's why i compared it to the Spartan Phalanx.

[Potemkin]

They were inferiors because the Greek cities were poorly walled.In eastern kingdoms walling cities was primary i think.Dionysius was a general of Alexander and he became known due to the besieges of eastern(walled) cities.

Actually, I was thinking of Dionysius of Syracuse.

I never said they used this unit exclusively.I just think that this was the star of the Assyrian army(i'm not sure).That's why i compared it to the Spartan Phalanx.

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.