Play War Thunder for free and claim your bonus pack here: playwt.link/historiamilitum
In this episode we go over countless theories concerning hoplite combat, coming from scholars, reenactors, and enthusiasts. All of these grew rapidly in popularity across the last century, but most are either outdated, unlikely, or incorrect. Join us as we dive into each one, and use experiments, studies, and logic to reconstruct ancient warfare of one of the most popular history periods: Archaic Greece!
Primary sources:
Tyrtaeus, Stobaeus Anthology [on war]. Elegy and Iambus, Volume I, volume 1, Tyrtaeus, The Elegiac Poems of Tyrtaeus (tufts.edu).
Secondary sources:
-Bardunias, P. “The Mechanics of Hoplite Battle: storm of spears and press of shields” in Ancient Warfare Magazine, 2011. 60-69.
-Bardunias, P. “The Greek phalanx in context: shifting shield wall” in Ancient Warfare Magazine 11.6. 36-42.
-Browuers, J. Henchmen of Ares: warriors and warfare in Early Greece. Zutphen: Karwansaray Publishers. 2013.
-Hanson, V. D. Epameinondas, the Battle of Leuktra (371 B.C.), and the "Revolution" in Greek Battle Tactics in Classical Antiquity , Oct., 1988, Vol. 7, No. 2. 190-207.
-V. D. Hanson (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience. New York 1991.
-Hanson, V.D. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. New York, 1989.
-Matthew, C. A. When Push Comes to Shove: What was the Othismos of Hoplite Combat? in Historia 58, 2009, 395 - 415.
-Matthew, C. A. A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War, Barnsley. 2012.
-Konijnendik, R. & Bardunias, P. “The face of battle at Plataiai” in The Battle of Plataiai 479 BC, Konecny, A. & Sekunda, N. (eds.), Vienna: Phoibos Verlag, 2022. 211-242.
-Krentz, P. “Hoplite Hell: How Hoplites Fought.” In Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece, Kagan & Viggiano G F. (eds.), Princeton: University Press, 2013. 134-56.
-Van Wees, H. The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx: Iconography and Reality in the Seventh Century, in H. van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece, London, 2000. 125 - 166.
-Van Wees, H. The Homeric way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx (I) in Greece & Rome, 2nd Ser. Vol. 41, No.1, 1-18.
-Van Wees, H. The Homeric way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx (II) in Greece & Rome, 2nd Ser. Vol. 41, No.2, 131-155.
Greek Hoplites (0:00)
The Time Period (0:47)
"Othismos" (1:24)
Weight of Equipment (2:38)
Spacing within a Phalanx (3:53)
Pre-battle (8:17)
Charge (9:53)
Overhand vs Underhand (10:25)
The battle (10:51)
Combat model (14:56)
I feel like this is the most intuitive way to explain how battles were fought.
Sort of, he made some assumptions that seems to disregard the context faced by the soldier themselves which could dramatically influence how they fought. For example, the typical Greek hoplite was a citizen soldier, meaning they were a farmer or a fisherman or politician first and a soldier second, so it's unlikely every man in a unit had the same level of combat skill, discipline, desire to kill, or resolve to resist running away in fear during the heat of battle. There's also the missing context of what those early battles between Greek city states were actually fought over. These armies weren't really trying to destroy each other outright so much as make the other side concede, as these battles usually occurred to resolve disputes over things like who got to farm a particularly good area of land, or who got to fish a specific area, or who got to determine the path and collect tax on certain trade routes, etc.. These were largely battles between farmers from the same country who all spoke the same language, and who likely would have been trading and intermingling with each other in the days before the battle. They didn't really want to kill their opponents, they just wanted them to give up and go home. As such, it makes sense that a citizen army of part time soldiers whose biggest concern is making sure everyone makes it home, and who don't really wish death upon their enemy, would choose to use a tight formation that focuses on defense, unit cohesion and maximizing unit morale and comradery, as it gives everyone the best chance of making it home and keeps everyone in good spirits, reducing the likelihood of men losing their nerve, and making it hard for them to run away even if they do, as they would have to push through their comrades to get away. For armies fighting an existential threat to their homeland and loved ones, or for professionals like the Spartans who trained religiously and enslaved their enemies, a looser formation that requires more discipline to maintain but maximizes maneuverability and offensive capacity makes sense.
@@LoreTunderin I disagree with your assertion that they didn't actually want to kill each other. These city states were clearly very nationalistic, with the citizens feeling a very strong identity to their respective state. Any dispute with another state would be seen as a grave offense against their honor and dignity as a people. It is very escalatory to assemble an army and march on another state over a small dispute, so even a seemingly small issue could easily turn into a violent, vehement conflict. And when the soldier faces off against another soldier with deadly weapons, and they see one of their comrades fall at the hands of an enemy soldier, they will certainly develop the resolve to aim to kill the enemy, if they didn't already before the battle. They did spend a long time screaming at each other and yelling insults before the battle, remember? The two sides hate each other's guts no matter how silly the initial dispute seems.
@@bugboy491 battles over honor were fairly rare in the period addressed in this video, becoming more common in the Classical period. Casualty rates were typically between 3 and 10 percent for the winners and losers respectively on average, with the numbers being inflated by disproportionately large outliers of one or two battles. In the early period referred to here, the vast majority of battles were individual actions lasting hours at most between city states over arable land, pasture land, fishing rights, etc.
@@LoreTunderinhoplites weren't just your average farmer or peasant, they had enough money to equip and train themselves
@@LoreTunderinno the denser the formation the more discopline cohision and Training is needed, at least if you wanna do any manuvering and not just do a static shield wall. Our medival sources and xenophon, comander of the March of 10 000 talk in dept about how hard it is to maitain formation, cohision when manuvering a dense phalanx (of untrained).
I think one underappreciated part of the Hoplite Phalanx is the psychology. The vast, VAST majority of battles throughout history were not lost by annihilation, but rout. The Phalanx psychologically minimizes the chances of that happening. The front rank soldier was surrounded by allies on both flanks and his back, which at the same time made him feel supported and made it difficult to turn and run, even if he wanted to - he'd have to drop his unwieldy spear and shove his way past his own allies, probably getting himself and his family shamed for life, if he's not outright cut down for cowardice. Warfare got somewhat more chaotic and cavalry dominated in the middle ages, but early modern warfare did something similar to the Phalanx again with their so called "pike and shot" formations, which led to infrantry dominating battles once more. Formations like the "Tercio" were very much spiritual successors of Hoplite warfare, and they were as late as the 18th century. The general idea behind the Phalanx was, in some shape or another, used over thousands and thousands of years, and only met its final death when gunpowder weapons became so effective that pure hand to hand infantry was abolished altogether.
You forgot the part where he explained that it was typically the soldiers in the BACK which ran away first. This had a psychological impact that no formation could stave off. When the man who had minutes before had another man at his back supporting him now finds the people to the back and side of him running off, no formation can hold for long.
@@bugboy491 I didn't forget that part. Nothing I said is contradicted by what you said. The men at the very back of a battle formation that does hand to hand combat are the ones who have the least reason to fear and thus run away (except when the Phalanx is being flanked, but then it's pretty much screwed regardless). By the point the men in the back ranks lose heart and run, the men in the front would have long since broken in a formation that ISN'T organized in this manner. It doesn't completely prevent the rout, no formation can do that, but it can delay it significantly, often long enough so that the opponent breaks first and you win the battle. Nothing is foolproof, but this was one distinct advantages that caused the Phalanx to spread and be widely adopted throughout the Mediterranean and beyond.
I both agree and disagree with your take. Few things have to be pointed out. Primo, infantry fighting in close phalanx-like formations never really fully disappeared and certainly was present in the Middle Ages. Descriptions of infantry fighting that way date even as early as the XI century. Secundo Pike&Shot formations have their roots in the Middle Ages they didn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere in the Early Modern Era. Tertio, when it comes to the supposed chaotic nature of warfare in the Middle Ages keep in mind that cavalry also used large formations and wasn't just fighting in unorganized bands.
YES! This is why in human history, in terms of fighting, people line up. Whether with spears, swords, or muskets! Only in modern times, do we see that soldiers are likely to do better if they are split into smaller and smaller groups. Traditionally.... getting this big ball of whoop ass and keeping it from running away.... is what won.
Yes.
I yearn for the day when an ancient battle is realistically recreated in a movie or simulation… I hope these videos create some demand for it! 🤞
Please, make a realistic cavalry video. Not just horses and swords, but other types, like elephants, chariots and mounted archers. And let some sources in description PLEASE!
I think part of the problem is that Hollywood favors excitement over accuracy. Look at that charge in Troy - outright suicidal, but it looked great! Hollywood also loves to have their heroes break ranks and dive right into the thick of the enemy lines, which in reality would just get you hacked to pieces from all sides, but in movies it serves to distinguish the characters who matter from the faceless mooks.
@@KroganCharrYes this is the crux of it. It's not about knowing what's realistic or not, it's about humans innate desire for hero worship. Depicting an ancient battle realisticly leaves little to no room for individual feats of heroism or storytelling, a very bleak affair. It would be a bunch of men awkwardly shuffling around out of the enemies weapon range, mixed with brief periods of intense violence that end in some poor men getting caught out and cut down in an inglorious fashion. The followup to that would be one side breaking and the other side massacring them in small isolated groups for as long as possible. If modern audiences saw that, they'd immediately support the looser of that battle just beacause the way it was won and the pursuit that ensued would seem incredibly villanous to most people. Unless the realistic battle depiction is used to set up the antagonist faction in the beginning of a movie I don't ever see it being done because it's deeply harmful to archetypical narratives.
@@KroganCharra “realistic” depiction would actually look better than the mindless battle scenes in Hollywood. Rome tried to do it in season 2 (with some inaccuracies).
Plz make realistic history about the "Macedonian" Phalanx because some sources say their sarissas 3rd & 4th back rows tilted upwards protects the whole unit from arrows which doesn't make sense how thin those sarissas were
this whole misconception that armies would charge at each other at full speed is great for the movies but this is much more to how it must have went down. that explains why battles would last a whole day or sometimes several days with intermediate periods of rest. great work.
Don't really care about the charging misconceptions. The true worse part about Hollywood battle scenes is how it descends into chaotic duels. People think that's cool but it's extremely unimmersive
@@adambrande that part too. good call
@@adambrandeyeah and then when we see the Scots or the Japs do it, it would be even more impactful. (Scots = highland charge & Japs = banzai charge)
Please do a video on how different types of cavalries were actually used in battles. We all know they had the advantage of mobility and were best flanking troops but how did the charge/skirmish actually take place on a minute-to-minute basis ? How was the communication done ? How did the troops managed to not enter a state of chaos & rampage ? What did the horses and the soldiers do after they made first contact with the enemy ? How long did the troops stay in contact (melee/ranged) with the enemy ? What would be the course of action of a cavalry commander/soldier from the start of a battle till the end of it ? [for any (specific) culture/civilization] ? There are so many questions that are not properly answered anywhere, would love to see many videos on this topic, specially for distinct cavalry types. Thank you for your efforts. Cheers!!!
Excellent proposition. That would be a very topic, both for the Greek and Roman armies. And respect for your generous donation.
There's an interesting Pictish stone which shows a battle scene, believed to have occurred around the mid-9th century CE, called the Aberlemno 2 stone. The middle section of the scene shows 3 men on the left, with the furthest left figure it's not obvious what he's armed with (it's likely a spear or pike held vertically), but the other two are armed with an interesting combination of weapons. One is armed with what seems to be a pike - or a long spear at least - which is weilded with both hands, and appears to have a shield strapped to his left arm. The pike is held at waist height, held out horizontally. The man in front of him is armed with a sword and shield. It is interesting to me that the infantry are arranged in such a manner, and I thought I'd mention it as I thought it might make for an interesting video.
It's interesting that you PICTED that one.
Aberlemno Kirkyard Stone, in Aberlemno, Scotland. Spearman in that piece looks like he's holding off the incoming horseman. Found it just by googling "Pictish stone which shows a battle scene" 🙏🏾💡
Very interesting! But surely you meant AD.... not CE... People need to stop using it. It means nothing. Our years are counting from a very specific event, and it is pointless to pretend they are not...
@@daveweiss5647 CE has been used for around 400 years. It was started by Christians. The reason it was used is because AD was not accurate. Using the AD system, Jesus was born in either BCE 6 or 7 depending on which account you use. CE is the correct system, if you want to count from that very specific event. I suggest you actually read up on the history of this method of counting before you comment. Educating yourself before expressing an opinion ensures you have an opinion that is valid.
@macgonzo wrong, I am very aware of the history and context... but AD is still the correct term- people use CE to try and denigrate western civilization and the Christian origins of the system... this is actually very unscientific regardless of whatever its origins may be, because it obfuscate the reality of the reasons for the numbers themselves...
The Roman videos were crazy good - glad you took on this. There is something more intimate about studying actual behaviours of soldiers with the tactics-equipment-culture of the period
Can you do a video for the cavalry vs cavalry warfare too?
Yes, I think that will be the next video in this series.
@@HistoriaMilitum I really hope you will go in detail about how cavarly charges worked. I can't wrap around my head how they managed to use for example the wedge formation without suffering constants losses of the lead man.
@@mogyesz9 As far as I know, the wedge wasn't actually all that well utilized for exactly this reason, and/or not in the way movies or video games would depict it. For example, Alexander's companion cavalry used the wedge, but it was a formation for MANEUVERING the cavalry, not for enemy contact. The man at the tip of the wedge was the commander of the unit, and the point was that everyone could see him and follow his lead without any need to communicate additional orders. This made a highly mobile unit that can change direction at a moment's notice, reacting to new developments or proactively surprising the enemy. When the cavalry would commit and actually charge into the enemy line, the wedge would be dissolved.
@@KroganCharr The wadge or rather a wage-column formation was certainly used in the Middle Ages although it actually had a "flat nose", in other words, the tip of the wedge would consist of 3 to 5 riders rather than just one.
@@mogyesz9 I find it hard to see how a wedge formation could work. The Byzantine cavalry charge with a linear formation, but unlike what is depicted in movies and film, they charge slower, as in not with a gallop but with a canter. With a gallop, they will likely lose formation, but with the slower canter they can maintain a tight formation, forming a tight wall of armored animal and rider going straight at you. I can imagine how terrifying it would be if I were the charged infantry. Wedge formation doesn't look that scary in comparison
What’s charming and also frustrating about Ancient Greek history is how little documented information there is. Two spears were only held during Mycenaean era, phalanx literally means roller (more “rolling” happened in Hellenistic times, but still happened earlier), and the rear of the dory had a pyramid shaped point specifically designed to be planted in the ground to stop enemies on horseback. Herodotus dramatized all his records, but I find that he goes into more detail than any other writer. I am building my own aspis and you added a new theory to the purpose of the ropes, and I didn’t know they played a game of telephone before war. Cool video, I understand it’s more for the masses, but don’t be afraid to use technical terms like “linothorax” when describing linen armor.
The other side the Dori is called Styrax(Styrakas) or Savrotiras.also Dori spear was never throwned because it wasnt designed to do so and it was kinda stupid to throw your main weapon and disrespectful act of a soldier towars his family gen by generation passed armor.What was meant probably in the video was an Akontion a smaller Javelin Spear which was carried mostly by peltasts in numbers of two or more and could be thrown.Those might seam details but are not.Etymology of words can help us finding the origin and use of very objects.For example Xiphos and Kopis are two completely different things Xiphos as the word Xiphias in Hellenic means the swordfish cames for drilling.While Kopis from noun Kopto literally means cut so its for slushing.This video has some mistakes unfortunately.
These videos of the battle models are so good. Thank you for this top quality content.
YESSS!!! another video! once again great work, loving this series
This channel deserves to become the benchmark of ancient warfare knowledge amongst learning institutions. Great job again!!!
Fantastic video, and great person for knowledge. Paul is one of my favorite sources of knowledge and a good friend. Well done!
Great work! Thanks for sharing
I have to say that these kind of videos are pure gold. I feel I learn a lot. AND please, Classical period is requested and required Video saved in my playlist
Really interesting video, always excited to see an upload from this channel. Always entertains
Good video, which tries to break with some of the myths regarding ancient warfare! As a former history student, i totally like this. I would love, if you could write down the sources, which you used for the video in the video description or maybe even in the timestamps. Like this, its far better to comprehend where you got the information from. Keep up the work :)
Thank you! We are still compiling the sources. I will add then to the description soon.
Man.. This is brillant. Thank you
Great Video as always!
Fantastic video again. Congrats.
love love love your videos my man. been watching for a long time now usually over a morning coffee. tonight over a JD & Coke . keep it up you're doing an amazing job
Thank you for your interest and support! :)
PLEASE keep this goldmine of a series going! I’d love if you overviewed Native American, ancient Asian, and medieval tactics as well!
An excellent and informative video. 😊
Thanks for this video ! 😊
The 2 fighting armies would put their best soldiers on the right flank which often led to a counterclockwise movement of the battle.
IIRC the Romans actually subverted this on occasion just to catch their enemy off guard.
Not always best soldiers, usually the greatest amount of soldiers is enough. This is called oblique order. I believe the strategekois (forgot it's spelling) talks about flankers and outflankers though which is what you're talking about. It's a free read
@@KroganCharr I believe it was Thebes that did the opposite when they faced the Spartans
Very informative video
Your work my friend helps contribute to our understanding of the ancient world in a better way And without you we probably live in the world of misconceptions of popular notion
These videos are great! I love how you're making historical combat look realistic and so true to life. Could you do the same to heavily armored infantry knights during the high medieval period, as well as halberders and pikes in the late medieval period?
Thank you! If the sources allow it, we would love to move to the medieval period as well, perhaps after Macedonian and cavalry combat.
Very interesting video, thanks you
Nice video. Very well done.
You have answered lifelong questions there
The ropes could be for carrying the shield around outside of battle
That's a pretty good idea
Aspides frequently had bronze rim reinforcing along with hide or linen. Aspis just means shield, and there were a bunch of different sizes and kinds, and though the bronze layer on the front seems to have been incredibly rare, reinforcing the edge with a layer of hide and a bronze rim is shown in depictions frequently. This would go a long way in protecting the shield against the use of both the kopis and the xyphos, which would definitely be used if a spear broke or the engagement DID get into really close-quarters combat. I am no metallurgist, but I would wager that bronze would be made using less tin, and thus softer, than if someone could afford a full sheet on their shield, and that is why we so rarely find these rims anywhere near intact, but we do find fragments of them with shields. I've never been a fan of the "hoplites had Xcm between them". That just...doesn't make sense in the real world. Far more likely, hoplites had close order, loose order, and "don't bother maintaining ranks" order after an enemy broke. This also explains why both underhand and overhand would be used; they serve different purposes. 90cm seems a bit large for a close-order formation, but too close for loose-order. I would guess more in the range of 70-80cm, with loose order being more like 90-110cm. The underhanded grip would certainly be better for attacking fleeing enemies. I also think it makes sense for the first row to use underhanded grip, and the rest to go overhanded, so an enemy has at least 4 enemies on a solid front to worry about, only in the first rank. As to the pushing, I believe that it was both the normal "they pushed y units back" as they give ground, as well I think when a gap occurred, say 2 men are downed and two others attempt to flee, an actual push would be made to try to break into the ranks of the enemy. This is how Romans did it, it is how Angles and Saxons, how Danes and Norse did it, and it is how the Chinese did it way on the other side of Eurasia. If a gap opens, you DO try to push it, and actually physically push your way, along with some buddies, into that gap. But if it doesn't work, you back off, and I think this is likely where a significant portion of the fatalities in Greek warfare occurred, at least in the Archaic period. I think THAT is what "othismos" refers to, that push into a gap that is the ATTEMPT to end a battle. Got to admit, I almost stopped watching when you started with Hanson, glad I stuck with it. God I hate that guy.
While I think a literal shoving match would be a very rare occurrence, I suspect the action of threatening to engage in one may have been somewhat common tactic. If you knew your soldiers were fully protected with helmets and armor covering their arms, legs, shoulders and torsos, and you also knew your enemy had little beyond their shields and possibly their helmets, you would undoubtedly look for ways to exploit those disparities to your advantage. A commander who perceived his men to have such an could hypothetically leverage it by locking up the front ranks in a shield-to-shield shoving contest, forcing the enemy's poorly protected rear ranks to come forward to brace the men in front from getting shoved over, in turn bringing them within striking range of his first few ranks of spearmen. Of course this requires sufficient discipline, armor and weaponry, however it seems likely such a disparity in unit equipment and quality would have occurred many times given the number of battles that took place in the ancient world. Obviously a competent enemy would avoid such a bind if they knew they were at a disadvantage, so it's likely they would've kept backing up to stay safe and maintain maneuverability, but eventually they'd be forced to stand their ground lest their flanks become vulnerable or they get pushed off the field onto unfavorable terrain. Even bluffing such a bind only to pull up short of the enemy could be useful, I imagine. The sight of a disciplined, well equipped force methodically marching toward you in dense formation would be intimidating to just about anyone, and would surely cause some men to falter in their resolve to stand and fight.
Sounds good in theory. But getting a full army (of likely mixed ability, experience and equipment) to do this mid-battle is something else entirely.
@@Azog150 just hit the hotkey, you gotta set those up beforehand, duh
This makes me think how good were the Romans that beat these tactics. Excellent video 👌
An important thing about the overhand grip, is defence, the main target are the face, nec and shoulders, as everything else is basicly protected, an overhand grip allowes you to block and delfect, as if you had a giant car sweaper any blows to those areas, as well as a quick counter attack. whats also important is that you dont need or should hold the spear in the middle at the point of ballance, but behind the point of ballance, this gives you more reach and angels your spear downwards for defence, you only need to bring the tip up, while trusting, this is very easy and very hard to read. With a tapped rear ballanced spear (that existed at least in the later period) you dont need to use the trow catch / slide method t increase your reach that way.
Great content.
Great video, i also never believed that Hoplites did push eachother, since one side can easily quickly retreat and the other will fall to the ground
Thanks for this. Reading Hanson in the aughts when he published was awful. He felt wrong and never came to any real conclusions beyond regurgitation. Not a man who would dare try ideas in the field.
Took me 2 minutes to decide not to take this video to seriously, its closer to a For honor character comparison. Its called LEGENDARY for a reason :D
These are the videos I CRAVE!!
very interesting video
I mostly agree with this model. But it does bring to mind a question: modern subunits are almost all combined arms. We see skirmishers here, but wouldn't we then expect to see small cavalry detachments spread behind the line, or axemen, etc? Wouldn't we see combined arms 'brigades'?
2 comments: Hoplites fought in deep formations, 6+ ranks deep. It was a signature of their fighting style. Deeper formations are more durable, with less frontage. 2nd comment: Hoplite overhand spear is the opposite. In duels overhand can give you an advantage, but in formation underhand is better. Many Greek spears used sauroter, which is a heavy weight on the back end of a spear, 3 times as heavy as the spearhead. So you can hold it in front with very little sticking behind you because the point of balance makes it easy to hold it further out. Don't think of underhand as 1v1. Usually the formations would jab and it would be the person at an angle who would spear you. The most common armour was on the chest and side of the chest, as well as greaves. Which is where you can aim if you use it underarm. Underarm is also a barrier and defensive tool, as spears can interfere with the enemy getting too close and also physically bat at enemy spears, which is handy if you see someone trying to spear your friend to either side of you and you can use your spear to bat those spears away. Overarm is good for throwing, but it's not a natural way to fight with a spear for a long time. Try holding anything above your head for a long time, you won't be able to do it for very long, especially a heavy spear. Overarm it it gets knocked makes it easy to lose control of your spear and for it to pivot, which can knock someone else on the head easily. The wrist at that angle has no real resistance.
Deep ranks are a feature if Classical hoplite warfare. This video is about Archaic hoplite warfare. You will see deep ranks in the next video. Overhand spear use is far superior when in phalanx. It allows for a greater range of targets when used over the top of overlapped shields. If you use the spear as I advocate, you will have no problem both parrying enemy spears and recovering when your own spear is parried. Search for my other videos on here. The most common armor is the helmet, which is the prime overhand target. There is nothing especially tied to underhand about strikes to the shins. Overhand strikes can target from nose to toes with a dory-sized spear. We regularly strike at the legs to open up the face and vice versa.
@@paulbardunias5950 Overhand isn't a natural way to hold a spear and you don't get much extension. I get the whole throwing the spear forward technique but I don't think the majority of hoplites would have tried this kind of thing. You can easily get your spear knocked away if it just gets bumped by some other spear. Now you at best have a sharp sauroter in someone's face as your spear rotates and you try to keep control of it. You can get plenty of power and precision by just using your body with a normal, underarm grip. If you're stopped in front of another formation with underarm and you start engaging someone at a good distance away with your spear extended, he is then going to get distracted. He's going to try to defend himself. That will open him up to attacks from the side. Sharp, heavy spears can also jab shields directly and create major problems for the other guy. Shields can get knocked offline, the spear can stick into the shield and then have to be removed. If you have a good shot at someone with overarm, you're already in sword range. People in a duel will get baited by overarm. You can't afford to bait people in formation when other guys need your spear to be out in front to keep the spear wall. The main reason you don't get into close combat is because you have this long piece of wood between you and the enemy. If you're using overarm in a formation you are completely throwing away reach for basically no gain. Your main target is now the shield and face, the most heavily armoured and most protected targets and you no longer have any room to fall back if you get into trouble, because you're at sword range. The spear is not really beneficial because of the offensive capability, it's the way it lets you coordinate with everyone else to fight as a unit and to keep distance between you and the enemy. Reenactors don't care about the danger of a spear, but ancient formations which try to breach a spearwall will march forward uneven. Some guys will make it into close combat, others will fail and stay behind. The spear used extended in underarm lets you coordinate with everyone else. You can keep a certain dead zone between the formations to give you breathing room and start "working" it. You're going to target feet, legs, opening in shields, the face, the torso and stomach. Okay, you have this big impenetrable wall of overarm spears. Now you have to move forward because you're out of range. As soon as you do, the formation shatters. Some guys march forward into a hail of spear thrusts and also the physical mass of a bunch of spears extended. Some guys make it to range. Others get left behind. Maybe overarm works for you, but it's not going to work well enough when there are 3+ enemies are thrusting at you from different angles because you're isolated. Yeah, overarm was probably used, especially in dueling and skirmish scenarios, because the spear can be thrown. Look up film of the West Papu Tribal war and see how they use spears in less organized settings. kzhead.info/sun/fa1tpc2qrqquZJE/bejne.html I think people went into formation combat expecting to use an underarm grip and to keep some kind of distance from the enemy, to fight in a way that was natural. Most hoplites were not full time soldiers, discipline is heavily exaggerated and 1v1 combat in war was seriously glorified. Commanders were always trying to organize formations to keep them coherent but many writers in ancient Greece talk about how hoplite formations can fail. They wanted a system which was easy to implement and understand for part time soldiers. It would be good for them to stay in a single line, let alone to be tightly packed. If you're tightly packed and marched into the teeth of the enemy with everyone using an overarm grip, it's an incredibly stressful thing even for full time soldiers to get that close. Many of them would not be wearing full face helmets, many would not have greaves and others would have just caps, like the Phyringian cap style helm which provides no frontal face protection. These people are going to run away in that kind of environment.
This is my favorite history channel ever and it's always a good day when you uploads! Never thought colored geometric shapes would be so interesting
Thank you for your praise and support, it really makes the effort worth it!
@HistoriaMilitium please watch Lindybeige's "The fighting method of most soldiers: one handed spear and shield". It makes way too much sense to be ignored. I think he is right on the spear grip type being underhand, held at the end of a spear for the actual advantage in range
Lindy does not use the one handed spear properly. Unfortunately that video is not really useful. See my comments under his video.
Reall6 great. I'm gonna be subbing
right n the begining, the description of the shield: homer talks about the layers of thick leather over the wood. i guess this isnt a proper historical source, but theres descriptions of shields in the illiad which as i recall describe sometimes seven layers of leather between the wood and the thin bronze sheathing... i know that nothing dulls a blade so much a s cutting through flesh. the leather middle section of the hoplite shield would not be preserved since antiquity but it is referred to, but also it is well known among knife fighters that your knife can cut throuigh a leather jacket only four times befroe dulling. the ability of leather to dull the opponents blade is poorly understood.
PERFECT TIMING FOR MY FINAL IN ENGLISH!!!
i find it very likely that the shields could have been interlocked to effectively defend against arrows. but the formation would like break up afterwards
This is wonderful. I'm trying to figure out how to apply these ideas to Leuctra, cos the depth of the line is so seemingly overemphasized in that battle. It feels like a straight-up othismos but something tells me that cannot possibly be true.
Don't apply this to Leuktra. Hoplites fought differently in the Classical period. Leuktra is all about othismos, but othismos may not be exactly what you have read before.
THANK YOU FOR YOU FOR USING ILLUSTRATED ART WORK FOR YOUR VIDEOS AND NOT AI. I cannot stand all the historical content out with weird and whacky ai as illustration. Big thumbs up.
While I may not be fully awake when I was watching this video, so I do apologies if I'm repeating what you already said HM, but for me personally I think the Greek Hoplite was more of a "jack of all trades, master of none" sort of deal, like a living Swiss army knife. The reason why is because considering just how damn rocky and mountainous Greece itself is the military minds in ancient Greece had to find a very fine line between protecting their warriors from Demeter's temper and protecting their warriors from their fellow man, and sense the legend of Troy most likely taught them that sticking to a single style of warfare is likely a death sentence, this two was a juggling act for them. My evidence. . none, this is all just stuff I duck-tapped together.
If it was all about shoving, why would you bother with so much armor to tire you out in the first place?
Perhaps it was for added mass and momentum, as a heavier unit is harder to push back. It interestingly did occur more often in the classical period, but it occurred more systematically as the battle went on, spears broke, and back lines pressed forward to support the front. I doubt hoplites could have endured it for long though. It was likely just the “finishing move” which occurred at the very end of some battles, when the enemy is wavering and exhausted, so you literally shove them off the field. I cant wait to cover it in a full video!
You'd probably be in for a very bad surprise if only your army showed up unarmoured
Even when shoving, men in the front would instinctively raise their shields somewhat to protect their face and neck from thrusts and slashes. Intuitively, I could imagine the second or 3rd rank of men using the length of their spears to thrust over the heads and between the legs of the men in front of them, stabbing at the head, shoulders, lower legs and feet of the enemy. As such, it makes sense why at least the men in the front would want armor to protect areas the shield didn't cover (head and legs), or which could be targeted through a gap in the shield wall if the man beside them got wounded or shoved out of position (torso and arms).
@@HistoriaMilitumtactically, I could see close shoving being employed by a general who perceives his men as having a significant advantage in armor or striking range over his enemy. If your front few ranks were fully armored while their opponents lacked head/leg/shoulder protection, or lacked weapons with sufficient range to effectively strike beyond the first rank, it might be very effective to bind the enemy's front line in a shoving match where they would be unable to maneuver their shields, and your rear ranks could thrust over top and beneath the shield wall to strike at unprotected legs and shoulders. A shoving bind would also force the theoretically even less protected rear ranks of the enemy to move closer to brace the men in front from getting pushed over, bringing them within striking range of your men as well. Given this advantage, it's unlikely a competent enemy general would willfully engage in such a bind, instead choosing to maintain a limited spear-thrusting distance, however it eventually reach a point where they'd be pushed so far back their flanks would become vulnerable, or they'd be forced off the battlefield onto unfavorable terrain. This type of aggression seems like it would be very effective for a disciplined, well equipped army, even if the forward press was only a bluffed threat of engaging in a bind, as it would undoubtedly be very intimidating to see a well equipped, disciplined formation relentlessly marching toward you.
@@LoreTunderin If you start stabbing your sword through the legs of your comrades you are more likely to hit the two or three dudes in the front ranks or trip them then you are to hit the enemy... And stabbing overhead sounds okay from the 2nd rank, but from the third rank? You would have to be a lot taller then them to actually see what you are stabbing at and reach that far... I don't think the people in the back ranks did much except keep an eye out for gaps forming in the line to fill them or to help people that fell in the front back to their feet and attack enemies that might try to attack their downed comrade, so they waited until they were needed and then stepped in to support the front rank or take over. It is really hard for me to imagine them doing any effective fighting from the back ranks past the front rank, aside from throwing a javelin or shooting a bow, but even that is risky when everyone is moving and jostled around...
very cool video
wonderful explanation !!!
Good vid
The point of a charge was mostly to test the enemy and see if the enemy would lose morale and run just from the sight of said charge.
Great video. I am new to the channel so im sorry to ask but, is there any video about how Alexander the Great's army fought? If its not i would suggest it honestly. I am really curious what heppened when the battle started. Being forced to charge at those Sarisa's would probably be a nightmare and a massive hit to morale of the enemy army
In the last or final period of hoplite warfare it is clear that hoplites fought in an opened formation. Very similar if not identical to the Romans. The hoplite was armed with a spear and the Roman a sword. Hannibal was able to win victory after victory over the Romans using these tactics. The question is whether or not opened formation tactics were known or utilized in earlier wars. It is possible that opened formations were only developed as counter to Roman tactics. And thus were not used earlier.
2:00 A danger and opportunity. They crash into a funnel, condensing them and forcing them into a ring while giving energy to be used in the engine and other things.
Seems there was a lot of honour and certain ways of doing things. They didn't like archers as they thought it was cowardly and they're extremely infantry based. Sort of like an early version of Chivalry. This is opposed to Archer Cavalry where there is no honour in man to man fighting and they are exploiting the advantages they have.
Good video
I can’t wait for a video about conbat during the macedonian age😍
Very cool!
I feel ancient warfare was all about moral and discipline. The formations of the Greeks was expanded upon by the Macedonians whom increased the length of the spears and reduced the sizes of the shields. The phalanx of Alexander are detailed greatly. So, from this we can know alot about the Greeks methods of warfare. Firstly, as they were citizen soilders that fought for valour, plunder and the like no doubt they fought in a more comprehensive manner than being a military. Though, the Spartans were professional soilders and would have fought more like a modern military in tactics, ability and stamina. Making them much more formidable. After all, the majority of a citizens life is on tending their farms, families, daily householding and so forth. There was little time for military matters outside of training. While the Spartans were totally devoted to the disciplines and daily tasks associated with war. We see this later too with the Romans and how professional soldiers were much more formidable than there earlier citizen soldiers of the early republic. Secondly, with this in mind ancient Greeks methods of marching, fighting and war tactics would be predominantly against other greeks whom though they had considerable rivalry against still saw as equal. They may have even known other famous greek hoplites of the apossing army by name, for their renown in battle.. certainly if the Greeks when in times of peace traded and were allies, while in other times sought war among eachother.. in a land that all share the same language I imagine details of battles and victories details of which travelled far and wide. Even the use of the spear and a large shield was a focus on defence than offence. After all, as citizens soldiers they primarily went to war for the states benefit and as not being a professional military were not bound to harsh crimes for desertion like execution. Except in the case of the Spartans they were.. So, when the moral shifted it would be common for sudden routes to occur as those whom saw massive defeats occuring were prone to do. This was the case of the Spartans that fought the Thebians, and the Thebians sacred band defeated the most skilled Spartans on the right, which led to a total battlefield defeat even before any other units engaged. Likely, free greek mercilessly killing free Greeks was not a thing and there was a decorum of honour and respect among all Greeks for one another, such as gentlemanly behaviour in war. It would be therefore not a stretch to say that hoplites fought in a tight formation to maximise their chances of getting home safely, and loose formations would only benefit them in areas of rough terrain or the like. Tight formations with expressed emphasis of shoving seems a fair way to prevent unnecessary deaths as it was more a battle of pride than of mercilous warfare, no doubt Greeks saw other greeks as equals and though they had rivalries they were still Greeks. I feel a looser formation that is about manuverability doesn't make sense, as Greek citizen soldiers were not until later periods fighting to kill their opponents so much as defeat them. I feel that a tight formation where the lefts of their shields covered their comrades on their right seems quite plausible as the Romans though had looser formations predominantly used swords which required space between shields while Greeks used spears which were naturally used above the shields and the crescent space between the shields was a space for the spears to protude. They were heavily armoured and their gear weighted a great deal. Not to mention they were not accustomed to such large burdens as they were citizen soldiers. The Roman legionaries as a professional military were accustomed to large marches in full battle attire as it was their profession. But many Greek soldiers were artisans, traders, politicians, farmers, and so on not soldiers. Except the Spartans lol.. which is what made the Spartans unique. The heavily armoured units were Infront with the less armoured at back. those more accustomed to and gear for war therefore fought with experience in the front ranks of prestige while the back was for younger recruits, older man, those less able, with inquiring or less equiped. The rotating of ranks would be difficult in an environment where each man at the front was locked into the shield wall with his comrades and likely only happened if he was killed, inquired or fatigue to such a degree. but given the battles were mainly based on prestige, and didn't last more than an hour in ancient greek battles, more likely it was uncommon he retired due to fatigue alone. Such was not the case though when fighting from the Spartans as they were quite mericilous and they didn't even employ archers as they felt they were cowards.. Also, when fighting the Persians it was do or die, to save their homes, loved ones and state so naturally they fought to win and kill. But, the ferocity of battle would depend on the foe that was faced I feel. Even in the general climate, a weapon best suited for offense is a sword with it's versatility while defense is a spear with it's long range and longer point. Being also very useful against cavalry too. Of which ancient Greece didn't have much of, given they were a large mountainous delta except when fighting the barbarians of outer Greece, like the Macedonians or Scythians, Persians as they called them.. As a result I disagree with your views as many of them rely on a the concept they were professional soldiers. As a citizen soldier the aim was to maximise force in an era where few were professional soldiers, minimise casualties, for ones own personal reaons and in the Spartans case, to do their duty for the state under Spartan law.
Excellent points about citizen soldiers being highly influenced by the morale and support of their comrades, as well as their likely apprehension toward cutting down their fellow countrymen whom they may have known or traded with in the past. It makes sense that such an army would prefer dense formations that maximized protection and unit cohesion to lessen the possibility of a route, and that they put staked more value on making sure everyone made it home rather than maximizing their offensive capacity.
I never quite really understood the debate about overhand and underhand. You can switch from under to over quite easily, and with the help of your shield/left hand the other way around too. Overhand is maybe a bit shorter initially, but you're also stabbing down, which allows you to use gravity for force. And once you connect you can actually thrust further than without connecting. And underhand is obviously more rangey and more testey.
Quickly, Alfred, the tomes of lore must be filled with knowledge!
Really interesting take on the subject. I had always assumed that that the light infantry would stay behind the heavies and chuck their javelins over the eight ranks of hoplites in front. Instead, you have them interspersed with the hoplites, moving in and out of the formation at will. If I understand you, a three or four rank phalanx would move into contact with the foe, the front rank would form a shield wall/ jabbing line and the other ranks and lights would support it as needed. I think Total War will have to do a major redesign :). On a side note, do you really think hoplites carried javelins? I always thought that a large shield strapped to the forearm would make throwing one difficult. Anyway, good job.
Would you might consider doing a video on how ancient Roman Cavalry was utilised.
The Greeks fought in different ways if you read the sources. The phalanx was one method another was a running group fighting in forests, another was loosely as in a steep hill.
I'm also really curious as to how they fought in a formation without poking the guy behind them when they drew their spears back to throse, or tangling the guy diagonally behind them if they tried to stab someone to their left or right. With shorter spears that might not be a problem, but how would they manage that with spears of 8 feet or longer? that problem seems to make the idea of a tight formation really hard to imagine.
You angle the spear head down slightly so the back is up you see it in artwork. Also when trusting with a spear its best to have it drawn back Reddy to trust that way you don't telegraph when you are going to trust or throw. I do spear and shield fighting in my spare time.
Please do Sengoku samurai and napoleonic warfare eventually. Or maybe late medieval cavalry and infantry combat. I feel like there's a lot missing from the commonly presented models for all of these
Thx
This could be expanded by studying the Macedonian phalanx and also analyzing not only sarissa phalanx vs sarissa phalanx, but also sarissa phalanx vs hoplite phalanx and both style of phalanx vs roman legion.
The most interessting is roman cs hoplite coz we know about the other ones.
Where did you get the overhand underhand grip analysis from. Underhand has more reach and was used in group formations more, and overhand grip was better suited in close range and for dueling from what I've seen.
I do spear and shield fighting the difference in overhand and underhand grip reach is minimal. Underhand grip in formation doesn't work people behind get in the way.
Overhand has more power, more reach if you slide, and more targets, because you can go over your head to strike from your left shoulder. You can hit targets from nose to toes. Underhand gives low-line strikes to the same targets, feet, legs, that overhand can only come at from above, and allows you to hold the spear stretched out at a foe, for warding cavalry perhaps.
Main issue here is hoplite warfare is entirely different from later periods under Alexander using the sarissa
U talked about the Danish police while showing the Dutch.
He also listed Thermopoli as a victory. Still a pretty good video.
I always find it annoying how much people overplay the weight of armor in ancient and medieval warfare. I think people often tend to picture it in terms of lifting or carrying the weight in a backpack. When weight is properly distributed around your body it's much easier to stay mobile. Even modern infantryman carry quite a bit of weight between armor, weapons, and ammo yet remain relatively mobile.
NEW HISTORIA MLITUM/CIVILIS JUST DROPPED
Tyrtaeus also mentioned initial charges where spears pierced shields, so there may have been battles where leaders called plays like in American football hoping to catch their enemies off guard with an aggressive play.
I feel like most of the "advantages" mentioned about the overhand spear grip are not likely to be used effectively by the average hoplite in typical battle conditions of the day. The supposed advantage of being able to pivot and thus attack enemies on either side more quickly doesn't make sense in my opinion. You can pivot and attack left and right just as quickly with the underhanded grip, which also provides a stronger thrust and a more stable stance as well as allowing the thrust to be directed downwards, straight or upwards , while the overhand allows only downward thrusts. Also the hoplite can check and parry the opponents blows with the underhanded grip and the overhanded grip isn't stable or strong enough to allow such defensive techniques. Throwing and then catching your spear is something out of Dynasty Warriors the video game, and I highly doubt it was a common or even effective technique in Hoplite warfare. The only true advantages I see being offered by the overhand grip that are actually plausible and effective for the average soldier to exploit is throwing one's spear powerfully and accurately, and the feinting of throwing one's spear. The latter being a great way to check an advancing or charging enemy's movement and a phenomenal way to create distance between yourself and your opponent.
11:40 that is a very interesting way to hold a spear whilst holding a shield. Huh
5:14 Wouldn't deflecting it mean the jav or spear will be deflected to your mate? 5:46 I think holding it can also be when being pushed back? You can be less prone to falling over or cohesion being broken. Maybe you can even use it when advancing forward to keep the line intact. 10:08 Not too sure about that. With all the battlecries? Being protected by much armor and shield and having your mates around you encouraging each other? It's not that hard to believe that they can charge like in Hollywood films and be not too afraid of the enemies. People being testy of each other is honestly more on the talented people. Aren't most hoplites normally just normal people that trained only in campaigns? With all of the things they do to help in alleviating fear like propaganda and such, I'm not too sure if they really are all that professional going at it. Again, given that most Greek armies are seasonal soldiers and not full time. Idk, some questions i just thought.
Ok so holding the rope on the shield. There's always going to be the guys who want to show off , or be the fastest, etc. They probably had them hold the ropes on the shield to keep someone who's got their adrenaline rushing from charging out of the formation . trying to be heroic but most likely getting killed. Once they got into range they could spread out a little bit but you wouldn't have to worry about someone running off.
Isn't there some historic commentary concerning the tendency for the opposing lines to move to their respective right, while closing with the enemy, in order to keep their right side covered by their neighbor's shield?
*The two different theories of hoplite warfare covered in this video are the orthodox and heretic. The orthodox theory is represented best by Victor Davis Hanson and presumed hoplite warfare to be a kind of rugby match with phalanxes of heavy infantry pushing and shoving against each other in heavy bronze or linothorax armor, no specialized infantry, until one side broke and ran away.* *The heretic theory - advanced by Adrian Goldsworthy among others - takes into account the primary sources that contradict the orthodox narrative, the existence of specialized infantry roles, and the fact that the word **_othismos_** appears to be used in a metaphorical rather than a literal sense by ancient sources. The heretic theory is becoming more dominant in academia - especially as scholars adhering to the orthodox view retire or pass away and more evidence and research vindicates the 'heretic' scholars*
How are these animations made? How can I make a video like this?
A big misconception about ancient combat is comparing it to musket line infantry. Musket is a ranged weapon, so any individual target can be attacked by any number of musketeers, so the quantity creates its own quality, increasing the effectiveness of soldiers. Line infantry was all built around maximizing the effectiveness of poorly trained and unmotivated conscripts by putting as many guns as possible on a single target. With melee the math is different. A melee fight is on average just a series of duels. A formation if anything only makes it more true. The system is therefore built around making each soldier fight at their peak ability. A formation is there to help with that. Compared to line infantry, the goals are opposite.
You are contradicting yourself. If a soldier is poorly trained line formation is the last you want to put him in as it requires much more training and coordination to remain cohesive. Generally speaking the more shallow the formation is the more trained individuals it needs to be effective. Also, what makes you think soldiers in the XVIII century were poorly trained and drilled?
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Dafuq? What planet are you from? Do you swim in the ground and walk on water there?
@@user-mf3oc6mj5l Apparently a planet of reason and logic that might be outside of your comprehension.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Cool, we are using reason and logic here on Earth as well. So you aliens have trouble forming a line? Why?
@@user-mf3oc6mj5l Linear formations are typically shallower and occupy a larger front thus it is harder to keep the line straight especially while advancing or turning the front. A longer front means more NCOs are required to pass down the orders down the line and more coordination is required for all soldiers to start the maneuver simultaneously. Line formation is also more easily disrupted by obstacles and hard terrain not to mention more easily broken by my enemy charge. Thus line formation actually requires better training and drilling rather than a square formation or its derivatives.
Soooooo... in essence, league gamers in their 5v5 teamfights are the most accurate depiction of ancient combat after all? They do possess the element of front-to-back clearly defined frontlines that dynamically shift around, both ranged and melee combatants, fear of death (due to the impact long death timers have on their chances of success), desire to kill their opposition, need to position well, etc?
Shut up
Can I bother you with the sources for the video? I am currently working on a paper regarding Homeric warfare from a comparative perspective, and this is pretty much the baseline I was intending to use for comparison with hoplitic tactics.
Sure! We are still compiling them, so check the description in the next 1-2 days. We should have them up. Good luck with the paper!
@@HistoriaMilitum Thank you! Great video, BTW.
I love that in the comparison between riot police and reenactors it implies that the riot police are trying to kill you lol
The phalanx heavy aspect of battle never made much sense. It's very unlikely a lot of people would be able to afford the hoplite kit a lot of the combatants wouldn't even be citizens which generally means they wouldn't have equal economic ability. So it doesn't make any sense you'd have that much heavy infantry around chilling in hoplite armour. We know about a lot of renowned regiments that weren't hoplites like the skiritai of Sparta and Cretan archers . We know that northern Greeks like Epirus and Macedonians also made heavy use of cavalry which makes sense since contrary to the southern mountainous area there's valleys in the north. I think it's mostly a pop history myth. They without doubt were the coolest looking unit in their hoplite armour with the stylish helmets and painted shields and they are considered so representative that people just assume they were the standard of battles.
epirus and macedon that you think about are way later than the topic of the video
@@russko118 yea but they're still on the topic of ancient greek warfare
Comment for algorithm
The romans knew that a battle line 8 deep is needed to balance any huge advantage the enemy had in numbers …8 deep and then pick the terrain to allow this to happen…..like the Athenians at Marathon…or Henry 5th at Agincourt…
The french in the battle of Agincourt pushed the English And there's what we called the push picke used by the swiss pikemen in the 16th century
What you're describing sounds quite similar to pike and shot (PnS) formations. What I'd do is look at what the PnS did, since they're much better documented, then do a bit of experimental archeology by having PnS reenactors experiment with shields and archaic Greek equipment.
Look up a treatise on pike tactics by Smythe. Very informative, but moreso when we get to Sarissaphoroi.
But why would the men at the back run first? You would think that the ones in the thick of the fighting would want to break and flee...
They can, coz the rear rank Block them and they have to fight. Its the rear rank that sees the Front rank get slaughtered and that loosed its hope and nerve as they have to replace looses. The Panik mid start in the Front, but its the rear that starts the rout
If you run away from the back, less chance everyone sees you lol
12:20 Thank God, you really mentioned the human factor on the fear of the death. This is one of the very reasons why I didn't like the Orthodox-hoplite historians. They rely way too much on the charge of the so called "Othismos" of the shieldwall while failing or giving little mention to the spear combat or "Doratismos". The orthodox theory doesn't give an emphasis on the battle trigger of a fight or flight scenario. With that one particular human factor, wouldn't it be more practical for hoplites to utilise the length of their spears to fight their enemies while simultaneously cover behind their shields? Also relation to that particular topic, in the classical period didn't the length of the hoplite spears grew with the Iphicratean hoplites and eventually giving rise to the Macedonian phalanx? From the way it looks, because of that factor becomes a sort of arms-race between the doratismos and Othismos, spear combat vs. shield combat. I mean, look at the Macedonian sarissaphoroi, they would fight using spears from a certain distance.
Funny how neighbour Greek Polis', literally half an hour from each other, hated their neighbours enough to have wars for centuries.
Would mainly have been fights over arable land trade routes etc not just over hate
We all have neighbors we hate.
People are generally drawn towards conflict even if there is nothing to fight over. That's why sport competitions and so on exist. (But also the concept of nationalism hadn't been invented yet at that time.)