Good to see you back AGR ❤ Edit: This was thrilling to watch, you have a very enthusiastic way with words, it really shows your passion for the subject. The type of armor, organization and tactics at that time all seem to extend the values of the culture. And the lesson in the end is the most important one of all, valueing brotherhood; we can bare any harsh weather by bearing it together.
I think it had more to do with practicalities than with purely cultural biases. All the Greek states did have wealthy aristocrats, but those people did not own much land, so they couldn't breed many horses. The Greeks did use peltasts. Whenever peltasts proved effective, the Greeks had absolutely no qualms about this type of warfare, like during Anabasis, or on Sphacteria. Actually, maybe this battle of Sphacteria is quite telling, because it took more than 5:1 advantage to defeat the Spartans. It seems like phalanx was quite difficult to beat with ranged missiles. The Greek mercenaries were very often used in Persia, and you never pay for ineffective soldiers. So, even if there was something special in Greek culture which made this type of warfare more appealing, I consider stressing the apparent "impracticality" of the panoply and the style as unfounded. Since the Greeks did prove, many a time, that they were neither opposed to different styles, and that their own style was actually very effective.
What you need to pay attention is is what we said in the last quarter of the video. That the phalanx never developed to fight aliens armies like those of Persia. It developed during a time when Greeks mainly fought … other Greeks. So there was no real advantage in this particular way compared with any other. Given this equalizer, you must now answer the following: given that the Greeks could have fought in any way they chose with no special advance in any, why did they fight in a way that was unique in the entire world?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited " *never developed to fight aliens armies like those of Persia* " So? It's like arguing that the Winged Hussars never developed to fight pike&shot infantry. Does it mean they weren't any good at doing so? It's like saying that cavalry never developed to fight artillery, but it just so happened they were the only ones who could take batteries. " *there was no real advantage in this particular way* " You are ignoring the examples I have given, which show that was not the case. Anabasis alone proves this take to be incorrect. The Greeks won the battle. It also proves, that the Greeks were not limited in their style of warfare. When they were eventually faced with hit&run attacks of the Persians, they quickly formed ad-hoc peltast units and used them very effectively. Out of *hoplites* . They had those people and those skills available, it's just that usually they were not very useful. " *why did they fight in a way that was unique in the entire world?* " First of all, their way of war was not unique. It's a reasonable way of dealing with missile infantry. You form up outside the range, then go forward. What are they gonna do? Stand their ground? (Persians, Romans, Carthaginians, Macedonians and probably many more with no surviving sources. Even Aztecs had heavy infantry.) Why the Greeks chose this style? It worked.
You are not really listening to what we are saying here. The Phalanx never developed to fight other armies because it developed in the middle of the 8th century, when Greeks were NOT in war with anyone else, when they were small city states of around 10,000 or 15,000 people each where most could not even point to Persia on a map. How many times do we need to repeat it!? The examples you gave, like the Anabassis, happened 300 years after its development. When the Greeks faced the Persians in Marathon they looked at their army like they were seeing one from another planet, and their reluctance to charge shows exactly that; they did not even know how effective their technology would be against an enemy they had never fought against. Hope that makes things a little more clear.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited The colonization started at the same time phalanx was being developed. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that the Greeks never faced different styles of warfare, especially if their own style was supposedly so unique (which I doubt it was, but whatever). Marathon happened, because Athens supported the Ionian revolt, with many battles against the Persians in this war alone. How is it even possible to claim they were blissfully unaware about how Persians fight after that? It makes no sense at all. Anabasis is from the heyday of phalanx warfare, yet substantial fraction of hoplites were skilled at missile warfare. Those skills take years of practice to develop. If they mostly fought each other (which is true), that means that they did use peltast relatively regularly. Sources rarely mention those pesky "spindle throwers", so it's possible there was a cultural bias against this type of war, but it did not stop them from getting good at it!
If you doubt that the Phalanx formation was unique, please provide a historical example of another state that fought in the same way and during the same time. If you cannot, I believe the claim stands firmly. Then, once again, the Persian Empire was not even formed during the time the Phalanx was being developed. Cyrus the great was born more than a century after its inception. So, no, the early Greeks who developed the Phalanx didn’t know of the Persiana… because they did not exist (as a distinct empire with colonial aspirations that is, not the people themselves). As to fighting “other” other armies (since the Persian Empire had not even formed) you need to find historical evidence of a battle that was fought on formation between a Greek phalanx and some other army during the 8th - 6th century. Saying that it coincided with the Greek Ionian expansion says nothing since it mostly happened in mainland Greece and the coasts of modern day Turkey, and not in the province of some great empire with an organized force. Lastly, I never said that Greeks never employed “slingers”, all I said is that they considered them less dignified, however effective, and that this shows the cultural basis of the Phalanx, that it was guided by an ideal which also formed the city state.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Transform ancient wisdom into your daily guide. Share your input in our quick survey: forms.gle/xJjwPweL6UERVzWc8 Help us shape the future of AGR! 🙏
Good to see you back AGR ❤
Edit: This was thrilling to watch, you have a very enthusiastic way with words, it really shows your passion for the subject. The type of armor, organization and tactics at that time all seem to extend the values of the culture. And the lesson in the end is the most important one of all, valueing brotherhood; we can bare any harsh weather by bearing it together.
Great to see you back, keep up the excellent work! would love to see more greek myth and psychology videos
Every one of your videos have behind so much knowledge on the Helenic history, it shows that you read much of it.
Thank you very much!
Poetic and poignant as always! 💜
I love your Passion and Knowledge of Hellenic History Bless You. Great Videos
Glad you like them!
🔥🔥
🔥💪
I think it had more to do with practicalities than with purely cultural biases. All the Greek states did have wealthy aristocrats, but those people did not own much land, so they couldn't breed many horses. The Greeks did use peltasts. Whenever peltasts proved effective, the Greeks had absolutely no qualms about this type of warfare, like during Anabasis, or on Sphacteria.
Actually, maybe this battle of Sphacteria is quite telling, because it took more than 5:1 advantage to defeat the Spartans. It seems like phalanx was quite difficult to beat with ranged missiles.
The Greek mercenaries were very often used in Persia, and you never pay for ineffective soldiers.
So, even if there was something special in Greek culture which made this type of warfare more appealing, I consider stressing the apparent "impracticality" of the panoply and the style as unfounded. Since the Greeks did prove, many a time, that they were neither opposed to different styles, and that their own style was actually very effective.
What you need to pay attention is is what we said in the last quarter of the video. That the phalanx never developed to fight aliens armies like those of Persia. It developed during a time when Greeks mainly fought … other Greeks. So there was no real advantage in this particular way compared with any other. Given this equalizer, you must now answer the following: given that the Greeks could have fought in any way they chose with no special advance in any, why did they fight in a way that was unique in the entire world?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited " *never developed to fight aliens armies like those of Persia* "
So? It's like arguing that the Winged Hussars never developed to fight pike&shot infantry. Does it mean they weren't any good at doing so? It's like saying that cavalry never developed to fight artillery, but it just so happened they were the only ones who could take batteries.
" *there was no real advantage in this particular way* "
You are ignoring the examples I have given, which show that was not the case. Anabasis alone proves this take to be incorrect. The Greeks won the battle.
It also proves, that the Greeks were not limited in their style of warfare. When they were eventually faced with hit&run attacks of the Persians, they quickly formed ad-hoc peltast units and used them very effectively.
Out of *hoplites* . They had those people and those skills available, it's just that usually they were not very useful.
" *why did they fight in a way that was unique in the entire world?* "
First of all, their way of war was not unique. It's a reasonable way of dealing with missile infantry. You form up outside the range, then go forward. What are they gonna do? Stand their ground?
(Persians, Romans, Carthaginians, Macedonians and probably many more with no surviving sources. Even Aztecs had heavy infantry.)
Why the Greeks chose this style? It worked.
You are not really listening to what we are saying here. The Phalanx never developed to fight other armies because it developed in the middle of the 8th century, when Greeks were NOT in war with anyone else, when they were small city states of around 10,000 or 15,000 people each where most could not even point to Persia on a map. How many times do we need to repeat it!? The examples you gave, like the Anabassis, happened 300 years after its development. When the Greeks faced the Persians in Marathon they looked at their army like they were seeing one from another planet, and their reluctance to charge shows exactly that; they did not even know how effective their technology would be against an enemy they had never fought against.
Hope that makes things a little more clear.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited The colonization started at the same time phalanx was being developed. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that the Greeks never faced different styles of warfare, especially if their own style was supposedly so unique (which I doubt it was, but whatever).
Marathon happened, because Athens supported the Ionian revolt, with many battles against the Persians in this war alone. How is it even possible to claim they were blissfully unaware about how Persians fight after that? It makes no sense at all.
Anabasis is from the heyday of phalanx warfare, yet substantial fraction of hoplites were skilled at missile warfare. Those skills take years of practice to develop. If they mostly fought each other (which is true), that means that they did use peltast relatively regularly.
Sources rarely mention those pesky "spindle throwers", so it's possible there was a cultural bias against this type of war, but it did not stop them from getting good at it!
If you doubt that the Phalanx formation was unique, please provide a historical example of another state that fought in the same way and during the same time. If you cannot, I believe the claim stands firmly.
Then, once again, the Persian Empire was not even formed during the time the Phalanx was being developed. Cyrus the great was born more than a century after its inception. So, no, the early Greeks who developed the Phalanx didn’t know of the Persiana… because they did not exist (as a distinct empire with colonial aspirations that is, not the people themselves).
As to fighting “other” other armies (since the Persian Empire had not even formed) you need to find historical evidence of a battle that was fought on formation between a Greek phalanx and some other army during the 8th - 6th century. Saying that it coincided with the Greek Ionian expansion says nothing since it mostly happened in mainland Greece and the coasts of modern day Turkey, and not in the province of some great empire with an organized force.
Lastly, I never said that Greeks never employed “slingers”, all I said is that they considered them less dignified, however effective, and that this shows the cultural basis of the Phalanx, that it was guided by an ideal which also formed the city state.
I suspect Herodatus had copyright and registered trade marks over those words but your points stand xD
I think more than 70 years have elapsed since then, so I would consider them to be in the public domain ;-)