The Greek Tactics

The ancient Greeks were one of the most successful superpowers of the era conquering large parts of the Middle East. They are also very famous for there unique fighting style which was completely different from the exotic and intricate tactics of the Middle Eastern countries. But why were they so effective? What did the Greeks do to conquer such vast areas? In this essay I will try to explain what made the Greeks so good and also how they adapted to advancements in the nations around them.

To understand why the Greeks were so effective we must first look at the armies of the states around them. Two of the main superpowers of the era where Assyria and Persia, these nations had very similar tactics and equipment. Assyria, one of the first nations to use iron extensively in there weaponry, had vast armies as they were in an almost perpetual state of war. The Assyrian empire was the largest in the world at the time and the Assyrians kept it with almost Nazi style terror tactic. A example of the Assyrian might is there champagnes in Israel: The Assyrians attacked Israel under the rain of Tigalth Pilesser of Assyria, Menahamm, the king of Israel at the time was bullied into giving him thirty-four thousand kilograms of silver which he collected by forcing each of the rich men of Israel to contribute 50 pieces of silver. The Assyrians attacked Israel again in the time of king Hoshea of Israel; the Assyrians forced Hoshea to pay annual tribute to them. When Hoshea refused to pay, the Assyrians sieged Samaria an conquered it taking many prisoners back to Assyria.

The Assyrian fighting style was simple; they would strike the enemy with a hard core of chariots backed up by infantry who would be split into groups of 8, one shield bearer to protect seven archers. We also have images from the siege of Jerusalem of them using whisker screens to shield the archers.

The Parisians grew to power in 550BC when Prince Cyrus launched campaigns in Babylon and Anatolia. After conquering these nations he turned his attention to other areas conquering Egypt, Northern India, and part of south-eastern Europe.

The Persian army's were, like the Assyrians, vast and ill trained, relying on sheer wait of massed bow fire to defeat the enemy. The Infantry were divided up into Hazarabam= 1000 which themselves where divided into Sataba= 100 which in turn were split into Dathabam= 10. On of a Dathabam would carry a Spara (shield) whilst the rest carried bows. This infantry force would be backed up by cavalry and a strong Chariot arm.

In stark contrast with the vast ill trained and tacitly complex armies of the Middle East the Greek armies were small and simplistic. They comprised of heavy infantry known as Hoplites arranged into Taxis of around 120-130 men which were grouped into Speira, which comprised of about two taxis, these in turn were grouped into fours known as Chilliarchia and these were grouped into strategia of about 4000 men. However in many ways the Greeks were more advanced than the Persians and Assyrians as their fighting style was the one adopted by one of the most famous civilisations ever, the Roman Empire. Possibly one of the best examples of the Greek military superiority over the Persians is the Battle of Marathon:

The Persian army was made up of about 19,000 foot solders and 1000 cavalry. The Athenian army was allot smaller with only 10,000 hoplite and 400 skirmishers. The Athenians set up with a deliberately weak centre and strong flanks. The Persians advanced and managed to break through the Athenian centre, however the Persian flanks were destroyed and the Athenians were able to surround and slaughter the Persians. After the battle it is said that one of the Athenians had to run all the way back to Athens to warn them of the Approaching Persian army, on arriving at Athens he relayed the news to the king and dropped dead from exhaustion! It must be noted that the only spectator of the battle was Herodotus who is known to have exaggerated his accounts as in the time history was written for entertainment more than any factual benefit so the exact numbers of the two armies are unclear.

The hoplite himself would be equipped with an Iron spear (about 2.3 meters long) and a short sword (about 2ft or 60cm long.) They also had a shield around 1 meter in diameter called a Hoplon (this is where the Hoplite get there name from.) They would wear a bronze carcass (beast plate) and leather grieves (thigh guards.) The design of the Hoplon meant that the Hoplite was entirely dependent

on the warrior on the right hand side of him for protection and this is how the phalanx formation was devised as it gave every warrior full body protection. A good example of the tactics of the Hoplites is the Battle of Leuktra between the City states of Thebes and Sparta:

The Thebans positioned the elite of there force on the right hand side directly in front of the Spartan elite as was the favoured tactic of the time. The Spartan cavalry (which were in particularly bad shape at the time) Charged the Theban Cavalry but were routed and fled back through there own lines causing the Spartan Phalanx to break formation. This gave the Thebans a major advantage even before the main combat began! As the Thebans advanced they were able to crush the Spartan flank. As they did so the Spartans along the line gave way. This battle marked the turning point in Greek history as the Spartans lost the military dominance over the other city states. The battle also marked the start of the Theban's rise to power before they two were overtaken by the Macedonians.

The Peltasts were one of the first of much advancement in the Greek armies. The Peltasts were light infantry