Book Recommendations

I thought it might be good to recommend a book or two to go along with my previous post.  I'm a huge fan of Steven Pressfield's work, so this week I will focus on his books, especially sincea lot of them are set in ancient Greece.

Gates of Fire - Steven Pressfield
Hands down the best fictional representation of the Battle of Thermopylae, and the last stand of the 300 Spartans.

Last of the Amazons - Steven Pressfield
Another great book featuring the Phalanx.

Tides of War - Steven Pressfield
Although I haven't read it, I intend to.  It's set in the midst of the Peloponnesian War (between Athens and Sparta), and is sure to contain some great phalanx vs phlanx action.

Here is a link to Steven Pressfield's website. http://www.stevenpressfield.com/books/  There are also some good books featuring the Macedonian Phalanx, but I'll put them in the next set of recommendations.

Ancient Battle Formations - Phalanx Part I

Hey, it's Monday, that means it's time to post.  This week I want to write about the rise and fall of the Phalanx.  For anyone who doesn't know what that is, it's a formation used primarily by the ancient Greeks.  The troops that made up a phalanx were known as hoplites.  A hoplite was armed with a spear (usually 8 feet long) and a large, round shield.  Often they had other armour as well, like a breastplate, a helm, and maybe something to protect their legs (greaves), but the main piece of armour was the shield.  In fact, the name hoplite comes from the name of their shield, the hoplon.  The hoplon shield was round, shaped like a shallow bowl.  When the hoplites formed a phalanx, each man's shield protected himself, and the men to his left.  Because of this, each man would often edge to his right, and this meant that the advancing phalanx would move to the right as is moved forward.  The curved shape of the shield allowed each hoplite to press his shield into the back of the man in front of them.  This turned the formation into a solid block that was hard to drive back, and had a lot of pushing power.
The guy on the right is typical of a Hoplite.  His shield indicates he is from the Lacedaemonia region, which was centered around Sparta.

The shields were usually quite solid and heavy - generally made of oak and bronze, and were hard to pierce with projectiles.  In addition, the way the hoplites formed up presented a solid wall of shields, with few gaps.  Furthermore, the phalanx presented the enemy with a wall of sharp spears.  The first two ranks would level their spears straight forward, while the rear ranks would angle them up at a 45 degree angle.  When faced with incoming arrows or javelins, the hoplites would wave their spears, and raise their shields above their heads to knock the projectiles aside.  When they engaged the enemy, the formation would push with their shields, and thrust their spears into any gaps in the enemy's line.  When two phalanx formations met, it would often turn into a pushing match until one side broke.


Later, tactics evolved where the commanders would place their best troops on one flank, usually the right flank, and try to smash the enemy's flank and fold their line, attacking them in the side and rear.  Why the right flank?  Well, I mentioned before that The phalanx would often creep to the right as it advanced.  If the most solid troops were placed on the right, it could help to curb this creep.  The opposing general would usually do the same, putting his best troops on the right flank, trying to turn the enemy's weak flank first.  One city state gained an advantage simply by lengthening their spears.  The extra foot of spear length allowed the weaker troops to effectively hold the enemy's best at bay, allowing time to turn the other flank.  Alternatively, they would mirror the enemy, placing their best troops on the left flank, and pitting their best troops against the enemy's best, but their best had longer spears.

There is a misconception about the phalanx surrounding the battle of Thermopylae.  This is where the 300 Spartans made their last stand.  First I should mention that while there were only 300 Spartan hoplites at the battle, there were maybe 2000-3000 other hoplites from other city-states around greece.  Futhermore, while we often look back on that conflict as the turning point in western history, because democracy came from ancient Greece, and if they had been absorbed into the Persian empire, it might not have survived in it's present form, we shouldn't look at the Persians as evil bad guys, and the Greeks as angelic saviours.  Make no mistake, this wasn't a battle of good vs evil.  The foundations for this conflict go back further, so I'll start a bit earlier.

The Persian empire was massive.  It encompassed the middle east, modern day Iran, much of Afghanistan, and Turkey.  Greece, in comparison, was tiny, and disunited.  On the edge of the empire, in a place called Ionia, on the western edge of what is now Turkey, there were several Greek cities.  Some of the city-states in Greece, Athens in particular, were engaging in, what we would today call, terrorist activities, trying to help the Ionian Greeks break away from Persia.  The Persians assembled an army.  After crushing the Ionian revolt, they took ship for mainland Greece, threatening to burn down Athens.  They were defeated at the battle of Marathon (480 BCE), in one of the great underdog victories of history.  The Athenians proved the efectiveness of the Hoplite Phalanx.  The Persians would be back though, and in much greater numbers.

Ten years later, the stage is set for the invasion of Greece.  A massive army consisting of troops from all over the Persian Empire approaches.  They attack from the north, looking for passage through the mountains, while their fleet keeps them supplied.  They find their path blocked by the 300 Spartans and their allies and the battle of Thermopylae (480 BCE) commences.  The Greeks hold out for two days, inflicting massive casualties on the enemy.  On the third day, most of the Greeks were sent away, knowing that they would soon be encircled.  The Spartans stayed, and fought to the last man.  This is probably the most spectacular military defeat of all time.  The odds against the Greeks were, perhaps, as high as 100 000 to 1, but probably closer to 100-1, and yet the casualties were anywhere from 10-1 to 100-1 in favour of the Greeks.

The reason the Greeks were able to inflict such horrific casualties is two fold.  One, if you look at the image on the left, you can see what the pass probably looked like.  The Persians were unable to bring their massive weight of numbers to bear against the Greeks.  The second reason is, as I said before, the Phalanx formation was excellent for pushing.  All the Greeks had to do was push, using the mountain to anchor their left flank, and push the enemy over the cliff, into the sea.


After the battle of Thermopylae, the Persians pressed on, into Greece.  They were delayed again, however, when their fleet was smashed at the battle of Salamis (480 BCE).  They then had to wait for supplies to come overland, and this delay gave time for the Greeks to organise their defenses.  The Persians were whittled down and defeated, never again to invade Greece.

Greece, however, was not a united country, as I touched on before, and once the outside threat of Persia is absent, Sparta and Athens are soon at war.  Sparta is eventually victorious, and their hoplite phalanx is probably the pinacle of the hoplite phalanx.  However, the hoplite phalanx isn't the only type of phalanx, as we will see.  I am going to pause to post now.  I may continue to write throughout the day, or continue on another day.  Next time I will discuss the Macedonian Phalanx, made up of troops called Phalangites.  Philip II and his son Alexander the Great, used these troops to conquer Greece, and the Persian Empire.

Writing practice

This blog is mainly just to provide a place and a medium for me to practice my writing.  I will take suggestions for what to write about, but in the end I will make the decisions myself.  I will probably start with a bit of historical research, and write about some era of history that interests me.

For now I'll just keep it short in order to introduce myself, and the blog.  My name is Michael Stockdale.  I am an aspiring writer, not yet published.  My main areas of interest, and what I would like to write about, are history and fantasy.  I may also write some general fiction, possibly with an autobiographical bent.  I have been out of school (University) for a year now.  I took several years of a BA degree, but haven't finished.  I decided to take a semester off last year, and it turned into two semesters, and now I'm not sure if or when I will go back.  I intend to finish my degree at some point, but I don't know when, and it may turn out that I don't do it.

Another area of interest, for me, is language.  I have become fluent in German after four years of University courses, plus a few more courses in German literature, translation, and German for business.  There are a number of other languages that I would like to learn in addition.  One of the most interesting aspects of language, for me, is etymology.  Learning the history of the words, how they connect with other words, and how they connect with the culture, and the history of the people who use(d) them is so fascinating to me.

Well, that should just about do it for the first post.  As promised, I have kept it short.  The next post will be more meaty, and will follow a theme, although I haven't decided what that will be yet.
MS