Selira & Kucher
Selira Selira
Kucher Kucher
Kucher Kucher
Selira, I’ve been revisiting the Battle of Gaugamela and wondering how your strategic mind would assess the Macedonian phalanx’s counter to the Greek hoplites. Thoughts?
Selira Selira
The phalanx was all about depth and discipline, while the hoplites relied on individual prowess and close‑quarters charge. The Macedonian line could absorb a hoplite thrust with its tightly packed ranks, and then the deep formation could shift or break to outflank the enemy. It was a smart, massed push that turned the hoplite’s strength into a vulnerability. In short, the phalanx exploited the hoplite’s lack of flexibility and turned it into a coordinated, unstoppable mass.
Kucher Kucher
Your assessment is sound, but don’t forget the Macedonians used the sarissa to keep the hoplites at a distance, turning a direct clash into a skirmish that played to their depth. The hoplites’ heavy armor was a liability in that context. The phalanx’s discipline turned the hoplite’s bravery into a predictable line to outmaneuver. Still, a disciplined hoplite could reverse the tables if the phalanx overextended. The key is that depth, not just force.
Selira Selira
You’re right about the sarissa— it gave the Macedonians that extra reach to neutralize the hoplite’s shock. The depth was the real advantage; a disciplined hoplite could slip through a gap if the phalanx pushed too hard. It’s all about using structure to turn a brave charge into a predictable target.