Talk:Ancient Macedonian army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

As i have appointed in the image "Macedonian Battle Formation" there is a problem because the hypaspists are called "heavy cavalry" when they was infantry.

-Fco


Deleted this portion[edit]

"but this would contradict statues and reports contemporary to phalangist troops that showed these soldiers wearing large and heavy shields over one arm; regardless"

The phalangites did not "hold onto" their shields directly in their left hard - the small heavy shield the phalangites used were strapped onto their left arm, leaving both their left and right hands free to wield the heavy sarissa pike. Intranetusa (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes and corrections[edit]

"It seems to appear that Alexander would organize his left flank into a thin line to make it appear weak, while a massive phalanx would be on the right." There is no evidence of Alexander varying the depth of his phalanx. Was is true is that his left was often the point of the hardest fighting--as in Issus, where the Persians focused the brunt of their cavalry assault.

"It is the belief of some that these pikes were so large and heavy ..." Weight had nothing to do with it. Length did.

"... that they had to be wielded with two hands in battle." It's not the "belief of some"; it is physically impossible to use a sarissa effectively with one hand.

"The phalangite training was sufficient to permit proper use of the shield and sarissa." Actually, it was the shield's sling, suspended around the wielder's neck and shoulder that kept the shield in place. Connolly also asserts that there was a forearm sleeve that helped keep it from moving and gave the phalangite better control--and a hand-grip that could be used when the spear was not in hand.

"The typical Macedonian phalanx was divided into groups of 800 phalangites, ..." According to whom? Very little is known about Phillip's phalanx, and even less about its sub-divisions.

"Before a battle the sarissa were carried in two pieces and then slid together when they were being used." Spoken as a fact... there is no evidence in the extant record of this happening.

I deleted the "short" from "short sword", as it was unecessary. The xiphos, machaira and falcata that would have been used by a phalangite are hardly smaller than the average swords of their contemporaries, and only mere inches shorter (if that) than the gladius they would be conquered by.

"So long as everyone was using the same tactics these weaknesses were not immediately apparent, but with the advent of the Roman legion they proved fatal in every major engagement, the most famous being the Battle of Pydna, as the Romans were able to advance through gaps in the line and easily defeat the Phalangites once in close." Deleted due to innaccuracy and lack of relevance.

1) Pyrrhus defeated the Romans twice. 2) The armies fielded by Flamininus and Paulus at Cynoscephalae and Pydna were largely non-Roman. The armies Pyrrhus defeated were actually much moreso, with fewer non-Roman troops. 3) Pydna was decided partially by the rough terrain Perseus' phalanx marched into, but the extant record (largely Plutarch and Livy) makes it clear that the deciding factor was the departure of the cavalry on the flanks. By the time the gaps were forming, Paulus' cavalry and elephants were already destroying the phalanx's flank.

Phoebus Americanos (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of article[edit]

So I moved this article to Army of ancient Macedon yesterday....but should the "a" be capitalized? (I.e. move the page to Army of Ancient Macedon or Army of Ancient Macedonia?) Thanks in advance. the_ed17 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t quite understand the question. Can you please rephrase? Seleukosa (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I apoligize. I am referring the the a in "ancient"...I am wondering if it should be capitalized for the title of the article.....So instead of its current name, Army of ancient Macedon, I am wondering if it should be Army of Ancient Macedon (The "A" in Ancient now being capitalized)...any clearer? the_ed17 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


This artical refers to Macedonia as a state or province of Greece. It is well documented that Macedonia was it's own sovereign nation with it's own language that is spoken today. I find this reference not only infactual, but also insulting. Please make the required changes so reflect the facts as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.42.187 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A) No it doesn't. B) This isn't an article about language - Ancient Macedonian is a dead language and the Ancient Macedonian upper classes spoke both Ancient Macedonian and Koine Greek - and it is recorded that they did so. And C) No!Urselius (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
However, since the article about the state is now at Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and Macedonian army redirects here, why don't we move this to Macedonian army (along the likes of Roman army, Byzantine army etc)? Constantine 13:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know? Certainly any additions to "Macedonian army" dilutes its searchability and not many people will be looking for the army of modern Macedonia (FYROM).Urselius (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal pronouns[edit]

There appear to be a lot of personal pronouns (we, I, etc.) in the article. Per Wikipedia:Pronoun#Tone we should not use first person narrative. I'm going to work on it a bit, but I'd appreciate if anyone else that notices it helps. C6541 (TC) 18:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Ancient Macedonian army. There's a rough consensus that the suggested title requires this further disambiguation but that the current title isn't preferable. Cúchullain t/c 16:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


Army of MacedonMacedonian army – As pointed out above, the country article has been moved from Macedon to Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and Macedonian army already redirects here. The army of Philip II, Alexander and their successors is and most probably will remain a far more popular subject that the military of the Republic of Macedonia, a fact confirmed by a GBook search. Constantine 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose the army of the current country of Macedonia would be a scholarly topic of modern history and military studies, and current geopolitics, so if you want to match the other article, it would be Macedonian (ancient kingdom) army or Macedonian army (ancient kingdom). The way we treat topics on Wikipedia, modern extant countries get the primary position, or we have a disambigation page like at Macedonia. So "Macedonian army" should be a disambiguation page like Macedonia and Macedonian. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Erm, not necessarily. When there is a clear primary topic, then the primary topic gets the simple title, and the others get to be disambiguated. And usage is overwhelming: out of the first hundred results in GBooks for "Macedonian army", only nine refer to the Army of the RoM, and a couple of others to various Greek and Ottoman armies. In other words, the Macedonian army can easily be at its proper name (Ancient Macedonian army would be another possibility), and a disambiguation notice can be added pointing to the Army of the Republic of Macedonia. Constantine 12:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Army of Macedonia currently points to the FYRM army article. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose move, keep Macedonian army as a disambiguation page, per guideline at WP:NCMAC#Other page titles: "If a sub-article of the type "X of the Republic of Macedonia" conflicts with an existing article "X of Greek/ancient Macedonia", a regular disambiguation page pattern according to WP:DAB with no "primary topic" will be used (i.e. "X of Macedonia" will be a disambiguation page)". (To clarify: if it came to an actual primacy argument, I'd probably side with Cplakidas, given the overwhelmingly more prominent historical role of the ancient as opposed to the modern army, but the NCMAC process deliberately decided in favour of a single wholesale solution for all "M." subpage pairs rather than the alternative of deciding each pair separately.) Fut.Perf. 13:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    (Note: something needs to be fixed about the capitalized alternative Macedonian Army: it currently redirects to Army of Macedon, but it is automatically linked to from {{Armies in Europe}}, which assumes that all page titles of the type "X'ian Army" refer to the modern states.) Fut.Perf. 13:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, all right. How about the Ancient Macedonian army alternative? On "Macedonian Army", should it redirect to the modern army or to the Macedonian army dab page? Constantine 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
      • No objection to "Ancient Macedonian army", if you find "of Macedon" ugly. About "Macedonian Army", to prevent confusion, I'd strongly favour keeping the uppercase and lowercase versions in sync with each other, which means Macedonian Army should lead to the same dab page. (Which means the {{Armies in Europe}} template would still be broken.) Fut.Perf. 13:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in the Reliable English language sources the Macedonian army always (or close to it) refers to King Philip's and Alexander the Great's army (WP:COMMONNAME). A hatnote would take care of anyone who arrives at the page by mistake. If in the future that usage changes then the pages can always be moved when that happens. --PBS (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support In agreement with the comment above. Urselius (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Ancient Macedonian army. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 15:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've solved the inbound linking issue by editing {{European topic}}, assuming this doesn't cause any side effects. Designing templates so that they only work correctly if every related article conforms to some arbitrary naming convention, with no exceptions, is a Bad Idea™. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment there are alot of those templates. "Topics of X" for each continent, or each US state... 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image[edit]

The new heading image is so very dull!

Other possibilities:

Philip II
Hypaspist - modern reconstruction

Urselius (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Expansion and shifting of material from Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

I'm just letting others known that I am massively expanding this article with materials taken from Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Per Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style, I am trimming details from the main article and shifting it here, treating this article as a sibling or sub-article of the main one. I have cited three sources thus far: Sekunda (2010), Hammond and Walbank (2001), and Errington (1990), adding full reference info for them in the sources section. I have also removed a lot of non-sourced material in this article, since we shouldn't have a bunch of paragraphs without even a single citation. Thankfully the vast majority of statements I removed were simply replaced with similar statements that are actually sourced (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information about how to properly cite sources). Raise any objections if you have them, but the material I have added is well-referenced and uses academic sources. Pericles of AthensTalk 06:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have some doubts about the image of a "Macedonian shield" being a shield as such. There is no scale, but it looks small, a full-size shield would just consist of the bronze facing, and any bronze fittings, as such it would be thin in comparison to its diameter and I would expect to see some evidence of plastic distortion or bending; there is none. The pattern of wear on the gilding suggests that it is a small votive offering in the shape of a shield. Still a useful image, but I would be happier with some caveats in the figure legend. Urselius (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I have done some research and the Bonce shield, whilst certainly displaying the star, was excavated in many fragments and was badly distorted. The image must be of a much smaller bronze model of a shield, presumably votive or from a small-scale sculpture. I have therefore modified the caption. Urselius (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Urselius: Hello. You might be right about all of this, but it strikes me as violating Wikipedia:No original research. You are not allowed to introduce your own speculation and claims into the article. You are only allowed to cite journalistic or academic sources on the matter, via Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do you have a source for your idea? If so please present it. Otherwise I'm afraid that citation needed tag I just added to your caption will have to stay. Regards Pericles of AthensTalk 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: Hi. There is at least one Vergina sun-bearing bronze model shield out there, but it is not identical to the one pictured. The photo is most definitely not the bronze shield discovered at Bonce; that was excavated in a number of pieces and was not intact when assembled. One of the larger pieces is shown here: [[1]]. We are reliant on the uploader of the image to have been accurate and reliable, which he or she obviously wasn't; therefore, the upload amounts to original research itself. I think that the image is essentially unsourced, or at least its source is demonstrably inaccurate, and unreliable. I suspect that it is too compromised to be included in the article. Urselius (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Just found out that there were fragments of three shields found at Bonce, but all were incomplete. At least one will be reconstructed as far as is possible, none of the fragments looks like the photo. Urselius (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Urselius: hi again. Those are interesting if not convincing details and you seem to be right about this. Unfortunately I can't find any academic sources on the matter. My access to JSTOR and other scholastic databases is very limited and I've been unable to find anything of use at Google Books. That being said, the image we are discussing actually does claim a source. It says that it comes directly from a member serving at the National Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and that the editor to consult on the matter is Blaze Ristovski. Mind you, sometimes academic sources can be wrong and that is why we have usually consult a variety of sources in order to see what the scholarly consensus is (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus as well as Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). It is unfortunate that in this case we have a claim from one source but a lack of sources to support or oppose the claim. We seem to be at an impasse here, unless you can find an article or book that clears everything up. Feel free to remove the image for now if you think that it is too misleading, though. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I have access to Juhel's Fragments de "Boucliers macédoniens" au nom du roi Démétrios... on the Bonce shield finds, and it describes 160 fragments from 3 shields inscribed with the name of King Demetrios (Demetrios Poliorcetes). None of the photographs in the paper is close to that of the image on Wikimedia. I think that a non-committal wording could be devised for the image, however. I will give it a go, see what you think. Urselius (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems fine to me for now, but if it can be deduced from Juhel's book that the image being used now isn't even the same piece of evidence from the archaeological dig, then that presents a serious problem. Perhaps there were other shields that have been found since the publication of Juhel's work? We'd need detailed information from very arcane scholarly sources on recent archaeology to clear this up. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

On a different subject, I now have a copy of Markle (1982) Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great. I should be able to beef up citations, and perhaps text, on arms and armour, and especially tactics. Urselius (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Urselius: cool! Good luck with that. If you have time, you should also consider beefing up the article Antigonid Macedonian army as well. I have shifted some material over there from the main article Macedonia (ancient kingdom), but it needs a lot of work. Thankfully it has some good images and a decent amount of citations already. Pericles of AthensTalk 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)