Thread by @BretDevereaux

One persistent oddity how the modern pop-culture depiction of the phalanx is how much film-makers love the trope of the 'barbarians' charging the stationary phalanx.

That isn't how either kind of phalanx fought! Instead, it seems a retrojection of some bad ol' movie tropes. 1/

What occasioned this thought was a short sequence from an independently made short film that Twitter showed me, which I won't put on blast here.

But 300's initial iconic battle scene does this trope with hoplites while Alexander (2004) does it with phalangites at Gaugamela. 2/

The phalanx, advancing slowly or stationary, is opposed by a wild, disorganized onrushing charge of lightly armored 'easterners' who are, of course, quickly cut down, unable to break the phalanx. 3/

But that isn't how the phalanx operated: both versions of the phalanx (the hoplite phalanx and the sarissa phalanx) were offensive formations that expected to advance, indeed usually to ❕charge❕ into an enemy formation. 4/

Actually getting a hoplite-based army to hold a defensive position could actually be difficult; the Thebans in 418 are furious with their generals for holding on a hill rather than marching down to attack a slightly larger Spartan-led army; they eventually attack (and lose). 5/

The Athenians (and Plataeans) famously charged at Marathon. The Battle of Plataea is a bit chaotic, but the Spartans and Tegeans charge while the Persian forces set up a base of fire and receive their advance (Hdt. 9.61). 6/

Likewise, the Macedonian sarissa phalanx expected to advance into an enemy. There has been some skepticism that it could charge pikes down, but the late, great Peter Connolly got a Renaissance pike troop, armed in Macedonian fashion, to do exactly that. 7/

(P. Connolly, "Experiments with the Sarissa" JRMES 11 (2000)).

Alexander attacks at Granicus, attacks at Issus, attacks at Gaugamela (on the right, w/ the phalanx), and attacks at the Hydaspes.

Alexander: he attac, he attac, but most importantly, he attac some more. 8/

The Macedonian phalanx advances into contact at Sellasia (222), Cynoscephelae (197) and Pydna (168).

In short, both kinds of phalanx expected to attack, not to receive a charge - it was more likely in a phalanx-v-phalanx battle that *both* formations advanced into contact. 9/

So why does popular culture love the stationary phalanx receiving a charge? Some of this is probably ease of filming, but then Hollywood loves 'two sides symmetrically charge into each other' so it isn't a problem when superheroes or fantasy characters do it. 10/

Instead, I'd suggest the visual language has more to do with the 'barbarian'ness of the 'other,' which in movies about Greek or Macedonian armies is basically always Persians - because while Greek speakers mostly fought each other, we only make movies when they fight Persians.11/

And I think what is being invoked is what I'm going to call the 'Zulu (1964) Scene.'

Now it makes sense that the firing lines of films like Zulu (1964) aren't advancing, because they're *firing* lines, firing and reloading.

But hoplites don't have guns! 12/

But I think the visual language gets adopted because of its compelling, but fundamentally false, implications.

The wild, disorganized 'barbarian' charge shows their bravery, but also their supposed lack of organization, order and discipline...of civilization, even. 13/

Meanwhile the phalanx is shown as rigidly organized (more than historical in most cases) and disciplined (this is a Roman idea, not a Greek one) and receives the charge with a show of supposedly 'western civilization.' 14/

But at Plataea is is the *Persians* who fight this way: they set up a fence of shields and then lay down (arrow) fire on the Greeks (Hdt. 9.61.3). Persian armies in this period were generally more organized and more disciplined than Greek hoplite armies. 15/

(The Macedonian sarissa phalanx was a lot better organized than hoplite armies, of course).

Instead it is the *Greeks* who perform the brave-but-foolish-and-barbaric rushing charge - indeed, little different from the way the Gauls will fight the Romans! 16/

More striking in this context because of course the visual language casts the Greeks in the place of the British at Rorke's Drift - but at Marathon or Plataea, the Greeks are more the Zulus at Isandlwana - trying to fight off a wealthier, more complex imperialist invader. 17/

As an aside, I suspect this is also why we never hear the Greek Alala battle-cry (ἀλαλά) when Greek hoplites are on screen because the onomatopeic word pretty clearly signals a high-pitched ululation that audiences associate with the Middle East (and thus 'barbarians'). 18/

So why don't the phalanxes of our films ever seem to charge?

Because we've imported 19th century notions of how 'Europeans' fight on to them. That these notions are obvious BS in the ancient context should lead us to question them rather more intently than we do.

/end