5.0 - Ancient Greek Army
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
9 gefällt mir•6,808 views
Warfare in ancient Greece... or at least ground warfare. Naval stuff will come later.
![The main Greek fighting formation was the phalanx. ,[object Object]]()
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Ă„hnlich wie 5.0 - Ancient Greek Army
Ă„hnlich wie 5.0 - Ancient Greek Army (20)
Mehr von Dan Ewert
Mehr von Dan Ewert (20)
KĂĽrzlich hochgeladen
KĂĽrzlich hochgeladen (20)
5.0 - Ancient Greek Army
- 3. Hoplites were heavy infantry.
- 4. They were typically armored with bronze chest plates (called a cuirass), a helmet with cheek guards, and greaves (shin guards).
- 5. They were typically armed with a 1 meter round shield called a aspis, a 2.5 m spear, and a 60 cm thrusting sword called a xiphos.
- 11. It was bell-shaped or muscled.
- 12. Some versions reached all the down near the groin, while others stopped at the waist (especially for cavalry).
- 14. A modern recreation of a bell cuirass that follows the design of the actual one from the previous slide.
- 18. The purpose of the cuirass (obviously) was to protect the body from sword or spear strikes.
- 19. Actual Greek helmets (Corinthian style)
- 20. Modern recreations of helmets
- 23. Also had a spear butt spike in case the spear broke.
- 24. This was sometimes a problem as you could accidentally stab the guy behind you.
- 30. Here are a few illustrations of Greek warfare from Greek vases.
- 35. It was also to push the other side and possibly expose a gap.
- 36. The second and third ranks are also stabbing forward with their spears.A gap would be exposed, the phalanx would break down, and panic would ensue as hoplites fled for their lives. Ironically, they were more likely to be killed at this point.
- 40. From 300. Good movie. Not so accurate.
- 45. Phalanx and hoplite pros and cons Pros Phalanx was extremely effective due to its cohesion and wall of shields. Hoplites were well-armored. Cons The phalanx was not maneuverable. It had to go straight ahead. If it tried to turn, then it would break the front line with the shield wall and expose gaps that could be exposed. The hoplite armor was heavy and hot. The helmet, while effective, also limited sight and hearing. This made keeping formation all the more important since you couldn’t hear orders or see things to your side.
- 46. The Greek phalanx and hoplites were so effective, they were often employed as mercenaries by foreign powers.