+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Triple line (/showthread.php?tid=11066)
Triple line - hoplite07 - 11-25-2007
Okay, this formation, the triple line checkerboard where the Romans were in 3 lines all spaced apart. Was this the formation that was able to counter the phalanx..? And also, what about the pila throw, was that effective at breaking the phalanx as well?
-thx
Re: Triple line - Ironhand - 11-26-2007
I would say good strategy, tactics, and versatility is what will beat the phalanx. It is much like the later Swiss pikemen where the pikemen were great, determined fighters, but while willing to fight to death they lacked in adaptability. Roman armies tended to be very good when it came to versatility. If they don't have it, odds are they can get it. This means so long as the have time to plan and are led competently they definately have good odds in any battle and certainly versus a one trick pony like the phalanx.
Re: Triple line - Nicholas Gaukroger - 11-26-2007
Hoplite07 - yes in the period of the great victories against the Hellenistic kingdoms whose armies were based around the pike phalanx the Romans did use the 3 line formation as described in Polybios, checkerboard formation and all one assumes.
However, I don't think you can say that this formation was the cause of the defeat of the phalanx - that appeared to happen for a variety of reasons. However, as Ironhand mentioned, what it may have allowed was a flexible doctrine that meant the legio could take advantage of local situations in a way that the phalanx could not and so get the upper hand. Examples might be the maniples taken by the un-named tribune at Kynoskephalae to hit the rear of the Makedonian right or the ordering of the legionarii to exploit the gaps in the phalanx caused by its advance at Pydna.
As for the pila I don't recall any direct primary evidence that it had any exceptional impact on the phalanx although some modern writers have speculated that it may have caused disruption that allowed the legionarii to exploit.
Re: Triple line - Tarbicus - 11-26-2007
Rough terrain also seems to have been a factor, where the Romans could maneouvre more easily compared to the phalanx. I think that was one aspect of Kynoskephalae?
May be deemed as utterly irrelevant, but in RTW, if faced with phalanxes I always move to rough terrain and pick at them with assaults from multiple angles. Usually works anyway, especially if you can mass charge them from the rear and force them into rocky areas, with additional missile troops wearing them down from a safer area where the phalanxes can't get to.
But I do believe the Romans found ways to penetrate the phalanx. One fanciful idea I had was for some to play dead and let the phalanx march over them, then attack from the inside to break up the formation.
So, two potential putdowns available there if anyone fancies it :wink: Although I will add the Romans have done nuttier and more imaginative things, as documented.
Re: Triple line - L C Cinna - 11-26-2007
Quote:Rough terrain also seems to have been a factor, where the Romans could maneouvre more easily compared to the phalanx. I think that was one aspect of Kynoskephalae?
Not really. No side chose the terrain and the phalanx actually drove the Romans back. The decisive part was that the Macedonian left was not ready for the battle and routed by the Roman right.
Re: Triple line - Tarbicus - 11-26-2007
Quote:The ground definitely had some effect, according to Polybius, and Philip didn't want to fight there:Tarbicus:371jakgn Wrote:Rough terrain also seems to have been a factor, where the Romans could maneouvre more easily compared to the phalanx. I think that was one aspect of Kynoskephalae?Not really. No side chose the terrain and the phalanx actually drove the Romans back. The decisive part was that the Macedonian left was not ready for the battle and routed by the Roman right.
"...The result was that he (Philip) was induced to fight in spite of his dissatisfaction with the ground. For these hills, which are called Cynoscephalae, are rough, precipitous, and of considerable height; and it was because he foresaw the disadvantages of such a ground, that he was originally disinclined to accept battle there; but, being excited now by the extravagantly sanguine reports of these messengers, he gave the order for his army to be drawn out
of camp...
...The Macedonians having no one to give them orders, and unable to form a proper phalanx, owing to the inequalities of the ground ..."
Wasn't the terrain so useless for fighting in phalanxes with spears that the Pezhetairoi discarded them and used swords? I believe Pydna was also rough ground, which contributed to a further defeat of the phalanx.
Re: Triple line - hoplite07 - 11-26-2007
Okay, I gotcha. So say, 300 Roman Legionnaires of a later time came to Thermopylae to fight the original 300 Spartans who held the pass in 480 BC(Lets just say they were to fight, this is hypothetical of course), would the Romans be able to defeat them just with their 3 line checkerboard formation or pila throw? Because the terrain is acceptable not too rough, and theres no way to flank the Spartan phalanx because of the mountains surrounding it. And Im damn sure the Spartans'll be ready for em unlike the Macedonians.
of interest? - sophus_tree - 11-26-2007
For what it's worth, in the book Soldiers and Ghosts, Jon Lendon does a great job of describing how the battlefield layout of the Greek and Roman military actually reflected greater cultural values across both nationalities and time.
According to my read of Lendon, the Roman virtue of virtus which loosely translates to "aggressive courage" was what originally led young Roman warriors to run out in front of the line and skirmish, so they would be recognized by others for their acts of bravery.
This kinda worked, so it evolved into a three-rows-deep layout of differently-equipped maniples (young skirmishers in front, older infantry in the middle and oldest spearmen in back), and ultimately into the more flexible several-rows-deep layout of similarly equipped cohorts.
If you are looking for a really well-told story of how fighting evolved from the phalanx to the cohort, I really recommend that book.
-M
Re: Triple line - L C Cinna - 11-26-2007
Quote:The ground definitely had some effect, according to Polybius, and Philip didn't want to fight there:
"...The result was that he (Philip) was induced to fight in spite of his dissatisfaction with the ground. For these hills, which are called Cynoscephalae, are rough, precipitous, and of considerable height; and it was because he foresaw the disadvantages of such a ground, that he was originally disinclined to accept battle there; but, being excited now by the extravagantly sanguine reports of these messengers, he gave the order for his army to be drawn out
of camp...
...The Macedonians having no one to give them orders, and unable to form a proper phalanx, owing to the inequalities of the ground ..."
Wasn't the terrain so useless for fighting in phalanxes with spears that the Pezhetairoi discarded them and used swords? I believe Pydna was also rough ground, which contributed to a further defeat of the phalanx.
Well all that Polybius says is that the ground seems to have been not too good and Philip at first didn't want to start a battle BUT
despite the "dissatisfaction with the ground" the Phalanx drove the Romans back, so it can't have been too favourable for the Romans...or the phalanx was simply stronger than the Romans...
I don't see that the terrain plays any part here because the phalanx actually wins against the Roman left.
It is Philips left which loses the battle but not because of the terrain but because they are still in marching order when attacked by the Romans including their elephants. they rout and the Romans can attack the other half of Philip's army (which was still driving the Romans back) from the rear.
Re: Triple line - Ironhand - 11-26-2007
Agreed, rough terrain could actually be to the advantage of a heavily armed phalanx in certain scenarios. It would make it more difficult for an opposing army to use mobility to overwhelm the fixed ranks and much more difficult to properly utilize any form of cavalry attack. Any army that chooses to engage in direct combat will have similar problems with the terrain. Maneuvering terrain and adjusting to conditions is part of strategy and tactics. The Swiss pikemen did quite well in rough conditions except for a few times the enemy positioned themselves better (outmaneuvered)and utilized differing tactics such as a large proportion of archery. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to the phalanx formation, but there is a lot more to combat that just battle formation.
Re: Triple line - M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER - 11-27-2007
Plutarch, Flamininus, 8:
Quote:With his right wing, then, Philip had the advantage, since from higher ground he threw his entire phalanx upon the Romans, who could not withstand the weight of its interlocking shields and the sharpness of its projecting pikes; 3 but his left wing was broken up and scattered along the hills, and Titus, despairing of his defeated wing, rode swiftly along to the other, and with it fell upon the Macedonians. These were unable to hold their phalanx together and maintain the depth of its formation (which was the main source of their strength), being prevented by the roughness and irregularity of the ground, while for fighting man to man they had armour which was too cumbersome and heavy. 4 For the phalanx is like an animal of invincible strength as long as it is one body and can keep its shields locked together in a single formation; but when it has been broken up into its parts, each of its fighting men loses also his individual force, as well because of the manner in which he is armed as because his strength lies in the mutual support of the parts of the whole body rather than in himself.
According to Plutarch, the right wing of the phalanx was not inhibited by the terrain, and thus was "like an animal of invincible strength"; whereas the left wing could not maintain its formation precisely because of the terrain.
Polybius, 18.25.6, does say that the inability of the phalanx to adopt the formation was
Quote: in part owing to the difficulty of the ground and in part because they were trying to reach the combatants and were still in marching order and not in line...
A similar picture is found in Plutarch, Aemilius, 20, in his description of the battle of Pydna - while holding together, the phalanx was invincible, but once affected by the terrain, could not resist:
Quote:The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. 2 Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. 3 For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; 4 while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death. 5 When the first line had thus been cut to pieces, those arrayed behind them were beaten back; and though there was no flight, still they retired towards the mountain called Olocrus, 6 so that even Aemilius, as Poseidonius tells us, when he saw it, rent his garments. For this part of his army was retreating, and the rest of the Romans were turning aside from the phalanx, which gave them no access to it, but confronted them as it were with a dense barricade of long spears, and was everywhere unassailable.
7 But the ground was uneven, and the line of battle so long that shields could not be kept continuously locked together, and Aemilius therefore saw that the Macedonian phalanx was getting many clefts and intervals in it, as is natural when armies are large and the efforts of the combatants are diversified; portions of it were hard pressed, and other portions were dashing forward. 8 Thereupon he came up swiftly, and dividing up his cohorts, ordered them to plunge quickly into the interstices and empty spaces in the enemy's line and thus come to close quarters, not fighting a single battle against them all, but many separate and successive battles. 9 These instructions being given by Aemilius to his officers, and by his officers to the soldiers, as soon as they got between the ranks of the enemy and separated them, they attacked some of them in the flank where their armour did not shield them, 10 and cut off others by falling upon their rear, and the strength and general efficiency of the phalanx was lost when it was thus broken up; and now that the Macedonians engaged man to man or in small detachments, they could only hack with their small daggers against the firm and long shields of the Romans, and oppose light wicker targets to their swords, which, such was their weight and momentum, penetrated through all their armour to their bodies. They therefore made a poor resistance and at last were routed.
Re: Triple line - Tarbicus - 11-27-2007
I'm not convinced, sorry guys, I'll go with Polybius. I'd suggest that the reason the intial confrontation went in favour of the Macedonians was because they were able to organise and take the higher ground to attack from, and use light troops to plug temporary gaps. In the next stages it was a mad scramble for the rest of the phalangites to catch up and continue the push, but many of Philip's troops weren't even there. If that included foraging light troops being absent then any gaps would not be covered while they negotiated the terrain.
Quote:Maneuvering terrain and adjusting to conditions is part of strategy and tacticsIf you can offer how a phalanx would keep its necessary tight formation when confronted with rocks and other natural obstacles, and still engage with the enemy to its front in ordered formation, it'd be appreciated. The key is to choose the ground, which Philip wasn't allowed to do simply because the Macedonian troops thought they had an advantage, and he went with their will against his better judgement. A fatal mistake.
Uneven terrain causes not only gaps left to right, but in height as well - the battlefield becomes 3-dimensional. If a part of a phalanx needs to rise higher then those men are more exposed to missiles, not being covered by the rest of the phalanx.
Quote:but there is a lot more to combat that just battle formation.Absolutely. But it doesn't get around the fact that the phalanx depended on a great degree of tightness, ergo formation, or are you suggesting the phalanx could break up into more of a skirmish formation and still be effective? Rocks, ditches and steep rises are just that, and I'd challenge any phalanx to take the fight to an enemy that is more maneouverable, and is used to fighting in a looser formation, on that kind of terrain, and maintain an advantage. Philip himself knew this, as did Polybius, apparently.
Re: Triple line - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 11-27-2007
all very interesting but in my view several volleys of Pila will make a Phalanx stumble, dropping spears, falling over one another, especially on the move, after which when the Romans get up close with their shields and mobility the Phalanx cannot sustain its line and its momentum, no matter what terrain they are on...
M.VIB.M.
Re: Triple line - M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER - 11-27-2007
Quote:Rocks, ditches and steep rises are just that, and I'd challenge any phalanx to take the fight to an enemy that is more maneouverable, and is used to fighting in a looser formation, on that kind of terrain, and maintain an advantage. Philip himself knew this, as did Polybius, apparently.
Polybius did know that, since those are his points in discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the phalanx vs. Roman troops in 18.28-32.
Quote:all very interesting but in my view several volleys of Pila will make a Phalanx stumble, dropping spears, falling over one another, especially on the move, after which when the Romans get up close with their shields and mobility the Phalanx cannot sustain its line and its momentum, no matter what terrain they are on...
Could you please point to a source supporting your viewpoint? As far as I can tell, in the sources cited above no mention is made of any role of Roman javelins in the battle described. In fact, reading the above account of Plutarch on the war with Philip, I have noticed that it was the Romans who suffered from the javelins of Philips' army (Flamininus 4.2).
Re: Triple line - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 11-27-2007
No Primary source Crispvs....
it is mentioned in the book Classical warfare and in my view a logical idea..
M.VIB.M.