+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Rome beating Sparta (/showthread.php?tid=9835)
Pages:
1
2
Rome beating Sparta - hoplite07 - 07-04-2007
What year did this happen.. Was it around the time of Jesus or what?
And what technique or battle strategy did the Legionnaires use against the phalanx? Was it the wedge or the spear throw?
-thx
Re: Rome beating Sparta - Robert Vermaat - 07-04-2007
Hoplite07,
Please add your real name to your signature - it's a forum rule.
Re: Rome beating Sparta - hoplite14gr - 07-04-2007
Dear friend wellcome.
The moderetors will ask you to use your name in the forum.
As for your question all the chonologies are B.C so it is before Christ.
The wedge at the time was a cavalry tactic used by Skythians and Greeks but not Romans and that exludes its use by the republican legion of the time.
It was not the legion that beat the phalanx but rather the correct use of army, allies and tarrain by the Roman commanders.
Hope it answers your question.
Kind regards
Re: Rome beating Sparta - hoplite07 - 07-05-2007
Quote:Dear friend wellcome.
The moderetors will ask you to use your name in the forum.
As for your question all the chonologies are B.C so it is before Christ.
The wedge at the time was a cavalry tactic used by Skythians and Greeks but not Romans and that exludes its use by the republican legion of the time.
It was not the legion that beat the phalanx but rather the correct use of army, allies and tarrain by the Roman commanders.
Hope it answers your question.
Kind regards
Okay, yeah I just put it in, my bad.
But for the wedge, I thought they executed it with men on foot, because what they would do is line up from front to back, starting with 1 ranking officer in the front, 2 2nd ranking officers behind him, 3 3rd behind them and so on, so it makes what looks like 'teeth' and it works its way into an enemy, so I dont see how u could do the wedge with cavalry, and I also read on wiki(I know its not that accurate, however) that it was a Roman Legionnaire tactic, but it was probably adopted from the Greeks and Skythians, I guess >_>
Re: Rome beating Sparta - Ironhand - 07-05-2007
I'm not entirely sure what troop alignment you're exactly referring too, but a wedge is a much better cavalry formation than infantry. For the infantry it doesn't really have much for benefits. You don't really concentrate your force, it pretty much just isolates your front ranks and makes them more vulnerable as its easy for a well formed defensive line working as a team to take down the individual in front, the men behind, and so on. The wedge when met with a solid defensive line will often blunt itself and end up a disorderly offensive line and if you have officers up front like you're suggesting, will probably loose heart when its offensive is blunted and leaders lost. The cuneus was never a wedge, but an attack column. The wedge from my point of view is only a good formation with reserves for plugging holes in your line.
The wedge as a cavalry formation however is a very good one. It allows easy placement of spears and moves your fellows out of the way of missle attacks not to mention being a very good formation for control and that horses will naturally follow each other a bit more properly in this formation. Sounds like you have it backwards to me.
Re: Rome beating Sparta - hoplite07 - 07-05-2007
Ohh, so the 'teeth' or w/e are like the other way around?
Re: Rome beating Sparta - Ironhand - 07-05-2007
Thats not really what I meant. I meant your assumption about the wedge being an effective infantry formation, but not cavalry was more backwards. Wedge formation really isn't great for punching holes since its not really possible to focus power at the tip like with a blade. It just makes the line vulnerable and weakened. The cuneus on the other hand was a good formation for this and was an attack column not a wedge shape. It is more of a spearhead than a wedge. Essentially instead of having a broader line, you are narrowing the atack line and allowing it to attack a certain portion of the defensive line with more force. Middle and rear ranks can use shields to push the ranks before and add strength to the charge kind of rugby style. Having only one person up front only weakens the attack, not strengthening it as it easily allows a strong defensive line to take on the individuals up front.
Re: Rome beating Sparta - geala - 07-05-2007
The wedge as a military formation always remains enigmatic to me, may it be infantry or cavalry. I see only disadvantages. A wedge of people is not the same as a wedge of steel. In my opinion the wedge could be only interpreted as a rectangular formation.
Cavalry could not break in into a firm phalanx, if not the phalanx itself broke before contact. So wether using a wedge or a column or a line, the psychological aspect was decisive. A kind of wedge may be formed by not so well trained troops automatically because the centre starts moving first and, more importantly, moves faster?
The Romans used against the Spartans what they used every time against the Greeks and others. Superior manpower and economics, self-satisfied arrogance, strong allies, mobility through manipular tactics, shattering the enemy with pila throwing and very good swordsmanship. At the time of the last conflicts (195 BC, "Battle" of Gythium) the Spartans used Macedonian phalanx tactics, as far as I know. Nothing like in the times of classical Sparta. After ~189 BC (?) the Spartans became part of the Achaian League and so disappeared as an independent historical subject.
Re: Rome beating Sparta - Giannis K. Hoplite - 07-05-2007
We only diasagree on that the phalanx could hold any cavalry attach if it didn't brake befor contact.It was the other way round:for ages cavalry was not used against palanx because it had that "unbrakable" reputation.In plataea Spartans had much trouble by the Persian cavalry even though it didn't try a full attack(and din not only fire missiles).Alexander uded cavalry successfuly against a very good army,attempting frontal attacks.Also,at that time and much more later,cavalry was much more heavier.
Horses are very strong beasts.I'm always surprised every time I see horses or when occasionally riding them.Simply no man no matter how heavily armed he iscan resist a riding horse!Because it is not the man on the horse who mainly kills but the horse itself.
The wedge formations is indeed succrssful on cavalry.The first 1-3 horses,not matter if they actually live,cause a small hole in the phalanxThis hole ruins everything as the rest of the wedge continues entering in the hole where no shield wall or othismos exist any more.I don't know the efectiveness against sarissa phalanxes,but I guess it's far worse,as you'd probably need much more horses killed to even reach the men.And the greater depth of the phalanx ensures that the horses would stuck in there,in certain death.
Khairete
Giannis
Re: Rome beating Sparta - geala - 07-05-2007
That would suppose that the horses would run in and over the men in the phalanx. Physically that would be possible of course. And horses, which by nature avoid every greater hindrance, can be trained to attack massive formations (says M. Junkelmann, reenacting Roman cavalry). But in my opinion it happened only seldomly in history because the horses were not so well trained, feared massive objects or death on the spear tips, or the riders feared contact and slowed down etc.. I think we had threads with similar discussions, so perhaps better not to start a new one.
Re: Rome beating Sparta - Giannis K. Hoplite - 07-05-2007
Agreed...and aldo agreed thst it could happen and happened but I don't know how frequently it was succesful due to the factors you said.
Khaire
Giannis
Re: Rome beating Sparta - hoplite14gr - 07-05-2007
Dear Brazelton the Hellenistic Spartan army was comlpetely different from the classical Spartan army. Spartan classical hoplites never fought legionaries.
Greek states at the Hellenistic period were in such a state that their armies were litle more than armed mobs. (Polyvios 20.4-6 38 or Polyvios 36.17, 38.15-16 39.8 )
So even if Nabis few mercenary Thyreoforoi peltasts gave trouble to the Roman hastatoi, they wouldn't be as succesful against the more heavily armed principes.
Kind regards
Re: Rome beating Sparta - Felix - 07-05-2007
Quote:The wedge as a military formation always remains enigmatic to me, may it be infantry or cavalry. I see only disadvantages. A wedge of people is not the same as a wedge of steel. In my opinion the wedge could be only interpreted as a rectangular formation.
Cavalry could not break in into a firm phalanx, if not the phalanx itself broke before contact. So wether using a wedge or a column or a line, the psychological aspect was decisive. A kind of wedge may be formed by not so well trained troops automatically because the centre starts moving first and, more importantly, moves faster?
...
Fortunately we have very specific diagrams by Asklepiodotus (and later in the Byzantine era also) which make it perfectly clear that a wedge was truly a wedge: either a triangular or diamond/rhomboid formation. This was the favored type of formation for the best cavalry of Alexander the Great's army, the Companions and the Thessalians. This formation was not created by poorly trained troops' mistakes; but it was maintained by the best trained horsemen. (The Byzantine cavaly used a blunt wedge, rather than a true triangle.)
One advantage of this formation may by psychological. As mentioned already, the fear and panic created by a cavarly charge is critical to its succcess. A well-organized and fast moving cavalry unit is going to cause more fear and panic than one which moves slowly and clumsily. Triangular and rhomboid formations, properly trained, can be maneuvered very well, since the leader is at the head of the whole formation. This way, if an opposing line shows any signs of weakness, the whole wedge can be maneuvered to aim directly at the weakest point.
Re: Rome beating Sparta - geala - 07-11-2007
I see the theory but I have doubts about the practice. I'm thinking about experiences from the 18th and 19th century from which we have a lot of practical and theoretical advices about cavalry. The practice of cavalry attacks then was a bit desillusioning. Asklepiodotus I don't know, was he a military man like Xenophon and Polybios? Do we have mentions of real attacks in wedge formation?
The argument about better maneuvering in wedge formation is comprehensible if a wide space is available because you can ride in wide curves following the leader. If you want to pivot like in a rectangular line formation around a point or a wing the wedge has no advantage in my opinion.
To break a line the wedge physically has no advantages, too. You cannot "concentrate" a force in the tip of a wedge formed by riders. Mayby it was especially frightening for the soldiers in the infantry line to see a mass of riders aiming exactly just at the point they stood.
Re: Rome beating Sparta - Tarbicus - 07-11-2007
Quote:A kind of wedge may be formed by not so well trained troops automatically because the centre starts moving first and, more importantly, moves faster?This assumes that mini-wedges didn't happen all over the front ranks, and that the Romans were able to keep perfectly straight lines when engaging the enemy. It's just as feasible that engagements were very disorderly affairs, with both sides hanging back in formation until one or more individuals decided to "have a go", their nearest fellow front rankers following them when it happened.
As for the wedge being ineffective on foot, bear in mind that a similar type of formation was used in American football (the flying wedge) during its earlier years as a "mob" game, and could tear through the opposing side. It was so effective that it crippled and killed players, and was eventually banned in 1905 (some say 1895) once Roosevelt threatened to shut the game down after 19 players died that year nationwide. Although a sport, it was still a number of real men against other real men (in 1894 during a single Harvard/Yale game four men were crippled). Mass formation plays were banned altogether by 1906. It's also banned in Rugby Union.
The point about the V shaped wedge is that it relies on momentum, and if one side were able to use it against a more static enemy it usually ended up effectively outflanking them within their own lines. Very risky, sure, but I don't see why it's so often only attributed to cavalry.