04-07-2007, 10:52 AM
Quote:Rewatched several parts of Alexander today, just for the battle scenes, and now I'm wondering about some aspects of the phalanxes as they're portrayed in the movie.
(I know I should never rely on movies for such things, but the battles in Alexander were probably the most realistic I've ever seen on television)
1- What would prevent soldiers with good shields (a Roman scutum for example) from getting through the 'wall' of sarissae?
A lot of sarissae sticking into the shield. Ask the Romans who died fighting phalanges.
Quote:2- It seems to me that pila would completely devestate a phalanx, but looking at the trouble the Romans had against phalanxes at Cynoscephalae and Pydna, it appears this wasn't the case. Does anyone happen to know the reason for this?
I would have thought that, too, but it seems the effectiveness of pilae has been somewhat exaggerated.
Quote:3- In the movie there're gaps between the phalanxes (and I recall reading about it too, but can't remember the source).
I'd guess the main reason for that is better manoeuverability, and to allow slingers/skirmishers to retreat behind the main line before the melee starts.
But wouldn't the enemy easily be able to exploit these gaps?
Plug 'em with peltastoi, that's what they're for. And I seem to recall seeing them used in that way, in the film.
