08-03-2004, 03:55 PM
Hey guys<br>
are you all sure the gauls, spaniards and germans didn't fight in phalanxs? The hollywood image of running and yelling barbarians is quite unlikely. On the other hand we shouldn't be so foolish as to think the phalanx was only the Greek hoplitic one! The phalanx<br>
- tight formation, mutual huddling behind one another, seeking protection of companions - was indeed one of the oldest formations invented once man realized that sheer numbers increased the probability of a quick victory against an enemy. The Hoplitic phalanx was only a highly specialized version of a universal concept.<br>
<br>
I suggest you re-read Ceasar: in particular the description of the battle against Ariovistus' 100% warrior army (Ariovistus was a true war lord), The germans were so tightly huddled behind their shields that some legiornaries lept on top the the german shield wall to try prying the german shield off!<br>
<br>
Maybe the gauls, germans, and spaniards kept some high degree of individualism in their warrior like fighting, but it would be foolish to think they went into battle like individuals without any form of group cohesion such as family/blood ties, tribal structure, charismatic leaders and followers,... and of course INSTINCT (of which the former are cultural manifestations! A human is a group animal after all!). Warrior individualism but in a group context/formation.<br>
<br>
Even the early romans used phalanxs but the use of missiles and individualism was there from the start. In this sense the roman manipular system did not really evolve from greek fighting (influence yes, direct descendancy no). Its flavor was closer to the gaulic/germanic warrior mystique of fighting than the Greek Hoplitic one, already very specialized (Classic) in very early roman history when Rome was still fighting other Latin tribes, Samnites etc.<br>
<br>
I think the roman flexible (manipular) formations could be successful against anyone that thought simplistically that sheer numbers was the way to win; i.e. almost everyone! Why? AGE OLD ANSWER: Once the enemy group formation cracked and the mutual protection jepoardized, the individual felt he had a very small chance of survival. Imagine many individuals feeling the same way, influencing one another (feedback) with incoherent behaviour, and surely things degenerate very fast! How? Roman answer: By systematically creating tensions, asymmetric stresses, shears in the enemy front mass. The aggressive roman battle order system systematically maximized the stresses on the enemy lines.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 8/4/04 10:31 am<br></i>
are you all sure the gauls, spaniards and germans didn't fight in phalanxs? The hollywood image of running and yelling barbarians is quite unlikely. On the other hand we shouldn't be so foolish as to think the phalanx was only the Greek hoplitic one! The phalanx<br>
- tight formation, mutual huddling behind one another, seeking protection of companions - was indeed one of the oldest formations invented once man realized that sheer numbers increased the probability of a quick victory against an enemy. The Hoplitic phalanx was only a highly specialized version of a universal concept.<br>
<br>
I suggest you re-read Ceasar: in particular the description of the battle against Ariovistus' 100% warrior army (Ariovistus was a true war lord), The germans were so tightly huddled behind their shields that some legiornaries lept on top the the german shield wall to try prying the german shield off!<br>
<br>
Maybe the gauls, germans, and spaniards kept some high degree of individualism in their warrior like fighting, but it would be foolish to think they went into battle like individuals without any form of group cohesion such as family/blood ties, tribal structure, charismatic leaders and followers,... and of course INSTINCT (of which the former are cultural manifestations! A human is a group animal after all!). Warrior individualism but in a group context/formation.<br>
<br>
Even the early romans used phalanxs but the use of missiles and individualism was there from the start. In this sense the roman manipular system did not really evolve from greek fighting (influence yes, direct descendancy no). Its flavor was closer to the gaulic/germanic warrior mystique of fighting than the Greek Hoplitic one, already very specialized (Classic) in very early roman history when Rome was still fighting other Latin tribes, Samnites etc.<br>
<br>
I think the roman flexible (manipular) formations could be successful against anyone that thought simplistically that sheer numbers was the way to win; i.e. almost everyone! Why? AGE OLD ANSWER: Once the enemy group formation cracked and the mutual protection jepoardized, the individual felt he had a very small chance of survival. Imagine many individuals feeling the same way, influencing one another (feedback) with incoherent behaviour, and surely things degenerate very fast! How? Roman answer: By systematically creating tensions, asymmetric stresses, shears in the enemy front mass. The aggressive roman battle order system systematically maximized the stresses on the enemy lines.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 8/4/04 10:31 am<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
