03-10-2005, 10:26 AM
Please allow me to disagree with you in here.<br>
<br>
Romans managed to defeat macedonian-type phalanxes due to flank attacks (Pyrrhus times) and then the mobility of their manipular legions (after Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Hannibal) that was able to exploit line gaps on the phalanxes due to terrain accidents, etc, and not due to missile fire.<br>
<br>
Actually, I recall to have read somewhere that Sabin, or maybe Melbruck, believed that most pila simply fell too short and were mainly used to make the ground harder to walk on/through.<br>
<br>
Certainly, if pila were very effective, the Civil Wars would have been carnages at the first shock, and most killing happened when one of the armies routed and tried to run away... If a pilum got stuck on your shield during the last run, you would be forced in many cases to drop your shield. If pila had a high hit ratio (say 50%), and an 80% of efficacy in disabling your shield/scutum, you'd find that about 35-40% of your first line was unshielded. That's never been described by primary sources, and Caesar gave pretty precise descriptions of battles between pila-able very big armies.<br>
<br>
As I can see it, most pila would have to simply fell to the ground and stuck there like little trees, making the attack harder and the defense easier.<br>
<br>
Both hellenic and macedonian types of phalanxes had to deal with parthian mounted archers, and with large quantities of sparabara standing archers, and they did so particularly well in all the accounts we have from historical battles, so I'd say that the heavy armor of the athenian/spartan-type of hoplites and their aspis were enough protection for them, while the lighter macedonian phalangite had enough protection to go past the point of missile effectiveness.<br>
<br>
This is, however, a very interesting and unknown field, because most sources barely mention light infantry on the major battles, and we are to believe that battles were mostly defined by the heavy infantry, but all armies had large quantities of light infantry to support them, and they must have been there for something more than to add in the numbers (considering battles were won by moral, and density, not mass).<br>
<br>
khaire!<br>
P. Lilius a.k.a. Argyros <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Romans managed to defeat macedonian-type phalanxes due to flank attacks (Pyrrhus times) and then the mobility of their manipular legions (after Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Hannibal) that was able to exploit line gaps on the phalanxes due to terrain accidents, etc, and not due to missile fire.<br>
<br>
Actually, I recall to have read somewhere that Sabin, or maybe Melbruck, believed that most pila simply fell too short and were mainly used to make the ground harder to walk on/through.<br>
<br>
Certainly, if pila were very effective, the Civil Wars would have been carnages at the first shock, and most killing happened when one of the armies routed and tried to run away... If a pilum got stuck on your shield during the last run, you would be forced in many cases to drop your shield. If pila had a high hit ratio (say 50%), and an 80% of efficacy in disabling your shield/scutum, you'd find that about 35-40% of your first line was unshielded. That's never been described by primary sources, and Caesar gave pretty precise descriptions of battles between pila-able very big armies.<br>
<br>
As I can see it, most pila would have to simply fell to the ground and stuck there like little trees, making the attack harder and the defense easier.<br>
<br>
Both hellenic and macedonian types of phalanxes had to deal with parthian mounted archers, and with large quantities of sparabara standing archers, and they did so particularly well in all the accounts we have from historical battles, so I'd say that the heavy armor of the athenian/spartan-type of hoplites and their aspis were enough protection for them, while the lighter macedonian phalangite had enough protection to go past the point of missile effectiveness.<br>
<br>
This is, however, a very interesting and unknown field, because most sources barely mention light infantry on the major battles, and we are to believe that battles were mostly defined by the heavy infantry, but all armies had large quantities of light infantry to support them, and they must have been there for something more than to add in the numbers (considering battles were won by moral, and density, not mass).<br>
<br>
khaire!<br>
P. Lilius a.k.a. Argyros <p></p><i></i>
