05-28-2013, 08:26 PM
Mark Hygate wrote:
Having been happily pointed at the specific book fragments of Polybius that are the source of the belief that the Romans fought in a much looser, more open, way than the Greek and Macedonian phalanxes (with particular reference to the Pike-armed); in arguing against my suggestion that the Romans fought shield-to-shield in their own version of the 'phalanx'.
If you want to learn how the Romans fought during a specific time, read the sources that describe it, and look at what few archaeological remains still survive. While doing this, contemplate the mindset and experiences of the author or artist.
Polybius had a first hand look at how the Romans fought. If they fought in a close ordered "phalanx" like you describe, he probably would have mentioned it. Not only that, he also lived in the household of the man who conquered the last Macedonian army at Pydna. It can be easily argued that he probably spoke with one or more "old timers" who not only fought in the battle but also commanded large bodies of men during it.
Also, what sources do you provide that lend to your hypothesis that the Romans fought shield to shield during the Republican period?
Mark Hygate wrote:
My conclusion, driven by simple physics, is that there is only one way that the phalanx can be resisted and that is by the Romans adopting a similar close-order and resisting, even perhaps forcing back, a portion of the phalanx. This is entirely workable and I (please jump in) cannot think of anything else they could do to otherwise achieve that.
What simple physics are involved? Just because you use words like "force" and "push", doesn't mean physics become involved. You could easily substitute attack for both of those words. Warfare is about men with weapons trying to kill each other, not force equations.
To paraphrase Polybius:
Each sarrisa was held by a man, stuck in a rigid formation that needed order and strict cohesion to work. When order breaks down, whether it be from terrain, chaos, gaps, casualties, etc., and cohesion is lost, it allows other men, fighting in a looser decentralized method of fighting (Latin manipular tactics), to break inside the ranks of the phalanx. This is the primary fault of any phalanx unit, but especially of the Macedonian phalanx due to the length of their sarrisa, which prohibits movement. Once the breakthrough occurs, the unit cohesion is lost, rank and files become jumbled and confused, sarrisa become impossible to move and the Macedonians will break and run when the men realize they will never get order again, which is necessary for their formation to succeed. It becomes a simple option, stay, fight and die, or run and live.
On the other hand, if unit cohesion and good order is maintained, the Macedonian unit wins and pushes the Roman maniples they face back (they do not steamroll or overrun, these are humans we're speaking of, who have the ability to walk, ie. backwards). There are many examples of this during Pyrrhus' wars and in the wars against Macedonia and Syria, where for whatever reasons the Romans didn't prosper.
However, and this is the key, for the Macedonian phalanx to win the infantry fight, all of the Macedonian units have to maintain good order and cohesion. If one fails, the whole line fails, unless the reserve can respond in time to halt the breakthrough. This is the point that Polybius is trying to make, the Macedonian system was too rigid compared to the Roman method. It didn't matter if one Roman had to face 5 or 10 spear points. Because sooner or later, one of the men carrying those sarrisa he faces will trip, or be forced to move away from his mates because of terrain (walking around trees, a ditch, a draw, crossing bad terrain, etc.). Once that happens, a gap will appear. Due to their weaponry and formations, the Macedonians will not be able to properly defend these gaps, which favor a man carrying a scutum and gladius. At the individual and unit/formation level, one is rigid (phalanx), the other is flexible (manipular).
Mark Hygate wrote:
I believe in the simplest and most likely solution
Then read what Polybius said and take it to heart. Unless you know of something that can discount Polybius as a reliable source. If not, what other ancient source states the Romans fought in a phalanx during the Republican era?
Mark Hygate wrote:
This, it seems obvious to me, is the secret. So, why this apparent assumption that the Romans fight 3ft apart that Polybius attests and has become accepted?
It's not an assumption. Its evidence in the form of a primary source. And its a reliable source because not only was Polybius an officer in the Greek military before he became a hostage, he lived in the house of the victor of Pydna and later marched with his son and saw first hand how the Roman army fought and was organized. Also, other sources provide similar information about the loose style of the Roman units. And because it was the Latin tradition to fight in this manner, for centuries past, vice the phalanx, an obsolete method of fighting. And because you weren't there to tell the Roman Senate that you had a better way of fighting.
Mark Hygate wrote:
Moreover I offer it, given the last week's discussions, as a clear example where the ancient sources do not contain all the details
we might want and that, sometimes, a degree of logical interpretation must happen if we are to progress in our knowledge.
See highlighted for the problem. Because Polybius provides evidence opposite to your hypothesis, you want to discount him and find a "degree of logical interpretation" that will invalidate his words.
Mark Hygate wrote:
logic - a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."
In this case, Polybius counters your hypothesis. Provide new evidence from primary or secondary sources, that isn't opinion based.
Also, I advise you to be careful with your "logic." Like Macedon mentioned in the last thread, what you think is perfectly logical and "common sense" isn't for others, including other educated "military men." I have this funny feeling that previous to finally having read the rest of Polybius, you had already formed a complete picture in your head as to how the Romans fought during the mid-to-late Republican period. But now you are in a conundrum, Polybius contradicts your hypothesis. Based off the methods of history, either provide another source to support your hypothesis (without cherry picking) or go where the evidence leads you.
Having been happily pointed at the specific book fragments of Polybius that are the source of the belief that the Romans fought in a much looser, more open, way than the Greek and Macedonian phalanxes (with particular reference to the Pike-armed); in arguing against my suggestion that the Romans fought shield-to-shield in their own version of the 'phalanx'.
If you want to learn how the Romans fought during a specific time, read the sources that describe it, and look at what few archaeological remains still survive. While doing this, contemplate the mindset and experiences of the author or artist.
Polybius had a first hand look at how the Romans fought. If they fought in a close ordered "phalanx" like you describe, he probably would have mentioned it. Not only that, he also lived in the household of the man who conquered the last Macedonian army at Pydna. It can be easily argued that he probably spoke with one or more "old timers" who not only fought in the battle but also commanded large bodies of men during it.
Also, what sources do you provide that lend to your hypothesis that the Romans fought shield to shield during the Republican period?
Mark Hygate wrote:
My conclusion, driven by simple physics, is that there is only one way that the phalanx can be resisted and that is by the Romans adopting a similar close-order and resisting, even perhaps forcing back, a portion of the phalanx. This is entirely workable and I (please jump in) cannot think of anything else they could do to otherwise achieve that.
What simple physics are involved? Just because you use words like "force" and "push", doesn't mean physics become involved. You could easily substitute attack for both of those words. Warfare is about men with weapons trying to kill each other, not force equations.
To paraphrase Polybius:
Each sarrisa was held by a man, stuck in a rigid formation that needed order and strict cohesion to work. When order breaks down, whether it be from terrain, chaos, gaps, casualties, etc., and cohesion is lost, it allows other men, fighting in a looser decentralized method of fighting (Latin manipular tactics), to break inside the ranks of the phalanx. This is the primary fault of any phalanx unit, but especially of the Macedonian phalanx due to the length of their sarrisa, which prohibits movement. Once the breakthrough occurs, the unit cohesion is lost, rank and files become jumbled and confused, sarrisa become impossible to move and the Macedonians will break and run when the men realize they will never get order again, which is necessary for their formation to succeed. It becomes a simple option, stay, fight and die, or run and live.
On the other hand, if unit cohesion and good order is maintained, the Macedonian unit wins and pushes the Roman maniples they face back (they do not steamroll or overrun, these are humans we're speaking of, who have the ability to walk, ie. backwards). There are many examples of this during Pyrrhus' wars and in the wars against Macedonia and Syria, where for whatever reasons the Romans didn't prosper.
However, and this is the key, for the Macedonian phalanx to win the infantry fight, all of the Macedonian units have to maintain good order and cohesion. If one fails, the whole line fails, unless the reserve can respond in time to halt the breakthrough. This is the point that Polybius is trying to make, the Macedonian system was too rigid compared to the Roman method. It didn't matter if one Roman had to face 5 or 10 spear points. Because sooner or later, one of the men carrying those sarrisa he faces will trip, or be forced to move away from his mates because of terrain (walking around trees, a ditch, a draw, crossing bad terrain, etc.). Once that happens, a gap will appear. Due to their weaponry and formations, the Macedonians will not be able to properly defend these gaps, which favor a man carrying a scutum and gladius. At the individual and unit/formation level, one is rigid (phalanx), the other is flexible (manipular).
Mark Hygate wrote:
I believe in the simplest and most likely solution
Then read what Polybius said and take it to heart. Unless you know of something that can discount Polybius as a reliable source. If not, what other ancient source states the Romans fought in a phalanx during the Republican era?
Mark Hygate wrote:
This, it seems obvious to me, is the secret. So, why this apparent assumption that the Romans fight 3ft apart that Polybius attests and has become accepted?
It's not an assumption. Its evidence in the form of a primary source. And its a reliable source because not only was Polybius an officer in the Greek military before he became a hostage, he lived in the house of the victor of Pydna and later marched with his son and saw first hand how the Roman army fought and was organized. Also, other sources provide similar information about the loose style of the Roman units. And because it was the Latin tradition to fight in this manner, for centuries past, vice the phalanx, an obsolete method of fighting. And because you weren't there to tell the Roman Senate that you had a better way of fighting.
Mark Hygate wrote:
Moreover I offer it, given the last week's discussions, as a clear example where the ancient sources do not contain all the details
we might want and that, sometimes, a degree of logical interpretation must happen if we are to progress in our knowledge.
See highlighted for the problem. Because Polybius provides evidence opposite to your hypothesis, you want to discount him and find a "degree of logical interpretation" that will invalidate his words.
Mark Hygate wrote:
logic - a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."
In this case, Polybius counters your hypothesis. Provide new evidence from primary or secondary sources, that isn't opinion based.
Also, I advise you to be careful with your "logic." Like Macedon mentioned in the last thread, what you think is perfectly logical and "common sense" isn't for others, including other educated "military men." I have this funny feeling that previous to finally having read the rest of Polybius, you had already formed a complete picture in your head as to how the Romans fought during the mid-to-late Republican period. But now you are in a conundrum, Polybius contradicts your hypothesis. Based off the methods of history, either provide another source to support your hypothesis (without cherry picking) or go where the evidence leads you.
