08-07-2004, 06:52 AM
Good point. But it does make my point too.<br>
A phalanx is too generic to be of any use. Without qualifiers the confusion mounts quickly. The generic word phalanx simply indicates any situation wherein a formation counted more on mass rather than on some articulation; i.e. almost all ancient and medieval infantry armies in almost all battles. Even the romans used a "phalanx" formation (Cannae, Arrian,...).<br>
<br>
The roman infantry army, over a very long period of its semi-professional then fully professional history, had available in its basic tactical repertoir an articuation and a flexibility that they could and did systematically apply.<br>
<br>
Other peoples did simply did not systemically have this option. Only under exceptional commanders, hence for limited periods of time, could they stage an articulated army that could do more than hope to win simply by using a straightforward formation based on sheer numbers. It takes a great charismatic commander and veteran soldiers to make a Hannibal-like army that could adopt sophisicated tactics. Of course also Philip and Alexander created a magnificent army, in mnay ways the best of ancient history. But its greatness came mainly from the dymanic use of cavalry in combination with the sheer weight of the macedonian phalanx that could only go straight. But father and son were unique, did not consolidate a system, and once they passed away that line of tactical evolution withered away.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
A phalanx is too generic to be of any use. Without qualifiers the confusion mounts quickly. The generic word phalanx simply indicates any situation wherein a formation counted more on mass rather than on some articulation; i.e. almost all ancient and medieval infantry armies in almost all battles. Even the romans used a "phalanx" formation (Cannae, Arrian,...).<br>
<br>
The roman infantry army, over a very long period of its semi-professional then fully professional history, had available in its basic tactical repertoir an articuation and a flexibility that they could and did systematically apply.<br>
<br>
Other peoples did simply did not systemically have this option. Only under exceptional commanders, hence for limited periods of time, could they stage an articulated army that could do more than hope to win simply by using a straightforward formation based on sheer numbers. It takes a great charismatic commander and veteran soldiers to make a Hannibal-like army that could adopt sophisicated tactics. Of course also Philip and Alexander created a magnificent army, in mnay ways the best of ancient history. But its greatness came mainly from the dymanic use of cavalry in combination with the sheer weight of the macedonian phalanx that could only go straight. But father and son were unique, did not consolidate a system, and once they passed away that line of tactical evolution withered away.<br>
<p></p><i></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."
