05-01-2010, 05:53 AM
There are numerous passages which report the "charge," or something akin to quick movement/flexibility, of the Macedonian sarissa-phalanx.
(See for example: Appian Syr. 6.35; Curtius 4.15.15, 8.14.18; Diodorus 18.17.4; Plutarch Eum. 16.4; Polybius 2.69.9, 5.85.9, 11.15.2-3, 11.16.1, 18.29.1, 18.30.1, 18.30.4, 18.30.11; also see: Arrian An. 1.6.1-4; Curtius 3.2.13-14; Diodorus 17.58.4; Livy 33.8; Plutarch Philop. 11.1 (see see Plut. Philop. 9.2ff. for the introduction of the sarissa by Philopoemen); Plutarch Alex. 33.3; Polybius 11.15.2-3.)
What do you think about this? Do you consider the Macedonian sarissa-phalanx to be a quicker-moving/offensive force? Or do you consider it to lumber about, following the cavalry and pinning the enemy in position so the cavalry can ride in? Is this the "anvil" and the cavalry is the "hammer"?
(See for example: Appian Syr. 6.35; Curtius 4.15.15, 8.14.18; Diodorus 18.17.4; Plutarch Eum. 16.4; Polybius 2.69.9, 5.85.9, 11.15.2-3, 11.16.1, 18.29.1, 18.30.1, 18.30.4, 18.30.11; also see: Arrian An. 1.6.1-4; Curtius 3.2.13-14; Diodorus 17.58.4; Livy 33.8; Plutarch Philop. 11.1 (see see Plut. Philop. 9.2ff. for the introduction of the sarissa by Philopoemen); Plutarch Alex. 33.3; Polybius 11.15.2-3.)
What do you think about this? Do you consider the Macedonian sarissa-phalanx to be a quicker-moving/offensive force? Or do you consider it to lumber about, following the cavalry and pinning the enemy in position so the cavalry can ride in? Is this the "anvil" and the cavalry is the "hammer"?
Scott B.
