05-31-2013, 02:20 PM
Mark Hygate wrote:
well just above this extract of Polybius at Cynoscephalae where the Romans receive the phalanx-charge (bearing in mind that phalanxes charge at the walk to preserve the formation) and no one would be stupid enough to charge an unbroken line of sharp points (Poly 18.25)
At Cynoscephalae, the Romans charged:
"Upon this being done, the enemy being now close upon them, orders were sent out to the men of the phalanx to lower their spears and charge, while the light infantry were ordered to place themselves on the flank. 10 At the same moment Flamininus, having received his advanced force into the gaps between the maniples, fell upon the enemy." Poly 18.24
At Pydna, the Romans charged:
"The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. 2 Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. 3 For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; 4 while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death." Plutarch, Life of Aemilius Paullus, 20
In both examples, the Romans (and Socii) were forced to retreat because, as both you and Macedon correctly point out, its really hard to get through the forest of sarrisa. However, they did try. And they didn't just stand there in pretty ranks waiting for the spear points to slam into their shields. They attacked!
- and Caesar's first battle against the Helvetii (Gallic Wars I.24-25) where he waits to receive the Helvetii; then unleashes pila-volleys (pila are close-range weapons, but the hill would help); and only then do the Romans charge. (I only looked quickly)
Again, this is just another example of the Romans charging forward. They didn't just sit back and wait for their enemy to hit them. They waited till the enemy was in range and then attacked them.
Mark Hygate wrote:
For the Romans it's - punch shield - stab/thrust - return - over and over until tired - replace with fresh rank or fresh century/maniple. Very simple and very effective.
Why did Rutilius Rufus hire gladiator lannistas in 105 BC to train his men to evade and inflict blows with their swords, if it was just hide behind your braced shield and stab over it while occasionally punching your shield out to another shield. (Don't forget, Rome's adversaries carried shields too)
They are efficient killing machines - not vehicles for individual sword-play. Anyone who fought with big gaps to each side would die easily - from those exposed sides.
"For every Roman soldier, once he is armed and sets about his business, can adapt himself equally well to every place and time and can meet attack from every quarter. He is likewise equally prepared and equally in condition whether he has to fight together with the whole army or with a part of it or in maniples or singly." Pol 18:32:10-11
Indeed I have come to realise that I have perhaps always had a different view to the way the Romans fought - unless I have mis-understood.
You probably did misunderstand. It happens. I made some pretty egregious claims a while ago in this forum and was flabbergasted when questioned for sources. At the time, I didn't have them. Not enough anyway, because, in all honesty, I had made some of the stuff up because it "just felt right" and as you say often, the sources aren't that detailed.
In the end, I conceded that I was wrong and then spent the next year and a half reading everything I could get my hands on. For that, I have Macedon to thank, for he is the one that spanked me. Thanks, Macedon, for motivating me to learn more. Now when I debate I can provide sources because I actually read them (the English translations at least). :wink:
Now I am a bit better informed. I recommend you retire your ideas for now, read all the sources to can, read them twice, highlight them and take notes, read some secondary sources like Keppie, Connolly, Cowan and others and try to understand why they make the claims they do about the individual and collective fighting styles of the Romans. Heck, I even bought every copy of Ancient Warfare Magazine. Turns out there is some decent info in those, wish they sold them here in the states. But I digress. At the end, if you have the evidence to substantiate your original claims, start a new thread and show your proof or just bring this one back from the dead.
well just above this extract of Polybius at Cynoscephalae where the Romans receive the phalanx-charge (bearing in mind that phalanxes charge at the walk to preserve the formation) and no one would be stupid enough to charge an unbroken line of sharp points (Poly 18.25)
At Cynoscephalae, the Romans charged:
"Upon this being done, the enemy being now close upon them, orders were sent out to the men of the phalanx to lower their spears and charge, while the light infantry were ordered to place themselves on the flank. 10 At the same moment Flamininus, having received his advanced force into the gaps between the maniples, fell upon the enemy." Poly 18.24
At Pydna, the Romans charged:
"The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. 2 Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. 3 For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; 4 while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death." Plutarch, Life of Aemilius Paullus, 20
In both examples, the Romans (and Socii) were forced to retreat because, as both you and Macedon correctly point out, its really hard to get through the forest of sarrisa. However, they did try. And they didn't just stand there in pretty ranks waiting for the spear points to slam into their shields. They attacked!
- and Caesar's first battle against the Helvetii (Gallic Wars I.24-25) where he waits to receive the Helvetii; then unleashes pila-volleys (pila are close-range weapons, but the hill would help); and only then do the Romans charge. (I only looked quickly)
Again, this is just another example of the Romans charging forward. They didn't just sit back and wait for their enemy to hit them. They waited till the enemy was in range and then attacked them.
Mark Hygate wrote:
For the Romans it's - punch shield - stab/thrust - return - over and over until tired - replace with fresh rank or fresh century/maniple. Very simple and very effective.
Why did Rutilius Rufus hire gladiator lannistas in 105 BC to train his men to evade and inflict blows with their swords, if it was just hide behind your braced shield and stab over it while occasionally punching your shield out to another shield. (Don't forget, Rome's adversaries carried shields too)
They are efficient killing machines - not vehicles for individual sword-play. Anyone who fought with big gaps to each side would die easily - from those exposed sides.
"For every Roman soldier, once he is armed and sets about his business, can adapt himself equally well to every place and time and can meet attack from every quarter. He is likewise equally prepared and equally in condition whether he has to fight together with the whole army or with a part of it or in maniples or singly." Pol 18:32:10-11
Indeed I have come to realise that I have perhaps always had a different view to the way the Romans fought - unless I have mis-understood.
You probably did misunderstand. It happens. I made some pretty egregious claims a while ago in this forum and was flabbergasted when questioned for sources. At the time, I didn't have them. Not enough anyway, because, in all honesty, I had made some of the stuff up because it "just felt right" and as you say often, the sources aren't that detailed.
In the end, I conceded that I was wrong and then spent the next year and a half reading everything I could get my hands on. For that, I have Macedon to thank, for he is the one that spanked me. Thanks, Macedon, for motivating me to learn more. Now when I debate I can provide sources because I actually read them (the English translations at least). :wink:
Now I am a bit better informed. I recommend you retire your ideas for now, read all the sources to can, read them twice, highlight them and take notes, read some secondary sources like Keppie, Connolly, Cowan and others and try to understand why they make the claims they do about the individual and collective fighting styles of the Romans. Heck, I even bought every copy of Ancient Warfare Magazine. Turns out there is some decent info in those, wish they sold them here in the states. But I digress. At the end, if you have the evidence to substantiate your original claims, start a new thread and show your proof or just bring this one back from the dead.
