04-07-2007, 09:31 AM
Rewatched several parts of Alexander today, just for the battle scenes, and now I'm wondering about some aspects of the phalanxes as they're portrayed in the movie.
(I know I should never rely on movies for such things, but the battles in Alexander were probably the most realistic I've ever seen on television)
1- What would prevent soldiers with good shields (a Roman scutum for example) from getting through the 'wall' of sarissae?
2- It seems to me that pila would completely devestate a phalanx, but looking at the trouble the Romans had against phalanxes at Cynoscephalae and Pydna, it appears this wasn't the case. Does anyone happen to know the reason for this?
3- In the movie there're gaps between the phalanxes (and I recall reading about it too, but can't remember the source).
I'd guess the main reason for that is better manoeuverability, and to allow slingers/skirmishers to retreat behind the main line before the melee starts.
But wouldn't the enemy easily be able to exploit these gaps?
Thanks in advance
(I know I should never rely on movies for such things, but the battles in Alexander were probably the most realistic I've ever seen on television)
1- What would prevent soldiers with good shields (a Roman scutum for example) from getting through the 'wall' of sarissae?
2- It seems to me that pila would completely devestate a phalanx, but looking at the trouble the Romans had against phalanxes at Cynoscephalae and Pydna, it appears this wasn't the case. Does anyone happen to know the reason for this?
3- In the movie there're gaps between the phalanxes (and I recall reading about it too, but can't remember the source).
I'd guess the main reason for that is better manoeuverability, and to allow slingers/skirmishers to retreat behind the main line before the melee starts.
But wouldn't the enemy easily be able to exploit these gaps?
Thanks in advance
[size=75:18gu2k6n]- Roy Aarts[/size]
