Triple line

[Paullus Scipio]

Henk wrote:-
"thats not what i mean... i mean people getting pierced wounded by Pila will have to drop their stuff or fall over and i would love to see some pikemen try to march with pikes forward while several of them fall over, drop their pikes and fall against others in the rank...

my idea is a pila volley makes the initial distraction after which a swift attack from Roman side cancelles the entire use of the phalanx.. of course, some Romans will be pierced, and wounded, but since the mobility of a Roman Cohort is infinetly larger than that of any Phalanx, I do not believe a Phalanx can hold out for long with an all out assault by mobile Roman troops, ranging from Velites, Triarii to hastati........ "
Actually, Henk that idea is not what happened, and , as we shall see the pila volleys don't seem to have been sufficient to stop the onward push of a tight-packed phalanx.....
Brazelton wrote:-
"Well if it renders the hoplites' shields useless, then yeah, I'd have to say the Romans win."
Also incorrect ! The Romans win, but not for that reason, see below.......
Polybius' account does not survive, but there are two accounts of the battle of Pydna drawn from it that give us a detailed picture of what happened when Phalanx met Legion

From Plutarch's life of Aemilius Paullus, a very interesting detailed account...

"As the attack began, Aemilius came up and found that the Macedonian battalions had already planted the tips of their long spears in the shields of the Romans, who were thus prevented from reaching them with their swords. (the sarissas/pikes thud into the scuta and a shoving match develops..as Aemilius arrives the pila phase is already over and the phalanx, un-fazed, and despite suffering casualties, has closed with the Roman line..) And when he saw that the rest of the Macedonian troops also were drawing their targets/peltai from their shoulders round in front of them, and with long spears set at one level were withstanding his shield-bearing troops, ( i.e. they stand up to pila fire)and saw too the strength of their interlocked shields and the fierceness of their onset, amazement and fear took possession of him, and he felt that he had never seen a sight more fearful; often in after times he used to speak of his emotions at that time and of what he saw.( The Roman General was obviously very impressed by the serried Phalanx) But then, showing to his soldiers a glad and cheerful countenance, he rode past them without helmet or breastplate."

.....as the battle develops...

"The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians,( an Allied cohort, fighting on the flanks) snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. 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. For the Romans ( i.e. Peligni) 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; 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 ( an exagerration - only 100 or so Romans perish in the whole battle, which lasts an hour - roughly two a minute), 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. When the first line had thus been cut to pieces, those arrayed behind them were beaten back; and though there was no flight, still they retired towards the mountain called Olocrus, ( the Roman line is pushed back....but retains its cohesion, and does not break...) so that even Aemilius, as Poseidonius tells us, when he saw it, rent his garments. For this part of his army was retreating, and the rest of the Romans were turning aside from the phalanx, which gave them no access to it, but confronted them as it were with a dense barricade of long spears, and was everywhere unassailable.
But the ground was uneven, and the line of battle so long that shields could not be kept continuously locked together, and Aemilius therefore saw that the Macedonian phalanx was getting many clefts and intervals in it, as is natural when armies are large and the efforts of the combatants are diversified; portions of it were hard pressed, and other portions were dashing forward. ( Pressure along the front is uneven, as is the ground - gaps open in the phalanx front as it presses the Romans back..) Thereupon he came up swiftly, and dividing up his cohorts, ordered them to plunge quickly into the interstices and empty spaces in the enemy's line and thus come to close quarters, not fighting a single battle against them all, but many separate and successive battles. ( i.e. no longer keeping their line intact - a risky ploy) These instructions being given by Aemilius to his officers, and by his officers to the soldiers, as soon as they got between the ranks of the enemy and separated them, they attacked some of them in the flank where their armour did not shield them, and cut off others by falling upon their rear, and the strength and general efficiency of the phalanx was lost when it was thus broken up; and now that the Macedonians engaged man to man or in small detachments, they could only hack with their small daggers against the firm and long shields of the Romans,( their sarissa/pikes became useless in a close-quarter melee..) and oppose light targets/peltae to their swords, which, such was their weight and momentum, penetrated through all their armour to their bodies. ( The Macedonians afterward were dismayed at the horrendous wounds inflicted by the 'gladius hipaniensis)They therefore made a poor resistance and at last were routed. (although a pelte can be equal to a scutum in single combat - see gladiator combat for example- en masse the scuta aginst small pelta is big advantage...)
But the struggle between them was fierce. Here, too, Marcus, the son of Cato and the son-in law of Aemilius, while displaying all possible prowess, lost his sword. Since he was a young man of the most generous education and owed to a great father proofs of great valour, he thought life not worth the living if he abandoned such spoil of his own person to the enemy, and ran along the ranks telling every friend and companion whom he saw of his mishap and begging them for aid. These made a goodly number of brave men, and making their way with one impulse through the rest, they put themselves under his head and fell upon the enemy. With a great struggle, much slaughter, and many wounds, they drove them from the ground, and when they had won a free and empty place, they set themselves to looking for the sword. And when at last it was found hidden among great heaps of armour and fallen bodies, they were filled with exceeding joy, and raising songs of triumph fell yet more impetuously upon those of the enemy who still held together. Finally, the three thousand picked men of the Macedonians,( the King's bodyguard) who remained in order and kept on fighting, were all cut to pieces; and of the rest, who took to flight, the slaughter was great, so that the plain and the lower slopes of the hills were covered with dead bodies, and the waters of the river Leucus were still mingled with blood when the Romans crossed it on the day after the battle. For it is said that over twenty-five thousand of their enemies were slain; while of the Romans there fell, according to Poseidonius, a hundred, according to Nasica, eighty.
And this greatest of all struggles was most speedily decided; for the Romans began fighting at three o'clock in the afternoon, and were victorious within an hour; ( the decision was unusually a short battle, but the pursuit was long, hence the huge slaughter..) the rest of the day they spent in the pursuit, which they kept up for as many as a hundred and twenty furlongs, so that it was already late in the evening when they returned. All the rest were met by their servants with torches and conducted with joyful shouts to their tents, which were ablaze with light and adorned with wreaths of ivy and laurel;......."

Livy, at 44.41, gives a similar account drawn mainly from Polybius' lost passage, but since this post is getting long, I won't quote it in full !

He does make the point; "The most manifest cause of the victory was the fact that there were many scattered engagements which threw the wavering phalanx into disorder ( a little exaggeration by the patriotic Livy!..far from 'wavering' the phalanx is shoving the Roman line back...) and then disrupted it completely. The strength of the phalanx is irresistable when it is close-packed and bristling with extended spears; but if by attacks at different points you force the the troops to swing around their spears, unwieldy as they are by reason of their length and weight, they become entangled in a disorderly mass; and further , the noise and commotion on the flank ( here helped by the fact the Romans deployed elephants) or in the rear throws them into confusion, and then the whole formation collapses. That is what happened in this battle, when the phalanx was forced to meet the Romans who were attacking in small groups, with the Macedonian line broken at many points. The Romans kept infiltrating their files at every place where a gap offered.If they had made a frontal attack with their whole line against an orderly phalanx, the Romans would have impaled themselves on the spears ( by their scuta, as Plutarch tells us they did) and would not have withstood the dense formation; this is what happened to the Peligni ( and the rest of the Roman line, so long as they tried to keep their line intact - they were forced back...) who at the start of the battle incautiously encountered the Peltasts."

Well, pretty plain then...the volleys of pila did not stop the phalanx, who roll on and thrust their pikes into Roman shields, and shove the Roman line back, ( and all are evidently agreed that the Macedonian phalanx is irresistable when like this...this is why Polybius is at such great pains to explain to his greek audience how the Macedonians were defeated twice by the Romans - Pydna and Cynoscephalae).But they get a little disorderly in doing so - only when Paullus allows the line to 'break up' and infiltrate the gaps are the tables turned.

[Ironhand]

I enjoyed your post very much Paulus. A laude to you.

Very true. Javelins / pilum definately had their uses, but its a little naive to make them them the end all be all of combat. The pilum is a form of javelin. Its not some magical Excalibur version of it. Many, many armies before the time of Rome and long after utilized javelins and some forms were not too dissimiliar from the pilum in design. Would the Romans have decimated the Franks because they had pilum and the Franks had angons? I think not for that reason. To treat the pilum, gladius, etc. with reverence beyond what it deserves makes little sense. In fact, I think it can take away from them credit where it is actually owed when you reduce an armies value to catchy bits of military tech. It isn't exactly like comparing modern high tech. Romans are known for their pilum, gladius, scutum, etc. but that is mostly our visualization of their army and it doesn't mean that the gladius is superior to all other short swords or the pilum a better javelin and that they would decimate all armies that do not have this type of equipment. Most people do not think horse archers when they think medieval English armies either. It doesn't mean the Huns would decimate the English army just because they are more famed for horse archery. Equipment discussion is only useful when one is thinking of its uses in a tactical manner and not the katana is the perfect sword and beats all other swords type of thinking. Hey, we all have a fondness for certain weapons, but we have to be realistic.

[Tarbicus]

To be honest, when I mentioned missiles and vulnerability on uneven terrain I wasn't thinking of pila, more slingshot (which wore down one Roman flank at Cannae on even ground) and arrows. But no matter how you look at it, the phalanx was easily trashed on uneven terrain :wink:

[Sardaukar]

In my humble opinion, those lead/bronze/etc/ weighted pilums might have had quite good penetrating power, considering the small size of pilum-head.

On the other hand, I doubt it was ideal to pierce heavy (especially metal-reinforced) shields since it'd most likely bend and lose lot of penetrating power.

Was there not a test where pilum was not able to penetrate Roman scutum ?

[M. Demetrius]

Was there not a test where pilum was not able to penetrate Roman scutum

Some say so. At Castra Romana this year, though, they posted video that showed pila from reenactors piercing a scutum.

Were they the same pila? No. Were the scuta made in the same way as the originals? Not clear. probably not. Were the men throwing them as skilled and strong of arm as a legionary? Most likely not.

But seems to me, that if the scutum were as indestructible and impenetrable as some folks say, soldiers would have kept right on using them until firearms were developed. Just makes sense. However, they were probably not quite as Superman as some would like them to be, and as stated by Ironhand, the gladius wasn't a LightSabre, either.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Excellent post Paulus...

[hoplite07]

Okay, so the reason the Romans were able to beat the Macedonian phalanx was because of the terrain, which was very rough creating gaps within it, which the Romans exploited by getting within this killing machine which is only really effective facing in one direction.

But consider this hypothetical matchup: 300 of those same Romans at that battle with the same commander up against the 300 Spartans commanded by Leonidas at the Thermopylae pass. Who would win there?

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

For that, please see your own thread in this very section of the forum :?

[PMBardunias]

But consider this hypothetical matchup: 300 of those same Romans at that battle with the same commander up against the 300 Spartans commanded by Leonidas at the Thermopylae pass. Who would win there?

Weren't the Aemiliani a clan that claimed Sabine origin? And didn't the Sabines claim (mythical?) descent from Sparta?

Thus I can guarantee that a Spartan general would win!

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

eha... eha...eha........ ehahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

cant help myself, cant stop, has to do with being Roman..........

M.VIB.M.

[Paullus Scipio]

Tarbicus wrote:-

But no matter how you look at it, the phalanx was easily trashed on uneven terrain

...I'm not at all sure 'easily trashed' is the right phrase, Jim. The point here is that the Macedonian phalanx in action was the most frightening 'shock and awe' thing that the 60 year-old Roman General ever saw in his life, and the Legions were almost literally being shoved off the field. This called for a desperate measure. Aemilius Paullus deliberately abandoned the physical and morale cohesion derived from a solid line...with all that that implied. In such circumstances, with the line broken, and the terrifying phalanx still moving forward in 'locked shields' most armies would have run.......to Paullus' eternal credit, he had gauged his more professional legionaries well...they did not break, when split up, but kept fighting. In the end it was the 'cohesion' of the Macedonian Phalanx that also broke, and thanks to their equipment disadvantages, and the fact that they were a citizen militia ( and hence less 'professional' than the legionaries), loss of cohesion meant it was they, rather than the Romans, who broke and ran. It is noticeable that the Macedonian 'professional' soldiers, the 3,000 strong Royal Guard/Agema did not run, and slugged it out until, outnumbered and surrounded, they died.
In the words of the Duke of Wellington,( about Waterloo) " It was a damned near run thing", even though on paper it looks one-sided. Similarly, Cynoscephalae was another example of an irresistable phalanx pushing back the Legions, (down a mountain slope! ) until the Roman right, again with the aid of elephants, beat the undeployed Macedonian left, and a Tribune with initiative ( Roman qualities shining through again! ) peeled off a number of maniples and hit Philip's victorious right phalanx in the rear...
For another example of phalanx fighting on rough ground, see the forthcoming article about the battle of Sellasia in AWM, where two phalanxes confront one another on a mountain ridge!
A better generalisation might be; "... all things being equal, and pila or no pila, a Macedonian Phalanx beats a Legion - even on rough terrain!" - but the rigid phalanx can be beaten by some 'risk-taking' (Pydna) or 'initiative'(Cynoscephalae) by the more flexible legions.....then the Phalanx is " easily trashed" ! :wink: :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I would tend to agree with that interpretation....the phalanx had dominated the field for quite afew years, after all! Not really a pushover... :lol: no pun intended....

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Paullus thank you for the large section of polibius! very interesting reading material!!!

of course these wars were well before Imperial Rome came up so i guess the equipment was totally different indeed...

M.VIB.M.

[Tarbicus]

True, I was over-generalising and being a bit glib.

When you say that Macedonian left flank wasn't deployed, by that do you mean they weren't in their phalanxes, or the necessary light troops weren't available to plug any gaps? I thought the left flank phalanxes had reached the ridge, just as the rest had done before them, and had actually formed up and advancing, but they were just lacking in light support to compensate for the terrain? Don't answer, I'll go and re-read it.

Here's a very important piece by Polybius on this very subject:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/ ... niple.html

I personally think that too much is attributed to luck, risk and unusual deployment, which Polybius contradicts entirely;

Of course, those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.

The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming.

[Paullus Scipio]

Nice post Jim!...all very pertinent and relevant. Polybius points out that the legionary is more 'flexible' than the phalangite, and not just on the battlefield, and that the Macedonian phalanx in all it's glory on the battlefield is rather a "one-trick pony".
...if we move off the Pydna battlefield and look at the campaign, Aemillius Paullus' seems to have had the better of the campaign, to which Perseus' reply was to offer battle on the relatively flat Pydna, which Paullus wisely refused ( why play to your enemy's strengths?), but the battle seems to have come about accidently ( a skirmish that escalated..)

It should be remembered too that Polybius was writing afterward with '20-20' hindsight, and seeking a simple 'explanation' of why the Romans seemingly always succeeded. A closer examination, thanks mainly to Poybius himself, reveals that, like all generalisations, it is not exactly true, but it was certainly 'flexibility', of mind as well as drill-wise, that underlaid Roman victory in each case, as I said ( and Polybius too ! ).
8)
The reality was not so simple, as Aemillius Paullus knew that afternoon at Pydna, when, against his intentions, he had been drawn into a battle with a Phalanx on flat ground, watched his legions pushed back, and stared defeat, disgrace and possibly death in the face..... hock: