Login

06-08-2001, 11:24 AM

Another question for the experts: 
 
I've read that the Roman maniple was more maneuverable than the Greek phalanx, but I haven't seen an explanation as to why. Is it because the ranks were more shallow, or was it more dependent on the efficiency on the training received at the Field of Mars? SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.

Goffredo · 06-08-2001, 11:44 AM

Well one answer people give is that maniples had gaps. But the gap story is not completely understood so I will not pursue it further. One immediate reason I can imagine that gave the Phalanx more rigidity is that the presence of the men on the side and behind a certain soldier was denser. The Roman soldier was expected at one point to rely on his sword while the Greek sword was really a last-resort weapon. The use of the spear in the Greek Phalanx and the pike in the Macedonian Phalanx required a relatively small space and indeed in the Macedonian Phalanx there was almost no space left. In the Greek Phalanx each frontliner probably did duel with his opponent but the motions were probably constrained severely by the presence of the Hoplites on the side. Theri presence was indeed very desirable as their shield contributed to the protection from stabs from the opposing line. In swordplay one needs more room. Of course any motions would tend to break up a dense line while a more open formation can adjust and regroup more easily. The Phalanx could only go straight (any diagonal motion would be very risky and need great training.) A more open formation maybe could make more sophisticated motions. I am not an expert so I better stop my hypothizsing here. I am very curious to read the contributions of others.

06-08-2001, 01:04 PM

Salve, 
 
This is again a question that is still hotly disputed and over which modern scholars have failed to reach consensus. 
 
Part of the better manoeuvrability may simply ly in the fact that the Roman line would be organised in subunits to a greater extent than the Greek hoplite armies were. The manipuli probably formed up with both centuriae stacked one behind the other and with wide gaps between them and could advance faster than units deployed in a single line. Whether there remained wide gaps once the maniples neared the enemy seems unclear to me. Whereas in Latin the division between centurions is made between priores and posteriores (front - and rear ones) Polybius distinguishes right - and left ones, possibly indicating the moving up of the rear units to deploy next to the front ones. 
 
Whether this manoeuvre closed the gaps is disputed. Recent scholars like Goldsworthy have reargued the case for gaps remaining in the line, but this remains one of the aspects of deployment that I find hard to accept. While enemy formations may also have deployed with gaps in their lines (eg the Germanic warriors deploying in their cunei) I still find it hard to understand what would happen if such corresponding units would have a larger frontage than their Roman counterparts and both sides would ome to close quarters battle. the risk for the generally shallow Roman mainple seems very great since the second line units drawn up to cover the gaps in the line according to reconstructions of the quincunx deployment were stationed somewhat to the back. Any unit coming forward to block enemy attempts to breach the line using the gaps would thus seem likely to make any Roman battleline into what has been called by Dellbrueck the articulated phalanx with units of the first and second battle lines alternating in a single combined closed front battle line. 
 
Jeff mentioned the space available to the legionary. Each rank deployed some six foot apart according to both Polybius and Vegetius, but these authors differ on the space between files. Polybius ascribes six foot to the file, Vegetius three foot. Roman infantry is frequently described as deployed in dense formations, so I tend to favour the figure given in Vegetius for close combat situations, whereas I envisage the more open formation used in the advance towards the enemy and missile fighting stage preceding charges and sword fighting. 
 
Training of Roman armies varied, both in the republican and imperial armies. Time and again training was enforced rigourously after periods in which standards had slipped. Overall the Romans probably had on average better trained and disciplined troops than Greek hoplite armies, though especially in the republican army levied conscripts received their training en route to the war zone and would probably have only rudimentary skills. 
 
 
In addition to the titles I already mentioned on the mechanics of battle in the other thread on Roman cavalry the following books have sections on Roman battle orders: 
 
Connolly, P., Het Romeinse leger (Harderwijk 1976) 77p. (In English titled The Roman army) 
DelbrÃƒÂ¼ck, H., History of the art of war, volume I: warfare in antiquity (Lincoln and London 1990) 604p. 
Veith, G., 'Die Taktik der Kohortenlegion' in: Klio 7 (1907), 303- 334. 
Warry, J., Oorlogvoering in de Klassieke Wereld (Helmond 1981) 224p. (In English titled Warfare in the classical world) 
Wheeler, E.L., 'The legion as a phalanx' in: Chiron 9 (1979), 303- 318. 
 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 6/8/01 3:14:20 pm

06-08-2001, 01:50 PM

One basic reason not yet mentioned is that the Greek (well, Macedonian if you want to get specific) Phlanax was composed of men carrying 10 foot or longer spears. Needless to say, men standing in a tightly packed formation with long spears have some difficulty turning in place. 
 
WWB

Goffredo · 06-09-2001, 07:59 AM

This is one occasion where specifics avoids confusion. The Hoplites in the Greek phalanx did not have extremely long spears and actually dueled with it trying to aim at the face or groin of the opponent and trying, of course to parry the opponents jabs with the shield and the spear itself. Just look at the many vases and sculptures. Nothing of the sort could be done with a macedonian pike. The Greek Hoplite wasn't as tightly bound up into a rigid mass like the Macedeonian one. But it is true however that they remained densely packed to give one another protection. The shield was even used for shoving the companion in front forward or sustaining his ability to stand against pressure from the enemy push. I have seen representations of the macedonian's without shields as the pike was handled with both hands! Don't know if it is true (did they have a small shield attached to the left arm?) but the swiss pikemen centuries later didn't use shields as the forest of pikes offered good protection against missiles. However the swiss were armored so... 
The roman way of fighting, at least until the third-forth century AD, wasn't based on shoving. Of course shoving might occur if the fighting degenerated and the romans were too tightly packed. The shape of the scutum reflects that it wasn't intended as an instrument for shoving forward a companion nor was it shaped to partially cover the friend on your left. It was vertically shaped (rather than round), made for individual protection, and the central boss used for punching the opponent. Take a look at a Hoplite shield instead! So the Greek expected and desired to be conpressed into a huge mass. When the romans were compressed it meant that something was going terribly wrong in the battle and it was a VERY serious stage (Cannae, Adrianople). 
 
p.s. I asked in Reenactment section a question about testudos. Can anyone (Sander) hint at an answer? Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/9/01 11:58:47 am

06-11-2001, 11:54 AM

Salve, 
 
Macedonian and Hellenistic phalangites used a concave rimless shield, somewhat less in diameter than the hoplite shield, which was suspended with a leather strap since the left hand was needed to grip the sarissa. This shield could be covered in metal, since there are references to phalangite bronze- and silvershields. The pikemen of Phillip's and Alexander's army used varying levels of protection. While greaves, helmets and body armour are attested in the literary sources and on (near) contemporary depictions, there are frequent references to the lightest armed or most suitably armed part of the phalanx which seems to imply that not all pikemen wore the same amount of armour. In later Hellennistic armies it was usual for the front rank men to be equipped with heavier armour than the rest and it is thought by some authorities that this was also the case in the reigns of Phillip and Alexander. 
 
Regarding the use of the testudo in battle instead of sieges there is the complicating factor that the Greek term for this Latin expression, synaspismos, could refer to a locked shield formation as well as the tortoise formation. There is more on the subject in Wheeler's article on the legion as a phalanx. Simon MacDowall maintains that the testudo would be used by troops subjected to a pelting with missile weapons. Arrian may also hint at the first three ranks of his formation forming a testudo in his description of his battle plans against the Alans. You can look up the translation on the page at my site. 
 
MacDowall, S., Late Roman Infantryman Warrior 9 (London 1994) 64p. 
Wheeler, E.L., 'The legion as a phalanx' in: Chiron 9 (1979), 303- 318. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

06-20-2001, 05:25 PM

Salve, 
 
Several references to the use of the testudo in battle can be found in the work of Ammianus Marcellinus besides descriptions of its use in sieges (20.11.8; 24.4.15; 26.8.9). 
 
Ammianus 16.12.44. sed violentia iraque inconpositi barbari in modum exarsere flammarum nexamque scutorum conpagem, quae nostros in modum testudinis tuebatur, scindebant ictibus gladiorum adsiduis. 'But the barbarians, out of their own through violence and anger, flared up in the manner of flames and slashed with constant blows of their swords at the closepacked wall of shields, which protected our men in the manner of the tortoise' (battle of Strasbourg 357 CE) 
 
Ammianus 29.5.48. Contra Romani, quamvis admodum pauci, tamen fortibus animis victoriisque antegressis elati, densatis lateribus, scutisque in testudinis formam cohaerenter aptatis restiterunt gradibus fixis, ... 'The Romans on the other hand, even though they were few, yet nevertheless in good spirits because of their strong morale and previous victories, densely packed side by side with shields locked together in the tortoise formation held together and resisted ...' ( suppression of a revolt in Africa 373 CE) 
 
Ammianus 31.7.12. Iamque verrutis et missilibus aliis utrimque semet eminus lacessentes ad conferendas coiere minaciter manus, et scutis in testudinum formam coagmentatis pes cum pede conlatus est ... 'And already after attacks with javelins and other missiles from a distance they menacingly closed for hand-to-hand combat, and with shields held together in the manner of the tortoise stood foot to foot ...' (Battle of Ad Salices) 
 
Densely packed formations are a continuously returning part of Ammianus battle descriptions and he stresses the close order of Roman heavy infantry on numerous occasions 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

06-30-2001, 08:33 PM

In my opinion,the legion was more maneuverable than the phalanx due to the weight of the arms carried.One could surely move & wheel quicker with a sword than a 24-12 inch spear.And with perfect drilling,it would be much easier.Though i've read that Alexanders' phalanxes were very skilled in maneuvering & wheeling to positions desired.

05-11-2003, 11:42 AM

I have seen this old threat and I would like to point out something that is frequently wrongly understood, that is the manouver capabilities of historical formations. 
 
First point I think it is frequently misunderstood, is that deep densely packed formations are regarded as clumsy and cumbersome to manouver. In fact, the opposite is true, the more complicated manouvers involve whheling to change facing. Here the main factor is frontage, the longer the front, the more complicated to wheel. A macedonian syntagma 64 men frontage caneasily move pivoting on one of their flanks, a 30x30 square can change face just on the spot, an XVIII century bn 900 strong, with 300x3, required each company to wheel independently and then march to place itself in the new line. Besides, linear deployments meant to extend the armyÃ‚Â´s battleine for several Kms, making command & control more difficult. 
In its phalanx vs legion comparison, Polybios say that the main advantage of the legion is that the roman infantry could fight efectively in rought terrain, while the phalanx required levelled plains, so it is not that the legion was more manouverable in battle, but that it was easier to handle in rough terrain because of the legionaires equipment and because they could fight either in close or in open formations.

03-22-2004, 09:07 PM

I have seen several suggestions that the Macidonian phalanx in the time of Phillip and Alexander had just about the same spacing between each other laterally and vertically that the legionares had. 3 feet center to center. When they raised their sarissae the whole formation could pivot turn. But by 3rd century BC a lot of generals failed to make use of this or even to train their men for more than a straight forward slam to be won by sheer numbers, or longer pikes. 
 
But a syntagma was still too wide to fit through the space left between two manipules which was just 10 or 12 files wide. The Syntagma was 16 files and very lothe to advance ahead of files that couldn't move. 
 
Anyone trying to penetrate the Roman line and try to envelop the maniples, or just the prior centuries, of the hastius ordo would face a immediate counterattack, either from the posterior century on the attackers right into their unshielded side, or from straight ahead from the princips maniples. This was besides clearing out the velites, who would be trying to withdraw out of the way through those same gaps, and would constantly be pelting the attacker with javelins. The Romans were very agressive in their manner of fighting (I just finished Goldworthy's Punic Wars and he stresses this often about the Romans particularly their habit of giving battle when it was not favorable) and this kind of defense through counterattack seems to be in line with their innate agressiveness. 
 
In the specific case of facing the phalangists. It wound up, with the grand exception of Cynosephalae, that the Romans didn't get to get whole formations into phalanx and settle for holding in and trying to break it up by insinuating individual legionares inside the pikes to hew away at the pikemen. Which of course simply resulted in the leading phalangists dropping their sarissa and closing with swords and produced the bloodbaths between the Legions and Phyrus's Epriots.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Manipular formation	Mitra	47	11,377	08-04-2007, 02:40 PM Last Post: Matthew