A number of good points, but I will firstly and wholeheartedly acknowledge the fact that there is indeed a language barrier and it is one I have fully experienced over the 'internets' over the years. The written forum thread is really hard when it comes to two very different styles of English that 'we', otherwise not overly dissimilar' cultures use.
Overall I completely agree with what you wrote, with the mild exception at the end. Yes, we today equate 'drill' with the extreme close order drill exemplified by things like 'Trooping the Colour' and all those guard changes at Buckingham Palace, but this in fact is (afaik) a relatively modern invention based upon the Prussian model of Frederick the Great and his chocolate-box soldiery - which then went on to influence all the marching about and parades/presentations (along with all those splendid uniforms) of the pre- and post-Napoleonic period.
Some of it indeed was necessary and exemplified by the British army of the period (almost the only professional and non-conscript one), with all the needs of strict musket drills, fire by platoon, etc. What both you and I are thinking, I believe, for the ancient age, however are the needs for relatively basic, but coherent formation drills.
[Quick aside - yes I do tend to concentrate on the Graeco-Hoplite or Macedonian-pike phalanxes, not only because our most detailed source (dear old Polybius) writes of them, but because it is those that are the main enemies that must have influenced the development of the manipular-legion structure that then seems to have lasted thereafter. That is the only reason for that concentration.]
So, overall I agree entirely, it doesn't really take that much training to accomplish moving about in relatively coherent formations - and this I believe sets the standard for all the 'civilised' City State armies of the period and exemplified by the close-order Hoplite/Spear phalanx - as I originally suggested.
Yes, as you note, the Macedonian (sic) pike-phalanx requires more training - however, I would suggest that the Romans did indeed do something similar, but also relied on experience. For whilst the individuals trained and equipped themselves and yes they were called up from their fields each campaign season, many of them would have experience from previous years.
There are also, indeed I believe, several incidences where it is noted that freshly recruited legions did lack training. However, because the Roman methods of fighting didn't require the months of training to move in a pike-phalanx and cope with those very long spears, I do not believe that means that they didn't spend at least some time (cf Scipio's 5-days) learning from those in their contubernia and at the century/maniple level. However closely we might determine they actually fought, there is a significant requirement to learn how to form up in files, in ranks, to close up and open up, to throw pila under control, etc.
I do, however, have to agree that we don't have any source that particularly describes such training - and hence why we're even discussing it. However, in order to be able to fight in the manipular-style, form up legions, go from A to B, and set up camps in the style we see it is almost incredible to accept that it didn't occur. In addition I will note that 'Generals' per se don't need to be involved in such training; they, however, do need to know that if they send a legion or then cohort(s) to do something, then it will be done. So it's the centurions and the soldiers who do drills so that the Generals can do tactics.
Personally, you will not be surprised, however I would argue that it would be easier to control a block of men standing side-by-side than with large gaps (3ft or even one pace) and move a 10x6 block around as a whole, within a century-maniple-legion structure and eventually introducing a cohort level.
So, and back to the main thrust of the thread, I wish to argue from not only my original determination, but also ask from a new viewpoint. In addition I ask for a look back at the basics of phalanx-warfare posted and ask if they are fundamentally arwy?
- Firstly, and Polybius aside with both his description and reasons ignored for the moment, do you (and anyone else) believe that it is genuinely credible that a Roman legionary formation could stand (even fight) against an advancing close-order phalanx (either type), whilst within that formation there is a 'gap' between every soldier that negates individual support; or that perhaps it is more credible that if the formation is standing side-by-side with no gaps between shields and with the ranks behind pressed up close behind to directly buffer the soldier in front and enable him to resist the advancing pressure; and that.....
- Secondly, when aspis/hoplon, clipeus or parma (3ft a la Polybius when describing the differences) shields are all well known and available, that the Romans would choose a shield that is narrower and therefore less protective from the sides if they were going to fight in a more open-order; when that taller and narrower shield (as exemplified in the testudo formation that I now see as a simple development of a side-by-side formation anyway) is perfectly designed to create a barrier to spears or pikes and from behind which it is possible to thrust and cut the enemy when he is close enough?
Firstly, and Polybius aside with both his description and reasons ignored for the moment, do you (and anyone else) believe that it is genuinely credible that a Roman legionary formation could stand (even fight) against an advancing close-order phalanx (either type), whilst within that formation there is a 'gap' between every soldier that negates individual support; or that perhaps it is more credible that if the formation is standing side-by-side with no gaps between shields and with the ranks behind pressed up close behind to directly buffer the soldier in front and enable him to resist the advancing pressure; and that.....
To answer, first I must mention that the idea of spear/aspis phalanxes advancing in unison in a locked shield formation, as compared to fighting in a more looser formation, is also debateble, at least according to the many articles I've read in the Ancient Warfare magazines (I went ahead a while ago and bought them all). Many scholars don't even agree on how the Greek polis style phalanx fought, so debating how the Romans fought by comparison to the phalanx might not be the best method. That said, I think I bought into the whole manipular tactics were learned from the Samnites, which means a formation designed to be used in rough terrain, as comparison to the hoplite phalanx which seems to have been designed by people living in mountainous terrain but to be used on whatever level ground that could be found (hence open plains being used time and again for battles). I think (though I may be wrong) that the Roman manipular tactics were not evolved from the hoplite phalanx, as was used by Greek related polis as well as cultures in Italy, such as the Etruscans and others . Instead they are more organized evolved fashion of skirmishing formations.
So to answer your question, it depends. I think that the Roman system was based on the concept of the citizen soldier warrior/farmer , a mix of bravery and virtus clashing with stern discipline to keep the men in line. I think that arming the common men with an independently wielded shield and a sword, instead of an aspis and a spear, means that maybe the Roman concept of battle evolved from a more independent nature that the Greek method, involving more independence when it came to fighting, hence why spend the money on swords. Simon James makes a very good argument about the Roman's use of swords in his book.
Additionally, let's remember that the many Greek polis, such as the Spartans, even with their great drill and discipline, while relying only on heavy infantry, lost battles and armies against skirmishers/peltasts, so maybe the Romans, who by their weaponry and armor where basically heavily armed/armored skirmishers in a more organized unit, makes sense.
So, by my reasoning, if a force of infantry, evenly spaced out and armed as the Romans were, with tall, shoulder-width body shields, javelins and swords, were to have to fight it out with an enemy force of the same size, made up solely of aspis/dory or even a Hellenistic pike infantry, I think that it could easily come out even or favoring the more skirmishing infantry, depending of course on the usual factors come into play, such as terrain (you fight on terrain favorable to you, not to the enemy), morale, weather, auspices, etc. Then the actual tactics of the units come into play.
The phalanx has two options: As a group, it can go forward, or as a group, it can go backwards. Anything else, the integrity of the phalanx, which is the main power of the unit, becomes null. Meanwhile, the Roman unit can basically do whatever it wants. It can fight side to side, shield to shield, if it so wants (though like Caesar I think the having some room to swing a sword and shield around makes sense) or it can fight in a more independent nature, such as Pompeius Magnus' Spanish legions:
"The manner of fighting of those soldiers (the Spanish Legions) was to run forward with great impetuosity and boldly take a post, and not to keep their ranks strictly, but to fight in small scattered parties: if hard pressed they thought it no disgrace to retire and give up the post, being accustomed to this manner of fighting among the Lusitanians and other barbarous nations; for it commonly happens that soldiers are strongly influenced by the customs of those countries in which they have spent much time." Caesar, DBC, I.44
- Secondly, when aspis/hoplon, clipeus or parma (3ft a la Polybius when describing the differences) shields are all well known and available, that the Romans would choose a shield that is narrower and therefore less protective from the sides if they were going to fight in a more open-order; when that taller and narrower shield (as exemplified in the testudo formation that I now see as a simple development of a side-by-side formation anyway) is perfectly designed to create a barrier to spears or pikes and from behind which it is possible to thrust and cut the enemy when he is close enough?
How wide does a shield have to be to protect you? As the Roman scutum was curved, it allowed the individual holding it to be covered easier as an individual, so I think slightly wider than shoulder width is about as wide as is needed. When it comes to the aspis/hoplon/clipeus, half of the shield isn't even protecting the individual, its protecting the guy to your left, and ONLY if you are standing right next to the person, which is hard to impossible to achieve on rough terrain and still expect to move. So a 36" wide aspis shield would have 18" of wood and bronze protecting the individual carrying it, where as a Roman shield has 24-30". Which would you prefer if you weren't fighting shoulder to shoulder with over lapped shields? If I were fighting in a mountainous area, maybe in the Apennines, against an enemy fighting in a looser formation, armed with missiles such as throwing spears and javelins (Samnites), would you bother trying to create a formation to interlock your aspis or would you rather have a shield that you can fight as an individual? I know what my answer would be. And I think the Romans realized the answer too, and that's where the manipular tactics came from.
As for weaponry and armor, I think cultural preference has its place in the debate. Why did the Gauls use long La Tene III swords, designed mainly for slashing, instead of the "deadlier" Gladius Hispaniensis? Why did the Greeks use the Aspis at all? Why not the pelta of the Thracians or the thureo of the Galatians? Or did they ditch their Aspis shields for those anyway? For that matter, why did the British design and implement the SA80/L85 if they could just use either M16s or Aks as service rifles? Preference, bias, mine is better than yours, etc., whatever you want to call it, all play a part.
Quote: - Secondly, when aspis/hoplon, clipeus or parma (3ft a la Polybius when describing the differences) shields are all well known and available ...
What is your source for the size of the Macedonian shield? As far as I know, Polybius says nothing about the size of the Macedonian shield, although one of the tacticians says eight palms. Surviving examples may fall into the 60-75 cm diameter range but I can't find a source. In addition, in a Macedonian phalanx the sheilds are normally held at an angle to the front of the phalanx because of the need to hold the pike with both hands; the pictures of a 15 man phalanx in Connolly's JRMES 11 article are good for this. Therefore the width of the shield is not the main limit to how densely the files can be packed, rather three feet are needed "for the man standing with his kit ready for fighting in close order" (Polybius 18.29.2 ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ ἵσταται σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἐν τρισὶ ποσὶ κατὰ τὰς ἐναγωνίους πυκνώσεις) and in especially close formation one cubit is needed (the tacticians).
Edit: People who used round strapped shields like the Argive aspis and oblong centregrip shields like the Polybian scutum suggest that each has advantages and disadvantages in single or group combat. For example, the Argive shield can't defend the lead shin, and the scutum is not very good at defending the right arm as one strikes. The diversity of shield styles across the Old World from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Modern Period suggests that a variety of designs can be effective for infantry who fight hand to hand in organized groups.
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Some good points and it seems you are firmly on the side of the 'loose formation' idea of fighting, which is indeed a fixed element of our shared medieval history and the warrior knight, let alone influenced by a lot of recent pictography; and I therefore suspect that I might struggle to persuade you otherwise.
For me, however, there are more than enough uses of the word 'phalanx' in a Roman context (and here I am deliberately using the word in its usually accepted shield-to-shield, or at least people standing as close to each other as practicable, meaning), for me to believe that this is indeed a normal formation.
As we have discussed here before, although I know not everyone is happy with modern references, let alone that I will be the first to note that I am certainly influenced by my own experiences of riot training; I feel I do have an understanding of the simple benefits of literally standing next to and in contact with your fellow soldiers as opposed to standing some distance apart.
There may also be some discussion about how closely people may have fought in even the pre-Macedonian, let alone the Roman, phalanx. But overall I will simply challenge an almost simplistic physical appreciation; for when it comes down to it, the closest you can stand defines the maximum number of people you can get in a given space and depth has less and less effect and I will then challenge anyone to really positively argue that a line of men (~3ft apart and with any shield of their choice!) can stand against any style of 'phalanx' advancing towards them, even at slow speeds; whether they are armed with spears, pikes or even the style of Roman phalanx I suggest; and, after that, even a charge of large and screaming Celts. I simply do not find such an argument credible.
It is indeed during this sort of discussion that I have come to a personal understanding that the 'normal' (for me) idea of the Romans standing shield-to-shield in a phalanx and the, well attested and no one seems to argue about the spacing, testudo are simply the same formation, but with the shields oriented differently.
I must admit, however, that I would probably disagree with your contention that Italy is covered in more mountainous battlefields; given that, throughout history indeed, combined arms armies (such as the Greeks and Romans normally espouse) Generals agonized prolifically about selecting the right places to fight and which often came down a suitable flattened area. Yes, there are many exceptions, especially when defenders can choose to fight on familiar terrain and their armies are of particular types; whether it's mountainous Illyria or Dacia, deep Germainc forests, or the wide deserts of the East.
I would also like to note that I will pick on one phrase of yours (and many others I am sure) that does support your overall contention - that the soldiers need room to "swing their swords" - and it is with that where I will fundamentally disagree, for I cannot see the Romans fighting like that at all. For my understanding, behind my phalanx of shields indeed, is that the Romans stabbed and cut. Any soldier caught 'swinging and slashing' would be severely reprimanded. My belief is that the Romans fought from behind their shields and thus took a separate evolutionary path for the spear phalanx than the Macedonians did. The latter extended the spear into a pike and developed a difficult to stop juggernaut; whereas the Romans did away with the spear and created a wall, from which to strike at any: neck; arm; thigh; hand; or exposed bit of flesh. This is one of the major reasons that the Romans often suffered very few casualties overall in many battles.
In relation to that below, as well, I certainly don't equate a curvature formed by a palm's depth over 2.5ft as significantly "curved" as you suggest an individual is protected.
Lastly, cultural preference yes - but your later examples (and an interesting discussion over M16-SA80 could ensue) is much more to do with politics these days........
Sean,
I think I've understood your query, but I haven't claimed any size for the 'Macedonian shield' (which, as far as I am aware, is normally accepted as a dished round, but anywhere between 1ft and 2.5ft in diameter and yes 8 palms is mentioned which then depends on how large the palm is (3 to 4in)). The only shield width I mention in your quote is the 3ft round parma - which is what the Roman velites are equipped with.
It is knowing that, that the Roman troops that were most definitely armed with a shield for their role of skirmishing in a more open order, indeed had a wider shield, that leads me towards the conclusion that the scutum of the heavy infantry is taller and narrower for a particular reason: that reason being that 4ft high is just about the perfect height to leave only a few inches at the bottom to stop in getting caught as you move and only just enough at the top for the eyes to see over before the helmet protects; and is then the perfect width to meet with your neighbours; where each soldier has the prime requirement of keeping it in line with the guy to the right and stabbing out with his gladius whenever a gap is created and maintaining the wall with all discipline. I'll even note that in standing against a pike-phalanx you don't even need the sword, but is the reason it is placed on the right, for the left of the body is firm up against the shield and you would only draw it when next to the enemy and in striking range.
I have been following this discussion with interest and I have a few observations to make :
1. the Romans are attested to have been fighting in close order, whether in testudo or simply in synaspismos (usually translated as close order/very close order). The references in the Greek (language) sources are many more in number as we advance in time, but should one only judge by the number of references, then close order would be the norm, since open order is very very rarely mentioned, possibly falling under the category of "usual", but that can not easily be supported with absolute certainty. Anyways, what is certain is that the dudes could fight both in close and in open order, both in line (phalanx) or in a looser order, at least in the times discussed here (I guess something like 3rd c BC -1st or 2nd c AD?)
2. The fact that a loose ordered line will be trampled by the Macedonian phalanx is not a good argument against Roman open order because of the simple fact that the Macedonian phalanx (formed by adequately (not very) trained Greeks) anyways ALWAYS pushed the Romans back with many Roman losses. So, the pike phalanx, face to face, always and quite easily defeated the Roman line. All battles in which it eventually lost, it did so because of other factors, as important in a complex battle, but independent of the phalanx match.
3. What is described in the sources, at least against close ordered phalanxes, is some method (a peculiarity) in which the Romans were able to retreat without breaking. That could be an argument in favor of open order.
4. A phalanx can be arrayed in any order. An open ordered phalanx is still a phalanx and so the term cannot be used as argument in favor of close order being the norm.
5. Different circumstances would demand different tactics. If the Romans thought that it would be risky to stand against a Macedonian phalanx (as they seem to have been), they could use open order to minimize losses as their phalanx would be able to withdraw until some other plan had worked. On the other hand, against charging Gauls, Romans who had just been armed with spears would probably form in close order, as open order would bring them at a grave disadvantage.
In all, I also believe that the Romans of the said times usually fought in close order when fighting in line but that against a Macedonian type phalanx they could array more open in order to buy time.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Thank you. Quite understood when it comes to the 'phalanx doesn't always mean close-order' point and I will happily admit to using the term to generally mean just that. There are a number of ways that the Romans (indeed anyone) can form up in a more 'open-order'; but I do not believe this is done by opening the frontage.
What I am most curious about, however, is the point you make in '2'; for I was under the impression (individual or total battle studies not being a direct research effort for what I've been looking at) that the Romans almost "ALWAYS" losing to Macedonian/Pike phalanxes wasn't in fact the case at all; but that, after the introduction of the manipular-legion (that Polybius describes) it was more the other way around? In addition it was the experience against Pyrrhus where he then intermixed his own pike-phalanxes with troops armed more on the Roman model that the high casualty Pyrrhic victories occurred.
Most curious, because it would have been my contention that a Roman maniple formed 20x6, shield-to-shield and with the rear 5 ranks leaning up against their comrades in front could indeed have held a pike-syntagma of 16x16; the rear 11 ranks of which don't contribute much of anything as they're busy holding their pikes out of the way; and on level ground.
Haven't tried it, would love to, but I would suggest it's possible - and indeed is fundamental to how I have come to believe the maniples operate (and indeed create the so-called saw formation).
Lastly a quick query on your comment about facing charging Gauls - what spears? It's one of those reasons why I don't think open-order (~3ft apart) is appropriate under almost any circumstance of actually receiving the enemy.
No, the Roman phalanx, not army, was bested in all battles against an adequately trained Macedonian phalanx. They eventually gained the victory but in this instance it is the phalanx vs phalanx struggle that we are interested in. Pyrrhus had to use the Tarentines and the rest of the Italiot allies for his army was just not strong enough otherwise. However, he defeated the Romans in all pitched battles, even with casualties that for a Greek army were considered heavy (the casualty rates were not, according to most sources, comparable. The Romans sustained much more injury than him, it is his inability to cover these casualties with trained soldiers of equal ability that was the problem). Unfortunately for Pyrrhus, the phalanx was but a small fraction of his phalanx and it was generally his allies who caused most problems. However, let's see what happened later.
At Cynoscephalae, Philip V's right wing, defeated the Romans arrayed against him. It was the attack on the Macedonian left, still unformed that decided the battle and allowed the Romans to finally surround the phalanx. What is of interest here is the performance of the formed phalanx against the legionary line, which was an undoubted victory of the Macedonian phalanx. Yes, the battle was lost but not because the Roman legionary phalanx fared better against the Macedonian pikes.
At Pydna, the same thing happened. The Macedonian phalanx pushed the Roman legionary line back and almost won the day until they were again surrounded with the Macedonian cavalry fleeing without taking part in the battle. Again, the phalanx fight itself saw the Macedonians best their opponents, the battle though was lost and the Romans emerged victorious.
At Magnesia we have the Romans unable (or unwilling) to directly attack the well trained phalanx of Antiochos, even though it was retreating. Again, they were defeated by other means and the battle was won by the Romans.
Do NOT get me wrong, though. The Romans WON these battles. However, it is the front to front phalanx battle that we are interested in here, not the overall performance of the armies. And Polybius actually says the same thing. He asserts that the Roman legionary line cannot face the Macedonian phalanx front to front (18.29.1.), but that the Romans are generally better equipped to win wars.
6 Romans standing in a hoplite like phalanx with their bodies supporting the man in front cannot hold back the Macedonian phalanx. The sarissae are attested to have been highly penetrating. Polybius says that the Romans tried to parry it with their iron shield bosses (6.23.5), while Plutarch writes that at Pydna, neither the Roman thyreos shield nor their corslets could withstand them (Aemilius Paulus, 20.4.). And having to be careful not to be hit by 5 or 10 pikes (2 or 4 should the pikes not have been made with various lengths) at the same time cannot have been easy... Should the Romans make every effort to keep their shield wall, they would not retreat en mass but they would be unable to do any harm to the enemy and instead they would keep losing men, as in a line some thousand men wide and in the course of time, losses would have been inevitable. What would be the point here? On the other hand, should the Romans try to hack through the forest of pikes, they would have opened themselves to attack and casualties would have soared as it would be impossible to defend with a single shield against attacks of multiple pikes from all directions. In this I am with Polybius... I cannot see an average legionary phalanx defeat an average Macedonian phalanx front to front, exactly as I cannot see an average hoplite phalanx defeat an average Macedonian phalanx face to face with arms much better suited to that purpose.
As regards your last question, I was referring to the battle of Anio, in which the Romans under Camillus defeated the Gauls (Polyaenus, 8.7.2., Plurarch, Camillus, 40.4.). Although earlier than the time in question, at the time, the Romans are supposed to have already been fighting with thyreoi and swords in looser formations.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
I don't think that the Romans only fought one way. That's the point of what i wrote before. I don't think that any two Roman armies, especially those separated by centuries, fought the same way. Reread the source I provided earlier, Caesar's Gallic army and Pompey's Spanish legions didn't even fight the same way, and they existed during the same time frame. And Greek hoplite phalanxes most certainly did not fight the same way. Though I am no scholar on Hellenistic warfare, I am guessing that a Spartan army fought differently than say an Argive version of the hoplite phalanx, or a Athenian version, or a pre-Philip II reformed Macedonian version.
That said, the Roman "heavy" infantry or line infantry were armed as follows: missiles (pila) for distance work, swords (xiphos, machaera/kopis/falcata, gladius hispanensis) for up close work, and a tall, wide, concave, oval shield (scuta), used for both defense against missiles and melee weapons, as well as offensive use (metal rimmed bottom edge and umbo). To utilize these weapons and equipment properly, space is necessary. From the sources that i know of that describe it, the Republican era maniples had front to back spacing between ranks of 6 feet (3 ft per person, front and back, Polybius and Vegetius). The jury is still out on why they needed this much distance between ranks but maybe it had to do with distance to throw the javelin why still engaged in close quarters fighting. Either way, already we see major differences between the Roman formation and the Hellenic aspis/dory phalanx of the VII to IV century, which from what I know, did not have a gap between ranks, as the ranks were closed up on each other, to allow for the famously described Othismos, which seems to be pretty hotly debated as well. Or not, since no two historians seem to agree how the Greeks fought.
So now, we're come to the distance between each men in a single rank, or a file, if the republican-era Romans were so inclined to actually organize the men into them(see first illustration/graphic below, from Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts, which shows that not everyone even agrees strict rank and files were maintained, they could have just been clustered together around the standards).
Now, to maximize the utility of a cut and thrust sword with a 25" to 27" blade (gladius hispanesis), along with a 4' x 2.5' shield, that was offensively as well as defensively, I believe some distance between men is necessary. At this point, please review the second attachment/graphic: (pardon the sloppy art :unsure: )
[attachment=8626]extendedfilesvsclosed2.jpg[/attachment]
The first three men on the viewer's left, they are at the bare minimal spacing for them to operate without shields actually touching and/or overlapping. (Should the scuta touch and/or overlap, it would make individual movement of the shield impossible; it's hard to raise your shield to ward off a blow or to strike with the boss if the man's shield next to you is wedged against it, preventing it from being moved)
However, even with the close spacing, comes problems. Should one man take a step diagonally, instead of perfect forward or backwards , it throws the spacing off anyway, as one man to the side now has his shield trapped and the other man on the other side will have a wide open gap. The formation, too me at least, is defensive in nature, as it relies too much on defense (protecting oneself) and not enough on offense (attacking forward, side, etc.) Its hard to prove your virtus to Dad, uncle, brother and Consul, while cowering behind your shield.
Now, on the farther right of the formation, we have three men in the wide open formation expounded by Polybius (and to a lesser extent, myself). Instead of the cupids/3 feet measurement, substitute the width of one man's shield, as Mark proposed earlier, since that's easier for men to adjust to. As seen from the front, the gaps seem impossibly wide, recklessly even. However, behind this rank is another, which can cover down on the gap by charging forward or by throwing a pilum right into your face through the gap. Also, considering how Polybius describes the individual Roman in the attack, it might be sound.
"...but as in their mode of fighting each man must move separately, as he has to cover his person with his long shield, turning to meet each expected blow, and as he uses his sword both for cutting and thrusting it is obvious that a looser order is required...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, 31-32)
I know I am cherry picking words, but at least from Polybius' perspective, it seems like the Roman method was not rigid as many believe the Greek style hoplite phalanx was or the Hellenic pike phalanx. The views mentions by Caesar and others also seems to support this, at least when referencing the republican era. Did the Romans always fight like this? I doubt it. Small unit tactics are driven by the mission, enemy, troops available, terrain, time, etc. Against a force of crazed, naked Gallic warriors, wielding La Tene III slashing swords, maybe a tighter formation might be called for, relying more on discipline and organization to withstand the Gallic charge, taking wild sword swings on shield tops and stabbing low. Against other forces, a different formation might be necessary. Did Caesar's legions fight the same way against the Gauls than they did against fellow Romans? Maybe. Maybe not.
However, how does a Roman fight against this?
[img width=300]http://genk2.vcmedia.vn/N0WoyYblO3QdmZFKPMtKnadHAHTevz/Image/kybinh2/falangemacednicapierrep-93bac.jpg[/img]
So what would happen if "a Roman maniple formed 20x6, shield-to-shield and with the rear 5 ranks leaning up against their comrades in front" confronted the above? My guess is that the front rankers would literally be pushed by the men behind them right into the spear tips of the sarissa, which would either be stopped by the 1/2" plywood shields or would pierce through them and into the men themselves. So at best, the tactic you expound would cause either a stalemate (neither side can move) or your entire front rank would become casualties nearly instantly.
A better method (as I see it) would be for the men of the maniples to fight as individuals, using shield to defend themselves as much as possible, while continuously attempting to press forward, while trying to fight/force their way into the small gaps between clusters of spear points, or to fall back in good order, while chucking pila, waiting for the time that you can to take advantage of larger gaps created from casualties, disorder, rough terrain.
[attachment=8627]Hastatiinbattle.jpg[/attachment]
As for the cut/thrust, slash/swing, I used the term swing to mean "To hit at something with a sweeping motion of the arm." A flicking cut against a wrist or hand might be called for sometimes, but then again, a fully exposed arm might call for a slash. Further debate on the subject can be done in this thread: Roman Army Talk Cut and Thrust Thread
Macedon wrote:
So, the pike phalanx, face to face, always and quite easily defeated the Roman line.
Generalized statements like that do no one a service. I could write multiple paragraphs and get into that again (didn't we already do this once before?) but instead I'll quote a paragraph from the conclusion of a pretty damn good book I recently read:
"Having exploded onto the world scene in such an extraordinary fashion, the Macedonian phalanx was rapidly adopted and widely employed throughout the ancient Mediterranean. As a modified version of the earlier hoplite phalanx, however, the system was fatally flawed at its core. The rigidity necessary to form a a durable phalanx limited mobility, which in turn inhibited tactical flexibility. This, combined, with the dangerously exposed flanks and rear of the formations, meant that the phalanx had to be directed with the utmost care so that its weak points could be given constant protection and attention. Skilled commanders compensated for these defects while poor ones perished because of them."
Great Battles of the Hellenistic World, J. Pietrykowski
I have attached a copy of a forthcoming article that may be relevant to this discussion. Given that attachments are only visible to RAT members, I do not think my publisher will take offense if I pre-circulate it here, especially given the keen interest in the topic. I do respectfully request that no one re-post it outside of this forum.
Generalized statements like that do no one a service. I could write multiple paragraphs and get into that again (didn't we already do this once before?) but instead I'll quote a paragraph from the conclusion of a pretty damn good book I recently read:
"Having exploded onto the world scene in such an extraordinary fashion, the Macedonian phalanx was rapidly adopted and widely employed throughout the ancient Mediterranean. As a modified version of the earlier hoplite phalanx, however, the system was fatally flawed at its core. The rigidity necessary to form a a durable phalanx limited mobility, which in turn inhibited tactical flexibility. This, combined, with the dangerously exposed flanks and rear of the formations, meant that the phalanx had to be directed with the utmost care so that its weak points could be given constant protection and attention. Skilled commanders compensated for these defects while poor ones perished because of them."
Great Battles of the Hellenistic World, J. Pietrykowski
Yes, we have... I still believe that all evidence clearly points to the fact that the Roman legionary line always (when facing an adequately trained Macedonian phalanx manned by Greeks, these are the factors I repeatedly set, although not in this particular sentence) lost (was pushed back with many casualties). This has nothing to do with the Roman style of war, though. For many other reasons they won the battles and eventually the war against the Greeks. Different armies fought differently and had different strengths and weaknesses. Fighting against a Macedonian phalanx front to front was not a strength of the legionary phalanx. Campaigning against a Macedonian styled army was.
I also very much disagree with Pietrykowski but that is a different discussion.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
At Cynoscephalae, Philip V's right wing, defeated the Romans arrayed against him. It was the attack on the Macedonian left, still unformed that decided the battle and allowed the Romans to finally surround the phalanx...Yes, the battle was lost but not because the Roman legionary phalanx fared better against the Macedonian pikes."
With his right wing, then, Philip had the advantage, since from higher ground he threw his entire phalanx upon the Romans, who could not withstand the weight of its interlocking shields and the sharpness of its projecting pikes; 3 but his left wing was broken up and scattered along the hills, and Titus, despairing of his defeated wing, rode swiftly along to the other, and with it fell upon the Macedonians. These were unable to hold their phalanx together and maintain the depth of its formation (which was the main source of their strength), being prevented by the roughness and irregularity of the ground, while for fighting man to man they had armour which was too cumbersome and heavy. 4 For the phalanx is like an animal of invincible strength as long as it is one body and can keep its shields locked together in a single formation; but when it has been broken up into its parts, each of its fighting men loses also his individual force, as well because of the manner in which he is armed as because his strength lies in the mutual support of the parts of the whole body rather than in himself.
Plutarch, Life of Flamininus, 8
once again, the fabled Macedonian phalanx is foiled by its greatest adversary. Terrain :-D
Fantastic scholarly article! Please weigh in on this topic.
Also, your article in Ancient Warfare (Vol VI, issue 4), "The Rise of a Superpower: The Roman Army in the Age of Pyrrhus" was excellent. I read it a dozen times at least and learned so much from it. Keep up the great work!
...Do you think that the terrain on the ridge was different to the terrain of the slope? The thing is that, as I clearly stated, the left wing of the Macedonian phalanx of Philip was still forming from marching columns. And of course, funny smilies aside, I would also recommend you use better translations since the one you used is very misleading
Philip was running around the right and marched from above the slope the whole phalanx against the Romans, the weight of the synaspismos and the violence/sharpness of the projected spears unable to be withstood even by the best. When he realized that the left (of the Macedonians) was broken among the hills, trying to form (change facing), Titus, who was despaired of the defeat (of his left), quickly marched to the other wing and engaged the Macedonians as they were forming into a phalanx, making their files denser and deeper, which is the strength of their force, the men being hindered by the unevenness and roughness of the ground to fight singly because of their heavy and inappropriate equipment .
***** (edit: or) "When he realized that the left (of the Macedonians) was broken among the hills, trying to form (change facing), Titus, who was despaired of the defeat (of his left), quickly marched to the other wing and engaged the Macedonians, who were unable to form into a phalanx and make their lines denser and deeper, which is the strength of their force, being hindered by the unevenness and roughness of the ground, while their armament was heavy and inappropriate for single combat"
This is what both sources translate linking the "hindered" to the first rather than to the second sentence. Yep, correct too, but still the "maintain" part is wrong, which is what really matters, for it is this verb that gives the impression of the phalanx having already been formed. This is a clear mistake. *****
Now, this is what the text really says. It had nothing to do with the terrain itself. It had to do with the fact that the left Macedonian wing was not yet in position. Of course I do not expect you to accept my translation over the one you have, you might want to look up others or ask someone who is versed in ancient Greek. It is only natural that one forms opinions on what material one had access to. I only advise that one should be careful when bringing them forward and not be overly confident in how one interprets them when one depends on other people's translations/interpretations.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Translations are fickle things. As I do not read ancient Greek, I am must rely on other's to do the translating for me. As I do not have access to a scholarly library, I primarily rely on online sources. So options are limited. But, where can I find other examples of translations of the same source that match your version? Can you provide other comparative examples that support the translation you provided?
