Thank you for your knowledgeable posts. The formation order you describe as the most efficient, with 6 inch gaps between shields, seems to be similar to the spacing of Vegetius' 30 inches per man. However, I have a few questions. You mention that the rioters would be able to get through the gaps of a wide open formation, like the Polybian version. if the riot police were attacking/charging instead of remaining stationary or advancing slowly and cautionary, would this change matters? What is normal protocal for breaking a crowd of rioters? Wait them out or a concerted and violent attack in the beginning?
(from your posts I assume you actually are a police officer training/deploying in these formations, pardon me if am wrong)
From what I know, a more wide open formation would be completely futile if the unit performing it was in a defensive role. But in an offensive mode, I think it has merit. Especially after passages like the following, describing the charge of Caesar's infantry at Pharsalus against Pompeius' stationary forces:
"There was so much space left between the two lines, as sufficed for the onset of the hostile armies: but Pompey had ordered his soldiers to await Caesar's attack, and not to advance from their position, or suffer their line to be put into disorder. And he is said to have done this by the advice of Caius Triarius, that the impetuosity [violence,spirit, or passion] of the charge of Caesar's soldiers might be checked, and their line broken, and that Pompey's troops remaining in their ranks,might attack them while in disorder; and he thought that the javelins would fall with less force if the soldiers were kept in their ground, than if they met them in their course; at the same time he trusted that Caesar's soldiers, after running over double the usual ground, would become weary and exhausted by the fatigue. But to me Pompey seems to have acted without sufficient reason: for there is a certain impetuosity of spirit and an alacrity implanted by nature in the hearts of all men, which is inflamed by a desire to meet the foe. This a general should endeavor not to repress, but to increase; nor was it a vain institution of our ancestors, that the trumpets should sound on all sides, and a general shout be raised; by which they imagined that the enemy were struck with terror, and their own army inspired with courage." (Caes, DBC, 3.92)
Now based off this passage, of the three formations described earlier, the Polybius 6 foot, the Vegetius 3 foot, and the Hygate 2.5 foot, which seems more likely?
(EDIT: Latins readers, please chime in if this translation isn't accurate)
From this passage, among many other examples available, I think it seems pretty clear, at least in reference to this late Republican time period, that a key element of an attack would be an aggressive charge. I just don't see how a force of infantry armed as the Romans were can charge (run) forward in a close order arrayed formation that allows close to zero room to maneuver, ie. maintaining shield to shield touching intervals, with zero gaps as in a "hinged phalanx." It might work if the force remains stationary or advances at a slow walk or drag step, over an short distance in good terrain, but the Roman advance described by Caesar reads a lot less like a slow and methodical Spartan or Macedonian advance, as compared to a wild Gallic charge. Wild and disordered enough that, halfway through the charge, it became necessary for Caesar's cohorts, filled with veterans of countless battles (so inexperience can't be the reasoning), to stop and reform/reorganize, before again advancing/charging.
Also, how well "drilled" were Caesar's men, since it meant after advancing a short distance, while not in contact with the enemy, they became as disordered as they did? Were they poorly drilled because that short distance destroyed their cohesion, forcing them to have to stop and reorganize? Or were they well drilled because they took initiative to stop and reform on their own before continuing their advance, without needing orders from legates or Caesar himself?
Either way, Frederick the Great would have mortified...
Quote:................
Sorry if I am off base here, I am just trying to understand. Doesn't the open formation of Group B and to a lesser extent the semi-closed Group A formation accomplish this? By its nature, it will cause the front line of the phalanx to be uneven and, allows for natural gaps for each roman to hack/break the spear, pike, etc. and get between them.
Not at all. As Polybius fully expects in his narrative, and I believe he is exactly right, if you leave such gaps then, all other things being equal, a phalanx of advancing close-order soldiers will force-back those unsupported troops by shear momentum, let alone with the help of long pointy and very sharp poles; which is why I maintain that the Romans need to counter with a 'wall' of their own. In the case of pike- or spear-phalanxes they don't even need their swords out and in fact that will be even more effective.
The secret is in the nature of the control of the elements of the opposing phalanx. Because of the easy identification of the leaders and the presence of standards, the elements (be they centuries/maniples, or syntagmas) can be identified and matching elements can be arranged against them (the approach marching is not that fast). You then aim to disrupt at the sub-unit boundaries; for the leader of each sub-unit has to achieve two somewhat conflicting aims during the advance of a phalanx: firstly to keep his unit in line (and ranks) under tight control and advancing; and secondly to maintain his sub-unit in line with all the others.
If, by holding, pushing-back or encouraging additional advance in one place more than others, you can get even a single sub-unit to slip past one of yours, then you can get your men past the spears or flank of that enemy unit and now attack them face to face - having broken that line. The rest, as they say, is history.....
But, in short, no - I do not credit that the momentum of a cohesive phalanx, nor any large body of charging troops, can be stopped by a set of men standing so far apart with no support. Your own line will be broken and destroyed.
I thought it appropriate to now attach the first draft of the related portion of my research thesis, which itself is just an adjunct. It does summarise my current understanding:
I would certainly like to thank all who have contributed thus far and, if you are willing, would ask if you may wish to further critique it?
Particularly I would like to ask my lovely protagonists:
Bryan - whilst I do indeed remain a little skeptical about how much space you need to wield a weapon and remain convinced that 'soldiers' (like any crowd) will indeed get pushed together when in close-quarter combat; I wonder whether (if it can be maintained and the fighting conditions allow) the 'standard formation' would meet your own view of the Romans-style of sword combat? Even though it's a bit tighter formation side-to-side than your interpretation of Polybius suggests, but it has the benefit of support being much closer and able to 'close the line' if necessary.
Macedon - you straightened up Bryan's pictures to accord with your views and translation, so I will wonder if you are unable to accept this as a possible, perhaps even likely, interpretation? You are obviously aware that I don't believe Polybius says everything we'd like to know exactly - but then no one does. Unless I've missed something completely, however, I know I'd be fairly comfortable trying to teach a Polybian army these rather simple tactics and formations.
So, if you're interested, then I'd love the critique as a trial before the 'big one'. Shorter questions would be easier to try and answer than big ones, please.
Not my views... As I have already stated, to me the Republican Romans normally arrayed in close order. However, open order was always an alternative. You might be surprised to learn that certain sources claim that even the ancient Greeks fought in "looser" formations against barbarians, which I absolutely believe, since UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES, an openly formed phalanx was also far superior to certain enemies. I have always been a proponent of the theory that different tactics existed in order to be used whenever the generals saw it fit. Maybe the Romans at Pydna were arrayed in open order and at Cynoscephalae in close order (explaining the great difference in Roman casualties, even though at Pydna they also lost many -for victors-).
I amended the image gracefully provided by Bryan to simply show what Polybius actually proposes, not my view of it nor my opinion on its effectiveness.
By the way, as far as the understanding of Polybius regarding spacing is concerned, his scolding of Callisthenes shows that he may have some problems there.
-------
I just read your pdf. I cannot really comment on it because you have not included your sources, other than some mentions within the text. I detected some mistakes in it (mostly stylistic) and I would like to also see modern sources included, sources that agree with you and sources that you disagree with. As is, it mostly resembles a short magazine article and not a scientific paper proposing something new or challenging existing theories.
If your question is whether Polybius can be stretched so as to be used as support for a "quincunx" phalanx proposal, then I would have to repeat that I do not think he can.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
I amended the image gracefully provided by Bryan to simply show what Polybius actually proposes, not my view of it nor my opinion on its effectiveness...If your question is whether Polybius can be stretched so as to be used as support for a "quincunx" phalanx proposal, then I would have to repeat that I do not think he can.
I still don't understand how you can judge what the whole formation would look like using Polybius' passage:
Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth, 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, and each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next him in the same rank and those in front of and behind him, if they are to be of proper use. (Pol. Hist., 18.31) Actual Full Passage
Now this might be a faulty translation that has lost some of its nuances and hidden messages of the original ancient Greek passage, but I don't see anything in there that describes the whole of the Roman formation. The passage is specifically describing the front rank of the Roman formation, opposing the Macedonian pikemen, with a brief mention of the second rank. A Roman front ranker has three feet of his own space to fight in, with an additional "at least three feet" of space between him and the next man's space. And between him and the man behind him, there is an additional three feet. So where does it say anything about files versus staggered files/checkerboard? Is there something in the original text that suggests the distances between men were right angles? What am I missing?
Mark,
- [strike]The description and name for the formation 1a in your attachment might be mislabeled. Maybe it should be called "Open Ranks", since the illustration shows an increase of space between ranks, not between files. Additionally, the description of 1a specifically mentions opened lanes/files for men to retreat through. How can that be when the illustration 1a reflects locked shields? [/strike]
EDIT: I see now that the men are marching forward with the shield in their left hands, not moving forward covered by their shields. Disregard this
- If a Roman century formation advances in the Figure #1 Quincunx formation but then stops their advance right before hitting the enemy to form a solid phalanx, Figure #2, that means the Romans are fighting next to one another, shield edge to shield edge, or with the absolutely minimal distance, correct? If so, how would a Roman be able to stab around the right side of his shield or under it?
- How can the Roman hamstring (draw cut?) an enemy in front with him if his 4 foot tall shield is locked, or nearly so, with his neighbors? How can the famous "nuts or guts" stab be accomplished if shields are locked together in a shoving match?
- If a member of front rank of the Roman rank, from Figure #2/Phalanx, is engaged with an enemy, he has a fellow Roman directly behind him, pushing into his back or nearly so, right? So, if the front ranker takes a large step forward, say to attack the enemy in front of him, wouldn't that mean the guy from behind him would also take a step forward, filling the old spot? In other words, when does the second rank actually step forward and is his braced thureos/scutum always being shoved into the back of the man in front of him? Is the advance done as an individual, as a rank, or as a century as a whole?
- When facing a Macedonian sarissa formation, how many pikes would each Roman face if he stood in a phalanx shield wall (Fig. 2), without advancing individually, using just his scutum to push (since swords are not necessary for fighting)?
This description is both true and fine, and it is evident that each man of the first rank must have the points of five pikes extending beyond him, each at a distance of two cubits from the next. (Pol. Hist. 18.29.7)
Since the Macedonian spear points themselves are staggered, wouldn't each Roman in a close order shield wall only have to push back against one pike point? And since the second through sixth ranks of the Roman phalanx are pushing behind him with their own shields, wouldn't this mean that the Romans had more pushing power than the Macedonians did?
- Other than Polybius and Vegetiusm what other sources are you using for these formations? Which army used these formations? Was this the army at Telemon? At Cannae? At Zama? At Pydna? At the Muthul River? Or was this the standard army formation that was used by every army in war?
Thank you for your knowledgeable posts. The formation order you describe as the most efficient, with 6 inch gaps between shields, seems to be similar to the spacing of Vegetius' 30 inches per man. However, I have a few questions. You mention that the rioters would be able to get through the gaps of a wide open formation, like the Polybian version. if the riot police were attacking/charging instead of remaining stationary or advancing slowly and cautionary, would this change matters? What is normal protocal for breaking a crowd of rioters? Wait them out or a concerted and violent attack in the beginning?
(from your posts I assume you actually are a police officer training/deploying in these formations, pardon me if am wrong)
The short version is that in the system we use/teach if we are going forward we are in open order (an arm, a baton and six inches), if we are standing still or moving backwards we are in cordon (shields touching). That isn't a hard and fast rule because it is situation dependant but that is the norm.
There is no normal protocol for dealing with rioters because every situation is so different and there are a lot of quite subtle issues that need to be taken into account.
I am not a police officer, I am a former Army officer but I spent most of my career in Northern Ireland supporting the police on these type of operations. I now teach public order internationally.
Quote:From this passage, among many other examples available, I think it seems pretty clear, at least in reference to this late Republican time period, that a key element of an attack would be an aggressive charge. I just don't see how a force of infantry armed as the Romans were can charge (run) forward in a close order arrayed formation that allows close to zero room to maneuver, ie. maintaining shield to shield touching intervals, with zero gaps as in a "hinged phalanx." It might work if the force remains stationary or advances at a slow walk or drag step, over an short distance in good terrain, but the Roman advance described by Caesar reads a lot less like a slow and methodical Spartan or Macedonian advance, as compared to a wild Gallic charge. Wild and disordered enough that, halfway through the charge, it became necessary for Caesar's cohorts, filled with veterans of countless battles (so inexperience can't be the reasoning), to stop and reform/reorganize, before again advancing/charging.
Also, how well "drilled" were Caesar's men, since it meant after advancing a short distance, while not in contact with the enemy, they became as disordered as they did? Were they poorly drilled because that short distance destroyed their cohesion, forcing them to have to stop and reorganize? Or were they well drilled because they took initiative to stop and reform on their own before continuing their advance, without needing orders from legates or Caesar himself?
Either way, Frederick the Great would have mortified...
You would be surprised how quickly even a well trained unit can lose cohesion once you start advancing at any thing faster than a walking pace, especially over broken ground. To counter that we try to keep bounds down to about twenty metres.
Adam
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
Quote: And between him and the man behind him, there is an additional three feet. So where does it say anything about files versus staggered files/checkerboard? Is there something in the original text that suggests the distances between men were right angles? What am I missing?
The theory that there were intermediary files present to form this "quincunx" formation has to be supported by something else than a "why not?" question. Something that radically different to what his readers were accustomed to would have been described by Polybius IF we assume that he is a credible source. He talks about "protostatae" and "epistatae", both terms that would practically lose their meanings in such a formation.You should also take into account what Polybius writes in the very same passage about how the men of the front rank were NOT supported by the men on their rear, while the whole point of this "peculiar" formation is to give such support without closing the ranks. And since we are hypothesising, why not add a third file, again at 45 angles, to add even more thrust to our legionary phalanx? For such a theory you guys have to put forward some kind of sources and I do not profess that there is none, however, it is your job to find them.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Thank you and I apologise; it is out of context of the paper (which, of course, includes a bibliography/list of sources) and is simply, in fact, an annex (to the thesis, which is an organisational one) prompted by the side discussions here.
In simple terms, however, this is almost entirely from Polybius and a good deal of background reading of general interest, of which I would certainly include Connolly's Greece & Rome at War that I have enjoyed for many years.
When it comes to the 'quincunx', the only thing I am sure of is that we simply don't know. However, I'm happy to propose one scenario that meets the criteria.
Bryan,
Apologies to you too - and I'll simply ask for a re-look; for all three formations are (sadly I didn't think it necessary originally) all facing forward and show the main formation in the middle with two linked formations, one each side. Thus Fig 1a shows front to back open lanes.
The 'soldiers' are different in Fig 1 & 1a to Fig 2; the first are with the shield held at the left side of the men and the second with it braced forward.
Your specifics:
- If the century advances/charges as Fig 1 it all depends what happens when it meets the enemy - either it cuts through them as you have suggested they would, because their sword skills are so superb or the enemy will hold them. If they hold them, then the second half-rank arrives (with a second, but somewhat weaker, strike) and fills the gaps with the others following up. If the century is to receive a charge, however, it forms Fig 2.
- A Roman would find it more difficult to ham-string a guy in front, but not impossible; I would more expect him to ham-string the guy to the right if he had pushed his RHS neighbour back slightly and was striking him - a thrust down and back to the exposed thighs would suffice. However, he could lift and turn his shield to the left to counter the guy in front moving forward, and then thrust downwards; although I would have suggested a neck or arm strike instead, it may be that the downward stroke presented itself below where the enemy's shield was. Unlike all other shield-walls we think we are aware of (with larger rounder shields that actually interlock) I only suggest that this, carefully designed narrower shield is only held next to your neighbours. A move forwards or backwards, or up or down, or simply turning the wrist left and pushing, will open a sufficient space for a thrust.
- Fig 2 is essentially showing a shield fight, as noted this is how you receive a 'charge'. Against spears or pikes you are nowhere near the enemy; not until you have broken their line. As you pointed out, the Romans are exhorted to 'keep their formation' under almost any circumstances. The attempt would always be to return to Fig 1 as soon as practicable, even when advancing forwards; for, from this formation, they can respond to any direction required.
- (No of pikes faced) This is where I am interpreting Polybius to make sense of what he 'sees'. Polybius 'sees' Fig 1 and so assumes 10 pikes by his measurements. However, in the dust of battle and from he viewpoint of the General, he doesn't 'see' Fig 2 happening. So the answer is 5 pikes - moreso a similar phalanx is the only way to physically resist the advancing one; gaps are not credible. As noted, you only need your shields and can even use two hands (sword scabberded until you come next the enemy and the opposing phalanx is borken).
- Yes - which is how a six deep Roman formation can hold or push back a 16 deep Macedonian one; which is indeed part of my whole understanding in coping with the 'how does the legion cope with the advancing phalanx' question.
- Finally, it's firstly a serious re-look at Polybius only and that has supplied just about all the answers; consistent with the battle accounts I've also come across (although I would indeed like to test the theory, for there are limits to what I have seen); because the standard army organisation and thus the formations that go with it are always from one stand point. But, yes, the Polybian, quincunx, triple acies deployment is suitable for every deploment of a manipular legion and Consular(+) army - including Cannae, where they weren't allowed to deploy fully.
As to why it's standard - because "the triarii always number 600."
This proposal, though, is nothing new, Mark. John Warry for example also has images of the Romans attacking a Macedonian phalanx in such "open order" and Conelly, IIRC, has a similar image when he describes Caesarean formations. So, what then is actually new in your proposal or how do you add to this theory? This is what you have to concentrate on, if you want your work to be regarded as something new instead of a simple presentation of older theories, a clear position, a thesis that will differentiate your work in some manner. Unless this is not the point of this text and then you can plainly state that you agree with the proposals of those scholars who, in your opinion, better illustrate this hypothesis.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
The theory that there were intermediary files present to form this "quincunx" formation has to be supported by something else than a "why not?" question....For such a theory you guys have to put forward some kind of sources and I do not profess that there is none, however, it is your job to find them.
I totally agree. And let me reiterate for the record that I am not stating that the quincunx was the formation of the Roman/Latin century/maniple as it always formed up, or that this formation existed at all in relation to the way I drew it in my previous illustrations. It was an interpretation of Polybius' passage with some artistic license by myself, though I am not the creator of the theory. Like I mentioned in my previous posts, its a possibility (as interpreted from Pol. Hist. 18:30-32 by a great many other historians and scholars) and the second rank's ability to cover down and support it is conjecture, not based on any ancient written sources, at least from my understanding.
In a thread from about 8 months ago, which you also participated in, Quincunx and Keppie's hypothesis, I I received a recommendation for something to read a paper, a paper written by none other than Michael Taylor, who has commented in this thread already. I highly recommend that you read it: Romans in Open Order
(Michael, if you want me to delete this, just tell me)
From it, I saw this:
[img width=500]http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/25vtdmspfk2i22xb/images/17-9c651055fa.jpg[/img]
So that's at least something that could possibly be evidence.
Additionally, you wrote: He talks about "protostatae" and "epistatae", both terms that would practically lose their meanings in such a formation.
In what passages and in what context are file leaders and superintendents/lieutenants/assistants used in relation to the Roman formations? Were and where are they included in the passage I referenced (Pol Hist 18:30-32)? If they are in others, which ones? Please elaborate, I am ignorant of what you are saying and would like to know more.
The terms appear in the Greek text and are generally translated very liberally.
"Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of •three feet in breadth, 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, and each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next him in the same rank (= parastates in Greek) and those in front of and behind him (= epistates), if they are to be of proper use. The consequence will be that one Roman must stand opposite two men in the first rank of the phalanx (= protostatae), so that he has to face and encounter ten pikes, and it is both impossible for a single man to cut through them all in time once they are at close quarters and by no means easy to force their points away, as the rear ranks (ton ephestoton = those standing behind him in general) can be of no help to the front rank (=protostatae) either in thus forcing the pikes away or in the use of the sword. So it is easy to see that, as I said at the beginning, nothing can withstand the charge of the phalanx as long as it preserves its characteristic formation and force. "
With "superintendents / lieutenants / assistants" do you mean the epistatae? If so, then an epistates is the term used in military context for 1. a man standing behind another in file and 2. a man standing behind a protostates in file, that is the men standing in the even ranks (ranks 2,4,6 etc).
A parastates is in turn a man standing beside someone in the same rank.
I would be very careful and very wary with using these reliefs as evidence for any type of formation. Especially the ones you posted are very difficult to use since the one above is a collage, the original only has 2 figures and the second, assuming it is stylistically realistic is obviously depicting two Romans in the same file (look at the positions of their right feet and the fact that the man on the rear tries to protect the protostates with his shield)
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
From my online research, I found that the definition most used in the context of ancient military formations for the word protostatae was "leader of file" or "the one who stands first/in front," and the best translation for epistates was "superintendents / lieutenants / assistants" or "one who stands behind." So in the context of Polybius' passage (18.31), to me it means an individual in the front rank, and the guy standing behind. Since Polybius frequently uses popular Greek military ranks/titles for Roman positions, such as centurion or military tribune, why is it he didn't choice the more accurate lochagos? If a file is a subunit within the formation, then wouldn't the leader of a file (lochos) be a lochagos? In what context does protostatae and epistatae relate to a grid like rank and file?
NOTE: I am NOT an expert on languages or Greek or Latin. The above is based off sources I found online: Protostates I know, Wiki, but sorry ad: Thucydides/Protostates
Or are all the translations I'm reading online wrong?
I would be very careful and very wary with using these reliefs as evidence for any type of formation.
I only brought them up as an example of a possibility. To be honest, it seems that available evidence is so lacking that its impossible to say one way or the other that the Romans fought in any one way. Just look how screwed up the translation game is, with all of the above multiple interpretations of single words by different individuals. I won't say its evidence that they definitely formed in a quincunx, but you asked for evidence, I provided some coming from a credible historian, the illustrious Michael Taylor (you the man!).
I wrote: Since the Macedonian spear points themselves are staggered, wouldn't each Roman in a close order shield wall only have to push back against one pike point?
Mark responded: (No of pikes faced) This is where I am interpreting Polybius to make sense of what he 'sees'. Polybius 'sees' Fig 1 [open formation] and so assumes 10 pikes by his measurements. However, in the dust of battle and from he viewpoint of the General, he doesn't 'see' Fig 2 happening [closed Roman phalanx]. So the answer is 5 pikes - moreso a similar phalanx is the only way to physically resist the advancing one; gaps are not credible. As noted, you only need your shields and can even use two hands (sword scabberded until you come next the enemy and the opposing phalanx is borken).
I wrote:
[/i]And since the second through sixth ranks of the Roman phalanx are pushing behind him with their own shields, wouldn't this mean that the Romans had more pushing power than the Macedonians did?[/i]
Mark wrote in response: - Yes - which is how a six deep Roman formation can hold or push back a 16 deep Macedonian one; which is indeed part of my whole understanding in coping with the 'how does the legion cope with the advancing phalanx' question.
Figure 1 from your attachment is "basically," in terms of frontage for the individuals of the front rank of the Roman formation, in accordance with Polybius' description, which we can call the open interval position. However, you're stating he didn't know enough about Roman battles against Macedonian phalanxes, even though he was sponsored and lived in the house for years with the victorious general of the Battle of Pydna, that they didn't actually fight in open intervals, they closed up at the last second and formed a Roman phalanx, completely opposite of everything he stated in his descriptions of Roman battles against Macedonian phalanxes.
From what I gathered, you're stating a single Roman, standing in a close interval shield wall phalanx formation, being supported by 5 guys directly behind him shoving him forward, can stop and push back a sarissa formation, because the single Roman can use his shield (and no sword) and both hands to push back five pikes he will be facing that will be in actual contact with his shield. But since he has two hands on his shield and hasn't drawn his sword, and is supported by five other men, he can tie in this pushing match, and even possibly win it.
Here's why you're wrong:
First reason your hypothesis is flawed:
In the above illustration (absent are the soldier's carrying the shields, the drawing was a rush job), drawn to Mark's description of a closed interval shield wall formation (his Figure 2.), each of the two Roman shields on the left are facing five pikes apiece. However, due to the way the sarissa formation was designed, the Macedonian files are staggered, meaning the pikes themselves are staggered. I provided you the relevant passage dealing with this before. Please read it this time:
This description is both true and fine, and it is evident that each man of the first rank [of the Macedonian phalanx] must have the points of five pikes extending beyond him, each at a distance of two cubits from the next.
(Pol Hist 18.29.7)
So in actuality, each of the Romans on the left in my illustration are not actually facing off directly against five pikes in a shoving match, they are only threatened by one.
Second reason its flawed:
Can an individual Roman with only his scutum push back his Macedonian counterpart holding only one sarissa? Now if he can, the whole of the sarissa formation in that file gets stopped. Does he have enough weight and power? If not, does he need his whole file of fellow Romans pushing from behind, to add momentum? Six guys against one seems to sound good. However, this literally means six Romans stacked up pressing against a single spear point.
Here's a situation: What happens when a total of six men are pushing forward with all of their might against one single solitary pike and that man holding the pike just drops it when hard resistance is encountered? Wouldn't the six Romans pushing just fall on their faces? Like the reverse of the "Let go of the rope suddenly during tug of war?"
Just a little joke but you can see what I am getting at. The idea that six men are going to win a pushing match against a long pole with a sharp point is futile, because there just wouldn't even be a match to start with. For a match to start, as described by Mark, the point of the sarissa would have to become wedged in a part of the scutum's front that precludes it skidding off the shield pushing against or just pierce it altogether and impaling the Roman holding it. Or the sarissa would just snap from the exertion that six men all pushing together would exert on it. Physics is a bitch. With that, I've read that the aspis was partially designed on the inside of the dish to provide room for the diaphragm to rise and fall when breathing during close pushing matches. Was the scutum similarly dished as well? No, it wasn't, the curved sides of the scutum are simply to provide flank protection (3/8" thick and curved at edge, versus near flat and 1/2" thick near center). So making a concerted push by a file full of men using scuta against spear points is unlikely to say the least. A shield vs. shield pushing match is one thing, but against a handheld weapon, the person holding the pike can at any time either drop their pike or just pull it back really quickly and jab it forward again, maybe at something the shield isn't protecting well. As solid as a scutum is, with its umbo and spina in the middle, its curved and not well enough constructed that a solid two handed spear thrust couldn't pierce it or ricochet of a corner and skid off to impale the shield bearer's face or something.
Third Reason its flawed:
Now back to my illustration. On the right side of it, you see the Polybian description, of one Roman soldier facing 10 pikes. Out far to the right and left are the edges of the Roman's fellow rank mates. As you can see by this illustration, and pretty much every other accurate representation of a Macedonian phalanx, in the space/interval created by the width of the body and shield of the Lochagos, is a gap, directly in front of the Roman shield, per Polybius' open formation. Though the gaps aren't big, especially in situations where perfect cohesion is possible, and since there are two cubits (or about three feet) between each sarissa spear point, and as stated earlier, in a staggered formation, it makes advancing into these gaps a difficult target. Nonetheless, these gaps are the targets for an individual Roman, with a shield and unsheathed sword to parry away pikes, to attack. Follow the curved red arrow in the illustration, its the fastest and "safest" route to get to the first Macedonian to kill that person. Normally, I'd say that they are nearly impossible to breach, all it takes normally is one of the men in the Macedonian lochos (file) to shift his pike slightly right and the gap is blocked pretty well.
However, due to fog of war, chaos, loss of cohesion from casualties, rough terrain, chasing after a fleeing enemy who suddenly stops fleeing and turns to fight, these small gaps in the Macedonian phalanx are highly likely to become larger, with less sarissa protecting them. When these gaps get big enough, multiple Romans, armed with sword and shield, can parry the thinned out "wall" of sarissa to get inside and start killing the members of the phalanx, which is the only real way the Romans can win this fight. This is according to both Polybius (account of Battle of Cynoscephalae and scraps from Pydna) and Plutarch (account of Pydna). The Romans didn't create a whole new set of tactics to fight the Macedonians, they didn't need to. By chance, the one weakness of the Macedonian phalanx already favored the Romans.
...which is indeed part of my whole understanding in coping with the 'how does the legion cope with the advancing phalanx' question.
Didn't Polybius and others already answer this? When fighting a phalanx, Romans either:
- impaled themselves on the spear heads of the advancing Sarissa
- retreated backwards without panicking or losing total cohesion of their line
- retreated backwards while panicking and losing all order and cohesion,
- Attempted to attack as individuals into the small gaps always present in the front of the sarissa formation (as show in illustration earlier)
- Attack into large gaps in the Macedonian formation caused by loss of cohesion (Cynoscephalae and Pydna)
Where is it mentioned that a Roman army fought a phalanx with another phalanx. What's the source? No speculation allowed, is there a source to back up what you are hypothesizing?
Finally, it's firstly a serious re-look at Polybius only and that has supplied just about all the answers; consistent with the battle accounts I've also come across
How can you describe Polybius as your source if your hypothesis is the complete opposite of what he wrote? What battles did he write about that support your hypothesis? Forget Polybius, what evidence do you have that supports any of what you're purporting? Polybius? Plutarch? Livy? Arrian? Appian? Frontenus? Which one is it?
What in these translations is different to what I told you? That the term protostates was used not only as the man in the front rank but also for positions 3,5 etc? See how I explained the term epistates and you will realize that I am saying the same thing. As for the terms themselves in the context of every text, much experience and knowledge is required to identify with absolute certainty. I am, for example, currently analyzing Procopius (6th century AD) and I found the term lochagos as officer in general, and, even worse for the chiliarchoi of the Vandals...
However, I do not understand your objection... the terms are used in the context of rank and file and still I see no evidence whatever to suggest otherwise.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
To answer your question and so you can understand my objection, I am trying to make a distinction. You stated: He talks about "protostatae" and "epistatae", both terms that would practically lose their meanings in such a formation.
Do these words mean strict rank and file? As in "laid out in a grid like formation?" Straight up and down and across, like a calendar? Or did Polybius just mean an individual in a rank or a front ranker, along with the guy behind him? If so, the quincunx could still be valid. I am asking you to put your argument in context, then explain the words that form the context and tell me how they were used in other examples to mean what you say they mean. If you want to boldly state something, shouldn't you have to support it?
I am, for example, currently analyzing Procopius (6th century AD) and I found the term lochagos as officer in general, and, even worse for the chiliarchoi of the Vandals
And now the word lochagos means a captain equivalent in the modern Greek army, commanding a company, right? I get it, words change. But during the time of Polybius, the guy that was the equivalent of a General in the Achaean league prior to becoming a Roman hostage and then friend of the Aemilii Paulii, theses titles and words meant something very specific to a Greek reader, but did not always translate perfectly from Latin. In the passage in question, how many different positions within the Roman formation was Polybius describing? The soldier in the front rank, directly opposing 10 sarissa spear points, and the all the people around him, who were either of the same rank, or the person immediately behind him. In essence he ends up providing what could be the intervals in the whole formation, but the text just isn't clear enough. So what I am saying is that this part right there does not mean files and ranks were straight across or straight up and down. a staggered formation would still be possible and fit this formation. I can behind someone, directly off to side a bit, and still be considered "immediately behind that person" because there is no one else closer. Quincunx, or a more unorganized version of it, since parade grade precision in formations is reserved for parade grounds, is still possible.
I have already answered that. Polybius wrote in Greek for mostly Greek readers. These terms are used in the context of rank and file, so a "quinqunx" formed Roman phalanx would be a peculiarity he would have been forced to describe. Such a formation is described in Greek manuals as one of the cavalry rhombus formations (called "by rank but not by file"), so it is not that Polybius lacked the understanding or terminology to make such a description. You also have to account for his assertion that the men behind (these he does not call epistatae but ephestotes, which is a term independent from rank and file meaning those on the rear in general) were not able to support the first rankers, either with their swords or by "pushing" against them. A formation like that you (and Mark) propose would have the second rank (in a formation by rank but not by file) actually support the first rankers and this is why you think they should be posted there. IF the Romans fought in that way and Polybius did not describe it, when he is asserting to be pinpointing the differences between the two modes of fighting, then his credibility as a source suffers greatly and so, the whole argument demands that Polybius be proven a very problematic source that cannot be trusted in its military accounts.
What I am saying is that you either treat him as a source who knows what he is describing and then stick to rank and file or you assert that he is mistaken and go for this proposal. Unfortunately, I do not see anything in between without overstretching meanings and questioning why he miserably failed to give a correct description, that would be understood by his readership.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
ad:
