05-29-2013, 08:24 PM
Macedon wrote:
Do not think that it was easy to break a phalanx just because the ground was not as even as a soccer field. This tactic was invented, employed and proved superior first and foremost in the rough land of Greece, rougher even than that in Italy and more than once performed efficiently if not admirably well in what would be considered unfavorable terrain
No enemy formation is easy to break. But Polybius clearly states the limitations of the Macedonian styled phalanx.
Polybius 18.25: 6-7:
"The Macedonians now, having no one to give them orders and being unable to adopt the formation proper to the phalanx, in part owing to the difficulty of the ground and in part because they were trying to reach the combatants and were still in marching order and not in line, 7 did not even wait until they were at close quarters with the Romans, but gave way thrown into confusion and broken up by the elephants alone."
Battle of Cynoscephalae
Pol 18.31:5-11
" Again, it is acknowledged that the phalanx requires level and clear ground with no obstacles such as ditches, clefts, clumps of trees, ridges and water courses, 6 all of which are sufficient to impede and break up such a formation. p1557 Every one would also acknowledge that it is almost impossible except in very rare cases to find spaces of say twenty stades or even more in length with no such obstacles. 8 But even if we assume it to be possible, supposing those who are fighting against us refuse to meet us on such ground, but force round sacking the cities and devastating the territory of our allies, what is the use of such a formation? 9 For by remaining on the ground that suits it, not only is it incapable of helping its friends but cannot even ensure its own safety. 10 For the arrival of supplies will easily be prevented by the enemy, when they have undisturbed command of the open country. 11 But if the phalanx leaves the ground proper to it and attempts any action, it will be easily overcome by the enemy."
Comparison of Macedonian Infantry vs Roman Infantry
Macedon wrote:
Polybius and others often describe the Romans as a "phalanx". Many times when you read about a "Roman line" in the translations, the Greek text reads "phalanx".
Where? In what context. I only know of one, Pol 11.23. But I did find this part interesting...
Pol 29.17
"Aemilius the consul, who had never seen a phalanx until this occasion in the war with Perseus, often confessed afterwards to certain persons in Rome that he had never seen anything more terrible p73and dreadful than a Macedonian phalanx, and this although he had witnessed and directed as many battles as any man."
Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus at the Battle of Pydna
Macedon wrote:
A well-trained phalanx was not "rigid" on the battlefield. There is a misunderstanding here.
Polybius provides information to the contrary.
Pol 18.30:4
"But these men by the sheer pressure of their bodily weight in the charge add to its force, and it is quite impossible for the first ranks to face about."
Pol 18.31:9
"Now in all these matters the Macedonian formation is at times of little use and at times of no use at all, because the phalanx soldier can be of service neither in detachments nor singly, while the Roman formation is efficient."
Macedon wrote:
There is no reason to assume that the Romans had no experience in fighting in close order.
I agree to an extent. But what source do you provide that prove the Republican era Romans and Socii aligned in close order? Other than Cannae, where Polybius says:
"He stationed the Roman cavalry close to the river on the right wing and the foot next to them in the same line, placing the maniples closer together than was formerly the usage and making the depth of each many times exceed its front." 3.113
I know that are plenty of other sources that discount some of the things Polybius wrote about. I only bring up these to show that not everyone thought alike back then as well. Opinions are like a certain orifice, everyone has one and thinks theirs smells better than the next...
Mark Hygate wrote:
I will take issue with 'hack and slash' - which is Hollywood and not Roman
Pol 6.23:7
"This (the Gladius) is excellent for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm."
Pol 18.31: 6-9
"Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth, 7 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, 8 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."
Mark Hygate wrote:
That the testudo is not just an extension of the normal fighting style with additional shields placed on top?
Pol 28.11
"Heracleum was taken in a peculiar manner. The town had a low wall of no great extent on one side, and to attack this the Romans employed three picked maniples. 2 The men of the first held their shields over their heads, and closed up, so that, owing to the density of the bucklers, it became like a tiled roof. The other two in succession..."
To me, this means that in this situation, the Roman maniple in question lifted their shields up and then moved closer to one another (into close order from open order). Note: This does not descibe how they always did it, just how they did it in this incident.
Mark Hygate wrote:
You kill people with 'physics' I assure you.
No, people die in battle from cardiac arrest caused from blood loss, the result of a sharp metal objects penetrating their skin (cut or thrust, piercing organs, veins and arteries). Or from trauma to their nervous system (head wounds and spine). Or from heart attacks caused by excitement.
Mark Hygate wrote:
Bryan - fine, please read the opener above and help me to the sources that do describe how (the detail) the Roman, indeed any ancient infantry (cavalry the other thread) did fight. My absolute point is that I don't think the sources help much there and we have to think for ourselves. I apologise if I am a military man who has taught drill and selected and trained and am also an engineer qualified to design land-war machines - it does engender a certain mind-set. But, when initially entering this subject area I had no preconceived notions, just those from what I had read - but yes, trained in riot tactics it seemed completely reasonable for the Romans to have fought shield to shield - their shields for over 500yrs seem to have been designed for just that, reaching their peak with the squared-off scutum. And I support Polybius entirely when he points out that the Romans seemed to fight in a way that guaranteed loss.
I read the opener you provided and nothing you provided supported your argument. As a historian, I believe I should use the sources as evidence after weighing the value of the evidence. In the case of the Macedonia fighting system and the Roman military machine, Polybius actually knew what he was talking about. Think about it. He was a military cavalry commander in Megalopolis. Later, as a hostage, he lived in the home of Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the Consul who defeated Perseus V and the last Macedonian army. I imagine he gathered much of his information about the 2nd Punic Wars directly from the man, as well as the other conflicts Rome fought during his lifetime. For wars before his time, he would have listened to anecdotal stories from people like L. Aem. Paul. and other Senatorial/Consular men, whose ancestors fought and led great armies. It would be these stories that you can question the accuracy, they happened outside of the lives of even his benefactor, in the ages of their grandfathers. Over time, the stories would change, parts left out, other parts that are inaccurate would be remembered. Later, Polybius went on campaign with Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemlianus as a friend and tent mate. He would have seen nearly everything that Scipio did and anything he didn't know as an outsider would have been explained to him. Its up to the reader whether to emphasize the accuracy of his works. I for one give credence to them.
Mark Hygate wrote:
I apologise if I am a military man who has taught drill and selected and trained and am also an engineer qualified to design land-war machines - it does engender a certain mind-set. But, when initially entering this subject area I had no preconceived notions, just those from what I had read - but yes, trained in riot tactics it seemed completely reasonable for the Romans to have fought shield to shield - their shields for over 500yrs seem to have been designed for just that.
The military drill you taught was not what the Romans were taught. Its not even what the Americans are taught, or the Germans, or the Indians, or the Chinese, etc. Additionally, there is a great debate within the military today over why drill is even still taught considering the drill is based off of 18th and 19th century battle tactics, not ancient battle tactics nor modern ones.
And the riot training you had was based off of modern day tactics, using modern day equipment against threats typically faced by riot police in a modern day riot situation. On the outside, yes, it could look like tactics used by an ancient army. But up close the similarities are grossly different. The riot shield you carried weighed what? 5 pounds? And it was strapped onto your arm. A Roman shield weighed three times more and was held in a single horizontal center grip. That right there changes everything, how you hold the shield is indicative in how you fight with it. Furthermore, like I mentioned in the other thread, the role of riot police is completely different from any role a soldier faces.
Mark Hygate wrote:
And I support Polybius entirely when he points out that the Romans seemed to fight in a way that guaranteed loss
Winning battles is more than small unit tactics. Besides, according to Polybius those same tactics worked pretty good:
Pol 18.31:10-11
"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. 11 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."
Mark Hygate wrote:
For if it was as easy to disrupt as you both suggest, then it would have happened earlier and everyone would have transitioned to a 'Heavy Peltast' type much sooner than copying the Romans
You fight in the manner of your fathers until someone tells you otherwise. When new innovations come, if successful, the people who invented them are lauded historically as reformers and military geniuses. The Greeks and Macedonians had them, and the Romans did. The Roman system was constantly evolving.
Mark Hygate wrote:
Let alone that this open order (my belief) would also be as useless against a mass of charging vicious Celtic chaps....
Weren't the Romans just as vicious? Name a battle that the Romans just stood there and let the enemy attack them, without at least counter-charging.
Here's what Polybius has to say about the war loving Romans:
Pol 32.13:5-9
"For to begin with they had never once set foot in those parts of Illyria which face the Adriatic 6 since they expelled Demetrius of Pharos, and next they did not at all wish the Italians to become effeminate owing to the long peace, 7 it being now twelve years since the war with Perseus and their campaigns in Macedonia. 8 They, therefore, resolved by undertaking a war against the Dalmatians both to recreate, as it were, the spirit and zeal of their own troops, and by striking terror into the Illyrians to compel them to obey their behests. These, then, were the reasons why the Romans went to war with the Dalmatians, but to the world at large they gave out that they had decided on war owing to the insult to their ambassadors."
Do not think that it was easy to break a phalanx just because the ground was not as even as a soccer field. This tactic was invented, employed and proved superior first and foremost in the rough land of Greece, rougher even than that in Italy and more than once performed efficiently if not admirably well in what would be considered unfavorable terrain
No enemy formation is easy to break. But Polybius clearly states the limitations of the Macedonian styled phalanx.
Polybius 18.25: 6-7:
"The Macedonians now, having no one to give them orders and being unable to adopt the formation proper to the phalanx, in part owing to the difficulty of the ground and in part because they were trying to reach the combatants and were still in marching order and not in line, 7 did not even wait until they were at close quarters with the Romans, but gave way thrown into confusion and broken up by the elephants alone."
Battle of Cynoscephalae
Pol 18.31:5-11
" Again, it is acknowledged that the phalanx requires level and clear ground with no obstacles such as ditches, clefts, clumps of trees, ridges and water courses, 6 all of which are sufficient to impede and break up such a formation. p1557 Every one would also acknowledge that it is almost impossible except in very rare cases to find spaces of say twenty stades or even more in length with no such obstacles. 8 But even if we assume it to be possible, supposing those who are fighting against us refuse to meet us on such ground, but force round sacking the cities and devastating the territory of our allies, what is the use of such a formation? 9 For by remaining on the ground that suits it, not only is it incapable of helping its friends but cannot even ensure its own safety. 10 For the arrival of supplies will easily be prevented by the enemy, when they have undisturbed command of the open country. 11 But if the phalanx leaves the ground proper to it and attempts any action, it will be easily overcome by the enemy."
Comparison of Macedonian Infantry vs Roman Infantry
Macedon wrote:
Polybius and others often describe the Romans as a "phalanx". Many times when you read about a "Roman line" in the translations, the Greek text reads "phalanx".
Where? In what context. I only know of one, Pol 11.23. But I did find this part interesting...
Pol 29.17
"Aemilius the consul, who had never seen a phalanx until this occasion in the war with Perseus, often confessed afterwards to certain persons in Rome that he had never seen anything more terrible p73and dreadful than a Macedonian phalanx, and this although he had witnessed and directed as many battles as any man."
Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus at the Battle of Pydna
Macedon wrote:
A well-trained phalanx was not "rigid" on the battlefield. There is a misunderstanding here.
Polybius provides information to the contrary.
Pol 18.30:4
"But these men by the sheer pressure of their bodily weight in the charge add to its force, and it is quite impossible for the first ranks to face about."
Pol 18.31:9
"Now in all these matters the Macedonian formation is at times of little use and at times of no use at all, because the phalanx soldier can be of service neither in detachments nor singly, while the Roman formation is efficient."
Macedon wrote:
There is no reason to assume that the Romans had no experience in fighting in close order.
I agree to an extent. But what source do you provide that prove the Republican era Romans and Socii aligned in close order? Other than Cannae, where Polybius says:
"He stationed the Roman cavalry close to the river on the right wing and the foot next to them in the same line, placing the maniples closer together than was formerly the usage and making the depth of each many times exceed its front." 3.113
I know that are plenty of other sources that discount some of the things Polybius wrote about. I only bring up these to show that not everyone thought alike back then as well. Opinions are like a certain orifice, everyone has one and thinks theirs smells better than the next...
Mark Hygate wrote:
I will take issue with 'hack and slash' - which is Hollywood and not Roman
Pol 6.23:7
"This (the Gladius) is excellent for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm."
Pol 18.31: 6-9
"Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth, 7 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, 8 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."
Mark Hygate wrote:
That the testudo is not just an extension of the normal fighting style with additional shields placed on top?
Pol 28.11
"Heracleum was taken in a peculiar manner. The town had a low wall of no great extent on one side, and to attack this the Romans employed three picked maniples. 2 The men of the first held their shields over their heads, and closed up, so that, owing to the density of the bucklers, it became like a tiled roof. The other two in succession..."
To me, this means that in this situation, the Roman maniple in question lifted their shields up and then moved closer to one another (into close order from open order). Note: This does not descibe how they always did it, just how they did it in this incident.
Mark Hygate wrote:
You kill people with 'physics' I assure you.
No, people die in battle from cardiac arrest caused from blood loss, the result of a sharp metal objects penetrating their skin (cut or thrust, piercing organs, veins and arteries). Or from trauma to their nervous system (head wounds and spine). Or from heart attacks caused by excitement.
Mark Hygate wrote:
Bryan - fine, please read the opener above and help me to the sources that do describe how (the detail) the Roman, indeed any ancient infantry (cavalry the other thread) did fight. My absolute point is that I don't think the sources help much there and we have to think for ourselves. I apologise if I am a military man who has taught drill and selected and trained and am also an engineer qualified to design land-war machines - it does engender a certain mind-set. But, when initially entering this subject area I had no preconceived notions, just those from what I had read - but yes, trained in riot tactics it seemed completely reasonable for the Romans to have fought shield to shield - their shields for over 500yrs seem to have been designed for just that, reaching their peak with the squared-off scutum. And I support Polybius entirely when he points out that the Romans seemed to fight in a way that guaranteed loss.
I read the opener you provided and nothing you provided supported your argument. As a historian, I believe I should use the sources as evidence after weighing the value of the evidence. In the case of the Macedonia fighting system and the Roman military machine, Polybius actually knew what he was talking about. Think about it. He was a military cavalry commander in Megalopolis. Later, as a hostage, he lived in the home of Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the Consul who defeated Perseus V and the last Macedonian army. I imagine he gathered much of his information about the 2nd Punic Wars directly from the man, as well as the other conflicts Rome fought during his lifetime. For wars before his time, he would have listened to anecdotal stories from people like L. Aem. Paul. and other Senatorial/Consular men, whose ancestors fought and led great armies. It would be these stories that you can question the accuracy, they happened outside of the lives of even his benefactor, in the ages of their grandfathers. Over time, the stories would change, parts left out, other parts that are inaccurate would be remembered. Later, Polybius went on campaign with Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemlianus as a friend and tent mate. He would have seen nearly everything that Scipio did and anything he didn't know as an outsider would have been explained to him. Its up to the reader whether to emphasize the accuracy of his works. I for one give credence to them.
Mark Hygate wrote:
I apologise if I am a military man who has taught drill and selected and trained and am also an engineer qualified to design land-war machines - it does engender a certain mind-set. But, when initially entering this subject area I had no preconceived notions, just those from what I had read - but yes, trained in riot tactics it seemed completely reasonable for the Romans to have fought shield to shield - their shields for over 500yrs seem to have been designed for just that.
The military drill you taught was not what the Romans were taught. Its not even what the Americans are taught, or the Germans, or the Indians, or the Chinese, etc. Additionally, there is a great debate within the military today over why drill is even still taught considering the drill is based off of 18th and 19th century battle tactics, not ancient battle tactics nor modern ones.
And the riot training you had was based off of modern day tactics, using modern day equipment against threats typically faced by riot police in a modern day riot situation. On the outside, yes, it could look like tactics used by an ancient army. But up close the similarities are grossly different. The riot shield you carried weighed what? 5 pounds? And it was strapped onto your arm. A Roman shield weighed three times more and was held in a single horizontal center grip. That right there changes everything, how you hold the shield is indicative in how you fight with it. Furthermore, like I mentioned in the other thread, the role of riot police is completely different from any role a soldier faces.
Mark Hygate wrote:
And I support Polybius entirely when he points out that the Romans seemed to fight in a way that guaranteed loss
Winning battles is more than small unit tactics. Besides, according to Polybius those same tactics worked pretty good:
Pol 18.31:10-11
"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. 11 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."
Mark Hygate wrote:
For if it was as easy to disrupt as you both suggest, then it would have happened earlier and everyone would have transitioned to a 'Heavy Peltast' type much sooner than copying the Romans
You fight in the manner of your fathers until someone tells you otherwise. When new innovations come, if successful, the people who invented them are lauded historically as reformers and military geniuses. The Greeks and Macedonians had them, and the Romans did. The Roman system was constantly evolving.
Mark Hygate wrote:
Let alone that this open order (my belief) would also be as useless against a mass of charging vicious Celtic chaps....
Weren't the Romans just as vicious? Name a battle that the Romans just stood there and let the enemy attack them, without at least counter-charging.
Here's what Polybius has to say about the war loving Romans:
Pol 32.13:5-9
"For to begin with they had never once set foot in those parts of Illyria which face the Adriatic 6 since they expelled Demetrius of Pharos, and next they did not at all wish the Italians to become effeminate owing to the long peace, 7 it being now twelve years since the war with Perseus and their campaigns in Macedonia. 8 They, therefore, resolved by undertaking a war against the Dalmatians both to recreate, as it were, the spirit and zeal of their own troops, and by striking terror into the Illyrians to compel them to obey their behests. These, then, were the reasons why the Romans went to war with the Dalmatians, but to the world at large they gave out that they had decided on war owing to the insult to their ambassadors."
