08-27-2015, 12:08 AM
From what I've read, the quality of various Diodochi phalanx varied. While its hard to actively say they were better or worse than during Alexander's reign, many of Alexander's (and Philips) veterans fought during the Diodochi Wars. Its a counter of drill/training vs. combat experience.
The Romans were also of various quality. For instance, those that fought at Cynoscephalae were largely veterans of the 2nd Punic War, which means they would have been highly experienced, especially at the centurion/tribune/legate level. At Pydna, the Romans actually were having a bit of difficulty in the first couple of years of the 3rd Macedonian War before Aemilius Paulus took command, instilled discipline back into the army and led them to victory at Pydna.
From my own study, Romans of the 2nd Century BC period did little in the way of command mandated drill, it usually occurred when armies or specific legions had performed poorly in previous campaigns. New commanders would assume command and spend the winters drilling their men. The Cornelii Scipii family were known for it, Aemilius Paulus, having served with them and being familiarly linked to them, might also have done it too. He also would have been of age to have served in the 2nd Punic War, so there was likely a continuation of the training/drill methods that Scipio Africanus used in Spain and to train his army for the African campaign. Through Aem. Paul., this is probably where Scipio Aemilianus also learned to be a drill master, who would then pass on his knowledge to noted Romans like Gaius Marius, who with equally skilled peers would make reforms on the Roman military system that would standardize training until the Romans would become famous for it.
I've read about the training some of the hellenic phalanx had, I'll have to dig up some more info, because I'm pretty sure I remember reading about some units that spent many months doing nothing but drilling, with lots of campaign experience to go along with it. I'll have to get back to you about that.
Not to say Romans weren't trained, just that it wasn't formally in any standardized manner. If the men needed to learn anything of particular they were weak at, it mainly feel on the tribunes and centurions to quickly teach them. But Romans tactics at the time were very simple and hardly changed for over a century. The education of boys in propertied households, those who matter who be conscripted for service in the legions, is known to include sword and shield drills, javelin throwing, swimming, hurdling ditches, vaulting horses, use of the sling, and other martial skills. So there was really no need for any sort of any basic training, their upbringing often taught them most what they needed to know.
As to your second question, there is a source, can't remember which one, that says that someone road down the ranks of a phalanx and chopped off the spearheads. But I don't believe this is possible. Based on how a phalanx is formed, the sarissa points would be staggered, so one must get within only a few meters of the men of the front ranks before they'd encounter the final sarissa point. I doubt it would be easy to simply run sideways and knock over all the sarissa, like in this pic.
Plutarch and Polybius are of a mind that they both believed it was near impossible to barge through a wall of pikes frontally. Plutarch actually believed that a sarissa could pierce not only the scutum, but all types of armor worn, which is unlikely unless both sides were running at one another. But it would have been difficult at best. The phalangites deliberately put their best soldiers, classified as officers, in the front ranks, so they would have been the hardest men to kill or break. Everyone would have been well drilled on relieving casualties and filling holes.
It is unlikely that a large amount of Romans could make it past the pikes into the phalangites ranks, all in a close enough area to overwhelm the phalanx's soldiers and cause the unit to crumble. The only times I can think of it happening during a frontal assault were during the first battle of the Pyrrhic War, which saw both Roman and Pyrrhus' forces at a stalemate, with heavy casualties, and at Pydna, when the Paelignians through themselves into the attack to retrieve their standard, that was purposely thrown into the enemy ranks to encourage aggression. The rest of the accounts seem to describe the Romans either being mauled trying, or being driven back with few actual casualties.
Depending on the angle the scutum is held (to better allow spearheads to glance off it), and a willingness to toss it if if the point of a sarissa get's caught in it, and using a sword and bare hands to get past more sarissa points, and depending on whether the phalanx is in open or closed order (number of spearheads one faces), and if both sides are quickly advancing on each other, and how well the phalangites hold up against a massed volley of pila, it may or may not be possible to break through them frontally. If Aemilius Paulus was terrified of the sight of them, it must have been equally daunting for a Roman infantryman being ordered to frontally assault a phalanx that was also advancing on them. Kind of like driving a Prius head on into a dump truck. The dump truck is going to get damaged, but its suicidal to try it. Actual ancient battles saw few casualties before the rout occurred, so its likely that a Roman equipped force wouldn't even try to frontally fight their way through a phalanx. Likely, a few would try and fail, the rest would take the message and throw their pila and retreat in good order.
But that's all assuming that everything goes perfectly from the perspective of the phalanx, which it seldom did. Against outdated infantry like Greek hoplites, against poor infantry like the Persians, or against identically armed units of phalangites, the major flaws of the Hellenic sarissa phalanx might not be apparent enough to exploit and lead to failure. Against Romans, a very mobile and decentralized infantry heavy force, they (meaning experienced officers) will find the flaw and devise a tactic or choose a battlefield site to exploit it.
It should be noted that of the major battles of the Roman vs the various Hellenic kingdoms, at Cynoscephalae and Pydna, the most significant battles where the defeat of the phalanx led directly to a Roman victory, both were chance battles fought on terrain that wasn't chosen by either side, though both favored the Roman army. Other battles, during the Pyrrhic War, the Seleucid War, and the Mithridatic War saw Roman victories as a direct result of non-infantry means, on ground almost always favoring the phalanx. But it wasn't simply a legion vs phalanx that won the battles for Rome. Concepts like leadership, command and signal, ethos of the soldiers themselves, came into play.
The Romans were also of various quality. For instance, those that fought at Cynoscephalae were largely veterans of the 2nd Punic War, which means they would have been highly experienced, especially at the centurion/tribune/legate level. At Pydna, the Romans actually were having a bit of difficulty in the first couple of years of the 3rd Macedonian War before Aemilius Paulus took command, instilled discipline back into the army and led them to victory at Pydna.
From my own study, Romans of the 2nd Century BC period did little in the way of command mandated drill, it usually occurred when armies or specific legions had performed poorly in previous campaigns. New commanders would assume command and spend the winters drilling their men. The Cornelii Scipii family were known for it, Aemilius Paulus, having served with them and being familiarly linked to them, might also have done it too. He also would have been of age to have served in the 2nd Punic War, so there was likely a continuation of the training/drill methods that Scipio Africanus used in Spain and to train his army for the African campaign. Through Aem. Paul., this is probably where Scipio Aemilianus also learned to be a drill master, who would then pass on his knowledge to noted Romans like Gaius Marius, who with equally skilled peers would make reforms on the Roman military system that would standardize training until the Romans would become famous for it.
I've read about the training some of the hellenic phalanx had, I'll have to dig up some more info, because I'm pretty sure I remember reading about some units that spent many months doing nothing but drilling, with lots of campaign experience to go along with it. I'll have to get back to you about that.
Not to say Romans weren't trained, just that it wasn't formally in any standardized manner. If the men needed to learn anything of particular they were weak at, it mainly feel on the tribunes and centurions to quickly teach them. But Romans tactics at the time were very simple and hardly changed for over a century. The education of boys in propertied households, those who matter who be conscripted for service in the legions, is known to include sword and shield drills, javelin throwing, swimming, hurdling ditches, vaulting horses, use of the sling, and other martial skills. So there was really no need for any sort of any basic training, their upbringing often taught them most what they needed to know.
As to your second question, there is a source, can't remember which one, that says that someone road down the ranks of a phalanx and chopped off the spearheads. But I don't believe this is possible. Based on how a phalanx is formed, the sarissa points would be staggered, so one must get within only a few meters of the men of the front ranks before they'd encounter the final sarissa point. I doubt it would be easy to simply run sideways and knock over all the sarissa, like in this pic.
Plutarch and Polybius are of a mind that they both believed it was near impossible to barge through a wall of pikes frontally. Plutarch actually believed that a sarissa could pierce not only the scutum, but all types of armor worn, which is unlikely unless both sides were running at one another. But it would have been difficult at best. The phalangites deliberately put their best soldiers, classified as officers, in the front ranks, so they would have been the hardest men to kill or break. Everyone would have been well drilled on relieving casualties and filling holes.
It is unlikely that a large amount of Romans could make it past the pikes into the phalangites ranks, all in a close enough area to overwhelm the phalanx's soldiers and cause the unit to crumble. The only times I can think of it happening during a frontal assault were during the first battle of the Pyrrhic War, which saw both Roman and Pyrrhus' forces at a stalemate, with heavy casualties, and at Pydna, when the Paelignians through themselves into the attack to retrieve their standard, that was purposely thrown into the enemy ranks to encourage aggression. The rest of the accounts seem to describe the Romans either being mauled trying, or being driven back with few actual casualties.
Depending on the angle the scutum is held (to better allow spearheads to glance off it), and a willingness to toss it if if the point of a sarissa get's caught in it, and using a sword and bare hands to get past more sarissa points, and depending on whether the phalanx is in open or closed order (number of spearheads one faces), and if both sides are quickly advancing on each other, and how well the phalangites hold up against a massed volley of pila, it may or may not be possible to break through them frontally. If Aemilius Paulus was terrified of the sight of them, it must have been equally daunting for a Roman infantryman being ordered to frontally assault a phalanx that was also advancing on them. Kind of like driving a Prius head on into a dump truck. The dump truck is going to get damaged, but its suicidal to try it. Actual ancient battles saw few casualties before the rout occurred, so its likely that a Roman equipped force wouldn't even try to frontally fight their way through a phalanx. Likely, a few would try and fail, the rest would take the message and throw their pila and retreat in good order.
But that's all assuming that everything goes perfectly from the perspective of the phalanx, which it seldom did. Against outdated infantry like Greek hoplites, against poor infantry like the Persians, or against identically armed units of phalangites, the major flaws of the Hellenic sarissa phalanx might not be apparent enough to exploit and lead to failure. Against Romans, a very mobile and decentralized infantry heavy force, they (meaning experienced officers) will find the flaw and devise a tactic or choose a battlefield site to exploit it.
It should be noted that of the major battles of the Roman vs the various Hellenic kingdoms, at Cynoscephalae and Pydna, the most significant battles where the defeat of the phalanx led directly to a Roman victory, both were chance battles fought on terrain that wasn't chosen by either side, though both favored the Roman army. Other battles, during the Pyrrhic War, the Seleucid War, and the Mithridatic War saw Roman victories as a direct result of non-infantry means, on ground almost always favoring the phalanx. But it wasn't simply a legion vs phalanx that won the battles for Rome. Concepts like leadership, command and signal, ethos of the soldiers themselves, came into play.
