We're going to beat the legions

[Lanista]

That's the game I'm playin' Kosmo... *lol* Great stuff here, thanks so much man (and men above!)

 

Cheers

 

Russ

[caldrail]

Thanks for the opinion of Mr Amt. I must say that I still wonder if late-republican pila, with their weakened fixation, might not have an issue going through even the light bronze shielding.

 

But to come back to what you were saying, I'd say both quality and especially quantity of heavy cavalry. Otherwise you might easily find yourself in a Pharsale like situation where the light screen of infantry of Caesar was able to repel the light and medium cavalry of Labienus.

 

The 'hinged' pila shouldn't have too much difficulty with penetrating shields as opposed to any other shafted weapon. The initial impact is along the axis and only after the impact is the pin broken allowing the pilum to beciome an encumbrance for the enemy soldier.

 

Heavy cavalry are a novelty on the ancient battlefield. Also, don't get caught by believing they charged like medieval knights. We know the weight of gear made the cavalrymen mindful of how easily their horses would become tired. Consequently, it was unusual for heavy cavalry to gallop, perferring to retain some energy in their mounts for tackling opposing cavalry, thus we might infer that cavavlry tactics hadn't changed much regardless of protection.

 

In fact, in some of the instances where we know heavy cavalry did charge, they came unstuck badly. The infantry opened their ranks, allowed them in, unhorsed them, and slaughtered the hapless riders with ease.

 

I cannot stress this enough. The cavalry charge is not a collision - it's a game of chicken. Will the infantry realise it's a good idea to back off rapidly and perhaps flee, or will the horsemen realise they're about to be unseated by reluctant horses (or lots of sharp pointy things) and swerve away? Horses thundering toward you create an impression of size and weight that's difficult to confront. That's one reason why infantry bunch up close together, for mutual support, with the added bonus the horses will interpret the mass of men as something solid and painful to collide with.

 

During the ancient period it was the light cavalry the predominated. You needed mobile troops to secure the wings and perhapsm open the flanks and rear of the enemy to attack. Sources tell us that cavalry fought very fliud and fast changing battles between themselves. Speed was everything. A horseman at speed has more options.

[Lanista]

Funny enough, this actually cropped in Rome Total War - I was playing, sad I know). I took on the legions when they invaded one of my towns and managed to defeat them by blocking the corridors and just holding out (it was close run thing).

 

Then I was caught in a forest by some other legions, and after a close run thing again, was defeated *lol*.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

The simple expedient of breaking the phalanx into Swiss squares would have made it far more effective. I saw a video where modern Swiss military men in a reenactment were able to change face in seconds simply by lifting their pike turning in place and then lowering their pike. The square can quickly face 2, 3, or 4 directions as required. Squares in units can also be used to refuse a wing or to attack in echelon, wedge, or a reverse wedge as required. You can move in any direction without losing cohesion or exposing yourself to attack.

 

If you want to get really fancy you can use hollow squares with missile units protected by the pike formation. Even the knight in full plate mail became extinct in the face of Swiss and German pike squares. The squares of Napoleon still retained their structure and with bayonets fixed were able to fend off cavalry.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus

[Tribunicus Potestus]

I have often wondered why something so simple as the square which requires no new technology all you need are pikes, and does not require a great deal of training since the swiss employed it first with citizen militias was not adopted by the greeks. Why would you line up in a single group such as a phalanx? Perhaps since it was often formed from different city states working together there was the desire to avoid one group appearing more brave than another that a single wall facing the enemy was politically more acceptable. Perhaps the hierarchal nature of greek society demanded placement of one social group in the front line and others progressively to the rear. The idea that rear groups could become front groups may have been an anathema. As would side ranks becoming intermixed in a side-facing defense or advance. This type of thinking may have blinded the greeks to the obvious concept. While the more democratically thinking swiss were not culturally handicapped in this way. Perhaps it was a religious problem. Greek soldiers expected if they were killed in battle to be carried off on their shields. The square makes a shield superfluous and an unnecessary encumbrance. The psychological difficulty in abandoning their shields may have been too much.

 

For those unfamiliar with the pike square, with the testudo which was described as a tortoise due to it's all around protection one might compare the pike square to a hedge-hog or a porcupine.

 

The roman army was the product of a much more mobile society. The later romans were not as hampered by the rigid stratification of the greeks and were able to adapt their armies much more readily to new demands. After the reforms of Marius in particular the roman army began to resemble a modern army and could rapidly adapt to changes in both strategy and tactics as the divine Julius shows us in his gallic campaign altering from a very aggressive approach at Avaricum to the defensive-offense at Alesia. The conquest of Greece was an inevitable by-product of these differences in attitudes. The practical will always defeat the dogmatic in the long run

 

[ last part removed to protect sensitivities , I did not mean to step on toes, or cherished notions, rather to simply give a supporting statement for the last sentence in the previous paragraph. I took the premise of the question seriously, "Could the Greeks have beaten the Romans" and proffered a way in which it might have been done. Speculating further on why it was not done. There is no need to ban me, I will refrain from entering the discussion. ]

Edited October 9, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus

[Virgil61]

I have often wondered why something so simple as the square which requires no new technology all you need are pikes, and does not require a great deal of training since the swiss employed it first with citizen militias was not adopted by the greeks.

 

The Swiss did train more often than one thinks. Most of the pikemen were from the same village or valley and spent their lives drilling next to each other. The amount of time spent training seems to have been more consistent under the Swiss being an annual requirement whereas the Greek citizen phalanxes were done on a need to fight basis (certainly with some differences like Sparta).

 

At least early on I believe they would train with each man in the same place & each square in the same place in the battle line. Their order of march was kept the same in all campaigns if I remember correctly. That sort of consistency probably contributed to their efficiency on the field and in movement.

 

The Swiss citizen armies had formations somewhat similar to the Greeks but their discipline seems to have been more along the lines of a well trained Roman citizen-legion of the Republic. In 1444 a force of 1500 Swiss confronted a 20,000 man French army and fought a battle where they were eventually killed almost to the last man without wavering.

 

the present day U.S. Marines is arguably the most effective and feared fighting force on the planet.

 

Mods please ban this poster.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Thanks for the opinion of Mr Amt. I must say that I still wonder if late-republican pila, with their weakened fixation, might not have an issue going through even the light bronze shielding.

 

But to come back to what you were saying, I'd say both quality and especially quantity of heavy cavalry. Otherwise you might easily find yourself in a Pharsale like situation where the light screen of infantry of Caesar was able to repel the light and medium cavalry of Labienus.

 

The 'hinged' pila shouldn't have too much difficulty with penetrating shields as opposed to any other shafted weapon. The initial impact is along the axis and only after the impact is the pin broken allowing the pilum to beciome an encumbrance for the enemy soldier.

 

Heavy cavalry are a novelty on the ancient battlefield. Also, don't get caught by believing they charged like medieval knights. We know the weight of gear made the cavalrymen mindful of how easily their horses would become tired. Consequently, it was unusual for heavy cavalry to gallop, perferring to retain some energy in their mounts for tackling opposing cavalry, thus we might infer that cavavlry tactics hadn't changed much regardless of protection.

 

In fact, in some of the instances where we know heavy cavalry did charge, they came unstuck badly. The infantry opened their ranks, allowed them in, unhorsed them, and slaughtered the hapless riders with ease.

 

I cannot stress this enough. The cavalry charge is not a collision - it's a game of chicken. Will the infantry realise it's a good idea to back off rapidly and perhaps flee, or will the horsemen realise they're about to be unseated by reluctant horses (or lots of sharp pointy things) and swerve away? Horses thundering toward you create an impression of size and weight that's difficult to confront. That's one reason why infantry bunch up close together, for mutual support, with the added bonus the horses will interpret the mass of men as something solid and painful to collide with.

 

During the ancient period it was the light cavalry the predominated. You needed mobile troops to secure the wings and perhapsm open the flanks and rear of the enemy to attack. Sources tell us that cavalry fought very fliud and fast changing battles between themselves. Speed was everything. A horseman at speed has more options.

IIRC from my recent dabbling into Napoleonic Warfare, its been shown horses are not stupid and have feelings too.They ain't gonna run at a formation of men(even if they only have shortr weapons like a short sword) and trample over them like the popular belief taht heavy Cavalry are tank.This is especially true in re-enactments and studies of Waterloo where,even against dummies in a flat terrain, Horses would not charge at all against a formationa nd would stop at tracks.

 

What more if you send Cavalry against troops well trained with spears or similar long range weapons such ast he Macedonian phalanx or Roman Legions?

 

I assume the same principle of Horses being smart and not directly willing to go into collisian against formations of men stands the same in ancient warfare as it did in Napoleonic Warfare(all recent studies I did on cavalry Warfare show this is a a general principle of warfare)?

[GhostOfClayton]

IIRC from my recent dabbling into Napoleonic Warfare, its been shown horses are not stupid and have feelings too.They ain't gonna run at a formation of men(even if they only have shortr weapons like a short sword) and trample over them like the popular belief taht heavy Cavalry are tank.

 

Even Hannibal's war elephants went for the lanes that opened up in the Roman ranks when they were charged. This was a deliberate Roman tactic during the Battle of Zama.