Caracalla And His Phalanx

[Valens]

I recently read that the Emperor Caracalla attempted to recreate a Makedonian-style phalanx at one point. I was astonished when the author didn't explain this or back it up. After a bit of searching, I found this text from Herodian (describing a levy):

 

"[Caracalla] issued an edict that all the young men should assemble on an open area of ground, saying that he wished to enrol a phalanx in honour of Alexander [the Great]..."

 

So, I'd be curious to know if anyone else knows something about this? Or better yet, if the phalanx was really ever made?

[Valens]

Aha! I've solved my own mystery(or rather, the young scholar, Ross Cowan, has).

 

Both Dio and Herodian recorded a few Severan Emperors forming 'phalanxes'. Dio says Caracalla formed a 15,000 strong Makedonian phalanx (made up of Makedonians), and Herdodian suggests there was a further phalanx of Spartans. And though both authors attribute archaic arms and armor to these units, it seems they were just using odd terms to describe normal armorment (though their reference to 'linen cuirasses' could hold true, being a special cuirass designed for the heat of the Near East or referring to troops wearing only their thoracomachus for body armor).

 

In all actuality, the term phalanx (and the corresponding term 'phalangarii' used to describe the soldiers) was probably just used by a few emperors embarking on campaigns against the Parthians/Persians to emulate Alexander the Great (since he had had such success in the Near East).

[Favonius Cornelius]

Did they see any combat, or was it all ceremonial?

[Valens]

Did they see any combat, or was it all ceremonial?

 

Certainly, they fought very much like normal legionaries in the Persian/Parthian Campaigns of Caracalla and Severus Alexander (in fact, some of the Phalangarii were legionaries of Legio II Parthica and Praetorians).

 

I don't know any real details on their combat in these campaigns though. My source mentions the phalangarii as 'serving with success' in Severus Alexander's Persian War (231-233), and that's really all I know .

[Hamilcar Barca]

Caracella though he was Alexanders reincarnation, and tryed to imitate him in many ways. The reality was that he was a mass-murderous lunatic. His belief that he was Alexander led to his assasinataion when he went to Africa to try and confirm it.

[Onasander]

don't look down upon a phalanx, it may be old fashion, but not without it's uses. They can be really helpful in 'tight' situations. It really wouldn't be that bad of an idea to have a mixed greek/roman style army.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Its funny, but the legion never really defeated the Macedonian phallanx in an actual even fight where all of the potentials of the Phallanx were used. I still believe that should the battle had been fought on a plain location, with a strong cavalry force on the flanks and good amount of skirmishing units to back it, the legion could not defeat the phallanx. Especially considering it really only took up 15,000 of Alex's 45,000 army. But I guess that was exactly the problem, and where the legions versitility went over the phallanx. I was very impressed however that Alexander, to my great surprise, did go against archer armies during his conquests near India, it is even thought that he went against early Oguz Turk tribes. It is known that he had to contend with early Parthian raids, obviously nowehre near the level where they were at in 55 B.C. but I always had this idea that a cavalry army would wreck a phallanx.

[Onasander]

oh, beyond a doubt a calvary army can butcher them, but the calvary would find itself at a decided disadvantage if trying to charge headon, or attacking a mountain pass.

[Valens]

Its funny, but the legion never really defeated the Macedonian phallanx in an actual even fight where all of the potentials of the Phallanx were used. I still believe that should the battle had been fought on a plain location, with a strong cavalry force on the flanks and good amount of skirmishing units to back it, the legion could not defeat the phallanx.

 

 

My thoughts exactly. Tried to make a similar point in this thread a while back.

 

Especially considering it really only took up 15,000 of Alex's 45,000 army.

 

 

Keeping in mind he usually had large numbers of Greek allies and mercenaries formed up in a phalanx, it's more like 22,000+ of his 40,000-strong army.

 

was very impressed however that Alexander, to my great surprise, did go against archer armies during his conquests near India, it is even thought that he went against early Oguz Turk tribes.

 

 

Indeed. Porus's Pauravan infantry would've been primarily bow-armed. Interestingly, he also went up against large numbers of Sakae cavalry in his conquests (who were certainly amongst the top horsemen in the ancient world).

[Favonius Cornelius]

Its funny, but the legion never really defeated the Macedonian phallanx in an actual even fight where all of the potentials of the Phallanx were used. I still believe that should the battle had been fought on a plain location, with a strong cavalry force on the flanks and good amount of skirmishing units to back it, the legion could not defeat the phallanx.

I think you mention the whole problem though. How often do battlefields and the generals who fight on them allow themselves to be on a plain location if faced with the phalanx? It is easy really to reposition oneself in such a way as to negate the advantages of a phalanx, and so after centuries of becoming more and more tight and organized, the military unit slaked a little with the legionary unit.

 

Really, when you put the two head-on, the legionaries facing the phalanx might take damage but the whole flexibility of the cohort unit would allow for encirclement while the phalanx is busy being rigid. I think only under the most idealized situations the phalanx can outmatch the legion, but those situations are quite rare.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Really, when you put the two head-on, the legionaries facing the phalanx might take damage but the whole flexibility of the cohort unit would allow for encirclement while the phalanx is busy being rigid. I think only under the most idealized situations the phalanx can outmatch the legion, but those situations are quite rare.

 

 

The legions that fought the phallanx were exactly up to par either to be fair, it was decades after the Second Punic War and the organization, dicipline and skill had dropped significantly, however the phallangites were far from their best organization. First, cavalry was placed inbteween cohorts(or whatever you call them in a phallanx army) and there was almost nothing as a proper flank. Had it been Alex's army, that would have probably never happened as he wuld have a strong and formidable cavalry force in the flanks that would counter any encirclement attempt along with skirmishers who would give the legions hell. However.... This is just an assumption....

[Favonius Cornelius]

Really, when you put the two head-on, the legionaries facing the phalanx might take damage but the whole flexibility of the cohort unit would allow for encirclement while the phalanx is busy being rigid. I think only under the most idealized situations the phalanx can outmatch the legion, but those situations are quite rare.

 

 

The legions that fought the phallanx were exactly up to par either to be fair, it was decades after the Second Punic War and the organization, dicipline and skill had dropped significantly, however the phallangites were far from their best organization. First, cavalry was placed inbteween cohorts(or whatever you call them in a phallanx army) and there was almost nothing as a proper flank. Had it been Alex's army, that would have probably never happened as he wuld have a strong and formidable cavalry force in the flanks that would counter any encirclement attempt along with skirmishers who would give the legions hell. However.... This is just an assumption....

Yes...the situation and pairing I speak of is more hypothetical for over-all efficiency than any actual battles that occurred. Something along the lines of a Macedonian phalanx vs. Caesarian cohort.

 

Another thing to consider is the fact that Greek and Macedonian phalanxes seemed to be different in terms of the size of the pike used, the Macedonian one being quite long.

 

Despite it all, the heavily armed yet more maneuverable legionnaire can just push his way past the pike points to use his deadly gladius up close where the phalanx soldier was compromised and at a disadvantage even if he dropped his pike and went for his sword.

[Valens]

Despite it all, the heavily armed yet more maneuverable legionnaire can just push his way past the pike points to use his deadly gladius up close where the phalanx soldier was compromised and at a disadvantage even if he dropped his pike and went for his sword.

 

 

That's what we'd be tempted to think, but the reality is that the legionary's close-range dominance generally wasn't shown until a gap or break in the opposing phalanx was exploited. Head on, the legionaries were generally forced into a stalemate with the phalangites. Battles like Pydna and Magnesia show what I mean. At Pydna, the legionaries and phalangites were at a virtual stalemate until the gap in the Makedonian formation was exploited. At Magnesia, the Seleukid phalanx and Roman Legions were again at a stalemate until the disorderly withdrawl of the Seleukid elephants caused disruption in the phalanx.

 

Just to note, most phalangites had no swords. In some armies, they carried a small dagger as a sidearm, but that offered very little protection from an opponent armed with a real sword.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Wouldn't Pydna and Magnesia be bad examples of a true legionary/phalanx confrontation? We are talking around 200 BC, when I am speaking of at least Marius' reforms to the Augustan legionary. During these times, many of the legions, especially the auxiliaries, were still armed with spears. True that Scipio is said to introduce the gladius to the legions and they were increasingly being used, but I think that you are still pitting the Roman pseudo-phalanx vs. a proper phalanx. In my scenarios I am speaking of a far more refined Roman warrior cohorts of later generations.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Still, no matter how much training you go through, that training does not allow you to go through a 18 foot sarissa right infront of you. In a completely flat plain, the legions would be stuck. Now that were discussing the marian or later imperial legions, were taking into account troops that came from all over. Syrian archer auxilla, Sarmatian or Germanic cavalry or eastern ones. Not much of the original Roman one seems to be left. At that point I do see the Roman cavalry beating the Macedonian, but I cannot see anyway the Italian cavalry could defeat the superiorly equiped and more numerous Macedonian heavy cavalry. Without being able to punch the flanks or find holes, the legions would be pinned. NowI believe the battle lies in the cavalry, should the Roman cavalry fail, Alex wins, should the Roman cavalry overcome, then Alex loses. On top of that, Pydna and Magnesia were terrible examples of a good phallangite army. They were nowhere near the level of skill and discipline Alexander's phallangites showed.