Battle Of Tunis

[barca]

The Legion versus Phalanx debate always uses the example of the legion against the Macedonian phalanx. Little if any attention is given to Legion versus Hoplite Phalanx.

In the war against Pyrrhus they were pretty evenly matched. The legions subsequently evoved so that they won easily at Cynoscephale, Pydna, and Magnesia, Once the llegionaires got past the hedge of spears and got in close, the Macedonian phalanx didn't stand a chance.

The Macedonian phalangites were hindered by the long two-handed Sarissa: they could only carry a very small shield, they had lighter armor, and carried an inferior sword.

 

These hoplites of a traditionan pre-Macedonian phalanx were much different. They carried a shorter one-handed spear. They could therefore carry the larger Hoplon shield. It appears that they also had heavier armor and greaves. Their traditional hoplite sword ws 2ft long and was good for both cutting and thrusting. Some carried the Kopis, a heavy slashing sword. They were certainly able to take care of themselves at close quarters.

 

During the 2nd Punic War, the Carthaginians hired a Spartan Mercenary to train their troops. He put together a phalanx that easily defeated the Roman legions at the Battle of Tunis. Polybius does not go into detail about the makeup of this particular phalanx, but I would assume that it was the Hoplite-style phalanx.

 

It is not clear what formations were used by Hannibals troops. Many believe that his African infantry fought in traditional phalanx formation. Others have suggested that his formations had to be more like a legion--how else could his armies have been so maneuverable?

[P.Clodius]

It is not clear what formations were used by Hannibals troops. Many believe that his African infantry fought in traditional phalanx formation. Others have suggested that his formations had to be more like a legion--how else could his armies have been so maneuverable?

 

I doubt the large part of Hannibal's army adopted the legion tactics except for the few "ex"-roman allies that did go over to his side. When speaking of Hannibal's maneuverability it is generally assumed ( by me certainly) to be reffering to Hannibal's superioity in cavalry. The Numidians being the best cavalry available anywhere at the time. If you examine the confrontation between the carthaginians and romans at Illipa where cavalry didn't play a great role, the flexibilty of the legionary system clearly checkmates the carthaginians.

[Valens]

The legions subsequently evoved so that they won easily at Cynoscephale, Pydna, and Magnesia, Once the llegionaires got past the hedge of spears and got in close, the Macedonian phalanx didn't stand a chance.

 

The Manipular Legion evolve? No, I'd said later Roman victories had more to do with the ebbing of Greek tactical science.

 

During the 2nd Punic War, the Carthaginians hired a Spartan Mercenary to train their troops. He put together a phalanx that easily defeated the Roman legions at the Battle of Tunis. Polybius does not go into detail about the makeup of this particular phalanx, but I would assume that it was the Hoplite-style phalanx.

 

Hmm, doubtful Xanthippus would've ushered in hoplite tactics. By this time, Sparta had certainly made the transition to a phalangite-based phalanx, so if indeed he was a Spartan, he would likely have used phalangites anyway.

[barca]

[The Manipular Legion evolve? No, I'd said later Roman victories had more to do with the ebbing of Greek tactical science.

 

Do you care to elaborate on that? Are you saying that the later Macedonian Phalanxes were different than the ones that were led by Pyrrhus? How much science did Pyrrhus use? His cavalry was not able to make a difference--it was neutralized by the Roman cavalry, and the Romans were certainly not renowned for their cavalry. He had to rely on elephants to tip the balance. as you know, elephants not always reliable, since they can turn againts their own army when they lose control. He did OK with them on the first two battles, but they really turned against him on the third one.

 

Pyrrhus did not have to face legonaires that were armed with the Gladius. It is unlikely that the Romans used the Gladius prior to the Second Punic War. Polybius description of the use of the Gladius by Romans agaist Macedonians suggests that it was a key factor in their victories.

 

 

 

Hmm, doubtful Xanthippus would've ushered in hoplite tactics. By this time, Sparta had certainly made the transition to a phalangite-based phalanx, so if indeed he was a Spartan, he would likely have used phalangites anyway.

14748[/snapback]

 

Are you sure about that? I find it difficult to find to find detailed information on the later Spartan military. If you have any definitive sources, please let me know.

[jermus22]

It's interesting we're discussing the makeup of the Carthaginian phalanx. I have a personal theory regarding the issue. It's clear from history that the Carthaginians, Liby-Phoenicians, and Libyans were all treated differently in Africa, so perhaps it's safe to assume that at least until the Second Punic War, they were also treated differently in the field. Perhaps the first phalanx in any Carthaginian army consisted of the Carthaginian citizens at the Battle of the Crimesus River in Sicily (342 BC?). They probably used a hoplite phalanx, and although they fared poorly, they probably continued to keep them at home as a national guard of sorts. Libyans up to this point had been allowed to fight in their native style as medium to lightly armed infantry with javelins, spears, and bucklers covered in animal hide. However, based on the initial success of the phalanx at the battle, the Carthaginians realized the advantages of employing mercenaries in a similar manner to fight the Greeks in Sicily. After all, the failure of the phalanx had been due more to a lack of support from the other contingents in the army.

 

The Carthaginians probably realized the advantages of hiring Libyans cheaply and training them into a phalanx. Lower quality equipment could be manufactured and supplied at Carthage, thus boosting business within the city while saving money that would have been spent on Greek phalangites. So, in this manner Libyans served in Carthaginian armies abroad while Carthaginians remained at home as a sort of national guard with the best arms and training. When Xanthippus the Spartan arrived in 255 BC, he probably had the Carthaginian phalanx re-organized into the Macedonian style while the Libyans continued as hoplites. After the First Punic War, the Carthaginian phalanx continued to see action, this time against Libyan hoplites and mercenary contingents in the Truceless War. Social upheaval and revolution accompanied this war (check out Polybius' account, particularly his reference to the ejection of Hanno the Great and the citizens' selection of his replacement). After the war, perhaps more Liby-Phoenicians and Carthaginians from the lower classes joined the ranks of the hoplite phalanx, along with many Libyans in an attempt to mend relationships between these peoples.

 

My guess is that after several years of campaigning in Spain, Hamilcar Barca saw the advantage of re-equipping his hoplites with more Iberian weapons like the falcata and scutari shield while retaining their overhand thrusting spear. This enabled them to retain the compactness and overall strength of a phalanx while occasionally adopting more tactical manoeuvreability and capability in swordplay(like the Iberians and Roman maniples). Who knows, maybe Hamilcar had already begun incorporating Iberian weaponry into his Libyan ranks while in Sicily. Regardless, this seems highly likely since his son Hannibal would employ his Libyans in tactical manouevres which required more speed and flexibility than the traditional hoplite and Macedonian phalanxes. Livy notes at the Battle of Cannae that Hannibal's Libyans were "more wearied by slaughter than by fighting" which suggests sword play rather than the steady plodding of a Macedonian phalanx equipped with sarissas. And at Zama, the final stubborn resistance of his last line even when outflanked does not seem to parallel the same vulnerability of Philip's Macedonians at Cynocephalae only five years later.

 

Anyway, that's my theory. Would like to hear some thoughts/criticisms of it.

[DecimusCaesar]

The typical Greek style Phalanx was reformed around 390 BC by the Athenian General Iphicrates. The newly reformed army was similar in equipment to the Macedonian Pezhetaroi; in that they carried a large spear that needed to be held in two hands and a small shield. They also wore a padded linen cuirass instead of traditional bronze armour.

 

If the Spartans ( who were usually rather conservative when it came to military reforms) had also adopted the same type of equipment as the Athenian 'Iphicratid' Hoplite, then it is probable that Xanthipus (The Spartan Mercenary General) used a Macedonian style Phalanx in defence of Carthage.

 

(I read in Peter Green's biography of Alexander that at the battle of Chaeronea, the Theban and Athenian Hoplites were lightly armed and armoured and this was one factor that led to their defeat. It is therefore probable that lightly armoured Hoplites were common in this period, but is not mentioned if the Hoplites were carrying the new longer spear, or the shorter over-head spear that was more common during the 400's BC).

[Valens]

Do you care to elaborate on that? Are you saying that the later Macedonian Phalanxes were different than the ones that were led by Pyrrhus? How much science did Pyrrhus use? His cavalry was not able to make a difference--it was neutralized by the Roman cavalry, and the Romans were certainly not renowned for their cavalry. He had to rely on elephants to tip the balance. as you know, elephants not always reliable, since they can turn againts their own army when they lose control. He did OK with them on the first two battles, but they really turned against him on the third one.

 

Pyrrhus did not have to face legonaires that were armed with the Gladius. It is unlikely that the Romans used the Gladius prior to the Second Punic War. Polybius description of the use of the Gladius by Romans agaist Macedonians suggests that it was a key factor in their victories.

 

The later Hellenistic foes (especially the Makedonians) became increasingly lacking in cavalry, and as a result had to rely nearly completely on the phalanx as an offensive force much as their ancestors of centuries before had done (also as a result of this, the phalangites came to be armed more like the hoplites of old). They became very different from the diverse, more cavalry-focused Greek armies of the early Hellenistic period.

 

Are you sure about that? I find it difficult to find to find detailed information on the later Spartan military. If you have any definitive sources, please let me know.

 

Not positive, but it would seem likely. Especially given that we know a good portion of the later Spartan army comprised of mercenary phalangites and phalangites supplied by Ptolemy II.

 

As for a definitive source on later Spartan armies, there isn't one. Primary sources are rather sketchy, so modern scholars have made a lot of assumptions. If you'd like a modern source, try and find a copy of J.F. Lazenby's The spartan Army. Likely the most complete coverage of the Spartan army the casual reader will find.

 

The typical Greek style Phalanx was reformed around 390 BC by the Athenian General Iphicrates. The newly reformed army was similar in equipment to the Macedonian Pezhetaroi; in that they carried a large spear that needed to be held in two hands and a small shield. They also wore a padded linen cuirass instead of traditional bronze armour.

 

Let's keep in mind Iphicrates' reforms didn't sreally spride wide, far, or quickly. The more traditional hoplite panolpy remained as popular as ever during the 4th C.

 

If the Spartans ( who were usually rather conservative when it came to military reforms) had also adopted the same type of equipment as the Athenian 'Iphicratid' Hoplite, then it is probable that Xanthipus (The Spartan Mercenary General) used a Macedonian style Phalanx in defence of Carthage.

 

As far as we can tell, the Spartans never really lingered in between hoplite and phalangite (though their hoplites had been more lightly armed since the Peloponnesian War) . In the mid 4th Century, for example, we still see the Spartans combating the traditional Theban hoplites with traditional hoplites of their own.

[barca]

I doubt the large part of Hannibal's army adopted the legion tactics except for the few "ex"-roman allies that did go over to his side. When speaking of Hannibal's maneuverability it is generally assumed ( by me certainly) to be reffering to Hannibal's superioity in cavalry. The Numidians being the best cavalry available anywhere at the time. If you examine the confrontation between the carthaginians and romans at Illipa where cavalry didn't play a great role, the flexibilty of the legionary system clearly checkmates the carthaginians.

14740[/snapback]

 

 

Hannibals maneuverability was certainly enhanced by his superiority in cavalry, especially when you consider that the Roman legions were not very strong in cavalry. At the battle of Cannae they played a significant role in driving off the Roman cavalry and sealing off the trap. A more important task was carried out by the African infantry, which advanced in columns on the flanks, and the suddenly turned inwards on the advancing Romans. This clearly showed better mobility of Hannibals infantry-- not the one-dimensional approach of the phalanx at Pydna or Cynoscephalae. Could this maneuver be carried ou by a phalnx formation? If it is well trained, I would say yes. The Swiss routinely advanced their pike formations in columns. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for a phalanx to maintain its hedge of pikes in more than one direction.

 

I doubt that the Numidians were the best cavalry available anywhere in their time.

They had light armor and they carried a javelin, making them most effective as skirmishers. They neither had the severe shock effect of heavy cavalry nor the range of horse-archers. Alexander's companion cavalry made short work of Persian javelin-throwing cavalry. The shock effect of the heavy Macedonian cavalry with their 13 ft. Xystons was too much for them. There were many other heavy cavalry (cataphracts) at that time. Even the Scythians had a certain percentage of their cavalry armed as heavy lancers.

[PerfectimusPrime]

The Legion versus Phalanx debate always uses the example of the legion against the Macedonian phalanx. Little if any attention is given to Legion versus Hoplite Phalanx.

In the war against Pyrrhus they were pretty evenly matched. The legions subsequently evoved so that they won easily at Cynoscephale, Pydna, and Magnesia, Once the llegionaires got past the hedge of spears and got in close, the Macedonian phalanx didn't stand a chance.

The Macedonian phalangites were hindered by the long two-handed Sarissa: they could only carry a very small shield, they had lighter armor, and carried an inferior sword.

 

The macedonian phalanx was used very much differently than the traditional Greek phalanx, and it was often misused.

 

These hoplites of a traditionan pre-Macedonian phalanx were much different. They carried a shorter one-handed spear. They could therefore carry the larger Hoplon shield. It appears that they also had heavier armor and greaves. Their traditional hoplite sword ws 2ft long and was good for both cutting and thrusting. Some carried the Kopis, a heavy slashing sword. They were certainly able to take care of themselves at close quarters.

 

No they couldn't, not against a legionary. You see, the hoplon was absolutely horrible for sword combat and the kopis was inferior to gladius, also it was too short to be really effective slashing sword. The Hoplite cuirass was made of leather

and their equipement in general was outdated. Originally the legionary curved shield, scutum, was probably designed against hoplite spears.

 

The Macedonian phalangates didn't have heavy armour because the enemy was not expected to get close, but the enemy got close as the macedonian phalanx was often misused, tactically.

 

IMHO, of course

[Valens]

and the kopis was inferior to gladius, also it was too short to be really effective slashing sword.

 

On the contrary, it was an extremely effective slasher in close combat. In fact, Xenophon even found it's size quite sufficient to be effective on horseback.

 

But why focus on the kopis? It was the more versatile xiphos that the majority of hoplites used.

 

The Hoplite cuirass was made of leather

 

No. In the Classical era, if a hoplite wore a cuirass it was generally a bronze type (bell or muscled) or maybe a composite suit of linen, canvas, and supporting plates/scales.

[PerfectimusPrime]

On the contrary, it was an extremely effective slasher in close combat.  In fact, Xenophon even found it's size quite sufficient to be effective on horseback.

 

But why focus on the kopis?  It was the more versatile xiphos that the majority of hoplites used.

 

Oh.....

 

No.  In the Classical era, if a hoplite wore a cuirass it was generally a bronze type (bell or muscled) or maybe a composite suit of linen, canvas, and supporting plates/scales.

14887[/snapback]

 

Impossible, a bronze cuirass was way too expensive for city states that were on the decline; leather cuirass was still used. Linen wasn't used either, as it was, also way too expensive, linen was known to be the material for rich people's clothings, on contrary to a popular believe: it is likely that linen was never used. Scales were used, but they were made of bronze as iron rusted very fast.

 

And besides, gladius penetrates soft bronze easily.

 

Muscled bronze cuirass was really only used by the nobles, because such armour was very expensive, as it took an experienced smith to produce such armour and bronze was expensive, if memonry serves...

[barca]

The later Hellenistic foes (especially the Makedonians) became increasingly lacking in cavalry, and as a result had to rely nearly completely on the phalanx as an offensive force much as their ancestors of centuries before had done (also as a result of this, the phalangites came to be armed more like the hoplites of old). They became very different from the diverse, more cavalry-focused Greek armies of the early Hellenistic period.

I've heard that explanation before. There is more to it than that.

The Macedonians at Pydna and Cynoscephae are examples of what you are talking about. But what about the battle of Magnesia? Here the Hellenistic army had an overwhelming superiority in cavalry and it didn't seem to help them. One could probably say the same thing about the "hellenistic" armies of Mthridates. They too had superiority in cavalry, but were easily beaten by Sulla.

[barca]

No they couldn't, not against a legionary. You see, the hoplon was absolutely horrible for sword combat and the kopis was inferior to gladius, also it was too short to be really effective slashing sword.

 

How was the hoplon inferior to the scutum? Round shields were also used by the Saxons and Vikings, who used swords effectively (when they weren't swinging their battle axes).

 

Below is a fairly detailed account of the Gladius, with comparisons to the xiphos and kopis. It appears that one of the reasons why the Gladius became so widespread was its ease of manufacture. The xiphos was capable of cutting and thrusting effectively against bronze armor.

 

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_ironempire.html

 

What kind of sword did the phalangites use at Cynoscephalae? Whatever it was, it wasn't very effective against the Romans.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Hoplon wasn't bad because of its shape but because of the way it was held.

 

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/a...e/hoplshld.html

 

It also often didn't have the central metal boss, which means that it cannot be used for bashing, like scutum.

[barca]

Hoplon wasn't bad because of its shape but because of the way it was held.

 

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/a...e/hoplshld.html

 

It also often didn't have the central metal boss, which means that it cannot be used for bashing, like scutum.

14960[/snapback]

 

 

Very enlightening description of the hoplon. Were all of the hoplons held in that manner? Dropping the shield would endanger your neighbor more than yourself. Is that why it was disgrace for them to return without their shield?

 

What about the round Saxon shield. Was it better in individual combat, but less effective in phalanx formation?