Battle Of Tunis

[PerfectimusPrime]

Very enlightening description of the hoplon.

 

Thanks...

 

Were all of the hoplons held in that manner?

 

 

Probably, though of course, there were exceptions.

 

Dropping the shield would endanger your neighbor more than yourself. Is that why it was disgrace for them to return without their shield?

 

 

Maybe...

 

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

 

Well, yes probably. The Saxons didn't use the shield wall tactics quite often, actually.

[Valens]

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.

14913[/snapback]

 

The Seleucid army at Magnesia was standing firm until the disorderly retreat of their elephants caused confusion and disorder in their phalanx. The loss wasn't a failure of the formation.

 

Dropping the shield would endanger your neighbor more than yourself. Is that why it was disgrace for them to return without their shield?

 

Correct. When the exiled Spartan King, Demaratos, was asked why it was considered more dishonourable to lose one's shield than cuirass or weapon, he replied: "Because the latter they put on for their own protection, but the shield for the common good of the whole line."

[Hamilcar Barca]

During the 2nd Punic War, the Carthaginians hired a Spartan Mercenary to train their troops.

 

I'll asume you meant 1st Punic War

 

QUOTE(barca @ Sep 17 2005, 07:40 PM)

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.

 

 

 

 

 

The Seleucid army at Magnesia was standing firm until the disorderly retreat of their elephants caused confusion and disorder in their phalanx. The loss wasn't a failure of the formation.

 

The reason this battle was lost was Antiochus' failure to support the phalanx with his cavalry. His ill-fated cavalry charge against the Roman centre at the battles start allowed the right wing to encircle the Selecuid phalanx and pick it apart.

[barca]

"I'll asume you meant 1st Punic War"

 

Yes, that's what I meant.

[barca]

"The Seleucid army at Magnesia was standing firm until the disorderly retreat of their elephants caused confusion and disorder in their phalanx. The loss wasn't a failure of the formation."

 

 

Regarding the use of elephants interposed in the gaps between the phalanx units. Sounds like total madness. They should have known better. Elephants falling back in the gaps and losing control would be a serious danger to the phalanx.

What sort of troops could they have used to bridge these gaps?

 

Alexander didn't appear as concerned about gaps in the phalanx. Maybe it is because he didn't rely on the linear formations of his successors. The phalanx could be arranged in various formations: wedge, pincer, cirle, convex, or concave line. The point being that the pikes could face in more than one direction.

 

It is also interesting that the Swiss pikemen of the 15th century advanced in column formation. Their front being only about 30 men wide. A total disregard for the concept of flanks and gaps. This never seemed to be a problem for them. Fortunately they also had halberdiers and swordsmen as part of their units that helped out when it got to close quarters.

 

 

 

"The reason this battle was lost was Antiochus' failure to support the phalanx with his cavalry. His ill-fated cavalry charge against the Roman centre at the battles start allowed the right wing to encircle the Selecuid phalanx and pick it apart."

 

Regarding the cavalry engagement, I never fully understood what happened. It seems that he overextended himself with his cavalry charge, and ended up leaving a huge gap between his cavalry and his own phalanx. The light infantry that were supposed to watch the flanks of the phalanx were driven off by the Romans. Why did he let this happen. Unlike Alexander, he was unable to use his cavalry to exploit weaknesses in the enemy line. Was this poor generalship, or were the Roman lines so much more disciplined that even Alexander would have had difficulty in that situation?

[Valens]

The reason this battle was lost was Antiochus' failure to support the phalanx with his cavalry. His ill-fated cavalry charge against the Roman centre at the battles start allowed the right wing to encircle the Selecuid phalanx and pick it apart.

15126[/snapback]

 

The massed cavalry strike (led by Antiochus himself) wasn't what left the Seleucid phalanx open to the Roman cavalry force. The phalanx was open because the cavalry support on the left was routed and chased off.

[barca]

The reason this battle was lost was Antiochus' failure to support the phalanx with his cavalry. His ill-fated cavalry charge against the Roman centre at the battles start allowed the right wing to encircle the Selecuid phalanx and pick it apart.

15126[/snapback]

 

The massed cavalry strike (led by Antiochus himself) wasn't what left the Seleucid phalanx open to the Roman cavalry force. The phalanx was open because the cavalry support on the left was routed and chased off.

15149[/snapback]

 

I recently came across a fairly detailed description of the fate of the phalanx at Magnesia. I have not verified the authenticity of this source, but it's certainly more detailed than other descriptions that I've heard.

 

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_syriaca_07.html#[

[P.Clodius]

During the 2nd Punic War, the Carthaginians hired a Spartan Mercenary to train their troops.

 

His name was Xanthipus

[longbow]

Well, yes probably. The Saxons didn't use the shield wall tactics quite often, actually

 

I thought the Saxon way of war was all about the shield wall

 

And besides, gladius penetrates soft bronze easily.

 

I would like to see that happen

 

In the English civil war when the soldiers were armed with pikes,they would often be units with only 100 men or so in them.This made them more manuvarable,all they had to do was raise pike take a step left or right and there facing the enemy again,making them very hard for the cavalry to flank.Couldnt these smaller formations have been used by the Greeks?

[PerfectimusPrime]

Well, those were poor selection of words, because the Saxons did use shield wall quite often but not as often as the Greeks used phalanx, not nearly as often.

 

I would like to see that happen

 

Gladius does, as it was noticed by the macedonians who used Bronze cuirass often. Bronze is very soft.

 

Also, there was a story about a duel where a Roman and Gaul faced, the Roman struck one time and the one strike penetrated the Gauls bronze plate like butter.

[Guest Jake]

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.

 

 

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.

 

The Macedonian phalanx was never very effective as an offensive force, they were primarily a holding force that allowed the offensive troops a stable platform from which to try and exploit weaknesses in the opposing army.

 

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.

[Valens]

Gladius does, as it was noticed by the macedonians who used Bronze cuirass often.

 

Very few Macedonians of the Roman era would've been wearing a bronze cuirass (they were well out of date by the late 4th Century). In fact, a greater percentage than you may think wouldn't have been wearing any cuirass at all.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Gladius does, as it was noticed by the macedonians who used Bronze cuirass often.

 

Very few Macedonians of the Roman era would've been wearing a bronze cuirass (they were well out of date by the late 4th Century). In fact, a greater percentage than you may think wouldn't have been wearing any cuirass at all.

 

Whoops, was it the Greeks then...