Ancient Tug Of War

[roman wargamer]

metforce

 

(why have this unit which is designed to salvage your army after defeat when you rarely lose).

 

reply

 

the roman lost more number of battle than they won in their entire history.

 

except that they could always raise new one in the height of their power.

 

example: Hannibal lost only one army and he never recover while the Roman

lost few number of consular legio repeatedly and still raise new legiones, even ... until Marius.

[Rameses the Great]

the roman lost more number of battle than they won in their entire history.

 

Really? Where did you get this information? The Romans won most of their battles by a durastic margin compared to their losses. Roman wargamer, in order for Rome to conquer places like Egypt, Greece, and Iberia you must ensure a win at any cost.

 

example: Hannibal lost only one army and he never recover while the Roman

lost few number of consular legio repeatedly and still raise new legiones, even ... until Marius.

 

That is true, but remember Hannibal was too reluctant to attack Rome and it is in its home soil. Few battles were fought on the Italian frontier at the peek of their power. If Hannibal attacked the gates of Rome after Cannae he could have took it. He waited 5 years before he even came close to Rome and by that time they had replenished their cohorts.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[roman wargamer]

metforce re-question?

 

The second line of Hoplites would have a very difficult time changing the angle of their shear;

 

you've got men infront of you so how would your level your spear when their shoulders are in the way?

 

You'd have to lift your spear above your head which would be hard if you had others around you to contend with and if the spear is supported by a shoulder strap.

 

The long lance just seems very unwieldy to me to manuver in close quarters.

 

=======

 

reply

 

you have a different view on this.

 

the spear ( 8' ) height is only level to the men's hip or around 30" above the ground

 

and if you will put a pivotal point in the spear at 24" and the control arm at 12"

 

then you will need only an inches (more or less) to move the spear metal point at between 24" space.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

first men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from 12"-24" from center

 

2nd men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from 06"-12" from center

 

3rd men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from o-12" from center

[Eunapius Titus]

I would also note that it wasn't even necessarily important to fully flank the said phalanx. To simply get the Roman line orientated slightly past the left edge (the Romans' left) would be disastrous for the phalanx. The reason is simple: The last man had only half shield coverage, and only an ungainly pike to defend the other half.

 

Now, granted. I wouldn't want to be one of the hastatii pushing my way using the curved scutum through the wall of pikes in front of me. But if a small number of soldiers managed to force members of the phalanx to revert to using their swords or to fall back from position, the stability of the phalanx is greatly reduced. Mix that with a hail of pila and a second line of fresh, more experienced principes to finish off the formation, and you can see why a manipular Republican legion would have an advantage over a pure phalanx.

 

However, by the time of Rome's rise, most Greek and Hellenistic phalanx-based armies were much more complex, using skirmishers, archers, strong cavalry, and elephants along with more fluid leadership styles. Using these, it was possible to return the favor and break the legion's ranks. This led to the many great battles and struggles between Hellenistic nations and Rome.

[Rameses the Great]

However, by the time of Rome's rise, most Greek and Hellenistic phalanx-based armies were much more complex, using skirmishers, archers, strong cavalry, and elephants along with more fluid leadership styles. Using these, it was possible to return the favor and break the legion's ranks. This led to the many great battles and struggles between Hellenistic nations and Rome.

 

Ever since King Phyrus died, the strong cavalry and elephants was not in the Greek regime. That is why many people speculate, what if the Greeks did this. The bad thing about the Greeks is that they only train light cavalry instead of the heavier force.

 

If the legions had a weakness it was heavy cavalry in which the Greeks lacked. The more fluent and effective Roman cavalry easily destroyed the Greek cavalry, leaving the phalanx exposed. Only Alexander and Phyrus had created heavy cavalry and had seen success. The phalanx and legion are similar in that their best fighting comes when they go forward, in a frontal attack. Of course they need to be unimpeded by harassing enemies.

 

 

In my opinion if the Macedonian phalanx had decent support by cavalry they could have beaten the Romans. Also incompetent generals could also be the blame.

 

first men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from 12"-24" from center

 

2nd men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from 06"-12" from center

 

3rd men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from o-12" from center

 

Great job romanwargamer, I always wondered the lengths. That is probably why they were such a good defensive unit.

[Tommh]

For the best primary source see Polybius:

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.html

 

Polybius was not some Ivory tower theorist either.

The last three paragrtahs preety much sum it up:

 

/quote

 

For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished facts. The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course, those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.

 

The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

 

I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming.

/quote

 

 

This is something of a simplification though. In fact historically a properlly handled Macedonian style "combined arms" army such as that of Phyrus and (very probably) Hannibal were able to defeat Roman Republican Armies. It wasn't until the Roman system evolved to the manipular system (popularly refered to as the Marian reforms) and added a larger perecentage of more professional cavalry and skirmishers that it became a superior system as described by Polybius.

 

Even before this it did have one major advantage that Polybius may well have understood but foreborne to mention: it was much easier to lead. Macedonian combined arms operations require good command and control, excellent timing and a good understanding of how to use all three arms of your army. Roman strategy (especially during the Republican era) was usually the simple application of Roman tactics i.e. steam roll the enemy.

[roman wargamer]

Rameses the Great

 

"the spear ( 8' ) "

 

I always wondered the lengths. That is probably why they were such a good defensive unit.

 

=======

 

reply

 

the 8' feet spear i mentioned was use only as representation in the hoplite spear formation question of

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

" "metforce re-question?" "

 

The second line of Hoplites would have a very difficult time changing the angle of their spear;

 

you've got men infront of you so how would your level your spear when their shoulders are in the way?

 

You'd have to lift your spear above your head which would be hard if you had others around you to contend with and if the spear is supported by a shoulder strap.

 

The long lance just seems very unwieldy to me to manuver in close quarters.

 

so my reply was

 

you have a different view on this.

 

the spear ( 8' ) height is only level to the men's hip or around 30" above the ground

and if you will put a pivotal point in the spear at 24" and the control arm at 12"

then you will need only an inches (more or less) to move the spear metal point at between 24" space.

 

 

first men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from 12"-24" from center

2nd men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from 06"-12" from center

3rd men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from o-12" from center

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

this is how i know most of the spear name and sizes;

 

The Roman Legiones have different spear name and sizes;

 

"hastula" a short thrusting spear around 6 feet use by light infantry ( ex: velitarius )

 

"hasta" a long thrusting spear around 12 feet use by heavy infantry ( ex; hastatus )

 

"hastae princeps" a thrusting spear around 10 feet use by heavy infantry ( ex; princeps )

 

"pilus?" ( or pila?) a thrusting spear around 8 feet use by heavy infantry ( ex; triarii )

 

=======

 

the hoplite spear is around 14-16 feet long.

 

the phalanx use a few feet longer than the hoplte spear, around 16-18 feet.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

although this in-depth work guess of mine will surely be subjected to exponetial crititism...

 

both to the name , use and era of existence.

[metforce]

metforce re-question?

 

The second line of Hoplites would have a very difficult time changing the angle of their shear;

 

you've got men infront of you so how would your level your spear when their shoulders are in the way?

 

You'd have to lift your spear above your head which would be hard if you had others around you to contend with and if the spear is supported by a shoulder strap.

 

The long lance just seems very unwieldy to me to manuver in close quarters.

 

=======

 

reply

 

you have a different view on this.

 

the spear ( 8' ) height is only level to the men's hip or around 30" above the ground

 

and if you will put a pivotal point in the spear at 24" and the control arm at 12"

 

then you will need only an inches (more or less) to move the spear metal point at between 24" space.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

first men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from 12"-24" from center

 

2nd men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from 06"-12" from center

 

3rd men will diagonaly inclined towards their rightest side the metal point from o-12" from center

 

 

This is still hard for me to visualize. I've seen legionary reenactors but never Phalanx. Your description could work but perhaps the crux of the problem is the generals and Greek soldiers of Alexander were long gone by the time the Roman legions were being organized. Maybe a better question is who would win Alexander or Caesar?

[Neos Dionysos]

Maybe a better question is who would win Alexander or Caesar?

 

Please let us not even consider this... because the question is 100% opinion answer based, there is no way to compare them, (there is a 250 year difference), and these type of things lead to flaming, and camps of "Hail Caesar", "Hail Alexander", and "We don't give a sh*t."

Edited June 4, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Germanicus]

And the thread would get locked immediatly anyway.

[Tommh]

A interesting point that is often igonred is that while we all know the know "Big Battles" involving phalanxes and legions its clear that they met many more times then is recorded. FOr instance during both the first and second Punic wars Roman legions awere operating in Greece with success and of course there is Sicily. I would suggest that the record would indicate that the Roman system held up well since the phalanx using sides were unable to dominate, even with the home court advantage.

 

Of course it also shows that that dominance was far less then the advantage of colonial era European troops or even that of the Mongols vs (almost) anybody else.

[Kosmo]

If roman army was the same always the hellenistic opponents were different between themselves and in different times as each army was unique.

Most roman victories in Macedonia and Greece had the help of many greek allies so the image it's more complex.

[caldrail]

A interesting point that is often igonred is that while we all know the know "Big Battles" involving phalanxes and legions its clear that they met many more times then is recorded. FOr instance during both the first and second Punic wars Roman legions awere operating in Greece with success and of course there is Sicily. I would suggest that the record would indicate that the Roman system held up well since the phalanx using sides were unable to dominate, even with the home court advantage.

 

Of course it also shows that that dominance was far less then the advantage of colonial era European troops or even that of the Mongols vs (almost) anybody else.

 

It should be remembered that the roman army was derived from the greek model. The very earliest roman forces were warbands on a basic level. Greek organisation was adopted until the romans decided a more flexible approach was needed during the Punic Wars - a typical case of warfare advancing techinique and technology.

 

But isn't that typical of Rome? Like the modern Japanese, not so good at inventing but they sure know a good idea when they see one.

[roman wargamer]

caldrail

 

It should be remembered that the roman army was derived from the greek model.

 

reply

 

yes , it is really the same , except that it was detached into segment of more manipular line.

 

Ancient History Sourcebook:

Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE):

The Roman Maniple vs. The Macedonian Phalanx

 

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet; and as the length of the sarissae are sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen; and as of these fourteen four must be deducted, to allow for the weight in front; it follows clearly that each hoplite will have ten cubits of his sarissa projecting beyond his body, when he lowers it with both hands, as he advances against the enemy: hence, too, though the men of the second, third, and fourth rank will have their sarissae projecting farther beyond the front rank than the men of the fifth, yet even these last will have two cubits of their sarissae beyond the front rank; if only the phalanx is properly formed and the men close up properly both flank and rear, like the description in Homer:

 

So buckler pressed on buckler; helm on helm; And man on man; and waving horse-hair plumes In polished head-piece mingled, as they swayed In order: in such serried rank they stood. [iliad, 13.131]

 

Such is the arrangement, general and detailed of the phalanx. It remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.

 

 

=====

 

The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Polybius

 

"Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength."

 

" "it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx" "

 

So my point is that the phalanx was not or never defeated in a frontal penetration,

but by the flanking strategic movement of the Roman cohors manipular reserve.

___________________________________________________________________________

representaion was only 1/3 parts of the cohors organizational structure:

 

Macedonian Phalanx

"it advances to the charge sixteen deep"

 

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0'/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0'''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0'/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0'''

/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0''/0'''/0''

 

vs.

 

Roman legiones cohors

 

Primum Acies Line

 

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..=............Anteadstatus / medium infantry

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..

 

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Hastatus Posterior / heavy infantry

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/

 

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Hastatus Prior / heavy infantry

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/

 

-------------------------------------

Secundus Acies Line

 

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..=............Ante Princeps / medium infantry

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..

 

 

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.=............Princeps / heavy infantry

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/. in testudo formation

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.

()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

Equitatus Turmae

___________________________

 

CohorsSigniferi

 

--------------------------------------

Tertius Acies Line

 

 

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Triarius Prior / heavy infantry

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/

 

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Triarius Posterior / heavy infantry

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/

[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/

 

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..=............Ante Triarius / medium infantry

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..

0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

the Hastatus acies line hold the frontal line

 

the Princeps acies line hold the flank line

 

the Triarius acies line hold the rear line

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

Princeps in testudo formation

only the princeps do the Testudo formation

 

Testudo was actually a Macedonian Phalanx formation

but in a smaller "square form" that is use to 'push" the enemy part battle line.

[Eunapius Titus]

I'm afraid that testudo was, for all intensive purposes, alike the phalanx only in the fact that both formations require the men to retain a rigid formation with limited mobility. I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck in a testudo formation attempting to push through a phalanx, or any other group of enemies. It is an easy formation to break, and it breaks in a very messy manner. The testudo has one simply, unadulterated purpose: missle protection.

 

Think of it this way: I wouldn't want to try to fight in combat as a tortoise (testudo), but I certainly wouldn't mind the shell.