roman wargamer Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 as we know it , tug of war , was a sport of pulling your opponent until it reach a mark line, who ever first team to touch the center marking line was consider defeated or lost the game. in reverse way , let's call it as "ancient tug of war" as the battle push each other's line to breakage. the ancient concept of the battle was to break the enemy line of defense/s. who ever losses or break it's line of defenses was prone to lost the main battle. _________________________________________________________________________________ the hoplite have a "long thrusting spear" and a "parma shield" ... /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. [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],.=............Hastatus Prior [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],. [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],. [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],. who have a "pilum javelin" and a "scutum shield" and a "gladius" as side arm. as many people believed it. ======= here is my question, how could a H prior defend itself against a very long spear of hoplite with H gladius? the hoplite can reach , push , stab and maim the H prior line while the hoplite was still very far, safe and beyond the reach of the short gladius sword. from all military standard, the hoplite is superior here in weapon and manpower. long thrusting spear of the Hoplite versus the Hastati gladius? will a legate really allow his men of the legio to meet the enemy with an inferior weaponry? where do the Hp get their spear when they stab the elephant who pass their line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 An excellent question and one that causes a good deal of problems with 'standard' battle accounts, hence their tendency to gloss on details. I can think of several factors but, if I may, I'd rather take a more extreme (and more typical) example, that of pike armed phalangite versus legionary. The pike phalanx presents a dense mass of men with five or six pike points protruding from the formation. Let us suppose that the pike of the first rank protrudes fifteen feet (nearly 3m) forward. There will be another pike point at 12 feet, another at 9 feet etc. So clearly the legionary has his work cut out closing. The pila is key I think. The puropse of the pila is to slow and disrupt the enemy. A dense pike phalanx is especially vulnerable to any form of disorder and furthermore, pikemen cannot defend themselve by manoeuvering their shields. Hence a pila shower will disrupt their order and either cause contact in ragged disorder (disastrous for the phalanx) or cause them to stop and regroup. If a century does not discharge every pila at once but each line throws in turn, if they're formed 4 deep (common) then they can disrupt the pikes 4 times... a second century held in reserve could provide another 4 disruotions. Potentially then the advancing phalangites are going to be held up as many as eight times before they can charge home. This will allow individual units of phalangites to be 'teased' forward relative to others, exposing their flanks. Now often the phalanx is recorded as pushing the legionaries back. I think this is best interpreted as the legions falling back between 'pila showers' as pila-depleted centuries retire allowing fresh units to engage. The gist is that the Romans don't close unless the phalanx is sufficiently disordered by pila to allow it OR an individual phalanx unit has advanced sufficiently to expose its flanks to assault. That the phalanx was not a monolithic structure is attested in the sources, most notably at Gaugamela where the individual units of the phalanx became badly dislocated allowing large scale penetration. With hoplites, the Romans have a greater advantage as the hoplite relies very much on his shield. If this is rendered useless by a pila, the hoplite is rendered virtually defenceless. We should also remember that the Hellenistic nations seldom had a reserve, whereas the Romans usually deployed their units in two or three lines. Thus the Romans could better concentrate forces to exploit weaknesses in the enemy line as they were exposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerfectimusPrime Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 Romans rarely, I believe, assaulted the phalanx from front, but instead tried to flank them. Also, it shouldn't be forgotten that long thrusting spears were gradiually replaced by macedonian pikes, even among the Greek cities... even before the rise of Rome. The Roman shield, curved tower shield, was originally designed against hoplite spears and it could easily divert a thrust of a spear away without much damage to the shield. So Romans could, slowly, reach the phalanx shield wall without overwhelming casualties. IIRC. The soldiers of a phalanx were often poorly trained in sword combat, and the aspis was horibble when not in formation (it was designed to be ), and especially when facing sword armed combatants with centre-grip shields, such as the Romans. In some battles, when Romans managed to break the phalanx formation, the phalangites were quite literally slaughtered by the superior swords and close combat methods of the Romans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metforce Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 as we know it , tug of war , was a sport of pulling your opponent until it reach a mark line,who ever first team to touch the center marking line was consider defeated or lost the game. in reverse way , let's call it as "ancient tug of war" as the battle push each other's line to breakage. the ancient concept of the battle was to break the enemy line of defense/s. who ever losses or break it's line of defenses was prone to lost the main battle. _________________________________________________________________________________ the hoplite have a "long thrusting spear" and a "parma shield" ... /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. [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],.=............Hastatus Prior [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],. [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],. [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],. who have a "pilum javelin" and a "scutum shield" and a "gladius" as side arm. as many people believed it. ======= here is my question, how could a H prior defend itself against a very long spear of hoplite with H gladius? the hoplite can reach , push , stab and maim the H prior line while the hoplite was still very far, safe and beyond the reach of the short gladius sword. from all military standard, the hoplite is superior here in weapon and manpower. long thrusting spear of the Hoplite versus the Hastati gladius? will a legate really allow his men of the legio to meet the enemy with an inferior weaponry? where do the Hp get their spear when they stab the elephant who pass their line? Saw this on the history channel. Good tactic. The Roman soldier would allow the hoplite pike to hit his shield then push back. This would prevent the pikeman from moving forward. Other men would work their way towards the hoplites beteen their pike shafts and engaged them in close combat. With the hoplites weapon "pinned" against a shield they were probably easy targets for a soldier with a short weapon such as the gladius. A few men engaged in close combat with the hoplites would probably inflict damage and eventually ruin the formation. Attacks on the flanks if possible would also be affective. O O O O O Hoplite | | []| | | | | :| | | | | :| | | ^ ^ :^ ^ ^ [] [] [] [] [] Legion (Sorry for the crude drawing) For the hoplites to be successful the opponent must be kept at a distance and driven from the field. For the legion to be successful close combat must be engaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 Virgil has said this elsewhere "fix and flank" to defeat a phalanx-so I suppose "fix and hold" ( before commiting reserves) would do quite well, also remember the constant factor of the liquidity of Roman mounted auxilliae as a "tipping point" influence when sent into assault at the appropriate moment.A phalanx is , I suppose, like a crab -get in past the primary armament and you can turn the whole beast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Phalanx was tough oponent in open field and sometimes hellenistic states had a good cavalry. The batlles with Pirus showed that the phalanx could break the legionary formation and use cavalry reserves to great benefit. I think that many things said here about the hellenistic phalanx are untrue. They had reserves, cavalry (sometimes elephants) and manouvered quite well. Unlike the roman republic they had professional soldiers and professional officers. The battles of Alexander show a high level of complexity, not a straight forward mindless assault. They were usually decided by a dashing cavalry charge against an enemy vastly superior in cavalry. Anyway, the roman battle formation proved to be better most times. Why? I don't know. Caesar crushed the legion type units made by hellenistic kings and the employed them with great succes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 The Hellenistic states did not make use of infantry reserves, their 'heroic' leadership styles, though in many ways excellent, were unsuited to it. I agree that Alexander's battles were well thought out, yet he did not make use of reserves. He may have had a second line at Gaugamela but that is not the same thing (and even if it were, it is the sole example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman wargamer Posted May 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 the hoplite have a "long thrusting spear" and a "parma shield" ... /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. [],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],...[],.[],.[],.=............Hastatus Prior who have a "pilum javelin" and a "scutum shield" and a "gladius" as side arm. ======= if we are going to simplyfied the number, it show that the hoplite could easily ram down and run over the H prior line. more men have more pushing power. it is an established fact that hoplite can do roll over the hastati line, until the roman develop a novel strategic movement of the hastati acies line. by moving into flanking attack their supernumerary line of reserve. while the Hprior line was still holding and resisting the push of the hoplite frontal attack, and the Hposterior was held in second line to control and held in abeyance if the Hprior line break and the colapse of the first line happen, to prevent total rout of the H acies line. ____________________________________________________________________________ how can you avoid stabbing of the long thrusting spear of the Hoplite? it is very apparent that... the hoplite can reach , push , stab and maim the H prior line while the hoplite was still very far, safe and beyond the reach of the short gladius sword? the javelin attack threat can simply be minimize by raising the the round shield as defensive posture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 (edited) It is also very apparent that a main function of the pilum was to puncture an enemy's shield and render it unuseable by sticking in it. Reconstructions have proved that it was designed for this purpose (see assorted articles and books by Connolly). One can avoid the stabbing spear of the hoplite by throwing his line into confusion with pila (see above) and closing whilst he is in disorder. Some might also think that the scutum might play a part also...Perhaps it was used to parry the hoplite spear? And 'pushing power'has nothing to do with it. That is a fantasy created by historians of hoplite warfare who seem baffled by the depth that the Greek phalanx formed in and so created the 'pushing myth' that so plagues understanding of how hoplites fought. Depth gives morale advantages and also aids manoeuver, it is NOT to aid in a rugby scrum approach to warfare (see Goldsworthy: Roman Army in Battle p156, p176-183) Edited May 15, 2006 by Furius Venator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metforce Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 It is also very apparent that a main function of the pilum was to puncture an enemy's shield and render it unuseable by sticking in it. Reconstructions have proved that it was designed for this purpose (see assorted articles and books by Connolly). One can avoid the stabbing spear of the hoplite by throwing his line into confusion with pila (see above) and closing whilst he is in disorder. Some might also think that the scutum might play a part also...Perhaps it was used to parry the hoplite spear? And 'pushing power'has nothing to do with it. That is a fantasy created by historians of hoplite warfare who seem baffled by the depth that the Greek phalanx formed in and so created the 'pushing myth' that so plagues understanding of how hoplites fought. Depth gives morale advantages and also aids manoeuver, it is NOT to aid in a rugby scrum approach to warfare (see Goldsworthy: Roman Army in Battle p156, p176-183) How effective would the pila (throwing javelin) have been if there were ranks of spears tilted upwards behind the front ranks of the Hoplites? It was my understanding that the Hoplite ranks were several deep and those in the back ranks angled their spears (pikes) upwards to deflect missile attacks. The Hoplite formation still seems vulnerable to close quarter combat. A 8' or 10' spear does me little good against a man with a gladius in close combat. Several men infiltrating the formation should cause chaos, panic and collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman wargamer Posted May 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 metforce re-question? O O O O O Hoplite | | []| | | | | :| | | | | :| | | ^ ^ :^ ^ ^ [] [] [] [] [] Legion The Hoplite formation still seems vulnerable to close quarter combat. A 8' or 10' spear does me little good against a man with a gladius in close combat. Several men infiltrating the formation should cause chaos, panic and collapse. ======= reply do you mean with the shield or without a shield, but even with the scutum, if you will penetrate the spear killing fields alone, the length of the protruding spear beyond the hoplite shields, that normally have three line of protrude points of metal, your side is exposed and become vulnerable, if i am the hoplite on your diagonal side, then why should i not take the opportunity to "spear thrust stab you." you become vulnerable on both sides, that's left and right. my martial arts experience the "arnis" [ that use two 24" stick weapons] say's that a long stick ( 8' ) have more advantage than my shorter stick, even if could move my weapon faster. i do not know if any body could refute this basic fact. ( or try to do a martial arts battle this way ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) Well...shortish (under 44 inches) blades/sticks can ( should) be wielded/controlled by light ,balancing, hand control pivoted on the left hand.(sword/shinai/boktu). A shorter weapon "cutting inside" any of these needs better timing , it can be done but requires experience and practice. Spear versus sword would I assume therefore need "avoidance of the point" (of the spear) , thats the whole of the sword technique reduced to one phrase ( push the opponents point away from a centered position) and cut or stab him with your own weapon which is occupying the centre.Now of course this is one versus one , but if I had a reasonable shield I would be quite happy to try to wait for an opening and strike the point out of centre by whatever means are needed -once inside the contact zone I would be confident of either striking or pushing the enemy backwards. So ..in formation facing multiple points? Interesting , re-enactment is what we need here, but the "fix and flank " rule of Virgil is most important. Velites/any pre-contact attrition on the Phalanx looks more important to me now. Break no fracture ,the monolith and I suggest you can hack away and destroy it at speed. Edited May 17, 2006 by Pertinax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metforce Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 ======= reply do you mean with the shield or without a shield, but even with the scutum, if you will penetrate the spear killing fields alone, the length of the protruding spear beyond the hoplite shields, that normally have three line of protrude points of metal, your side is exposed and become vulnerable, if i am the hoplite on your diagonal side, then why should i not take the opportunity to "spear thrust stab you." you become vulnerable on both sides, that's left and right. my martial arts experience the "arnis" [ that use two 24" stick weapons] say's that a long stick ( 8' ) have more advantage than my shorter stick, even if could move my weapon faster. i do not know if any body could refute this basic fact. ( or try to do a martial arts battle this way ) With shield. Not sure the lenth of Hoplite spears but would think they'd be quite long and unwieldy. Have seen some suggest that shoulder straps were used to help the men hold the spears for long periods suggesting that they are quite heavy. I think it would be very difficult to move them very well if your formation is shoulder to shoulder and four deep. Most martial arts stuff I've seen is one on one. Try using a weapon that needs wide space to operate in close quarters and see how effective the group is. I know medieval pikeman were quite adept at rotating their formations to face calvary charges but I do not think Hoplite formations were very effective at doing this. The Romans were quite good at close combat with heavy infantry. Still think a couple of men penetrating the spear line would spell doom to the Hoplite formation. I'm just an arm-chair warrior and most of my argument is based on what I've seen others comment on. Appreciate the exchange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman wargamer Posted May 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 metforce re-question? with shield reply the scutum have a 30" wide size while the hoplite/phalanx spear to spear side distance was normally only 12" and they are in a three serrated line deep, so even if you can cut the first one ( and still the stick protrude ) the next second linenage point of metal was still a barrier, and then how about the next third linenage point of metal, it was still a threat. you will be a very lucky man to pass the three line of "spear killing field" , pass it alive three times. try reading the thread, The Triarii, Last gasp of the Roman style Hoplite ? were most of them believe that the Triarii was form and weapon like a hoplite or phalanx... ( in hypothetical unit as/for comparison ) if the Triarii was the most veteran and experience...who sometimes win...the already lost battle... who have a thrusting spear and scutum that acts as the final battle line Hastatus acts as the " front line" Principes acts as the "reserve line" Triarii acts as the "rear line" or final line of defense, then "why" do the Roman legio imatate a poor kind of formation , weapon and tactic? or could please anybody mention any battle that a hoplite or phalanx lost a battle because their line was penetrated by way of "frontal penetration of the line." on other strategical move like the flank attack, i normally accept and concede that a flanking attack could be devastating even to a legio. while the "old battle" is normally within this premise, "the ancient concept of the battle was to break the enemy line of defense. who ever losses or break it's line of defenses was prone to lost the main battle." rad ======= Pertinax So .. in formation facing multiple points? reply that what i am thinking, how could anybody penetrate a continous line of multiple points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metforce Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 metforce re-question? with shield reply the scutum have a 30" wide size while the hoplite/phalanx spear to spear side distance was normally only 12" and they are in a three serrated line deep, so even if you can cut the first one ( and still the stick protrude ) the next second linenage point of metal was still a barrier, and then how about the next third linenage point of metal, it was still a threat. you will be a very lucky man to pass the three line of "spear killing field" , pass it alive three times. try reading the thread, The Triarii, Last gasp of the Roman style Hoplite ? were most of them believe that the Triarii was form and weapon like a hoplite or phalanx... ( in hypothetical unit as/for comparison ) if the Triarii was the most veteran and experience...who sometimes win...the already lost battle... who have a thrusting spear and scutum that acts as the final battle line Hastatus acts as the " front line" Principes acts as the "reserve line" Triarii acts as the "rear line" or final line of defense, then "why" do the Roman legio imatate a poor kind of formation , weapon and tactic? or could please anybody mention any battle that a hoplite or phalanx lost a battle because their line was penetrated by way of "frontal penetration of the line." on other strategical move like the flank attack, i normally accept and concede that a flanking attack could be devastating even to a legio. while the "old battle" is normally within this premise, "the ancient concept of the battle was to break the enemy line of defense. who ever losses or break it's line of defenses was prone to lost the main battle." rad ======= Pertinax So .. in formation facing multiple points? reply that what i am thinking, how could anybody penetrate a continous line of multiple points? True, rotate the shield to your side and you could easily pass between spear shafts. If you can pass through the initial spear points the shafts pose little danger. Your commrads have pushed their shields against the opponents spears rendering them useless. 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. It's hard to get a real feel for the mechanics of Hoplite and Legion hand-to-hand combat because so many historians didn't get into that type of detail (at least the ones I've read). Think about this point, if you read any modern historians discussing battles how many discuss the loading and firing of weapons, what their advantages are, how infantry engages in combat, etc. The Triarii dwell in the late republic, the spearman would reemerge in the late roman army (which is where I dwell in the Roman history pantheon) as counterweights to the calvary formations of the barbarian tribes. This is apparent if you look at Justinian's mosaic at St. Vitalea in Revenna. His bodygard are all armed with large oval shields (with chi-rho symbols), carry heavy spears and appear to be wearing slave collars. (http://loki.stockton.edu/~fergusoc/lesson4/jump6.htm) My understanding is that the Triarii were used to keep an enemy at bay and provide cover if the first lines of the legion collapsed. When you use a spear you are usually trying to keep someone at a distance from you. My guess is that this troop form eventually disappeared because the Romans were so successful on the field (why have this unit which is designed to salvage your army after defeat when you rarely lose). While Hoplites are vulnerable to flanking attacks, its pretty evident to me their commanders knew this and took proper precautions to limit these types of attacks (not sure how). I'm not very into encounters with the Greek commanders who would have used Hoplite formations. My guess is this wouldn't have been as important once the Romans mastered the art of sea warfare after the punic wars. The greeks were quite good as sea warfare but probably were no match for the Carthaginians. The country that controled the sea controled the Mediterannean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.