Phalanx vs Maniples?

[Sam]

Most historical sources of encounters b/w the phalanx and the Roman Maniples seem to suggest the Romans can hold their ground even if overall still in an inferior position but can result in an initial stalemate.Can somebody please point out exactly how can the Roman infantry with their shorter weapons (even though at the time they haven't adopted the short gladius) ever manages to hold their ground against the wall of spear tips from the phalanx?? Plutarch mentioned that neither hacking at the spear tips nor rolling under the initial rows of spears worked. So how did the Romans even able to hold their positions in the first place??I think being able to articulate this issue can help the discussion about Romans vs Alexander?

[marcus]

I'll say up front that I am not an expert on the Romans v. Macedonians period, but one thing that I have always assumed is that the Roman phalanx was much more manoeuvreable than the Macedonian.But I think it is also worth considering that the Macedonian phalanx by the end of the 2nd century BC was not the tight ship that it was in Alexander's day, which probably made a big difference, too.I am always wary of the Rome vs Macedonia question, because we cannot be entirely sure how the 2nd century Macedonians compared with the 4th century Macedonians... the closest fight would have been between the 1st century BC Romans and the 4th century Macedonians... whereas to pitch 4th century vs 4th century would have been a resounding victory for the MAcedonians.Did that make sense? :-)All the bestMarcus

[nick]

Just a quick reply. I don't consider myself an expert, but...The effectiveness of the phalanx depended for a great deal on training, cohesion and teamwork. Mind you - the phalanx soldier was totally unprepared to defend himself in a man-to-man combat.The Roman successes against the phalanx were partly the result of degrading training and tactics during the final days of Hellenism. You can not compare the Macedonian army of Philip V with that of Alexander and Philip II in that respect.Also: Alexander used his phalanx in a primary defensive role, while the Companion cavalry was the main offensive weapon. The later Hellenist rulers started to use phalanxes too as a main attack weapon. We can all imagine that an advancing phalanx unit with some 1526 men is more likely to become disordered than one staying 'put' (more or less). But this weakness was not new. Even at Issus 333 BC Alexander's advancing phalanx suffered relatively heavy losses against the supposedly inferior Persian foe.In the end: the success of the phalanxes depended entirely on training and on the way their commanders handled them on a tactical level. (As I recall, parts of Philip V's phalanxes were not even lined up properly at the start of Cynoscephalae 197 BC? Am I correct?)The image of cohorts with their gladius facing an impenetrable wall of pikes implies the assumption that all phalanxes always moved and behaved in a 100% coherent and orderly manner. This, of course, was not necessarily the practice on the actual battlefield. It goes to show what a master Alexander was in using these formations to their greatest effect.Regards -
Nick

[jorgios]

I think that ideally, on their best day the Phalanx would have won... that is on a perfect battleground. But of course, the Phalanx was not very manouverable compared to the maniple... i know this came into play at one of the battled of romans vs. macedonians, but i cant remember which battle.Another thing was interesting.. is that if a Roman Soldier did happen to break the line.. thats all that was needed. One roman soldier armed with a short sword could easily and quickly begin hacking at the Macedonians, who were heavily burdened with sarisa( which by this time had reached ridiculous and impractical lengths). I even recall reading that the Romans would catapault soldiers right into the phalanx to bypass the first row of sarisa.. an interesting thing to imagine.

[beausefaless]

Most of the army under King Philip II and Alexander III did have short swords. Alexander had the ability to adapt, make the correct decisions in the heat of battle by way of sign language to his solders and I doubt if any army could have won a victory against these professionals up to the gun powder age.

[davej]

I hate you Nick, ou stole my thunder. I agree with all of your post, but would like to add that the final defeat of the Macedonians at Pydna was an out flanking manuevre by Paullus only possible due to Philips lack of cavalry.PS. In October myself and Minor Markle are conducting exercises with 50 Sarissa armed Re-enactors in Armidale (Australia). I will post the result and I invite anybody who wants to come along to contact me.

[nick]

Thanks, Dave. I wasn't aware of the situation at Pydna 168 BC - but of course, operating phalanxes without covering the flanks (hypaspists or cavalry... ) is asking for trouble. So detorioration of Macedonian cavalry was also a factor in the failure of the phalanx system.Still I recall Paullus statement that the Macedonian phalanx was the most awesome sight he'd ever seen and that it immediately filled him with fear and terror (or words like that).Regards - Nick

[agesilaos]

It is good to hear the usual denigration of the later phalanx; it is totally misplaced. The later phalanx held the Romans at least twice with the Romans unable to do anything ;once defending a pass and once a breach. In both cases the same factors gave them their success, they were in good order and had thei flanks protected.Cynoscephalae was a meeting engaement occaisioned by an escalating tussle at the river both armies were using . The Macedonians were not ordered, nor is the ground over suited for phalanx tactics being rough and broken. Pydna which was fought by Perseus Philip V's son and successor was lost to a turning movement as has been stated.The phalanx of Antigonos Doson performed well surviving an initial push back to defeat the Spartans at Sellasia and displaying the same flexibiliy as in Alexander's day. Had Antiochos not mixed his phalanx and elephants at Magnesia what might have been?The advantage the maniples had was that they could adapt better to the terrain, and possessed a higher ratio of NCOs ie low level initiative. The phalanx was just as potent but just as vulnerable to determined well-led hand-to-hand specialists; the phalanx may have terified Paullus but the wounds inflicted by gladii horrified the whole of Greece with ther severity according to Polybios.

[alejandro]

hi allregarding the idea of catapulting soldiers over the first lines of sarissas, i am not so sure it is such a good idea. i think i read somewhere that soldiers behind the third (fourth? fifth?) line of the phalanx held their sarissas vertically, to avoid slaying their comrades in front. hence, flying over the horizontally-held sarissas of the first lines would not be a pleasant journey for the poor flying legionary, as he will land on a (sort of) porcupine thorny skin!
however, since i don't remember the source of my thesis, i am not totally sure my statement makes sense, and it could well be that the catapulted soldiers were thrown to "safer" areas (maybe the second-third lines?), though roman kamikazes could also be an option ... (this is not an entirely comic statement, i don't know whether romans ever did -or even considered doing- something like that)
kind regardsalejandro

[beausefaless]

Very good point, catapault soldeers over the first roll if it was a line drive lf not, Roman kebab but the Macedonian solders had short swords so just a drop of the sarissa and another shorter version of Roman kebab.

[beausefaless]

Sorry about my spelling I meant first row.

[nick]

"It is good to hear the usual denigration of the later phalanx; it is totally misplaced."

Hi Karl -
This is very interesting. Maybe I have been [for once] to quick believing the popular interpretation. I am tempted to believe that the later phalanx was not of lesser quality than the units employed under Alexander. That would imply searching for other factors explaining Roman successes on the battlefield. Can you please elaborate on this.

Regards -
Nick

[jorgios]

I think i have located the information.. but i am not sure exactly where it is from...On Aemilius Paulus, " He considered the formidable appearance of their front, bristling with arms, and was taken with fear and alarm: nothing he had ever seen before was it's equal. Much later he frequently used to recall that sight and his own reaction to it".

[Nicator]

As already mentioned, it was a flanking movement which did Philip V's phalanx in. The Phalanx was notorious for its defenseless flanks. It worked so well under Philip II and Alexander because of the excellent cavalry scheme used to protect both flanks, and the use of hypaspists on the flank guard (specialists in hand to hand combat). Also, as mentioned before, the pike had grown ridiculously long by 168 b.c. The short swords used by Alexander's phalangytes were now almost completely gone in favor of the dagger, which was as ridiculously small as the sarissa was big. As a side note, Alexander's phalanx was highly disciplined and maneuverable. The thing to remember is that the typical phalanx was not. By design the phalanx is not supposed to open ranks or maneuver too much. The more it moved the less likely it was able to hold cohesion...this was paramount. Alexander's phalanx was able to open ranks and close them back up quickly. They performed rollouts and made wedges. They were able to reverse direction and change speeds on the order, and during battle. This level of capability was far in advance to that of later phalanxes. Also, by design, it was not necessarily an offensive weapon. Alexander used his phalanx in pitched battles to hold the enemy while his cavalry and shock troops (Archers & Agrianes) did the dirty work of offensive striking. In skirmishes, the phalanx was more effectively used on offense. It was part of the genius of Alexander that he could use the right tool for the right job, and in the right way. As Tre mentioned the Romans had very well trained troops across the board...so did Alexander. If his troops were not trained so well, it is almost certain that his acclomplishments would never have been as extensive or his military victories as decisive as they were. Alexander was obviously well aware of the vulnerability of his phalanx, and took extensive precausion to avoid problems in this area. The flank guard roamed up and down the sides of each phalanx to protect and thwart disaster...It was all a matter of balance.
As a side note, after the Roman soldiers penetrated the phalanx of Philip V, it was short work to finish them off. The phalanx soldiers were disemboweled, heads, arms and legs were hacked off. The phalanx collapsed almost instantly from the inside like a domino effect. The individual phalangytes were ordered and disciplined never to break ranks and to hold that sarissa at all costs. To drop you

[davej]

You are right of course about Perseus and Philip V. I posted from work where I am often in a hurry. I should not go off half cocked. I was relying on memory which is sometimes flawed.I dont agree with you about the degredation of the Phalanx. I believe by 168Bc it was not the same standard as it had been.Also a note on the sarissa, it really does'nt make thta much diffenence on maneuvrabily 5.5 to 6.5 metres. The things a clumbsy and difficult to handle no matter what. As I mentioned we are doing some work with the in october. These will be 5.5 unit made of dowel wood unfortunatly. One thing we have to consider is the the weight. The macedonians used neck straps to support their shields but it alos appears that the neck strap added in supporting the weapon itself. To hold any given weight at a greater the 90 degree angle is difficult as previous re enactment ave shown. (why did I start this). Anyway I dont think length had anything to do with it. Also the Roman deliberatly hacked up the macedonians, maybe enraged or maybe to serve as an example. The usual Roman method of killing was very clinical straight it the aorta twist and remove. Mulitlation was usual performed by enraged and less disciplined armies. Or those wish to prove something. The Roman often suffered horrific consequences particularly in Germania where the local wanted to dispell the notion of the Roman super power. Modern parralel, the US soldiers in Mozambique (spelling???)Dj