09-25-2008, 05:45 PM
Martin,
You are talking about the time when cavalry became dominant. I'm not. Cavalry already increased in importance during the 3rd c., when the cavalry units grew from the old ala of 120 horses to more than 700. This was also the time from which pure cavalry units were raised. the number of cavalry increased hugely in number. It never dominated the onfantry (at least not before the time that you mention), the numbers in the field army being roughly 50:50 at most. But cavalry did become the way to win battles, with the infantry now in a defensive role. that was what I was trying to get across.
Ok, so Julian punisjed his cavalry for disobediance - twice? Not quite what your exaggerated statement implied, then? :wink:
Yes, 'gladius' is a commonly used for 'sword', and if that was the only archaic word in Ammianus' text it would not stir interest. But he archaises quite a bit, with 'Parthians' of course (being a century dead) a dead giveaway. hence my assumption that 'testudo' might also be an old word, seeing that 'fulcum' descibes alos both the formations described by Ammianus. No matter.
Back to the phalanx. I think that you are beginning to see the point. the ol;d phalanx fought in a straight front, indeed like the Late Roman infantry. But that is it. The rest differs - the LR army had missile barrages, strong cavalry flanks, artillery support, plus a choice of several infantry formations that totally differed from the classic phalanx.
And of course we're not even speaking about the Macedonian phalanx with its two-handed sarissas and no sword fighting at all, which resembles the LR tactics even less.
That's my point- the LR army used a 'phalangial' formation (resembling, but not the same as), but it did not fight 'in a phalanx'.
You are talking about the time when cavalry became dominant. I'm not. Cavalry already increased in importance during the 3rd c., when the cavalry units grew from the old ala of 120 horses to more than 700. This was also the time from which pure cavalry units were raised. the number of cavalry increased hugely in number. It never dominated the onfantry (at least not before the time that you mention), the numbers in the field army being roughly 50:50 at most. But cavalry did become the way to win battles, with the infantry now in a defensive role. that was what I was trying to get across.
Ok, so Julian punisjed his cavalry for disobediance - twice? Not quite what your exaggerated statement implied, then? :wink:
Yes, 'gladius' is a commonly used for 'sword', and if that was the only archaic word in Ammianus' text it would not stir interest. But he archaises quite a bit, with 'Parthians' of course (being a century dead) a dead giveaway. hence my assumption that 'testudo' might also be an old word, seeing that 'fulcum' descibes alos both the formations described by Ammianus. No matter.
Back to the phalanx. I think that you are beginning to see the point. the ol;d phalanx fought in a straight front, indeed like the Late Roman infantry. But that is it. The rest differs - the LR army had missile barrages, strong cavalry flanks, artillery support, plus a choice of several infantry formations that totally differed from the classic phalanx.
And of course we're not even speaking about the Macedonian phalanx with its two-handed sarissas and no sword fighting at all, which resembles the LR tactics even less.
That's my point- the LR army used a 'phalangial' formation (resembling, but not the same as), but it did not fight 'in a phalanx'.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
