12-31-2013, 03:08 PM
Well Bryan,
Some good points and it seems you are firmly on the side of the 'loose formation' idea of fighting, which is indeed a fixed element of our shared medieval history and the warrior knight, let alone influenced by a lot of recent pictography; and I therefore suspect that I might struggle to persuade you otherwise.
For me, however, there are more than enough uses of the word 'phalanx' in a Roman context (and here I am deliberately using the word in its usually accepted shield-to-shield, or at least people standing as close to each other as practicable, meaning), for me to believe that this is indeed a normal formation.
As we have discussed here before, although I know not everyone is happy with modern references, let alone that I will be the first to note that I am certainly influenced by my own experiences of riot training; I feel I do have an understanding of the simple benefits of literally standing next to and in contact with your fellow soldiers as opposed to standing some distance apart.
There may also be some discussion about how closely people may have fought in even the pre-Macedonian, let alone the Roman, phalanx. But overall I will simply challenge an almost simplistic physical appreciation; for when it comes down to it, the closest you can stand defines the maximum number of people you can get in a given space and depth has less and less effect and I will then challenge anyone to really positively argue that a line of men (~3ft apart and with any shield of their choice!) can stand against any style of 'phalanx' advancing towards them, even at slow speeds; whether they are armed with spears, pikes or even the style of Roman phalanx I suggest; and, after that, even a charge of large and screaming Celts. I simply do not find such an argument credible.
It is indeed during this sort of discussion that I have come to a personal understanding that the 'normal' (for me) idea of the Romans standing shield-to-shield in a phalanx and the, well attested and no one seems to argue about the spacing, testudo are simply the same formation, but with the shields oriented differently.
I must admit, however, that I would probably disagree with your contention that Italy is covered in more mountainous battlefields; given that, throughout history indeed, combined arms armies (such as the Greeks and Romans normally espouse) Generals agonized prolifically about selecting the right places to fight and which often came down a suitable flattened area. Yes, there are many exceptions, especially when defenders can choose to fight on familiar terrain and their armies are of particular types; whether it's mountainous Illyria or Dacia, deep Germainc forests, or the wide deserts of the East.
I would also like to note that I will pick on one phrase of yours (and many others I am sure) that does support your overall contention - that the soldiers need room to "swing their swords" - and it is with that where I will fundamentally disagree, for I cannot see the Romans fighting like that at all. For my understanding, behind my phalanx of shields indeed, is that the Romans stabbed and cut. Any soldier caught 'swinging and slashing' would be severely reprimanded. My belief is that the Romans fought from behind their shields and thus took a separate evolutionary path for the spear phalanx than the Macedonians did. The latter extended the spear into a pike and developed a difficult to stop juggernaut; whereas the Romans did away with the spear and created a wall, from which to strike at any: neck; arm; thigh; hand; or exposed bit of flesh. This is one of the major reasons that the Romans often suffered very few casualties overall in many battles.
In relation to that below, as well, I certainly don't equate a curvature formed by a palm's depth over 2.5ft as significantly "curved" as you suggest an individual is protected.
Lastly, cultural preference yes - but your later examples (and an interesting discussion over M16-SA80 could ensue) is much more to do with politics these days........
Sean,
I think I've understood your query, but I haven't claimed any size for the 'Macedonian shield' (which, as far as I am aware, is normally accepted as a dished round, but anywhere between 1ft and 2.5ft in diameter and yes 8 palms is mentioned which then depends on how large the palm is (3 to 4in)). The only shield width I mention in your quote is the 3ft round parma - which is what the Roman velites are equipped with.
It is knowing that, that the Roman troops that were most definitely armed with a shield for their role of skirmishing in a more open order, indeed had a wider shield, that leads me towards the conclusion that the scutum of the heavy infantry is taller and narrower for a particular reason: that reason being that 4ft high is just about the perfect height to leave only a few inches at the bottom to stop in getting caught as you move and only just enough at the top for the eyes to see over before the helmet protects; and is then the perfect width to meet with your neighbours; where each soldier has the prime requirement of keeping it in line with the guy to the right and stabbing out with his gladius whenever a gap is created and maintaining the wall with all discipline. I'll even note that in standing against a pike-phalanx you don't even need the sword, but is the reason it is placed on the right, for the left of the body is firm up against the shield and you would only draw it when next to the enemy and in striking range.
Some good points and it seems you are firmly on the side of the 'loose formation' idea of fighting, which is indeed a fixed element of our shared medieval history and the warrior knight, let alone influenced by a lot of recent pictography; and I therefore suspect that I might struggle to persuade you otherwise.
For me, however, there are more than enough uses of the word 'phalanx' in a Roman context (and here I am deliberately using the word in its usually accepted shield-to-shield, or at least people standing as close to each other as practicable, meaning), for me to believe that this is indeed a normal formation.
As we have discussed here before, although I know not everyone is happy with modern references, let alone that I will be the first to note that I am certainly influenced by my own experiences of riot training; I feel I do have an understanding of the simple benefits of literally standing next to and in contact with your fellow soldiers as opposed to standing some distance apart.
There may also be some discussion about how closely people may have fought in even the pre-Macedonian, let alone the Roman, phalanx. But overall I will simply challenge an almost simplistic physical appreciation; for when it comes down to it, the closest you can stand defines the maximum number of people you can get in a given space and depth has less and less effect and I will then challenge anyone to really positively argue that a line of men (~3ft apart and with any shield of their choice!) can stand against any style of 'phalanx' advancing towards them, even at slow speeds; whether they are armed with spears, pikes or even the style of Roman phalanx I suggest; and, after that, even a charge of large and screaming Celts. I simply do not find such an argument credible.
It is indeed during this sort of discussion that I have come to a personal understanding that the 'normal' (for me) idea of the Romans standing shield-to-shield in a phalanx and the, well attested and no one seems to argue about the spacing, testudo are simply the same formation, but with the shields oriented differently.
I must admit, however, that I would probably disagree with your contention that Italy is covered in more mountainous battlefields; given that, throughout history indeed, combined arms armies (such as the Greeks and Romans normally espouse) Generals agonized prolifically about selecting the right places to fight and which often came down a suitable flattened area. Yes, there are many exceptions, especially when defenders can choose to fight on familiar terrain and their armies are of particular types; whether it's mountainous Illyria or Dacia, deep Germainc forests, or the wide deserts of the East.
I would also like to note that I will pick on one phrase of yours (and many others I am sure) that does support your overall contention - that the soldiers need room to "swing their swords" - and it is with that where I will fundamentally disagree, for I cannot see the Romans fighting like that at all. For my understanding, behind my phalanx of shields indeed, is that the Romans stabbed and cut. Any soldier caught 'swinging and slashing' would be severely reprimanded. My belief is that the Romans fought from behind their shields and thus took a separate evolutionary path for the spear phalanx than the Macedonians did. The latter extended the spear into a pike and developed a difficult to stop juggernaut; whereas the Romans did away with the spear and created a wall, from which to strike at any: neck; arm; thigh; hand; or exposed bit of flesh. This is one of the major reasons that the Romans often suffered very few casualties overall in many battles.
In relation to that below, as well, I certainly don't equate a curvature formed by a palm's depth over 2.5ft as significantly "curved" as you suggest an individual is protected.
Lastly, cultural preference yes - but your later examples (and an interesting discussion over M16-SA80 could ensue) is much more to do with politics these days........
Sean,
I think I've understood your query, but I haven't claimed any size for the 'Macedonian shield' (which, as far as I am aware, is normally accepted as a dished round, but anywhere between 1ft and 2.5ft in diameter and yes 8 palms is mentioned which then depends on how large the palm is (3 to 4in)). The only shield width I mention in your quote is the 3ft round parma - which is what the Roman velites are equipped with.
It is knowing that, that the Roman troops that were most definitely armed with a shield for their role of skirmishing in a more open order, indeed had a wider shield, that leads me towards the conclusion that the scutum of the heavy infantry is taller and narrower for a particular reason: that reason being that 4ft high is just about the perfect height to leave only a few inches at the bottom to stop in getting caught as you move and only just enough at the top for the eyes to see over before the helmet protects; and is then the perfect width to meet with your neighbours; where each soldier has the prime requirement of keeping it in line with the guy to the right and stabbing out with his gladius whenever a gap is created and maintaining the wall with all discipline. I'll even note that in standing against a pike-phalanx you don't even need the sword, but is the reason it is placed on the right, for the left of the body is firm up against the shield and you would only draw it when next to the enemy and in striking range.
