01-02-2014, 12:47 AM
The point for me is that you are trying to imagine a manner in which the Romans would be able to stand their ground and push back the phalanx. This, as I see it, is the main issue. Sometimes, the best tactic is to not stand in the way and this is what the Romans did. Even if you believe that the Macedonians would be thrown into disorder should they enter "rough" ground, in order for that to happen, the Romans still had to retreat to it. Keep in mind that, as I already mentioned, I also believe that the "textbook" manner for the Romans to fight in line would be in close order. I only think that in this particular situation, arguments about the solidity, weight and pushing power of the Roman formation cannot be applied. Retreating "epi poda" (by keeping front) was a tactic that won many battles (Chaeronea, 338 BC being one of them), even for the Macedonian phalanx and did not require an open formation, at least from adequately trained troops.
Another point you might want to take into consideration in your line of thinking is Polybius 18.30, that is the assertion that the Roman first rankers were not supported by those behind them, that they did not push the first rankers and they did not join the sword fight.
Oh, and another instance of Romans getting armed with spears to fight Gauls is Polybius 2.33
Another point you might want to take into consideration in your line of thinking is Polybius 18.30, that is the assertion that the Roman first rankers were not supported by those behind them, that they did not push the first rankers and they did not join the sword fight.
Oh, and another instance of Romans getting armed with spears to fight Gauls is Polybius 2.33
