08-26-2015, 07:34 PM
Macedon wrote:
Bryan.. I am Greek, I have walked the battlegrounds and I know perfectly well what level of ruggedness they represent. If you just make the effort to research the battlegrounds of Greece, you will understand what I mean by saying that what was "even" for the Greeks in a terrain has nothing to do with what others mean with the word. The same applies to terms like hills and hillocks. What we are calling hills in Greece is mountains to most members here. You should understand that the perspective from which one narrates and the meaning of his words have to do with much more than an English translation.
I never wrote or implied that the battlefields in question were parade ground manicured lawns and perfectly flat. What I am describing comes from the sources. If they chose a word that could be mistranslated, that's one thing. If they spend an entire paragraph describing the terrain, and it disagrees with your interpretation, then sorry, I'm taking the original source and its translation over your word.
Besides that, I know how to read a topographical map, which contain contour lines to describe relief features in the ground. If the contour lines are really close together, then it means steep. If they aren't close together, it means its a gentle slope. I like to spend time looking up the sites of ancient battlefields and comparing the descriptions of the battles with modern maps (as land is today). You seriously want to argue that those maps are wrong too? If necessary, I post screen shots from Google Maps with terrain features added, and will show the exact location of every single battle being discussed in this thread. Then we can discuss the difference between mountain and plain. Is that what you want? Because its not going to help your argument in the least.
An army that by nature must retain utmost integrity, who are literally overlapping each other in certain formations, will naturally have trouble moving through terrain or conditions that make for walking in a straight line difficult. A simple recruit in any army can tell you what happens when a unit marches on a level area and then suddenly encounters uneven terrain. Basic order and cohesion is lost. While this can be prevented largely through actually training for it, marching a unit through unfavorable terrain, eventually a situation will occur that prevents good order and discipline within the ranks and the formation falls apart, despite the discipline and training of the men, and the leadership of the units. The phalangites, or whatever specific term you want to describe them, were notorious for the exceptional amount drill they performed before going into battle. But even the most drilled unit is going to have issues crossing a big ditch, streams, gorges, etc. But those terrain features all exist naturally in battlefields and often can't be avoided, therefore having a primary infantry force that "doesn't do mountains" is a hindrance when fighting an enemy that does.
Macedon wrote:
As far as the battle of Cynoscephalae is concerned both Polybius and Plutarch are of the opinion that the terrain was unfavorable for arraying the phalanx, however, Philip did array and almost won. As for their left wing, they were attacked while still in marching column and unformed as Polybius clearly describes. It is a clear example of a decision of a living commander to fight in terrain that was "unfavorable" even for Greek standards. And the formed phalanx, even then, defeated the Romans in a front to front engagement. The fact that the Romans won the battle has nothing to do with the fact that the formed phalanx performed very well in such terrain.
There is nothing whatsoever in Plutarch's description of Cynoscephalae that would lend to your suggestion that the terrain was similar across the entire battlefield. In reality, he goes out of his way to suggest that the terrain the Macedonian left had to cross was so unfavorable that it caused the phalanx to become, using his own words, "broken up and scattered along the hills". He doesn't say anything remotely similar about the Macedonian right, so the implication is that the terrain favored them forming up and carrying out a violent downhill assault that was more then what the Romans could bare. Plutarch didn't relate this problem to anything at all with forming from marching order to battle array. He specifically mentions the terrain as the reason the left flank faltered.
Here's what Polybius had to say about the Macedonian left:
'The Macedonians having no one to give them orders, and unable to form a proper phalanx, owing to the inequalities of the ground and to the fact that, being engaged in trying to come up with the actual combatants, they were still in column of march, did not even wait for the Romans to come to close quarters: but, thrown into confusion by the mere charge of the elephants, their ranks were disordered and they broke into flight.' Hist, 18.25
As you can see, it was more than just being in the wrong order of battle. So that's two sources that specifically relate that the Macedonian left had significant issues because of the unfavorable terrain.
I notice you like using Polybius as a source for this battle but consistently ignore or discount passages 18.28-32, right smack dab in his description of Cynoscephalae, which describes why the phalanx consistently lose to Romans. Is terrain a major feature in Polybius' description of the failings of the Hellenic phalanx? Yep, read it right here, 18:31.
Also, I didn't use this as an example at all do to the Romans winning, I didn't even mention the Romans aside from that they were driven back on their left, and succeeded on the right. You initially brought up Cynoscephalae as some example of 'what "even terrain" meant to Greeks'. Myself, Plutarch and Polybius all disagree with you.
Macedon wrote:
The "plains" of Greece are so small, narrow and filled with ditches, streams, hillocks, swamps etc, that really flat terrain was always filled with orchards and fields just because it was so scarce. If one follows the roads leading into Eurotas and Sparta and sees the terrain around Sellasia (3 proposed battlegrounds and I have a proposal for a fourth I have been researching), if one, even today, with all the modern works having taken place and the swamps having been drained for decades, walks around the "plains" near ancient Pydna, one will understand exactly what I mean.
What would a geographer call the large area in the southeast, next to the sea, that is colored white, in this map? A plain, right?
Because streams run through it, an orchards, or ditches, that doesn't stop it from neither being a plain, nor a pretty good area to set up an army for battle.
I've never stated microterrain or natural obstructions didn't litter every battlefield throughout history. Battles aren't fought on perfectly flat and empty fields, because those don't exist in nature. However, a plain is called a plain because its a large flat area. Not that it doesn't have ditches, swamps, streams, or small relief features like gentle small hills, a hillock.
Bryan.. I am Greek, I have walked the battlegrounds and I know perfectly well what level of ruggedness they represent. If you just make the effort to research the battlegrounds of Greece, you will understand what I mean by saying that what was "even" for the Greeks in a terrain has nothing to do with what others mean with the word. The same applies to terms like hills and hillocks. What we are calling hills in Greece is mountains to most members here. You should understand that the perspective from which one narrates and the meaning of his words have to do with much more than an English translation.
I never wrote or implied that the battlefields in question were parade ground manicured lawns and perfectly flat. What I am describing comes from the sources. If they chose a word that could be mistranslated, that's one thing. If they spend an entire paragraph describing the terrain, and it disagrees with your interpretation, then sorry, I'm taking the original source and its translation over your word.
Besides that, I know how to read a topographical map, which contain contour lines to describe relief features in the ground. If the contour lines are really close together, then it means steep. If they aren't close together, it means its a gentle slope. I like to spend time looking up the sites of ancient battlefields and comparing the descriptions of the battles with modern maps (as land is today). You seriously want to argue that those maps are wrong too? If necessary, I post screen shots from Google Maps with terrain features added, and will show the exact location of every single battle being discussed in this thread. Then we can discuss the difference between mountain and plain. Is that what you want? Because its not going to help your argument in the least.
An army that by nature must retain utmost integrity, who are literally overlapping each other in certain formations, will naturally have trouble moving through terrain or conditions that make for walking in a straight line difficult. A simple recruit in any army can tell you what happens when a unit marches on a level area and then suddenly encounters uneven terrain. Basic order and cohesion is lost. While this can be prevented largely through actually training for it, marching a unit through unfavorable terrain, eventually a situation will occur that prevents good order and discipline within the ranks and the formation falls apart, despite the discipline and training of the men, and the leadership of the units. The phalangites, or whatever specific term you want to describe them, were notorious for the exceptional amount drill they performed before going into battle. But even the most drilled unit is going to have issues crossing a big ditch, streams, gorges, etc. But those terrain features all exist naturally in battlefields and often can't be avoided, therefore having a primary infantry force that "doesn't do mountains" is a hindrance when fighting an enemy that does.
Macedon wrote:
As far as the battle of Cynoscephalae is concerned both Polybius and Plutarch are of the opinion that the terrain was unfavorable for arraying the phalanx, however, Philip did array and almost won. As for their left wing, they were attacked while still in marching column and unformed as Polybius clearly describes. It is a clear example of a decision of a living commander to fight in terrain that was "unfavorable" even for Greek standards. And the formed phalanx, even then, defeated the Romans in a front to front engagement. The fact that the Romans won the battle has nothing to do with the fact that the formed phalanx performed very well in such terrain.
There is nothing whatsoever in Plutarch's description of Cynoscephalae that would lend to your suggestion that the terrain was similar across the entire battlefield. In reality, he goes out of his way to suggest that the terrain the Macedonian left had to cross was so unfavorable that it caused the phalanx to become, using his own words, "broken up and scattered along the hills". He doesn't say anything remotely similar about the Macedonian right, so the implication is that the terrain favored them forming up and carrying out a violent downhill assault that was more then what the Romans could bare. Plutarch didn't relate this problem to anything at all with forming from marching order to battle array. He specifically mentions the terrain as the reason the left flank faltered.
Here's what Polybius had to say about the Macedonian left:
'The Macedonians having no one to give them orders, and unable to form a proper phalanx, owing to the inequalities of the ground and to the fact that, being engaged in trying to come up with the actual combatants, they were still in column of march, did not even wait for the Romans to come to close quarters: but, thrown into confusion by the mere charge of the elephants, their ranks were disordered and they broke into flight.' Hist, 18.25
As you can see, it was more than just being in the wrong order of battle. So that's two sources that specifically relate that the Macedonian left had significant issues because of the unfavorable terrain.
I notice you like using Polybius as a source for this battle but consistently ignore or discount passages 18.28-32, right smack dab in his description of Cynoscephalae, which describes why the phalanx consistently lose to Romans. Is terrain a major feature in Polybius' description of the failings of the Hellenic phalanx? Yep, read it right here, 18:31.
Also, I didn't use this as an example at all do to the Romans winning, I didn't even mention the Romans aside from that they were driven back on their left, and succeeded on the right. You initially brought up Cynoscephalae as some example of 'what "even terrain" meant to Greeks'. Myself, Plutarch and Polybius all disagree with you.
Macedon wrote:
The "plains" of Greece are so small, narrow and filled with ditches, streams, hillocks, swamps etc, that really flat terrain was always filled with orchards and fields just because it was so scarce. If one follows the roads leading into Eurotas and Sparta and sees the terrain around Sellasia (3 proposed battlegrounds and I have a proposal for a fourth I have been researching), if one, even today, with all the modern works having taken place and the swamps having been drained for decades, walks around the "plains" near ancient Pydna, one will understand exactly what I mean.
What would a geographer call the large area in the southeast, next to the sea, that is colored white, in this map? A plain, right?
Because streams run through it, an orchards, or ditches, that doesn't stop it from neither being a plain, nor a pretty good area to set up an army for battle.
I've never stated microterrain or natural obstructions didn't litter every battlefield throughout history. Battles aren't fought on perfectly flat and empty fields, because those don't exist in nature. However, a plain is called a plain because its a large flat area. Not that it doesn't have ditches, swamps, streams, or small relief features like gentle small hills, a hillock.
