Rome vs Japan

[Robert Vermaat]

The Romans did not use phalanx-type tactics

When?

I'm no expert on early Roman tactics, but even the pre-Marian triple rank formations of hastati, principes and triarii were no phalangial formation, right? If the Romans ever used a true phalanx, that would go back until when?

And if you believe Speidel & Wheeler, they came back in the 2nd C AD. :wink:

No, Speidel and Wheeler do not suggest that. It's a common mistake to compare the Later Roman infantry tactics with the ancient Greek Phalanx tactics, but both Speidel and especially Wheeler clearly state that these are not the same.

Wheeler, moreover, is of the opinion that the Roman army never used ONLY manipular tactics, he interprets Arrian's tactics not as an innovation but as a use of the tctical inventory of the Roman army. Wheeler is also clear about the nature and function of Late Roman phalanx-like tactis. he uses the term 'phalangial legion' only to distinguish fromthe 'manipular legion', in the sense that the 'phalangial legion' is organised in one single formation. These formations were never like a true phalanx with a forest of very long spears, but based more on the shield wall as a defensive formation. Unlike the Greek dory, Late Roman hastae were of the same lenght, and the ranks using the hasta were not more than 4 deep, the ranks behind them supporting the first 4 with heavy covering fire by shooting arrows and throwing javelins and plumbatae.

Even here we see a development: from Arrian to Late Roman times it's clear that the 'Roman phalanx' was used to stop cavalry attacks in the first place. We also see that the cavalry's role increased: Arrian uses cavalry mainly after the enemy withdraws, but later it is the infantry that develops into a supporting role for the cavalry, as a safe base to withdraw on or to hold the centre while the cavalry attacks from the flanks.

This is very unlike a phalanx.[/quote]