According to "Greek & Roman Warfare" John Drogo Montagu, and "Warfare in the Ancient World" Carey, Allfree & Cairns that is exactly true. The raising of large Cav armies required "huge tracts of land". Even the Huns initially Missile-Horse, became heavily Infranty based when they reached western Europe.Originally Posted by Watchman
On the orginal question. It's a bit like asking, whether Cavalry or Chariots is "better". The flexibility of the Roman Legions, with part-missile maneuvable HI, fighting in a relatively open order (about every 6 foot with 3 foot between ranks), against standard 8 deep (but in 1 battle Thebans used 50 deep to defeats Spartans) all hunched together and creeping forward en-masse as a vast block of men. The Greeks evolved HI v HI battles, fought on their plains, on even ground because they "agreed" to even fight. Any defender could have a huge advantage in hills but then the attackers simply didn't fight there but lay waste to the small area of plains, forcing the defenders to offer battle on "fair" terrain.
Greek Phalanx v Roman maniples happened. Frontally the Phalanx spear tips bit into Roman shields and the soldiers are no threat. So they are forced to retreat, and suffer losses. So long as the battle field is flat and the phalanxes are unbroken, there's no weak spots to infiltrate. Then they move off the "prepared" battled field, and the phalanx hit broken terrain, gaps open up, and shield and gladius chew up the phalanxes, from within "units" by infiltration and on flanks of any break in lines.
How long does it take a barely competent Roman commander, to avoid a line v line static battle, and use light missile infantry for attrition, and maneuver to crumble a phalanx based army, piece by piece?
Bookmarks