famous battle strategies

[71-hour Ahmed]

Topic is exactly what it says on the tin - how effective and flexible are those "famous" strategies we all know of?
Are they Hollywood enhanced, just overemphasised or genuinely battle controlling?

Examples (these got me wondering):

Roman turtle , the thing with the shields. Surely you could just attack them on the right hand side where there will be no shields or the rear? Soldiers/officers would have poor visibility in this formation so they cannot react effectively to threats on their flanks.

Greek soldiers - hoplites? - with all those huge spears - why? can't you just hit the tips with a sword and cut them off or get into them? After all the way all the images show them these units are completely inflexible and cannot change shape, nor can you stab forward with your spear (I think you'd need all your energy to hold the stupid thing up for hours).

Please pass on your knowledge/opinions/reasons-why-I-am-an-idiot. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Vrashk]

Cant do anything but agree..


Quote[/b] ]Roman Turtle

Everyone knows that flank and rear attacks kick ass right? and that solid shield-walls are hard to penetrate?



Quote[/b] ]Hoplites
Not sure if they countered them back then, But the german landsknechts that were around quite a few years later had pikemen formations(which were based on the Swiss pikemen formations, which were based on the Greek Phalanx)
and in these pikemen formations there soldiers with two-handed swords in the front employed mainly to chop off enemy pikes, they earned quite a bit more than the standard pikemen.

A cavalry charge however.. would get in trouble with pikemen, they would hardly have the time to chop off pikes while charging.

so basically.. most formations have strengths, and weaknesses.

[Postino]

i paticularly like Hannibals deceptiveness against the romans. my favorite of his is to let his front collaspe to give hope and disorder to the romans and to let his flanks chew up the pursuing enemy.

[Hakonarson]

The Testudo was never a battle formation - it was occasinoaly used for approaches to defended fortifications, but as a fighting formation it is useless because the soldiers cannot actually fight while in it

The Hoplite Phalanx is a simple shield wall, and has been used by many nations since, and probably by many before that are't that well documented.

Hannibal always tried to envelop his enemy - Canae with the retreating centre was the most extreme example of this, but his other battles include it in some fashion - at Trebia he had a concealed ambush that atacked the Roman rear, and at Trasimene he attacked the Romans on the march from front, flank and rear.

At Zama he had no opportunity to do so and lost

Ambushes were quite common in the ancient world - troops concealed in woods or behind hills to attack the rear. Occasionally they weer "sprung" at the wrong time, or even not at all....

Alexander the Great also liked to attack flanks - but since his army was invariably smaller than the Persians he had to "create" a flank in the middle

At Granicus he led his cavalry in an oblique charge across the river, at Guagamela he saw a gap develop between the Persian left and centre and attacked into that, and at Issos he attacked a weak point on the right, turning that flank but almost came unstuck when the Greek mercenaries in the Persian army attacked the gap between his infantry and cavalry.

Against Poros he outflanked the army by crossing the Hydaspes at an unknown ford, while against teh Skythians he again "created" a flank - this time by sending forces ahead who were surrounded by the Skythians - the forward forces then turned and the skythians found themselves caught between them and the main Macedonian army.

Fortifications were used a lot in field battles, often with gaps in them the enable the defenders to attack out of them. Sometimes tehy were used to protect the front of an army, occasionally they were used to protect the flanks - being constructed so they faced sideways and the army set up betwen them.

Most armies developed systems of setting up in lines - some had archers in front, some in the rear shooting overhead.

Bribery and treachery were common - sometiems allies would change sides of just go home - simple mistrust was a common cause for lack of co-operation too.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 23 2003,16:57)]Greek soldiers - hoplites? - with all those huge spears - why? can't you just hit the tips with a sword and cut them off or get into them? After all the way all the images show them these units are completely inflexible and cannot change shape, nor can you stab forward with your spear (I think you'd need all your energy to hold the stupid thing up for hours).
Sounds as though you may be confusing the Greek City-State hoplite (the Shield-Wall that Hakonarson describes) with the Macedonian (Pike) Phalanx? The latter certainly had very long spears/pikes (c. 18-23ft), wielded in an ordered yet inflexible formation, and it was vulnerable to infiltration and flanking attacks by sword-wielding troops as the Romans demonstrated on many occasions. Such weakness was recognised at the time with units being placed in between the phalanx 'taxeis' (lighter troops, missile troops, even -disastrously- elephants ) to create the so-called articulated phalanx....with moderate success, and virtually none against the Romans.

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 23 2003,11:57)]Roman turtle , the thing with the shields. Surely you could just attack them on the right hand side where there will be no shields or the rear? Soldiers/officers would have poor visibility in this formation so they cannot react effectively to threats on their flanks.
The turtle, I thought, was used to protect the advancing formation from missile fire. They didn't engage in hand to hand combat while still in the turtle formation.

Sure if you could get to their rear/flanks, they'd be in trouble. But so would most formations. You have light troops and cavalry to prevent that.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 23 2003,18:47)]Sounds as though you may be confusing the Greek City-State hoplite (the Shield-Wall that Hakonarson describes) with the Macedonian (Pike) Phalanx? The latter certainly had very long spears/pikes (c. 18-23ft), wielded in an ordered yet inflexible formation, and it was vulnerable to infiltration and flanking attacks by sword-wielding troops as the Romans demonstrated on many occasions. Such weakness was recognised at the time with units being placed in between the phalanx 'taxeis' (lighter troops, missile troops, even -disastrously- elephants ) to create the so-called articulated phalanx....with moderate success, and virtually none against the Romans.
Good call about the difference between the hoplite phalanx and the macedonian phalanx.

The shield wall was called "synaspismos" ("shields held together") and it was very effective in it's respective timeframe.

The Macedonian phalanx OTOH, was never meant to work as a stand-alone formation. It relied heavily on having the flanks covered by cavalry and on skirmishers harassing the enemy infantry and taking the sting out of the mobile forces it may had. A true "combined arms" system, which required high quality troops and very good leadership.

Actually, the highly mobile Legion, with the added value of the pilum, was definitely a "phalanx-killer", but at the time those two systems met, the phalanx had nothing to do with the one Alexander led to the edge of the world: Few and not of so high standards cavalry, no defensive gear at all for the - poorly trained - phalangites, very few psili (javalinmen, archers, slingers - the supportive troops for the phalanx) and poor commanding led to a series of lost battles for the phalanx.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Jan. 24 2003,10:45)]Actually, the highly mobile Legion, with the added value of the pilum, was definitely a "phalanx-killer", but at the time those two systems met, the phalanx had nothing to do with the one Alexander led to the edge of the world: Few and not of so high standards cavalry, no defensive gear at all for the - poorly trained - phalangites, very few psili (javalinmen, archers, slingers - the supportive troops for the phalanx) and poor commanding led to a series of lost battles for the phalanx.
Hi Rosacrux,

Good stuff, and generally agreed, however I have a problem swallowing the last bit of your statement. I think you do a great disservice to the later Hellenistic Greek kingdoms, making them sound totally inept, which I think is concomitant with the Alexander-centric view of the historiography; a view that filters down to modern perceptions of the period. Additionally, this perception is reinforced by the natural Roman bias against these 'Successor States' in the Latin sources.

As an example of a strong and talented Hellenistic leader one only has to consider Antiochus the Great. This was a king who re-united the Alexandrine East, campaigning along the same routes to Bactria, the Indus, and back through Persia....hence his title, 'The Great'. The army which he assembled in c.190 at Magnesia in Asia Minor (on a levelled, pre-prepared site of his choice) was a veteran all-arm force of the type you approve of, its phalangists more than competent and its cavalry (light, medium and heavy cataphract) the best and most numerous in the world at the time...without exaggeration; it totally out-classed the much smaller army of Publius and Lucius Scipio in cavalry. What's more, the phalanx 'taxeis' were 'articulated' as I have described, a tactic widely considered as an improvement on Alexander. As has been mentioned, Alexander nearly came unstuck on at least one occasion when the phalanx formations became detached in battle thus opening up the line, as well as the dislocated regiments to flank attacks. The more flexible units placed in between were supposed to prevent this to let the phalanx get on with its work of pushing and 'pinning' the enemy infantry. Well, Antiochus still lost big time as the legionaries cut up his phalanx regiments, though he could possibly have won with a bit of good fortune. However, a straight on fight between the respective infantry was resoundlingly won by a smaller Roman force.

TBH, I admire the Romans, but I am more of a philhellene by nature (currently studying the history of the Delphic Sanctuary of Apollo and the works of Plutarch: Lives and Essays) so I ain't got no axe to grind against the Greeks, so to speak. But, IMO, the historical record speaks for itself when it comes to comparing the Romans and Greeks/Macedonians (a lot of Greeks considered the Macedonians as non-Greek barbarians, as you will know) in a military context. That said, I would a have been rooting for the Greeks; so, long live the Greeks The intellectual inspiration, literature and art of this ancient and gifted people have certainly had a positive and enlightening impact on my life

[Coldstream]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 23 2003,11:57)]Greek soldiers - hoplites? - with all those huge spears - why? can't you just hit the tips with a sword and cut them off
I'm sorry, but my friend and I had to laugh at you for that one. Have you EVER tried to cut wood with an axe? A light axe? Heavy axe?

Probbaly not.

Hard wood that has something to rest on (ie. a stump or table or something) may take a few whacks, but hard wood that is free floating in the air isn't going to break, it's going to move. So, your weapon will be far away from you where you can't defend yourself and his buddy is going to stick his lance through your head.

In short, no you can't chop the damn thing in half.

k.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Coldstream @ Jan. 26 2003,02:35)]
Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 23 2003,11:57)]Greek soldiers - hoplites? - with all those huge spears - why? can't you just hit the tips with a sword and cut them off
I'm sorry, but my friend and I had to laugh at you for that one. Have you EVER tried to cut wood with an axe? A light axe? Heavy axe?

Probbaly not.

Hard wood that has something to rest on (ie. a stump or table or something) may take a few whacks, but hard wood that is free floating in the air isn't going to break, it's going to move. So, your weapon will be far away from you where you can't defend yourself and his buddy is going to stick his lance through your head.

In short, no you can't chop the damn thing in half.

k.
Too right mate, but if you've got a shield and a sword you don't have to chop the points off, you only have to deflect them and/or knock them out of the way. Once inside the 'hedge' it is just so much useless wood Then it was lightly armed phalangists against heavily armoured Roman infantryman armed with shields and wicked stabbing swords. A Greek phalanx surrendered by raising its pikes and stopping movement completely...however, the Romans didn't realise this at one of the early battles and massacred the surrendering phalangists (at Cynoscephelae in Thessaly, Greece).

[Postino]

yes, Machevelli goes to great lengths to describe the act of retreating the first 3 ranks of pike when the enemy has pressed into the body, sending foward the sheild bearers. the pikes were then used to support the flanks with the extrodinary troops.

Niccolo also goes to great lengths describing a marching order that is self supporting on every side, thus deleting the option of a flank attack, or a mutiple side attack.

of course Niccolo only fought in a handful of battles, mostly he just organized and recruited.

[eXoMagus]

About Roman warfare tactics, it seems to me, even though I've never did any in-depth research into it, that all they rely on most of the time is their heavy infantry. Wouldn't this tactic prove fatal if the enemy had very mobile cavalry and just screwed up all their formation and stuff?

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (eXoMagus @ Jan. 26 2003,08:49)]About Roman warfare tactics, it seems to me, even though I've never did any in-depth research into it, that all they rely on most of the time is their heavy infantry. Wouldn't this tactic prove fatal if the enemy had very mobile cavalry and just screwed up all their formation and stuff?
In the hands of a poor general (and the Romans had many of those) this was invariably the case, but the legion was adaptable enough in the hands of a competent commander to overcome cavalry. The Romans fought and defeated many excellent cavalry forces inc. Gauls, Sarmatians, Hellenistic states, even Parthians (though they are mainly remembered for Crassus' defeat at Carrhae).

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Postino @ Jan. 26 2003,07:42)]yes, Machevelli goes to great lengths to describe the act of retreating the first 3 ranks of pike when the enemy has pressed into the body, sending foward the sheild bearers. the pikes were then used to support the flanks with the extrodinary troops.

Niccolo also goes to great lengths describing a marching order that is self supporting on every side, thus deleting the option of a flank attack, or a mutiple side attack.

of course Niccolo only fought in a handful of battles, mostly he just organized and recruited.
Machiavelli's 'Arte Della Guerra' is a valuable source for medieval tactical thinking, however, the ideas and premisses it advanced were rapidly made redundant by the advent of the gun on the battlefield, an emerging factor whose significance he fails to appreciate. His thinking was deeply affected by the performance of the armoured Spanish 'Sword and Shield' troops who seemed like a throwback to the Romans; their successful encounters against the best pike formations of the day, the Swiss and the German Landschneckts, impelled him to try to devise counter-tactics. Whether they would have been successful is a moot point, however.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 26 2003,03:53)]Too right mate, but if you've got a shield and a sword you don't have to chop the points off, you only have to deflect them and/or knock them out of the way. Once inside the 'hedge' it is just so much useless wood Then it was lightly armed phalangists against heavily armoured Roman infantryman armed with shields and wicked stabbing swords.
Well I dont have much info except a few comments about in books and these links:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/cynocephalae-197bc.htm

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/magnesia-190bc.htm

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/pydna.htm


There is not much about romans being able to defeat the phalanx frontally, they are actually being pushed back. But when there were holes created between the sub-units of the phalanx and/or flanks to hit the romans could defeat it.

CBR

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Jan. 26 2003,11:45)]There is not much about romans being able to defeat the phalanx frontally, they are actually being pushed back. But when there were holes created between the sub-units of the phalanx and/or flanks to hit the romans could defeat it.

CBR
True, the legionaries would be pushed back initially by the phalanx, sometimes by a considerable distance. However, at some stage they would find a way round the flanks and penetrate the 'hedge', or both. As described by Livy the flexible Roman manipular formations would eventually begin to threaten the flanks of a phalanx which would unsettle its cohesion enabling the frontal troops to penetrate the phalangist files (a point also deliberated by Polybius). One has to be very careful with Livy, however, because he was a bookworm who probably never saw a battle in his life and would have reconstructed many of the battles he relates according to historical probability as he perceived it. I suppose one can imagine these battles as variations of Cannae....the Roman centre would be pushed back by the denser phalanx which would eventually become unsettled by threats to its flanks enabling the Romans to cut through the files of pikes. The placement of flank-guards never seemed to have the desired effect when it was tried. More work needs to be done to understand the dynamics of these battles.

As well as the major set-piece battles there were also many smaller or less well-known engagements, e.g. see Gaius Flaminius' and Aemilius Paullus' campaigns in mainland Greece, which deserve closer scrutiny.