Did Late Imperial Romans really experimenting with Phalangitai Troops?

http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbwork...perial%20Roman

No, not to mention the Macedonian levies or Mercenary Hellenic Phalangites that they used in republican period. But about the experimentation of Phalangarii soldiers in Imperial time.

I just read it and somewhat confused... if the Romans really try to reuse the Phalanx tactics? I Know that if properly used, and supported, Phalanx type was a somewhat invicible troops up to the Swiss pikemen's era, but why the Romans try to use them (looks like they try to refine them), but abandon their experimental projects afterwards?

Thanks...

Reading the text, the ancient sources seem to imply that caracalla recruited a phalanx not so much for military effectiveness but simply to emulate alexander, it not even being certain that those troops he called "the phalanx" werent just armed in the Roman manner.
The phalanx might have been a useable formation though, considering the cavalry-reliant parthians. (spearwall works better against catatanks?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexanderthegreater

The phalanx might have been a useable formation though, considering the cavalry-reliant parthians. (spearwall works better against catatanks?)

---

Not at all, unless the Parthians were commanded by R:TW's A.I. Your average cavalry-commander would simply bypass the slow-moving infantry formation.

My guess it was simply a nostalgia project. The phalanx is excellent for pitched battles, but at this point the Roman army mostly had to deal with more mobile foes, and the phalanx didn't do very well at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Not at all, unless the Parthians were commanded by R:TW's A.I. Your average cavalry-commander would simply bypass the slow-moving infantry formation.

My guess it was simply a nostalgia project. The phalanx is excellent for pitched battles, but at this point the Roman army mostly had to deal with more mobile foes, and the phalanx didn't do very well at that.

---

Hey, we are 100% the same opinion this time^^.
:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Not at all, unless the Parthians were commanded by R:TW's A.I. Your average cavalry-commander would simply bypass the slow-moving infantry formation.

My guess it was simply a nostalgia project. The phalanx is excellent for pitched battles, but at this point the Roman army mostly had to deal with more mobile foes, and the phalanx didn't do very well at that.

---

Quite interesting.... but why did they approve that projects anyway? Arming and training troops with Phalangitai fashions are quite exspensive.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Quite interesting.... but why did they approve that projects anyway? Arming and training troops with Phalangitai fashions are quite exspensive.....

---

Nobody had to approve of the Emperor. Remember when caligula started a military expedition against the sea? He emptied the spoils of war in the senate. (a box of seashells)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Quite interesting.... but why did they approve that projects anyway? Arming and training troops with Phalangitai fashions are quite exspensive.....

---

Out of nostalgia? The idea that things were better in the past, and this included fighting style? Anyway, it's not as if they re-equiped the entire army. And most armed forces today still enjoy a bit of outdated drill in strange uniforms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Hey, we are 100% the same opinion this time^^.
:2thumbsup:

---

The apocalypse must be near.
~;)

I remember reading in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare Vol II that the legionaries in the later empire were primarily armed with a thrusting spear of about 2.0-2.5 meter long, while spatha as secondary weapon, so I guess legions of late empire might look like an improved phalanx, hoplite type, not Macedonian type, of course. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbwork...perial%20Roman

No, not to mention the Macedonian levies or Mercenary Hellenic Phalangites that they used in republican period. But about the experimentation of Phalangarii soldiers in Imperial time.

I just read it and somewhat confused... if the Romans really try to reuse the Phalanx tactics? I Know that if properly used, and supported, Phalanx type was a somewhat invicible troops up to the Swiss pikemen's era, but why the Romans try to use them (looks like they try to refine them), but abandon their experimental projects afterwards?

Thanks...

---

Here is the relevant passage from the Cassius Dio (78.7):

He [Caracalla] was so enthusiastic about Alexander that he used certain weapons and cups which he believed had once been his, and he also set up many likenesses of him both in the camps and in Rome itself. He organized a phalanx, composed entirely of Macedonians, sixteen thousand strong, named it "Alexander's phalanx," and equipped it with the arms that warriors had used in his day; these consisted of a helmet of raw ox-hide, a three-ply linen breastplate, a bronze shield, long pike, short spear, high boots, and sword. Not even this, however, satisfied him, but he must call his hero "the Augustus of the East"; and once he actually wrote to the senate that Alexander had come to life again in the person of the Augustus, that he might live on once more in him, having had such a short life before.

There is no mention of these troops being used in battle, though I guess they may have been. Caracalla had mainly done created this unit because he was obsessed with emulating Alexander. Throughout the chapter Cassius Dio describes the various ways Caracalla tries to emulate Alexander, Achilles, ect. while in the East, and his obsession with Macedonians. I'm sure we can assume that after Caracalla died the Roman generals, and his successor (who had been Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, so I assume a militarily practical man), realized the silliness of this project and reequipped these troops in more modern gear.


As for late Roman soldiers looking like a Greek phalanx because they used a spear (lancea) as their primary weapon, I guess that's true, kind of sort of. Here's some pictures of soldiers created in the late fourth, early fifth century:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lFolio188v.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...janCouncil.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_early_6c.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ave_Mosaic.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient..._gallery_6.jpg


And some reenactors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ro...n_province.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ro...n_province.jpg

I guess they have some things in common with the soldiers of the Greek city states, especially as after the reforms of Iphikrates.

I think the first of those reenactors is holding pila not a spear.

I think it was impossible someone who had better troops change to an outdated one for the sake of nostalgia.... maybe that was only a hoax wolf?

Traditonalism only works if you used the unit yourself and contunued to use it like Spartans who contiuned to use the same panoply for some time. for Romans useing a pike phalanx would be more of a CHANGE(Traditionalists hate Change ;) ) to a forgein(Traditionalists don't like foreigners) outdated tactic.

so it would be more like the US army useing Panzer IVs ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uticensis

Here is the relevant passage from the Cassius Dio (78.7):

He [Caracalla] was so enthusiastic about Alexander that he used certain weapons and cups which he believed had once been his, and he also set up many likenesses of him both in the camps and in Rome itself. He organized a phalanx, composed entirely of Macedonians, sixteen thousand strong, named it "Alexander's phalanx," and equipped it with the arms that warriors had used in his day; these consisted of a helmet of raw ox-hide, a three-ply linen breastplate, a bronze shield, long pike, short spear, high boots, and sword. Not even this, however, satisfied him, but he must call his hero "the Augustus of the East"; and once he actually wrote to the senate that Alexander had come to life again in the person of the Augustus, that he might live on once more in him, having had such a short life before.

There is no mention of these troops being used in battle, though I guess they may have been. Caracalla had mainly done created this unit because he was obsessed with emulating Alexander. Throughout the chapter Cassius Dio describes the various ways Caracalla tries to emulate Alexander, Achilles, ect. while in the East, and his obsession with Macedonians. I'm sure we can assume that after Caracalla died the Roman generals, and his successor (who had been Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, so I assume a militarily practical man), realized the silliness of this project and reequipped these troops in more modern gear.


As for late Roman soldiers looking like a Greek phalanx because they used a spear (lancea) as their primary weapon, I guess that's true, kind of sort of. Here's some pictures of soldiers created in the late fourth, early fifth century:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lFolio188v.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...janCouncil.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_early_6c.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ave_Mosaic.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient..._gallery_6.jpg


And some reenactors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ro...n_province.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ro...n_province.jpg

I guess they have some things in common with the soldiers of the Greek city states, especially as after the reforms of Iphikrates.

---

why did the roman army evolve in that direction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

why did the roman army evolve in that direction?

---

A few reasons. The enemies of the empire had changed. The biggest threat was the Parthians (and later the reborn Persian Empire) and so the Romans adopted a lot of tactics that worked well against primarily mounted enemies. Also, the pilum had been slowly evolving in two directions: smaller and larger. The larger version became the lancea, which could be used as a spear in battle, but then also thrown like a javelin (the move toward smaller size led to darts that were carried in the shield of special units). Also, influence from foreign peoples in the military, especially Germans, led to the changes. Thus, the gladius was replaced with the spatha, which was a slashing, not stabbing, weapon. I imagine for closer quarter fighting, in tight formation, a spear would work a lot better than a slashing sword, thus the spear became more popular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

Traditonalism only works if you used the unit yourself and contunued to use it like Spartans who contiuned to use the same panoply for some time. for Romans useing a pike phalanx would be more of a CHANGE(Traditionalists hate Change ;) ) to a forgein(Traditionalists don't like foreigners) outdated tactic.

so it would be more like the US army useing Panzer IVs ^^

---

Except the Romans identified themselves closely with the Macedonians. We tend to assume that all Romans knew Roman history, but I would venture to guess that the average Roman did not know any more about their history than the average US citizen knows about US history (that is to say, very little). Even though the early Romans had fought the phalanx when they were at war with Pyrrhus, I doubt that the average third century Roman remembered that. By this time, Alexander, and things associated with Alexander, had become thoroughly Romanized. One example of this is that according to popular novelizations of Alexander's life written in the Later Roman Empire, after the death of Phillip of Macedon, Alexander's mother married the king of Byzantion and they had a daughter, and this daughter married Romulus, making the Romans ancestors of Alexander (this story is from later than Caracalla-probably around the time of Constantine since Byzantion is emphasized- but it had clearly evolved over a long period and shows how the Romans like to co-opt the legacy of other people; the Trojans come to mind in this regard). And even if most educated Romans knew that such connections were silly, Caracalla saw himself as Alexander reborn, so the links with Alexander and Macedonian were very close. Indeed, those Romans living in the Eastern, Greek speaking parts of the Empire would have very thoroughly considered themselves simultaneously the heirs of Roman and of Greco-Macedonian culture, and as I said, over time these two cultures fused into one.

Instead of comparing it to the US army using Panzers, I would compare it to US army units associating themselves with Native American warrior culture (which they do sometimes). Even though the the US was often at wars with the native peoples, their legacy has sort of been co-opted. This obviously isn't an exact match for what the Romans did with Alexander, but its the closest I can think of.

Quote:

---

I just read it and somewhat confused... if the Romans really try to reuse the Phalanx tactics? I Know that if properly used, and supported, Phalanx type was a somewhat invicible troops up to the Swiss pikemen's era, but why the Romans try to use them (looks like they try to refine them), but abandon their experimental projects afterwards?

---

Do not mix renaicanse tactics, it is very diferent from a greek phalanx. For first they would use diferent strategies and diferent formations. The similarities are only coinsidence. :P But there is some similaries. But the hamer in anvil in the classic sence, wasnt use at this time. Not like in ancient times. The musketeer suport would have a great role in a tercios pikemens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uticensis

Instead of comparing it to the US army using Panzers, I would compare it to US army units associating themselves with Native American warrior culture (which they do sometimes). Even though the the US was often at wars with the native peoples, their legacy has sort of been co-opted. This obviously isn't an exact match for what the Romans did with Alexander, but its the closest I can think of.

---

US Amy using tomahawk and bows again? Or fought bare chested and paint themself in dyes...? :clown:

Well, about this idea, I think that was good enough to assume that Caracalla want to roleplay Alexander's army again, just like today's history enthuaists, but then, they won't be used in battles don't you...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uticensis

Here is the relevant passage from the Cassius Dio (78.7):

He [Caracalla] was so enthusiastic about Alexander that he used certain weapons and cups which he believed had once been his, and he also set up many likenesses of him both in the camps and in Rome itself. He organized a phalanx, composed entirely of Macedonians, sixteen thousand strong, named it "Alexander's phalanx," and equipped it with the arms that warriors had used in his day; these consisted of a helmet of raw ox-hide, a three-ply linen breastplate, a bronze shield, long pike, short spear, high boots, and sword. Not even this, however, satisfied him, but he must call his hero "the Augustus of the East"; and once he actually wrote to the senate that Alexander had come to life again in the person of the Augustus, that he might live on once more in him, having had such a short life before.

Caracalla had mainly done created this unit because he was obsessed with emulating Alexander. Throughout the chapter Cassius Dio describes the various ways Caracalla tries to emulate Alexander, Achilles etc...

---

you are referring to what is known amongst historians as IMITATIO ALEXANDRIS - Pompei, Marcus Antonius, Octavianus August had employed similar policies as means for presenting their rule over the Hellenised East as legitimate etc... similar examples are very common all throughout history.Alexander himself seeked to imitate and surpass the exploits of great mythical figures such as Achiles , Dionysus etc... in modern history similar examples would be Napoleon III or Margaret Thatcher who cleverly adopted stylistic tendencies of Elisabeth the first...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uticensis

A few reasons. The enemies of the empire had changed. The biggest threat was the Parthians (and later the reborn Persian Empire) and so the Romans adopted a lot of tactics that worked well against primarily mounted enemies. Also, the pilum had been slowly evolving in two directions: smaller and larger. The larger version became the lancea, which could be used as a spear in battle, but then also thrown like a javelin (the move toward smaller size led to darts that were carried in the shield of special units). Also, influence from foreign peoples in the military, especially Germans, led to the changes. Thus, the gladius was replaced with the spatha, which was a slashing, not stabbing, weapon. I imagine for closer quarter fighting, in tight formation, a spear would work a lot better than a slashing sword, thus the spear became more popular.

---

Teaching and managing the solid, static, shieldwall is easier than the fluid maniple. There's also an ideological issue about obedience vs individual action that relates to the increasing breakdown of discipline in the legions. The Gladius and the Spatha are functionally the same weapon in many ways, the Gladius is a brutal cutting weapon and the definition between the two is extremely blurred in the 1st Century AD. Recently it has been suggested that the Spatha became more popular as it was possible to more reliably produce longer blades.

As far as the Macedonian phalanx being better/worse; Caracella would have done well to face the Parthians with a 16,000-strong phalanx, properly armoured in mail and greaves, supported by the Praetorian Guard and the Contarii and the Gallic and German cavalry and auxillary infantry.

In fact, if the Romans had moved back to the Macedonian Phalanx, and mounted them to travel with their cavalry, we'd probably all still be speaking Latin/Greek. Most of the failures of the later Empire are at least in part down to the Roman army being unable to recieve and hold a cavalry charge, or to pin enemy infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Teaching and managing the solid, static, shieldwall is easier than the fluid maniple. There's also an ideological issue about obedience vs individual action that relates to the increasing breakdown of discipline in the legions. The Gladius and the Spatha are functionally the same weapon in many ways, the Gladius is a brutal cutting weapon and the definition between the two is extremely blurred in the 1st Century AD. Recently it has been suggested that the Spatha became more popular as it was possible to more reliably produce longer blades.

---

The idea that the Roman legion was less disciplined in the later empire is a myth. Discipline did not decline, particularly not in the field army. In fact, since the time of Gallienus, officers were no longer senators who gained their commissions through family influence, but mostly men who worked their way up the ranks and knew how to train and lead men. The problem with the late Roman army was not its soldiers, but its government (which was breaking down, and often lacked the money, resources, and coherence to properly utilize the armies, and often wasted whole armies in bloody civil wars). And the fact that is was simply overwhelmed with enemies (just look at Stilicho- he was a brilliant general, but his regency ended in failure because he simply did not have the troops to hold every front)

I concede that I may have been wrong to say that the Spatha is too different from the Gladius, but I think its popularity came mostly from the influence of Germanic soldiers in the army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As far as the Macedonian phalanx being better/worse; Caracella would have done well to face the Parthians with a 16,000-strong phalanx, properly armoured in mail and greaves, supported by the Praetorian Guard and the Contarii and the Gallic and German cavalry and auxillary infantry.

---

I don't agree. Warfare had changed too much since the time of Alexander. Sassanid cavalry was a lot different from Achamenid cavalry. They used more horse archers (we've all seen these guys rip the slow moving phalanxes apart in EB) and cataphracts. The Romans developed military units and tactics designed to counter these threats. The Macedonian phalanx, on the other hand, was designed to fight the Persian and Balkan soldiers of five hundred years earlier.

Warfare also necessitated smaller, more mobile infantry units. That's why in the late empire the legions shrank to under 1000 men each, with other units, such as auxiliary units, being half that size. The phalanx would have been too big and clumsy. As I said, warfare had changed too much for the phalanx of Alexander's time to work. That's why, after Caracalla's death, you never hear of the Romans using it again.

And the Macedonian phalanx would have been utterly useless on the empire's other major front, the Rhineland. I could just see the German tribesmen rolling on the ground in laughter as they watch a Roman army taking enormous spears and forming a Macedonian phalanx in that hilly, marshy, forested country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In fact, if the Romans had moved back to the Macedonian Phalanx, and mounted them to travel with their cavalry, we'd probably all still be speaking Latin/Greek. Most of the failures of the later Empire are at least in part down to the Roman army being unable to recieve and hold a cavalry charge, or to pin enemy infantry.

---

According to Procopius, the late Romans used phalanxes (not Macedonian style, though; just the simple shield wall with overhand spear, probably) and mounted them to travel with the cavalry during the Italian Gothic War. It worked alright. Though horse archers, if anything, won that war.

However, I don't understand where you get the idea that most of the failures of the later Empire are at least in part down to the Roman army being unable to receive and hold a cavalry charge, or to pin enemy infantry. What are some examples? The late Roman army did very well against the cavalry-dominated Persian army. The only example I can think of the Roman army really getting crushed by a cavalry charge is Adrianople, but in that case it is because the Goths used the old infantry/cavalry anvil/hammer tactic on them. In fact, cavalry could not be made to charge a well ordered late Roman infantry formation from the front. Hence, the importance of missile cavalry among Rome's enemies, who used them to pepper the Roman lines, hoping to break up the formation enough to get their horses to charge.

As for pinning enemy infantry, I can't think of this ever being a problem. The Roman army was very successful against infantry dominated armies (Franks, Alamanni, ect.) as long as there was Roman soldiers around to fight these people (unfortunately, often there were none, or at least very few, leading to the breakup of the Western empire). Do you have an sources for problems stemming from pinning infantry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

US Amy using tomahawk and bows again? Or fought bare chested and paint themself in dyes...? :clown:

---

As I said, it was not a great example, just a rough similarity. I meant it in the sense that the US military adopts native American names for vehicles, and such. I was just trying to show how cultures can adopt the marital legacies of other peoples

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

so it would be more like the US army useing Panzer IVs ^^

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attac...1&d=1260578640
How about a VI? :beam:

If it works, you might as well use it until it blows up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uticensis

The idea that the Roman legion was less disciplined in the later empire is a myth. Discipline did not decline, particularly not in the field army. In fact, since the time of Gallienus, officers were no longer senators who gained their commissions through family influence, but mostly men who worked their way up the ranks and knew how to train and lead men. The problem with the late Roman army was not its soldiers, but its government (which was breaking down, and often lacked the money, resources, and coherence to properly utilize the armies, and often wasted whole armies in bloody civil wars). And the fact that is was simply overwhelmed with enemies (just look at Stilicho- he was a brilliant general, but his regency ended in failure because he simply did not have the troops to hold every front)

---

This is only true to a point. The Late army was run via the Concillium, and it allowed the army itself to revolt when it didn't like the Emperor's orders. This is why Constantine dispanded the Guard, and why Justinian was forced to turn back when a standardbearer broke ranks and objected. The maniple dates from a time when the Roman soldier was expected to obey unwaveringly, to decimate his friends, and could thus be trusted with independant action to a degree.

Quote:

---

I concede that I may have been wrong to say that the Spatha is too different from the Gladius, but I think its popularity came mostly from the influence of Germanic soldiers in the army.

---

Germans coming into the Auxillia were thougherly Romanised, the actual cause has more to do with the soldiers seeking to differentiate themselves from the populace, and thus deliberately adopting "barbarian" customs. Nonetheless, the Pompeii Gladius is a study in a sword-pattern designed to be produced by an idiot and still be useable. It's parallel edges do not cut as well as the earlier leaf-blade and it's point is not as fine.

Quote:

---

I don't agree. Warfare had changed too much since the time of Alexander. Sassanid cavalry was a lot different from Achamenid cavalry. They used more horse archers (we've all seen these guys rip the slow moving phalanxes apart in EB) and cataphracts. The Romans developed military units and tactics designed to counter these threats. The Macedonian phalanx, on the other hand, was designed to fight the Persian and Balkan soldiers of five hundred years earlier.

---

The Persians were always known first and foremost as archers (hencer Herodotus saying young noblemen learned three things: riding, archery, and truth telling). The difference was in the heavy cavalry, for which the phalanx was much better suited.

Quote:

---

Warfare also necessitated smaller, more mobile infantry units. That's why in the late empire the legions shrank to under 1000 men each, with other units, such as auxiliary units, being half that size. The phalanx would have been too big and clumsy. As I said, warfare had changed too much for the phalanx of Alexander's time to work. That's why, after Caracalla's death, you never hear of the Romans using it again.

---

The units were smaller after Constantine's time because this prevented a single general from garnering the loyalty of 12,000 odd men just sitting in barracks and not even on campaign. The smaller units and lack of concentration prevented the Romans from gathering the Legions to resist the mass incursions of the 4th/5th Century.

Quote:

---

And the Macedonian phalanx would have been utterly useless on the empire's other major front, the Rhineland. I could just see the German tribesmen rolling on the ground in laughter as they watch a Roman army taking enormous spears and forming a Macedonian phalanx in that hilly, marshy, forested country.

---

While this is true, it would have been very useful in Northern Italy.

Quote:

---

However, I don't understand where you get the idea that most of the failures of the later Empire are at least in part down to the Roman army being unable to receive and hold a cavalry charge, or to pin enemy infantry. What are some examples? The late Roman army did very well against the cavalry-dominated Persian army. The only example I can think of the Roman army really getting crushed by a cavalry charge is Adrianople, but in that case it is because the Goths used the old infantry/cavalry anvil/hammer tactic on them. In fact, cavalry could not be made to charge a well ordered late Roman infantry formation from the front. Hence, the importance of missile cavalry among Rome's enemies, who used them to pepper the Roman lines, hoping to break up the formation enough to get their horses to charge.

As for pinning enemy infantry, I can't think of this ever being a problem. The Roman army was very successful against infantry dominated armies (Franks, Alamanni, ect.) as long as there was Roman soldiers around to fight these people (unfortunately, often there were none, or at least very few, leading to the breakup of the Western empire). Do you have an sources for problems stemming from pinning infantry?

---

Look at the casualty numbers, winning isn't everything. Cunctator, Wellington, Washington, etc., will all tell you that. The pike block has endurance for a protracted and constant melee, the Roman system was best when they were able to rotate troops, and to retire and advance. This is why the spear became increasly popular. The army was no longer advancing, and it couldn't afford to retreat, so it had to hold.

In some instances a pike block would have reduced Roman casualties. A properly drilled pike block would have been mobile and resistant to both the infantry and cavalry the Germanic people had. After all, when your enemy get's good at what you're good at; you have to get good at something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is only true to a point. The Late army was run via the Concillium, and it allowed the army itself to revolt when it didn't like the Emperor's orders. This is why Constantine dispanded the Guard, and why Justinian was forced to turn back when a standardbearer broke ranks and objected. The maniple dates from a time when the Roman soldier was expected to obey unwaveringly, to decimate his friends, and could thus be trusted with independant action to a degree.

---

Interesting point. I've never heard the idea of the maniple as a symbol of unwavering loyalty argued before, and never thought of it that way. It's a good point.

What is the reference to the standard-bearer with Justinian from, by the way? I don't recognize it. Are you sure you're not thinking of Gildo's standard-bearer? Nonetheless, the point stands, and you've convinced me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The units were smaller after Constantine's time because this prevented a single general from garnering the loyalty of 12,000 odd men just sitting in barracks and not even on campaign. The smaller units and lack of concentration prevented the Romans from gathering the Legions to resist the mass incursions of the 4th/5th Century.

---

Now I disagree with this. Even though the legions were smaller, the duces and comites had authority over more of them, so it roughly evened out. In fact, with the creation of the Magister Militum, control of virtually all troops were in the hands of one general, who often used this power to undermine the authority of the emperor and promote his own interests. Thus I don't think it was about loyalty, it was about the tactical effectiveness of small, mobile units.

The smaller units did not prevent the Romans from resisting the mass incursions of the 4th/5th centuries. Smaller units were actually helpful, because despite the common image of massive barbarian invasions, the majority of threats came from small raiding parties. These did not need to be confronted by 50,000 strong armies, but small, mobile, highly trained groups of soldiers. On the other hand, when needed, the Romans proved quite capable of calling up many of these small units into larger armies if the threat warranted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Look at the casualty numbers, winning isn't everything. Cunctator, Wellington, Washington, etc., will all tell you that. The pike block has endurance for a protracted and constant melee, the Roman system was best when they were able to rotate troops, and to retire and advance. This is why the spear became increasly popular. The army was no longer advancing, and it couldn't afford to retreat, so it had to hold.

In some instances a pike block would have reduced Roman casualties. A properly drilled pike block would have been mobile and resistant to both the infantry and cavalry the Germanic people had. After all, when your enemy get's good at what you're good at; you have to get good at something else.

---

I just don't like the idea of arguing that a military formation that fell out of favor half a millennium before should have been readopted. It's too speculative, and I tend to think that the Roman generals (at least sometimes) knew what they were doing and would have adopted anything that they thought would gain them victory.

Perhaps it would have worked in some areas of the empire, though. Yet it is impossible to tell. It kind of reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's (in)famous suggestion that the US Continental Army should have adopted the bow and arrow: it had a higher rate of fire than the musket, was cheaper to produce, and since armor had disappeared it would have been quite deadly. Whether it would really have worked is impossible to tell, because the bow and arrow was such an archaism that no general was going to equip his soldiers that way. I think something similar could be said of the phalanx in the late Roman Empire.

Bow and Arrow hm? it might have worked in open battles. I would make a front line of muskets and put archers behind them to fire over their heads.
Oh, btw the bow could be mass produced but you had to train people to use it properly for quite a long time. In American independence war many were untrained levies?
My opinion is that although the bow probably outranged the musket, the musket could turn untrained citizens into an effective fighting force and was better able to stand up to a cavalry charge due to its firepower at close range. (A horsemen charge can be stopped dead in its tracks by a massed volley, like at Waterloo) I dont think bows could penetrate the armor of those days, and if youd use contingents of bowmen I would just revert to armor and recruit some armoured cavalry. Then you would use musketeers again to counter them. then were back to square one.

Musketeers by their lonesome get squashed flat by cavalry, unless they also have bayonets and are formed up in close order. (And, of course, appropriately trained - resisting cavalry charges is above all about psychology.) That's why the pike remained an important infantry weapon until the late 1600s, after all; their primary tactical function was to keep the nasty men on horseback from riding roughshod over the dudes with guns who from around mid-Thirty Years' War onwards provided the actual offensive punch of the infantry.

Also, about armour penetration, with massed battlefield archery actually killing people is - somewhat counterintuitively - actually kinda secondary; the important thing is to damage the cohesion and order of the enemy formation, hence greatly reducing their combat effectiveness and making them that much easier to rout. Agincourt is pretty much a textbook example here; the English longbows could only meaningfully hurt the heavily-armoured French foot by sheer dumb luck (random arrow through visor or similar), but they most certainly thoroughly wrecked their already somewhat dodgy cohesion and coordination thus enabling the badly outnumbered English heavy foot to easily check and hold their assault. (At which point the archers double-enveloped the tired and disordered Frenchmen from the sides, and the rest is well known.)

Ditto, more or less, Crécy. The French cavalry mounted a considerable number of charges against the English position, in most cases pressing home (and at least a few individual knights *penetrated* the English line, thus having to make a wide detour to reach their own lines...) - this should say something of the degree of actual casualties the arrow-storms inflicted. But, again, killing power or lack thereof was of very much secondary importance compared to the distruption caused among the advancing units, which so robbed them of cohesion and momentum as to make it something of a relative cakewalk for the English close-combat troops to see them off.

Incidentally, AFAIK during the English Civil War at least during the early phases some rural milita formations relied mainly on Ye Olde Longbow for their firepower, on account of there not being enough firearms to go around. While certainly better than nothing this proved to be not of much use on the pike-and-shot battlefield, which is hardly surprising - already in the previous century (1500s) sensible military men had increasingly come to regard the longbow as severely obsolete, and whenever possible commanders replaced them with firearms and heavy crossbows.
[/digress]

The last I checked the maniple was adopted out of practical necessity (namely, 'cause the old hoplite shieldwall copied off the Greeks proved to suck eggs in the rugged highlands the Samnites hailed from) for an army of part-time citizen militiamen, and was sufficiently complicated that every now and then green formations not yet quite enough drilled in it screwed something up spectacularly. Given that the Roman approach to grand strategy was basically a combination of bloody-minded stubbornness and We Have Reserves, such occasional setbacks were acceptable - they could always raise a new army.

The professional armies of the Empire, paid in full from state coffers and having to make do with whatever volunteers were available, were *much* harder to replace. Between that and the increasingly worrisome attrition rates of the later times, it actually rather makes sense that late-period Roman infantry adopted the simple but resilient shieldwall - the working basics of which can be drilled in complete newbies in a matter of days, and which (as its use by the German tribes themselves amply proves) can be just as "all-terrain".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Persians were always known first and foremost as archers (hencer Herodotus saying young noblemen learned three things: riding, archery, and truth telling). The difference was in the heavy cavalry, for which the phalanx was much better suited.

---

Debatable. Neither Parthian nor Sassanid heavy horse was AFAIK particularly keen to come to contact with Roman heavy infantry unless the latter had been thoroughly softened up by the missile support (incidentally, AFAIK the Sassanids relied more on infantry archers for that), and for good reasons. Unless you've gone out of your way to configure your superheavy horse into an unstoppable meatgrinder capable of frontally chewing through good heavy inf, like the Byzantines during some periods actually did, it's a distinctly unsafe prospect even if the footsloggers aren't bristling with long pointy things.
That the Romans got pretty good at making excellent use of caltrops and similar additional anti-cavalry measures didn't hurt.

Another thing to consider: the Roman maniple was quite mobile and flexible (to the point that well-drilled ones could start a counterattack immediately after checking a cavalry charge), and such could be rapidly wheeled around and otherwise redeployed to create solid frontages to resist flanking moves by enemy cavalry. The old Mac pike phalanx was anything but, and horrendously vulnerable at its flanks to boot; exploiting which was AFAIK the SOP by which the Parthians dealt with it back when they ate the Seleucids alive.
That the Romans weren't terribly keen to adopt a formation which had proven to fail against both themselves and their primary Eastern headaches is, really, a given.

Quote:

---

The units were smaller after Constantine's time because this prevented a single general from garnering the loyalty of 12,000 odd men just sitting in barracks and not even on campaign.

---

and because standing, salaried armies fully paid for by the central state adminstration are so expensive it's not even funny. There's a reason the Empire eventually created the provincial militias to back them up you know.

Also, IIRC generals leading armies on campaigns were even more likely to garner the loyalty of the troops under their command if they were good at their job...
Soldiers, after all, have universally always had an inconvenient tendency to be more loyal to their immediate commanders, especially if those are capable and charismatic.

Quote:

---

While this is true, it would have been very useful in Northern Italy.

---

Basic rule of thumb: if a hostile army had made it to the Italian peninsula in the first place, the Empire was already in "desperate damage control" mode since that by necessity meant at least part of the Transalpine frontier (most likely, Rhaetia immediately across the mountains) had collapsed...
Nevermind now that retraining and re-equipping parts of the metropolitan garrison armies according to such an extremely specialised tactical system would have been pretty nonsensical. Doesn't help that the Hellenistic pike phalanx was essentially a support arm - unlike the Romans for the most part, the Macs and the Successors relied mainly on the cavalry for their offensive needs (and attempts to use the phalanx to fill in when enough assault cavalry wasn't available proved... less than consistently succesful, to put it mildly)...

Quote:

---

The pike block has endurance for a protracted and constant melee, the Roman system was best when they were able to rotate troops, and to retire and advance. This is why the spear became increasly popular. The army was no longer advancing, and it couldn't afford to retreat, so it had to hold.

In some instances a pike block would have reduced Roman casualties. A properly drilled pike block would have been mobile and resistant to both the infantry and cavalry the Germanic people had. After all, when your enemy get's good at what you're good at; you have to get good at something else.

---

Healthy reminder: the pike block of Antiquity was not the self-contained "living fortress" pike square of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but rather a decidedly inflexible linear system.
Also crap in poor terrain; why go out of your way to give your opponents such a shortcoming to exploit ? This wasn't an issue for the Medievals, as all relevant Medieval armies were designed mainly for open-fied battle anyway (what with relying a lot on heavy cavalry), but a great lot of the Romans' persistent headaches were specifically rugged-terrain experts...

OTOH, do recall that later on the Romans by and large copied the Germanic shieldwall wholesale and to good effect. (That for a very long time the Romans were able to maintain an edge in level of equipement and discipline over their "barbarian" adversaries rather helped, of course.) It was certainly a rather resilient formation - didn't Caesar's veterans already find the Suebi shieldwall frustratingly difficult to break? - and worked well enough in bad terrain if done right, as the Germanics themselves demonstrated, and could be taught to new recruits quite fast (all the more so as the ones recruited from among the German-speakers were in all likelihood already familiar with it). There was also less that could go wrong with it than with the somewhat complex "chequerboard" Roman system, especially when unseasoned troops were involved - as there increasingly often were, given the rate at which the Empire sometimes lost troops in its later days.
Also, the increasing reliance on cavalry to provide the mobile strike arm meant the infantry could afford to trade some offensive mobility for sheer resiliency.

what are the main differences between a greek style phalanx and a german shield wall?

The German one included throwing-spears and such, for one. For another having developed in a region where dense forests and similar inconvenient terrain around battlefields was the norm, so logically there had to be some provisions for negotiating such - my guess would be for the drill to include training in crossing such in open order and reforming once back in the clear. Although one imagines that simply the fact that the javelins ment the soldiers could readily act as loose-order "medium" infantry if need be covered most of that.

Armour as well, Germans were notoriously low on that.