Militia vs Trained

Hmmm... perhaps I am mistaken on Cynoscephalae, although I know I've read that Philip ordered his right wing to use swords instead of pikes. I do know the story of the raised pikes - a sign of Macedonian surrender, which the Romans either did not know or did not care about, leading to the slaughter of the Macedonians - but that could be referring to the disorganized left wing of the army (which was still using its pikes) or you can argue that it's like a "white flag"; I mean, not everybody carries a white flag with them to surrender with, but if the enemy is bearing down on you you'll rip out your own :furious3: underwear to make yourself a flag. Macedonians could well have just picked up any pike to show their surrender - wouldn't you if you saw the Romans bearing down upon you?

You and Livy are of course both correct that an army struck in its rear was in big trouble, especially a Macedonian phalanx - but you are incorrect, I believe, on it being simple for the Macedonians to turn to face the Romans, which they didn't. They didn't because all Philip told them to do was drop their pikes - he didn't tell them to break formation. The Macedonian right-wing at Cynoscephalae was still in a phalanx formation, only without the pikes, because 1) reorganizing would take too much time 2) the Macedonians, who were neither as well trained nor as well-armed as the Romans, would have inevitably had a "pack" mentality" and 3) Philip just needed to push the Romans off the hill, whereupon they would presumably break. When they were ordered to use swords, Philip was essentially just making sure that his phalangites used their swords on his and not the Romans' terms. Remember too that Philip thickened his right-wing, which would have added weight that was valuable for pushing the Romans off the hill but also made the already cumbersome Macedonian line even more bloated, allowing for the Romans to easily exploit their rear. Consider what happened at Cannae; the Romans increased the depth of their formations in an attempt to break through Hannibal's center, which they very nearly did - until they were hit in their flanks by the Libyans and Hannibal's cavalry. Had the Romans tried an organized breakout they probably would have succeeded; instead, the Romans naturally panicked and any semblance of battle order was lost.

Your comments on Pydna seem only to support me. As I said before, a phalanx was very tough to handle when it had an organized advance going - but this advance was very difficult to maintain and once momentum was lost, it could not be regained. So it was at Pydna; the Macedonians advance well, pushing the Romans back to the foothills. But then terrain, fatigue, stubborn Romans, etc. all combined to ruin that perfect advance, which the Romans quickly capitalized upon. To me it seems highly doubtful that the Macedonians could have halted to reform their lines, even if they wanted to, for two reasons: 1) the Romans were on the run, why stop? and 2) it has been repeatedly pointed out before that once a phalanx was committed, it was extremely difficult to get it to do anything else besides "keep moving forward". To me it implies a level of command-and-control and discipline that the Macedonians (at this point anyway) were not capable of.

Again, I think we're basically saying the same thing but in two different ways. The phalanx, in a perfect situation, should theoretically be able to steamroll legionnaires before it. The fact that this didn't happen shows that the phalanx rather quickly became disrupted and bogged down, again for reasons listed previously (terrain, fatigue, discipline, stubborn Romans). You said it yourself: "The phalanx itself could not finish the battles. It could kill and push but not crush the enemy." And that's exactly what would happen - the phalanx would kill and push, but simply could not maintain that for long enough so as to end the battle; it took outside forces, like the cavalry you mentioned, to do that. This was the ultimate problem of the late Macedonian armies - they relied too much on the phalanx to do too much, rather than the phalanx-and-cavalry combination perfected by Alexander. Had Philip, at Cynoscephelae, ordered cavalry to hit the flank of the main Roman body facing his right wing, he might very well have broken the Romans and carried the day; the Romans were downhill, seeming unable to make any headway against the sheer mass of phalangites before them, and the majority of them could not have had any idea of what was happening on their right (Philip's left). Philip effectively snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

That the Celts were unable to penetrate the forest of pikes simply shows that they were different from the Romans. First, the vast majority of the Celts would have been much less-well armored than their Roman counterparts, and quite a few would not even have had shields - especially not great big shields, which the Romans happened to enjoy. Secondly (and this is a two-parter :2thumbsup: ), though there is little doubt in my mind that the Celts were individually better swordsmen than the Romans, 1) not all Celts were swordsmen; many were spearmen, and would have posed far less of a threat if they managed to penetrate the phalanx; and 2) the Celts individual nature would have made it less likely that they would penetrate the pike wall. They would have been more likely to try it, but they would have been less likely to try it in an organized fashion. Like you mentioned earlier, the Romans would have had centurions etc. saying "Right lads, split into 3's and look for gaps in the pikes, and when you find one, move into it!" (except that they would have said it in Latin). The Celts would have been more likely to go "YAARRRRRRR!" and run screaming into the phalanx - and likely right into the head of a pike. Imagine it as finding a needle in a haystack - or, better yet, a hay in a needlestack. A Celt is going to dive into the hay/needlestack; now he might find the needle/hay, but he probably won't (and he'll probably be cut really really badly from all those lovely needles). The Romans, on the other hand, would have divided the pile into sections and given a pile to each legionnaire or group of them, whereupon he/they would begin taking apart the pile until he find his needle (or his hay). It'll take him/them longer than it might take the Celt, but he/they are also more likely to succeed.

As an aside: Have you ever considered Roman reenacting? We always need smart people to help us out (as opposed to, say, being one of those people who asks if we're Greeks, or insists that the Romans didn't have metal). You don't happen to be anywhere near Colorado, do you :beam: ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

2 points spring to mind here:

1. The Romans had those big shields and fought in disciplined formations. the result was that their would have been only 2 places a pike could have been pushed through. Over the top of the shield, but it could bounce of the helmet their if you weren’t careful. The second place was the gap between shields, but it probably wouldn't hit the guy holding the shield at the front and the next man back would have his shield in the way. As a result it would be extremely difficult to actually hurt a Roman Legionnaire in formation with pikes or spears.

2. (Something I picked up from a documentary on Spartacus a couple of years back). The Short Sword used by the Legions WAS NOT the Gladius. That, as the name implies, was used by the Gladiators and by extension Spartacus. The Legions short sword wasn't as wide, although it was a touch longer.

---

^^

And by pushing into the enemy formations you'd put any weapon that
needed free space to function (be it axes, polearms, spears, pikes,
two-handers) at a disadvantage. While you could use superior smaller
weapons, training and numbers (in the limited area) to good use.

Check my location...:beam: I live in Denmark. I believe I would find it fun, but I simply don't think I have the money to pay for the stuff.

I cincerely doubt the Macedonian dropped their pikes at Cynoscephalae. That Polybius, who would have been able to hear about from veterans, doesn't comment on it, and Livy who used several sources doesn't either, places a clear indication that the phalanx was acting as usual. In fact both historians tend to specifically mention when an army does not act as usual, and dropping the pikes would be a rather huge event.

And the surrendering troops were definately from the right, the left flank troops fled and were actively being chased. They woul at best surrender individually, which tended not to be very successful in those days.

Also, while there is indicators that the Macedonian right might have been a larger part of the army, there is no indicators of the phalanx being particularly deep. The two armies were roughtly even in size, but the phalanx put more men in a smaller place. So the Macedonian army would actually be less wide on the battlefield. Since they could match the Romans for length it seems a disproportionate number of Romans chased of the left. Leaving outnumbered troops to fend off a larger section of phalangites.
When struck in the rear the Macedonians were baffled and confused, but had they been using their swords they would be more mobile, it would have been possible for the rear-rankers (NCOs more or less) to order troops to reform, or at least just turn to engage the enemy. That would have led to some heavy fighting for a while, yet it seems the Macedonians were just steamrollered by relatively few troops. With pikes the rear ranks would be slower to reform and would be at odds to what to do... carry on or turn? Their pikes might still be important ahead.
Besides they had pushed the Romans far enough back to have left their dropped pikes 'far' behind (at least outside of reach), so the surrender was definately some they carried themselves. And the practice meant all pikes, that made it clear to the enemy (though not the Romans) that the entire unit was finished. Hence another reson to keep the pikes at hand, to indicate you surrender.

Actually the republican scutum seems to have been a copy of the Samnite shield which in turn, cropped up around the time the Gauls invaded Italy (and sacked Rome). The large oval shield and the curved tower shield were celtic first. Only specialised troops used the smaller buckler-styled square shield, such as slingers and berserker type troops (not berserkers, but you get their way of behaviour). And yes they didn't use swords all of them, a lot of spears. But these were short spears, easily useable inside the phalanx if it came to that.
A longswordsman with a large oval shield would have just as much going for him for breaking in, as a legionary, but being a better swordsman he would have a better chance. Yet they seem not to have had any success, leading to the wraparound.

Besides the centurions didn't order the men to go in small squads, they led their entire unit in. It would be more like: "Ok, form ten ranks and follow me." Making a deeper formation for smaller frontage would lead them to be able to edge into openings. There the Romans would fan out causing their mayhem.

My points of contention are the dropped pikes and the individual infiltration against a formed phalanx. A disordered phalanx would suffer both individual infiltration (where units couldn't go) and unit infiltrations, such as those at Pydna.

Random shield related question I forgot to add yesterday.

How can you visually tell the tougher shield from the weaker one, as all the roman shields I’ve seen seem to share the same basic idea, tall broad and hard to hurt:smash:.

I mentioned the Leather on shields just because I’d heard Egyptian Leather shields where better at resisting arrow fire than metal ones and another piece where arrows went through mail easily, but here stop by the padding underneath. (I'll admit the Egyptian bit cam from one of the history bits in AoM so it is somewhat suspect).

Hence I wondered if the leather might have acted to blunt the Pike, making it much less penetrating.

Ah, that's a shame Kraxis. But even just getting the equipment is fun, and really does help you to get a better understanding of ancient warfare IMHO. If you want to know more about some of that, do PM me :2thumbsup:

But now to our current argument :beam:

I have here a book called The Great Battles of Antiquity (Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose Jr.), and I have a few choice quotes here I'd like to share with you:

"This cumbersome body of men [the phalanx] could hold its ground and slowly advance forward only as long as the ground was level. Even the slightest uneveness of terrain tended to throw the ranks of the phalanx out of alignment. There was an additional tendency for the wings of the phalanx to move outwards from the center as it moved, and to create gaps between the individual syntagmae... as the Romans demonstrated at Pydna, it was possible to insert an infantry maniple into the gaps and hack at the phalanx from within... [as] few of the opposing forces in the Macedonian military experience were capable of exploiting this vulnerability... the gap problem was accepted as part of the normal risk of infantry combat." (pg 328)

"The comparative advantages and disadvantages of Roman infantry and the Macedonian phalanx, as revealed in such battles as Cynoscephalae, were summed up by Polybius... 'In the front nothing can stand up to the sarissa; the individual Roman with his sword can neither slash down nor break through the ten spears that simultaneously press against him. But the Roman legionary is adaptable... [t]he sarissa-bearer can fight only as a member of the entire phalanx and not even in small units... [f]urthermore, the phalanx can move only on very level terrain; every ditch, every hill, every hole, every clump of trees causes it to fall into disorder. But if it has fallen into disorder at any place at all or if Roman maniples should fall upon it from the flank, which can be easily done with the echelon formation of the Romans, then it is lost.'" (pg 332)

Again, on this point we almost seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. I reiterate my stance: the phalanx was extremely tough from the front, but as soon as anything - terrain, fatigue, Roman resistance - caused it to start to break apart, the Romans could easily capitalize on it. Are we agreed on this point?


"Philip ordered his phalanx to form at double depth, shortening his front like a hammer, and instructed his troops to arrange themselves in close-order "shield lock" formation. Then, Philip ordered the phalanx and cavalry to charge straight down the hill into the Roman left wing." (pg 337)

There's the answer to your double-depth query.

"The [Roman] left wing took the full brunt of the Macedonian charge. The open formation of the legion allowed it to flex and bend in the face of the momentum of the phalanx. Resistance slowed the Macedonian charge in much the same manner, Livy notes, as a tree branch bends but does not break before the wind. It was in circumstances like these that Roman training paid huge dividends. Almost as if on command, the legion broke into small groups and sidestepped the charge of the phalanx. As the phalanx tried to pass through the legion, small units of swordsmen fell on its flanks and began to slash it to pieces. Attacked from the flanks, the phalangites could not move their long sarissae to meet the assault, and their spears became entangled. Livy notes that someone gave the order to abandon the spears and fight on with swords."

So actually Livy does mention that the pikes were dropped in favor of swords. Again, the problem of the phalanx is reiterated here: once the momentum is lost, and once there is even the slightest disorder, the Romans could move in and capitalize on it. Your point on the Macedonians putting up more resistance in the rear if they were indeed using swords is valid but does not seem applicable. Remember that the formation of the Macedonians didn't change (as would likely have been almost impossible under the circumstances), only their weaponry. I'll again use the example of Cannae; the Romans could have given better resistance, indeed possibly have broken out, but what happened? Fear happened. The Romans were packed all on top of each other, they don't know what's going on, there is dust everywhere, screams and shouts are echoing... And it seems doubtful in any case that the Macedonians could have given much resistance anyway; as you yourself said earlier, the Romans were vastly better swordsmen than the Macedonians. The twenty maniples that crashed into the rear of the Macedonian right did so going downhill (as the fighting had carried the Macedonians down the slope), which would have added even more impetus to their impact.

Additionally, the surrendering troops probably came from the left, if only because they were still using their pikes. That the left wing crumpled and fled does not necessarily mean that they all fled. It's possible even that the "raised pikes" story is apocryphal, or at least not as meaningful as we might guess; Philip lost 13,000 men dead at Cynoscephalae out of, according to Livy, 23,500 (16,000 of those being phalangites), which was quite shocking to the Greeks, who may have wanted some sort of justification (even if it was surrender, on the argument that killing a man who surrenders is worse than the man surrendering).


You're right that the Roman shield was descended from Celtic ones. So were their helmets. Along with chainmail.

The problem was that, unlike the Romans, the Celts had no organized way of equipping their troops. A rich Celtic warlord might look a lot like a Roman; wearing a very similar helmet, chainmail, and carrying a sword and a shield. But many Celts were simply spearmen, and would be lucky to have any kind of shield, let alone a nice big one (and never mind armor or helmets).

A short spear would not be a good weapon for attacking the inside of a phalanx. A "short" spear is still much too long and unwieldy to be used effectively in such a cramped space. The same problem arises for the barbarian with a sword as well; they were terrifically skilled, there is no question, but to utilize their skill they needed space; their swords were longer, and were designed for cutting, and were thus simply too unwieldy in such a locale, and might even have given the phalangite, with his very small sword, a better chance. The Romans, of course, used the short gladius in a thrusting manner, and so did not have this problem. This sort of "cramping effect" happened at the Battle of Watling Street; the Roman position was at the narrow end of a sort of "V" clearing in the woods, with Boudicca's Britons, who vastly outnumbered the Romans, in the wide end. When Boudicca's warriors, sensing an easy kill, charged forward, they were compressed into the narrow end. The Romans were able to resist the charge, and the barbarians found themselves in too tight a space to effectively use their mighty longswords and large axes. The Romans, on the other hand, were presented with a giant mass of mostly unarmored bodies to stab with the gladius. No headway could be made, and once the Roman cavalry charged in from the woods, the barbarians turned and fled - unluckily, right into their wagon circle, which presented a wall that the Romans were able to push them up against. The result was, of course, a devastating slaughter that totally ended the rebellion.


Carl: for the most part, the Roman scutum was just several variations on a theme; the biggest different between the Imperial and the Polybian scuta are that the former has a flat top and bottom to save weight.

Scuta were covered with linen or leather, and, no, I don't know why there were both (although I can try and search for that). My best guess is that it was just different contractors supplying different things, which is also why there are different kinds of Roman helmets occuring at the same time; again, they were variations on a theme, contractors supplying the state with them and with legionnaires likely just grabbing whatever they could/what they liked when they were being equipped.

Leather would probably add more protection than linen, although the presence of either was not so much a defensive measure as just a way to keep the shield together and prevent splinters. The amount of leather or linen on a scuta would in either case almost certainly not be enough to cause any significant difference in penetration.

Yes we agree on the first part.

But I happen to sit with Livy's account right here, and it seems I have been mising a little line that seems confusing at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Livy

The cavalry and light infantry who had been in action he stationed on his right; the caetrati and the men of the phalanx were ordered to lay aside their spears, the length of which only embarrassed them,

---

So he does account an order to let the spears drop and to double the lines. And the losses amounted to 13000, but that is killed (which presumably includes the wounded who were likely put out of their miseries) and prisoners, and they amounted to 5000 in all. So 8000 were killed.

However, what Polybius has to say might shed some light on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

Upon this being done, the enemy being now close upon them, orders were sent out to the men of the phalanx to lower their spears and charge,

---

Lower their spears and charge... Makes sense eh? Meanwhile it can also be misunderstood when you read one language as complex as Greek and write in another (Latin). So it seems Livy simply misunderstood Polybius, for he clearly states later that he used Polybius as his source because he was by far the best when it came to Greek matters.
This one would also seem odd if they didn't use the pikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

the nature of their [the Macedonians*] arms also giving them a decided advantage on the present occasion

---

*- Insert by me.
A smaller shield and smaller weapon would not confer any sort of advantage in such a fight. A small shield would be better in an open more personal fight, but where total protection was needed and movement was impossible, such a shield was less than the scutum in effect. And while the enchiridion was a large dagger or small short sword, it was a slashing weapon, not a stabbing weapon (basically it looked like a small kopis/falcata). That would not be terribly great in such a fight anyway.

I think it is clear that Livy have made one of his rather numerous errors (he was a good authority on knowing sources, but apparently a bad translator).

About the left and it being them who raised their pikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

Most of the Romans followed up these fugitives and continued to put them to the sword

---

General chase as we know them. Merciless, if not terribly effective. But the fact remains these troops were broken (literally as there was no semblance of formation left), but that it is also likely that they were the ones who made it away from the battle (they fled before contact).

Meanwhile after the right broke, it seems Flaminius stumbled upon a unit of the phalanx who had been somewhere between the left column and the right line. They were formed and on the summit (a position the left only barely reached before being on flying).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polybius

When he noticed that the Romans in pursuit of his left wing had already reached the summits, he decided to fly, collecting hastily as many Thracians and Macedonians as he could. Flamininus, pursuing the fugitives and finding when he reached the crest of the ridge that the ranks of the Macedonian left were just attaining the summits, at first halted. 10 The enemy were now holding up their spears, as is the Macedonian custom when they either surrender or go over to the enemy, and on learning the significance of this he kept back his men, thinking to spare the beaten force. But while he was still making up his mind some of the Romans who had advanced further fell on them from above and began to cut them down. Most of them perished, a very few escaping after throwing away their shields.

---

Take not that the quotes are in chronological order, so the left has already been routed a good time ago, and is being actively chased by the Roman right. Apparently one taxis survived, distanced from the others, or else it was the remains of the right, or possibly even a sort of reserve, many possibilities. It also seems that some of the Roman right turns back and attacks them from behind (how they can attack from above when the unit was at the summit isnot explained) and kills them (clearly they didn't become prisoners). In any case a decidedly odd incident.

Polybius gives Livy his numbers on casualties, 8000 dead and at least 5000 prisoners.

About the short spear. A short spear would be around 5-6 feet, easily turned and used, and spears are fast weapons with good properties of penetration, hence a short spearman could inflict as much damage as swordsman.
A lot has been said about celtic swords, but they had by this time abandoned the blunted sword, and used a sword that did both cut and stab. When such a swordsman got to the phalanx front he wouldn't need to get in and play Roman legionary, he would then be able to hold his distance. At that point on a single point would oppose him, wielded by a guy who could hardly see what was going on, and at this point the other 5-rankers could not turn their point to help halt another file because their own file were in the way of the move. The swordsman would thus be able to stand just outside and chop up the phalangites with wide cuts they could not deflect (unless they dropped the pike naturally) and stabs they could not respond to. But that didn't happen because the Celts failed to get people inside the pikes.

About shields (I'm beginning to sound like one of those ancient historians with those headers :dizzy2:).
The republican shield was roughly shaped as the shield the Hastati, Principes and Triarii have in RTW. Super-eliptic (more or less rectangular with round corners) and curved. And instead of strengtheners (like the 'L's I mentioned before) it had a central vertical spine encompassing the boss. This was apparently for strength as well as decorative functions. The shield with a spine would not be bent back too far and would be more resistant to powerful strikes, but would likely suffer more structural damage in a fight.
And Celts, unless they were skirmishers, tended to use large oval shields. A shield is relative cheap, and can easily be made and replaced compared to arms and armour. Shield and spear was a requirement for most. Armour was a benefit of station and rank.

Just one sidenote about shields Kraxis: I've seen the first scutum, or a shield looking like the scutum in the modern Region of Friaul, which was Italic-Illyrian IIRC and had close contacts with the Noric Celts, the Raetians and the Illyrians as well as Etruscans. IIRC the picture was dated around 500BC, it was in a book about the gens italiae, or the people living on the territory nowaday called Italy.

With so many influences almost everybody could have been the possible inventor. It might be worthy of note that the norteast corner of Italy is hilly and mountainous once you rise from the valley of the Po. The Phalanx was surly know as the Etruscans and the Greek colonies employed it, yet most fought since the 600th century with helm, a shield (large or small), two/three javelins/spears and axes/swords. A flexible combination, well suited on all terrains from flat valleygrounds to steep wooded slopes....

Cheers
OA

Yes, I have seen some similar shields, however they have been destinctly different. Generally more like the Mycenean tower shields (rectangular, but rather wide so they get a squarish feeling), than the celtic oval spined shields, and neither were curved.

It seems the Samnites were the ones to invent that feature, or at least make it a prevailent among the troops.

However the hoplite phalanx was used until the very end by the Tarentines (3rd century, where the roman took the city), much like the Etruscans, and the Romans only seem to have abandoned it around the Second Samnite War (4th century).
However the Roman system of having plenty other types of spearmen and skirmishers could be indicative of how the other armies were as well.

Hmmm...

I'm not sure how much further we can go on the Cynoscephelae debate - because the sources we're relying on are too vague :laugh4:

It certainly seems possible that Livy did misunderstand Polybius, and that "lower your spears and charge" meant "charge as a phalanx."

But, on the other hand, maybe it means "lower" as in "drop" - that is to say, the Macedonians dropped their spears and charged with swords to try and push the Romans off the hill, just like I was saying before.

Who knows? The passages seem too vague for us to determine either way. I'm inclined to agree with the latter - not only because it's convenient for me :laugh4: but because, as Gabriel and Boose pointed out, it seems likely that their pikes may have become entangled. But Livy having missed the translation doesn't seem far-fetched either... -sigh-

Your next quote from Polybius again seems vague, although admittedly I don't have the works of Polybius with me. Are you sure he was referring to the Macedonians in that case? And if he is, are you sure he's referring to their right wing (as opposed to their left, where they would have, at least theoretically, proved helpful against the elephants and charging romans)? I remember when I read Herodotus' Histories that you had to pay very close attention because otherwise you often weren't sure just who or what he was talking about. It's also possible that Polybius saw the Macedonians using their small swords and shields as an advantage incorrectly, for reasons such as 1) because he thought it would make them more mobile than the legionnaires in the close-combat situation (a drastic underestimation) or 2) it was a "decided advantage" as compared to using their cumbersome and tangled pikes.

Again, it seems to me that we simply don't know what either of them meant.

I couldn't tell from your tone whether you were agreeing with me or not on it being the left-wing Macedonians who would have raised their pikes in surrender. Does Polybius' account mention the "fugitive chase" in any detail? If it doesn't, then perhaps we should consider the "raised pikes" incidents as probably occuring with isolated Macedonians who for whatever reasons decided to surrender instead of run. This may be what Polybius mentions (in that last quote), which doesn't necessarily have to be referring to a taxeis per se but may just be referring to a bunch of Macedonians who surrendered either as one or began to gather around each other when they did so (for emotional support if nothing else). Passage again seems too vague to conclude anything too deep.

I got my figures from Gabriel and Boose's account. Maybe they misinterpreted Polybius/Livy; I don't know, but for now I don't think it's too important.

I've held and used a short spear in my reenacting before (a Celtic one in fact; it was the only one we had with us), and while it is indeed a light and fast weapon, I didn't say that; I said that it was difficult to use in very close-quarters combat, hoplite phalanxes notwithstanding; contrary to most people's view of hoplites, it was very difficult for them to use their spears great affect, because they were smushed together, allowing for very little leverage in a thrust, and in any case there was almost nothing to thrust at due to the heavy armor of the opponent; there was the initial crash, then essentially a shoving match with shields (the name of which escapes me now, unfortunately [the maneuver, not the shield]), with most casualties coming up through pursuit if there were such forces available. Remember that at Thermopylae, when the press of the Persians became so great that the Spartans had difficulty using their spears (which were indeed often grabbed at by the Persians), they switched to their swords and cut down the Persians like a scythe through wheat. If a Celt somehow managed to penetrate the pike wall of a phalanx, he'd find himself so squeezed in because of the sheer mass of phalangites that I can't imagine him being able to use his spear to any great affect; there would simply be no room.

Same thing for the Celts. That they could stab with them is not as important as you might suspect; the point is that for that kind of close-quarters combat, the swords were simply too big. Squeezed on all sides by dozens of pike shafts and phalangites and possibly buddies that made it through with him, slashing (the really devastating way to use the large Celtic swords) would indeed be quite deadly but nearly impossible, and for thrusting he could well be even worse off than a spearman; his sword is not quite as long but still awkwardly long, and also weighs much more than a spear (with the weight often concentrated towards the tip of the blade to help those devatating slashes), making it quite difficult and exhausting; a short sword like the gladius was much better because it was not only short, but relatively light as well. I speak from experience but you can try this for yourself: grab a wooden baseball bat (er, do they play baseball in Denmark?) and, holding the end (the correct end), try and thrust it forward. Now take, say, a wine bottle or a tall beer bottle (with the booze still in it:laugh4:), hold it from the neck, and then try thrusting it forward. Much easier, isn't it? (And yes, NOW you can drink :medievalcheers: )

You're right on the shield marks (in responding to Oleander); the scutum, like most of the things the Romans used, is basically Celtic. The Romans also employed the phalanx, like most everybody else did at the time. I'm pretty sure that the Roman system of various spearmen and skirmishers (roarii etc.) was, like you suggest, probably similar to those of other groups - but only because the idea of troops by property-classifications and so forth comes from the Greeks, who of course had heavy influence on the Italian peninsula; difference ended up being that the Romans eventually established much more refined versions of it.

Hm Kraxis, the flattish look might be caused by the limitation of the artist...
However I have to confess that I don't recall exactly the look of it, I just know that it looked very very similar to a Roman scutum. Anyway it might be copied and perfected by the Samnite, one should not underestimate the trading and cultural links on the penisula. Celtic tribes might have picked it up on their way south, down the eastern coast of the italian penisula, who knows?

It just seemed to me to be a likely place for such an shield, which is so suited for closed ranks both in flat valleys and in broken terrain.

Cheers
OA

mmmm...

¿wrong forum?


So far in my personal experience as Italians and Spaniards, castles have been unnecessary after some 20 turns or so.

Italian Militia and Genoese Crossbow militias are GREAT and the Spanish have crossbow militia, tercio pikemen, sword militia and musketeers all built in cities.

For some other factions, castle troops are fundamental to survival, e.g. the Eastern Romans.

Actually it might very well be the wrong forum now... We'll see if the local powers think so.:beam:

Anyway, Polybius was sort of a real figure of authority on the pikephalanx. He wrote an entire manual on how to use it, sadly it is lost to us now. And after the Cynoscephalae account he goes on to explain the differences of the phalanx and the legion. He says practically all the sensible things that are there, such as the phalanx without it's pikes would be defenseless ect ect. broken terrain = bad. You get the drift, we have heard it before, but he was the first man to tell the world.

If he had meant 'drop', I'm certain he would have used a clearer term so that 'we' (the translators from ancient Greek to all languages) would not fall into the mistake Livy seems to make. Besides if they did something that he himself considred odd, I'm certain he would have commented on that. Generally Polybius is a clear and to the point source, little dallying around like Livy (GAH! He just has to make conversations for each and every event). That is why I am certain they retained their pikes, and to me it also makes better sense.

On the chase Polybius says little. Apparently he was a little short on info on that, or else the chase was a regular one, so he had little need to explain. Generally chases are commented on in a single line like his.
But he does say that the entire right flank chased, save the 20 maniples that turned around and hit the formed phalanx in the side/rear.
What is interesting about that is that if the surrendering unit was on the left, there is little option to where it could be. It must almost exclusively have been closer to the right than the fleeing units (or else it too would have been sent running, and Flaminius would never have met it on his attack on the ridge). But that puts it directly into the route of the 20 maniples.
Something does not add up, and Polybius is oddly silent on the matter.
So the surrender of a left flank unit by pikes up (remember Flaminius has to be there to want them taken prisoner rather than what actually happens), seems wrong. A reserve unit on the right, or one of the units on the far right could have done so when they saw the rout of the others. That would make it sensible that Flaminus would see it, and that the returning chasers would fall into it's back.

But I agree, Cynoscephalae seems drained by now. I see little that can change either side.

OA I do not doubt the shield, but as far as I know the celtic shield was somewhat old, perhaps 700BC. And towershields weren't that uncommon, the Myceneans had them, and so did the Sumerians and Egyptians. So it could very well have been an individual development, that suited the local terrain.
The Samnites di however change the shield they copied, they have it trapezoidal so as to not impeed their movement in the hills. Bright little change there.
That they also taught eh Romans about the manipular legion... well that is for another discussion.