Printable View
Isn't it odd that the Greeks and especially Romans fielded lopsided armies with strong infantry but weak cavalry? The Roman's seemed to have prefered recruiting Gauls and German cavalry instead of maintaining its own cavalry. What possible reason could there be for being so deficient in cavalry while having to dig ditches constantly for flank protection.
Well other elite units could deffinetly cover flanks as well as cavalry for one thing. For an other I don't know that what you are saying is true. The Greeks and Macedonians fielded very strong Thessilian cavalry. They were the first to come up with the "shock troop" cavalry idea, and it worked brilliantly.
As for the Romans, I can see that their cavalry units aren't really anything special, but in my opinion the Greeks/Macedonians did have a pretty strong cavalry.
The Romans had decent cavalry, provided by their allies. But they didn't need top notch cavalry, because of their tactical approach (massed heavy infantry worked wonders against anything their enemies could throw at them... they even defeated all horse oponenents like the Parthian).
It's ecology and the attitude spinning off it really. Neither of the peninsulas is exactly "horse country" - Thessaly being the closest area of the kind in Greece - and thus both raising enough good horses and aquiring suitable equestrian skills and traditions was a bit problematic, so it's really only natural that both came to regard the mounted arm as a very auxiliary one. Especially as both came to rely primarily on solid heavy infantry (primarily spearmen in the case of the Greeks) recruited from the farmers and city-dwellers, and solid heavy infantry is something even cavalry far more potent than either could raise from their "native" regions always had considerable trouble facing.
Nonetheless, the value of mounted men as scouts and in pursuit duties meant both developed passable cavalry arms, albeit generally rather small in number.
The Thessalians and the Macedonians to their north dwelt on geography well suited for both breeding horses and cavalry warfare, and duly developed a strong aristocratic mounted arm with the proto-feudal social structures that so often went hand in hand with it.
While it is true that the strong heavy infantry generally served the Romans well enough, there's no shortage of occasions where they really could have done with both more and better horsemen. Hannibal would be among the more famous ones to repeatedly exploit the Roman weakness in really mobile troops - the equites did what they could, but being both outmatched and outnumbered by the Carthaginian's Gallic and Iberian mercenary cavalry tended to be quickly dealt with usually leaving the infantry badly outflanked and duly annihilated.
Parthian and Armenian cavalry-based armies, with their very nasty combination of light horse-archers and heavy shock cataphracts, also gave the Romans no end of grief. But at least on this eastern front they could draw upon the local repository of troops developed in the same traditions.
The roman republican cavalry was surely no world beating force but I've never seen anything conviencing that should be extraordinary bad. The average roman upper class member certainly not thought that they were bad horsemen.
Republican citizen cavarly was mostly vastly outnumbered by their enemies. The equites of the republic were members of the leading classes, the sons of the senators and the equestrians, the richest and most influential man in the state. It's core were the 1800 equites equo publico, fighting on a state provided combat horse, the original equites of the early republic. At some time when the number of the cavarly had to be increased the ordo equester had to be enlarged it was only possible by allowing less priviledged members that fullfilled the requirements that had to fight with their own horse, the eques equo privato. Belonging to the ordo equester was quite prestigous thus it couldn't easily expanded by lowering the requirements to enlarge the available cavalry. Also the availability of sufficent numbers of efficent cavalry to fight for the roman cause on nearly all fronts, numidians, thracians, iberians, celts, etc., since the punic war made this not neccessary. From the late 2nd and early 1st century BC onwards the equestrian class become a purely ecomical and social elite with a comparible small group of officers on their top and the allied italian cavarly dissapeared after all almost all italians received citizenship and were recruited into the legions after the social war. The generals of the late republic had to rely only on foreign and allied cav. that was recruited if needed and their armies were still succesful so this system worked quite well for the romans.
After the wars in the second half of the 1st century the things changed and togehter with it's profesional standing army the empire developed it's own strong regular cavarly arm out of the republican celtic, thracian and iberian auxiliaries that had often served for nearly for decades on side of the legions during the civil war era. Besides the horse archers that appeared in regular roman alae since augustaean times after the experiences of the first parthians wars the imperial cavalry of the 1st century was mainly dominated by celtic and iberian traditions and tactics. The roman standard cav. during the principate was a moderatly armoured highly flexible force, armed with javelins, a rather short one handed lance and the new spatha swords. Discipline and training in the auxiliary units was on the same level as in the contemporary legions and especially the alae were among the most prestigous units in the army. Their equippment and tactics were largely standarized by imperial decrees. Originally their first soldiers were recruited from a single ethnicity in their home province but if the units were transfered to another province they mostly immedietaly begun to reccruit locals as replacement. In the late first and second century AD the numbers of citizens in axuilia units steadily increased as the provinces become more and more romanized and the now citizen sons of former auliary soldiers often prefered to join their father's unit.
After the danubian wars in the late 1st early 2nd century AD and the more intesive contacts with steppe nomads and again parthians the imperial army introduced true heavy cavalry and the first pure units of contarii and catphractarii apear, closing one of the last weaknesses in their roster. At this time the percentage of cavalry reached 20-25 % of the hole army, more than doubling the average value of the hellenistic and republican era of around 10%.
Well, Parthia is an exception of that rule. They defeated the Romans twice- first the Roman legions led by the Caesar's colleague Kras who was defeated and killed and the second led by Mark Antony was also unsuccessful (although not so disastrous when compared with the first). Yes, eventually the Roman emperor Trajanus won against Parthia.However this victory was not due to the military superiority of the Romans but the constant political crisis and separationism in the Parthian empire at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
Romans also had multiple victories over the parthians even without counting Trajans and Septimus Severus campaigns.
Cassius repulsed their invasion of syria directly after carrhae and Ventidius defeated the parthians multiple times during their large scale invasion of the eastern provinces prior to Marcus Antonius failed campaigns.
After Trajans campaign, early in Marcus Aurelius reign the parthians surprisingly invaded the roman east, when they were appearently not occupied with internal struggles when the roman army was in low state of readiness and were still defeated by Lucius Verus who pursuited them deep into mesopotomia. And also during Corbulos campaign roman army did perfom quite well against them.
Nonetheless, like the German one the Persian border was an "eternal frontier" where no lasting headway could be made. Armies marched, cities and fortresses were captured and recaptured, and a lot of people died, but overall the balance didn't change.
Partly it was politics and ecology, but also because neither side had a distinct advantage that could not be overcome with superior generalship, stumped by sheer logistical limitations, or nullified by internal developements.
In the late 2nd century AD Septimus Severus managed to conquer and annex Mesopotamia from the Parthians. I would call that a pretty important change. After that the Parthians continued to weaken in their position until their empire was usurped by the Sassanids.
Ok, the Romans had SUPERB cavalry. The Romans themselves simply weren't good horsemen, nor did they have very many horses. Roman tactics and recruitment, and training methods however, were of a superior quality. Many of the best Roman generals knew exactly how to use their cavalry in order to win their battles.
No elite infantry can be as mobile as cavalry. Apart from the Thessalian's, the Greek armies were basically hoplites. The major battles of Platea and Marathon (which had Greek soldiers and reinforcements from many cities) had no Greek cavalry worth mentioning! And Macedonians didn't invent the concept of shock, what Philip pioneered in Greece was the concept of combined arms warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
No, an infantry only army(or infantry-heavy) is intrinsically handicapped. The Parthian's were equally disadvantaged by being cavalry-heavy but the Romans were annihilated in the major battles of Carrhae and Mark Anthony clearly failed in his Parthian campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
Cuncator, great info. The Roman's weren't infantry-heavy by late 1AD after all. Why were the equites limited primarily to oligarchs? Was horse grazing land a limiting factor?
My point was never whether the Roman model(esp pre-Marian) was 'good enough' but why the typical Greek armies before Philip were so deficient and why the Romans never learnt from Alexander. The Roman's must be fortunate not to have met an enemy similar to Alexander more often, not necessarily as gifted but just a moderately efficient general with a mixed well balanced army.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
I disagree with most of that.
At least give some points on why you disagree.
Your first post that Greeks had elite infantry units which were as good as cavalry and that the Greeks/Macedonians pioneered the concept of shock is absurd.
Hey there AlexanderofmacedonQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
just curiuos...but why do you disagree? Most of the points brought up by orangat are quite valid, presumably based upon some study of the historical facts. Are you basing your disagreement on the unit types presented in the RTW ot RTR? While they are reasonably historical in there capabilities, they are not meant as perfect facsimilies.
Quote:
The most prestigious of the mounted troops were the hetairoi or companions.
Quote:
The hetairoi usually carried a variety of heavy thrusting spears to act as heavy shock cavalry, though they were on occasion armed with javelins
http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dor...er.html#maccavQuote:
In addition to the shock troopers of the hetairoi a small number of light cavalrymen designated prodromoi or scouts were part of the native Macedonian cavalry. These horsemen were usually equipped with javelins when employed on reconnaissance missions, but armed with a cavalry version of the sarissa they served as heavy cavalry sarissophoroi in battle.
They were used at the flanks by a great general. They can guard a flank well enough that a great general would use it.Quote:
The Athenian mercenary general Iphicrates introduced light armed troops - peltasts - next to the phalanx. Peltasts were much faster than hoplites, more effective in rough terrain and they could harrass the enemy phalanx from the flanks or from the rear.
http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?...d=8&title=ArmyQuote:
Greek armies had used little or no cavalry. There was not one Greek horse at the battle of Marathon in 490 BC. When present, cavalry was used in dispersed formations for skirmishing or to pursue a routing enemy phalanx, but never as the prime weapon of assault. But the Macedonian kingdom traditionally possessed a strong nobility cavalry. What Philip did was to improve this existing Companion cavalry by drilling it to ride and attack in disciplined, dense formations for a concentrated punch. It was Philip who gave cavalry its prominent role on the battlefield.
The cavalry Companions were heavily armored horsemen armed with a thrusting spear and a sword. There were eight Companion units of 200-300 men each, one of which was the élite unit, the Royal Squadron or agema.
It wasn't that there wasn't cavalry worth mentioning orangat. It's that there were no cavalry at all at Marathon.
As you can see, there was no shock cavalry at the time. Mounted men would chase down fleeing soldiers, but other than that, it wasn't much use, UNTIL Phillip enployed Thessalians and some of his own troops.
It's almost midnight and I have a soccer game tommorrow, so I have to go to bed, but I'll argue this point more tommorrow if you'd like.
Take care Alexanderofmacedon. Have a good game tomorrow, and win one for the Gipper! I hope we didn't chase you off, because this is a great thread and we value everyone's opinions and ideas. I was mainly speaking to orangat'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
points about the Romans and their use of cavalry.
Gute Glick!
I think geography and tradition had alot to do with why the early Greek and Roman Armies never developed very large contingents of Cavalry. Most of the arable lands on both penninsulas had to be used to feed the large urban populations, leaving little for an equestrian industry. As to tradition, until either cultures faced cavalry heavy armies, most of the fighting was between likewise enemies, or against the light, missle armed, peltast style infantry of the hill folk such as the Samnites or Illyrians, etc. Both sides developed different approaches to this problem as well. The Romans developed the Velite and the Hastatii, both armed with throwing javelins, and realatively lightly armored. They also developed the famous Quinquix, or manipular formation to increase the army's flexability. The Greeks, however, usually hired out these types of troops when needed as they didn't have enough men available to create much more than the Hoplite infantry. They also utilized the famed Thessalian and Thracian horsemen when available - just not in the numbers that Phillip did. Niether did they change thier battle formation, utilizing the Phalanx was their best defense against most any enemy in a frontal assault in any case. :wall:
In the case of the peoples of the steppes, or the deserts of the Asia, horse cultures were the norm. One need only witness the way that horse cultures thrive in places with large tracks of grazing land. If it weren't for the horse in my country, I doubt that our European ancestors could have ever conquered such a large continent. The horse was valuable to the Egyptians, Persians, Parthians, Assyrians, Scythians, Babylonians, Armenians, and many other peoples that lived in arid countries with such large distances to cross. It is no wonder why they developed Horse dominated military war machines. What they lacked in heavy infantry, they tried to overcome with large numbers of skirmishers and light armed infantry. The main problem for these peoples was how much training could be given to the hastily raised levies? The main reasons for their victories over western armies were tactical and logistical. Tactical such as when a Greek or Roman army faced them with insufficient numbers of cavalry and skirmishers, logistically when western generals failed to take into account the problems of supplying an army in such an environment. The only time that Alexander failed to plan for such contingencies was upon his return from India through the Gedrosian desert. He almost lost his entire army there.
:oops:
When I stated "I disagree with most of that" in an earlier post, I quoted what Orangat said, but I put what I was talking about in bold. Only the first paragraph.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
He lost most of the army he had taken with him, but he had sent about half around the other way, prior to his march to the sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Also, it is being speculated that the slightly nuts Alexander actually punished his army for their 'disloyalty' in not following him where he wanted to go. The army he took through Gedrosia were the Macedonians, while the 'spared' part was mainly the eastern troops.
Cruel.:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Indeed. Something like this is alluded to in Paul Doherty's book The Death of Alexander The Great, an interesting read about the various controversies surrounding his death. Whatever actually occurred, it is certain that there was a deep division within his army after the India campaign. All men may "reach and fall", as the Ptolemy character in Alexander the movie says, but Alexander sort of overreached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Getting a little back on task, would you say that the Greeks probably never developed the large cavalry arm that Phillip of Macedonia did because, unlike him, they never planned to invade Asia? It seems that necessity drove that train to me.
The roman class system originated in a time when Roma was just an agricultural city state. Urban population and small farmers couldn't afford to breed and maintain horses and fight as cavalry, other than the rich men and landowners. Italy has quiete a few plains suited for horse breeding that came under roman controll and the italian socii could provide 2-3 times the number of roman cavalry for the roman armies of the middle republic, thus their capacity alone was not limitating the cavalry to historic numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
The Thessalians developed heavy cavalry, despite having no plans of invading Asia. The socio-economical conditions in souther Greece made raising a large cavalry force inpractical. Aside from the fact that you need lots of unused land to breed horses (and noblemen would own several), individual horsemen would have to be quite rich. In the Greek poleis, at least in Athens, there lived a real life ideal of a large middle class of citizens, equals who'd arm theirselves for the protection of their community. The nobility capable of keeping horses was comparatively small compared to Thessalia or Macedonia.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
While true that Thessaly developed a Heavy Cavalry arm, the Thessalians were a vassal people of Macedonia about the time this occured. Prior to this, according to historical accounts, Thessaly originally used their cavalry in a lighter skirmisher role. Thessaly was the only "Greek" state that had enough grazing land to produce such cavalry. Perhaps that is why Phillip wanted so badly to subjegate them - for the numbers of Horsemen they could provide. It was he who first incorporated a heavy cavalry as a team with the infantry, at least in Europe. Although no one today can go back and ask him about his plans, I'm sure that as a young man, he must have given a great deal of thought to the advantages such a force would have over the infantry minded Greeks. Lurking in the back of his mind, while purely conjectural, might have been his dream of one day invading Asia. He must have read some account, Xenophons's perhaps, of the cavalry strength of Persia. While scorned as a barbarian by the Greeks, he was truly a visionary in many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I will accept your point about the socio-economic conditions of southern Greece being unable to produce a large number of horsemen. Even if someone in the Greek poleis had considered it, and I'm sure that there was, the political disunity of the city states would have likely prevented such an idea from taking hold...."preposterous" I can almost hear Demthsones say. "What does Athens need horsemen for? Are not our brave Hoplites equal to the task? Shall we become as the Macedonians, fools that dream of war with the Persians?"....or something like that.
Just to point out, the use of horsemen was exceptionally low, but they were used by Greek poleis. I can't go into details right now, since I'm not feeling like delving into my library, but from memory, I seem to remember that Athens had a cavalry force, as well as cavalry commanders.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Despite that, even at the height of Athens' might, immediately before the Peloponnesian war, Athens could definitely field about 100 horsemen, although I suspect pentakosiomedimnes could probably go as horsemen as well, if they so chose.
That is probably mainly due to terrain and fighting style. Having a horse charge a veritable wall of pikes and men is not something easily done, so cavalry had a secondary role there. In Italy, early on, terrain was similar, as was the fighting style, meaning cavalry could mostly be used to hunt down skirmishers and archers, also, Rome was not a very rich city in the beginning, so, horses were not that common. Later on, with the expansion into territories suitable for raising horses, as well as with the conquest of peoples who had a tradition of horsemanship, Roman cavalry saw a rapid improvement in quality.
I've been away for a few days but my response below...
That doesn't mean Greeks invented shock troops/cavalry like you said in your first post. Cavalry unless they are mounted archers are shock troops by definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
And what did those peltasts defend against? Other peltasts/hoplites - not cavalry. Peltasts alone would be insufficient for flank defense against an army which has good cavalry. And Iphicrates was not the typical Greek general anyway.Quote:
"The Athenian mercenary general Iphicrates introduced light armed troops - peltasts - next to the phalanx. Peltasts were much faster than hoplites, more effective in rough terrain and they could harrass the enemy phalanx from the flanks or from the rear."
http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dor...er.html#maccav
They were used at the flanks by a great general. They can guard a flank well enough that a great general would use it.
What is your point? It strengthens my argument that the typical Greek army was almost devoid of cavalry in what must be one of the most important battles in Greece.Quote:
http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?...d=8&title=Army
It wasn't that there wasn't cavalry worth mentioning orangat. It's that there were no cavalry at all at Marathon.
As you can see, there was no shock cavalry at the time. Mounted men would chase down fleeing soldiers, but other than that, it wasn't much use, UNTIL Phillip enployed Thessalians and some of his own troops.
It's almost midnight and I have a soccer game tommorrow, so I have to go to bed, but I'll argue this point more tommorrow if you'd like.
Like I said, the Greeks in general have poor cavalry. Phillip/Alexander's Macedonian army and the Thessalian are exceptions to the rule.
Rotogun hit the nail on the head. Phillip's model was an army of conquest. It was well balanced and more well equipped to handle Persia and whatever might lie beyond.
Cavalry is not shock troops by definition, where did you heard such an absurd definition? Persian cavalry - the best in the mediteranean world until the Thessalian-Macedonian cavalry came about - was a pure, 100% skirmishing cavalry. Their tactics consisted in fighting against other cavalry and wearing out infantry by using their palta (cavalry javelins) and charge only when the opposing infantry was in dissaray. No "shock" troops here. It is considered common knowledge that the first real shock cavalry, as used in battle, was Philipos' Heteroi-Thessalians.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
First, you got the wrong idea about cavalry in that era. Cavalry was not used to charge head-on into an infantry formation, that came only in Philipos' era. you should view a cavalry vs cavalry battle as a foot battle on horse, not some medieval charging home. The light armed troops were vulnerable to a horse charge, but horsemene usually didn't charge at all! And Ihpikrates was a very typical Greek general, what's the "typical Greek general"?Quote:
And what did those peltasts defend against? Other peltasts/hoplites - not cavalry. Peltasts alone would be insufficient for flank defense against an army which has good cavalry. And Iphicrates was not the typical Greek general anyway.
Not quite... Athens kept a large cavalry contigent after 448... usually 1.000 to 1.200 men strong, at one point almost 1.500. Those numbers include the Skythian horse archers the Athenians kept hiring throughout the first Athenian hegemony period.Quote:
What is your point? It strengthens my argument that the typical Greek army was almost devoid of cavalry in what must be one of the most important battles in Greece.
This is a rather poor wording. A more correct wording would be: City-states in southern mainland Greece of Classical antiquity generally viewed war as a mostly heavy-infantry issue. Some city states dared to innovate (like Thebes, they also had excellent cavalry although their tactical use left much to be desired) some city states had extraordinarily good cavalry (like Syracusae, and Taras - but those are in southern Italy... aren't they Greeks?) some areas produced the best cavalrymen of classical and post-classical antiquity (Thessaly, Macedonia, but those are in central-northern Greece... aren't they Greeks?) and some later Greek states (in the hellenistic era) produced extraordinary cavalry (Seleukia, Pergamos and at least the Pergamene were 100% Greeks, while the Seles had a multinational army really).Quote:
Like I said, the Greeks in general have poor cavalry. Phillip/Alexander's Macedonian army and the Thessalian are exceptions to the rule.
Sweeping generalizations might be an easy way to get out of an argument, but are hardly accurate.
Large? Didn't Athens field something like 15.000 hoplites (just the hoplites) during her peak in the Peloponesian war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
Other then that, I agree with you. People seem to forget that cavalry can be useful even if you forget charging. Add to that that even the Macedonians used them carefully, instead of mindlessly charging head on into the enemy like medieval knights, wich cavalry couldn't do at that time (no saddle and stirrups)
I'll go with his arguement as I'm a bit lazy.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
Chariots were probably the first shock cavalry. Did Thessalian cavalry before Phillip fight as shock cavalry or missile cavalry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
That was not my point at all. The point was whether peltasts were JUST AS GOOD as cavalry for the formation of a well-balanced army.Quote:
First, you got the wrong idea about cavalry in that era. Cavalry was not used to charge head-on into an infantry formation, that came only in Philipos' era. you should view a cavalry vs cavalry battle as a foot battle on horse, not some medieval charging home. The light armed troops were vulnerable to a horse charge, but horsemene usually didn't charge at all! And Ihpikrates was a very typical Greek general, what's the "typical Greek general"?
My point about Iphicrates was whether Greeks in general used peltasts as effectively.
If you read the thread, I was hardly trying to get out of an argument. Not to mention your earlier sweeping generalisations about Roman cavalry.Quote:
This is a rather poor wording. A more correct wording would be: City-states in southern mainland Greece of Classical antiquity generally viewed war as a mostly heavy-infantry issue. Some city states dared to innovate (like Thebes, they also had excellent cavalry although their tactical use left much to be desired) some city states had extraordinarily good cavalry (like Syracusae, and Taras - but those are in southern Italy... aren't they Greeks?) some areas produced the best cavalrymen of classical and post-classical antiquity (Thessaly, Macedonia, but those are in central-northern Greece... aren't they Greeks?) and some later Greek states (in the hellenistic era) produced extraordinary cavalry (Seleukia, Pergamos and at least the Pergamene were 100% Greeks, while the Seles had a multinational army really).
Sweeping generalizations might be an easy way to get out of an argument, but are hardly accurate.
I merely wanted to discuss reasons for the lack of cavalry in Greek/Roman armies. And rotorgun made a similar point as yours a few posts earlier.
Ok, well maybe the horses were better used for transporting goods instead of fighting. Maybe they were too much of a hassle to have while marching. It's also possible they didn't have enough food for the horses. Maybe not too many knew how to ride horses well. After all, they didn't have saddles and that would have hurt.:embarassed:Quote:
I merely wanted to discuss reasons for the lack of cavalry in Greek/Roman armies.
They had no need to have much in the way of cavalry. The fighting between the Greeks was mostly phalanxes with some cavalry, which wasn't bad itself (how bad can any soldier trained in Sparta be?), but no need for cavalry presented itself. The Greeks fought other Greeks with mainly infantry, and hoplites were superb in defence, and all they had to do when Persia attacked was defend really. Romans were heavily influenced by the Greeks, and they only had to fight the other Italians for a very long time, so cavalry was not required. When it was obvious that they needed cavalry to defeat other cultures' armies, they simply incorporated auxiliary troops (such as the Sarmatian cavalry).
They both lived in largely lowlands as well, which was perfect for infantry battles. The coast had less in the way of pastures, and early Roman/Greek armies were citizen armies. The citizens were mostly farmers, merchants and craftsmen, less of them needing to be hunters, and less of a need for horseback riding, as travelling by sea was so much faster. It was much simpler for the citizens to just be infantrymen, with their tradition of fighting as infantry. An obvious point to bring up is a cost as well. Citizens had to provide their own equipment, and for cavalrymen this included having to provide their own horses, limiting the cavalry to the upper classes.
Greece isn't exactly flat, you know. The geography seems pretty uneven to me, which would actually normally suggest the developement of a more light-infantry based system. The reasons why the Greeks largely went the way of rather clumsy heavy infantry are apparently somewhat complicated, and largely related to the socioeconomic peculiarities of the peninsula (plus the fact the Spartans were the only actually professional soldiers as far as the hoplites went - as the hoplite tactics essentially consisted of a stand-up slugging match between infantry lines they were easy to master for the "sunday soldiers" the main hoplite militias consisted of; light infantry and cavalry techniques, if they were to be really effective, would've required much more time and effort). Solid heavy infantry with spears are also very cavalry-resistant, further diluting the potential of the mounted arm. The same more or less went for the Romans, who initially took to Greek-style hoplite tactics with gusto. Having to deal with the more mobile Samnites in their highlands forced the adoption of more flexible infantry system, but much the same conditions which stunted the cavalry arm persisted (although the Romans seem to have had a rather more developed light-infantry tradition from quite early on). 'Course, having to deal with both the Gauls to the north and the Carthaginians and their very diverse mercenary armies did its part in fostering flexibility.
For comparision the Macedonians were forced to develop both the mounted and the heavy-infantry arm. They needed the heavy footmen to deal with the infantry of the south, and the cavalry to catch the nimble barbarians of the north who often raided their lands (and had some quite decent cavalry themselves, for that matter). I've read that the pike was developed partly out of the necessity of giving their comparatively moribund (given the quasi-feudal system of the kingdom) infantry an edge in dealing with the elan of the hoplites of the southern city-states, but dunno about that.
Oh, also, with their transporting armies back and forth to Sicily, Asia Minor and all, it wouldn't have been easy to carry a horse for every man on board.
True. That would give an excuse for overseas fighting, but it's not a reason for why they didn't have much on their home lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Actually the reason I have understood for the Greek 'invention' of dense heavy infantry is rather simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
At the time the hoplite came into being the Greeks were finally returning to proper farming again, after centuries of pasturalism (of which poems mention the warstyle of raiding which fits that). This also coincided with the decline of the landed nobility, and the rise of free farmers.
To the farmer his land was his life... of course it was.
So if this farmer was going to fight he was going to defend his land or try to get more land, or just GET land. Thus there would hardly be any reason to fight in the hills as they were not very fertile (hence no farming). And as such there would not be much reason for light infantry, but very much reason for heavy infantry (heavy infantry dominates open landscapes, light dominates broken landscape).
So the Greeks learned to defend their land and did this most sensible way.
Also farmers are very much inclined to seek protection rather than lethality. They would rather survive than kill an enemy, unlike many more barbarian tribes. This makes for the heavy protection early hoplites had, with not only the aspis, helmet and bellcuirass, but also greaves, armprotectors, footprotectors, thighprotectors, forearmprotectors and so on. It could get rather silly. But if the battle was even halfway ritual such equipment would mean a great deal of protection for the hoplite. Of course when the battles became more cynical and brutal such equipment would be too heavy.
Heavy infantry facing decent light infantry was often pretty screwed, though. The lighties can hurt them with their slings and javelins and arrows and whatnot, and there's damn little they can do in return except to try and get stuck in close. Well, that worked against the Persians - probably because they mainly used rather static missile troops that did not give way - but apparently rather less so against, say, the Thracians or Illyrians who tended to toss javelins and keep distance.
Which is what lead to the development of the combined arms approach. The utilization of the dominant (but not without serious weaknesses) heavy infantry, along with lighter troops, infantry and cavalry.
One would expect the Greeks of Makedonia to come up with it, due to the proximity with the Illyrian and Thracian, but actually Philip was second to Iphikrates - he introduced combined arms tactics way beyond the simplicity of the static phalanx tactics. Of course Philip created a real combined arms system and Alexander perfected it.
It is notable to mention the return to the rather monolithical classical Greece approach (heavy infantry rulez!) by no other than Rome. The republican legion was more or less a very one-sided affair, although the tactical flexibility of the manipular system and the utilizing of ample allied troops in areas they didn't have much of their own (not to mention the political cunning of the Romans) secured them a great deal of victories.
Very nicely put. The Persians won their empire to a good deal by the ability of their infantry and cavalry to perform well in ranged and close combat combined with good dicipline and command. It is deeply ironic that their - in the east rather rare - ability and willigness to hold the ground won them an empire and cost them it ultimatly, as they were outmatched by the far heavier western infantry. Clearly simplistic - see Xenophan - but quite true.Quote:
Well, that worked against the Persians - probably because they mainly used rather static missile troops that did not give way - but apparently rather less so against, say, the Thracians or Illyrians who tended to toss javelins and keep distance.
Xenophon actually provides enough accounts of heavy infantry giving Thracians and similar infantry a bloody nose if they tried to engage them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
He basically only feared the Persian horse archers, and his own light infantry was created for two tasks, special operations and keeping the horse archers at bay. In Paphlagonia and Thrace the 10,000 actually did very well against both mountaintribes and hilltribes using ranged weapons.
There was a limit as to how far light infantry could/would retreat. And if they felt their attacks were going good they would get overconfident and get too close.
Remember one thing. We aren't talking about a few light infantry fighting a few heavy infantry, but thousands. What happens at one end is not know at the other. And the more there are the greater the chance that the light infantry might get in the way of each other when they need to fall back.
Prior to the unfortunate events at Corinth, the Spartan mora actually caught up to some of Iphikrates' peltasts and savaged them pretty soundly (hence their reluctance to engage the Spartans).
At Sphakteria there were simply too few heavies, and far far too many lights (do you think the crews ofthe ships would just have been sitting idly by?).
My point is one that Gealai actually mentions. Only heavy infantry can hold the ground. Light infantry can't take and hold an area like a fertile plain.
And since the wars were over such land there is little option but to use the heavy infantry approach. Sicne the Greek hilltribes were more or less absorbed into the emerging polis, they began to identify themselves with the farmers of one state, rather than the more similar hilltribes of another state. Btw, they gained pretty well on selling meat, wool, fruit, minerals ect to the polis, so there was little need for warfare between the hill people and the farmers. In time they became one... Though the Skiritai of Lakonia and the Acaeans retained their moer rugged lives and of course more obviously thier light infantry traditions. But these were people that didn't get the main benefits of the polis. One because the parent polis was not like the others, and the other because there was no important polis around.
"No need since its just between opposing phalanxes" is not a good excuse for the lack of cavalry. That in fact is a conservative and blockheaded approach and the purpose of my thread is exploring that question. Geography is probably the best reason I've come across in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Not needing cavalry because a dense phalanx can protect itself is also untrue since phalanxes are susceptible to hammer & anvil manuevers. Cavalry can also harass and pin down a much larger phalanx or just totally tire them out.
Going back to my previous posts, were pre-Philipian cavalry eg. Thessalians shock or missile?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
It took the Romans a long time before they beefed up their cavalry arm. Caesar had unreliable and untrustworthy Gallic cavalry in his Gaul campaign. And the typical infantry heavy Roman army prefers entrenching and inducing the enemy to attack is tactically limited. It might not have mattered as much to even more tactically limited Gauls who simply charged then tired and got slaughtered.
Why did the Romans not build a strong cavalry arm from the very beginning since they did not lack pasture is strange.
That's because the [Republican] Romans with true Roman citizenship lived almost exclusively in cities, namely Rome and its coloniae throughout Italy. When and if Romans did occupy a larger swath of territory with no interruptions of allied territory (i.e. Latium), it was heavily urbanized.Quote:
Why did the Romans not build a strong cavalry arm from the very beginning since they did not lack pasture is strange.
Since the manipular legion was directly drawn from the Roman citizenry, that explains the conspicuous lack of cavalry. Besides, they had their allies for that (not to mention the fact that their adaptation of the Samnite system left little room for cavalry, seeing as the Samnites were a rough hill people)!
I think it may have been a combination of social and military issues that prevented Greeks from establishing effective cavalry. As pointed out earlier they lacked an equestrian tradition and good horses. For a long time they didn't have any extensive military training either. The resulting cavalry could not do hammer-and-anvil tactics. They were simply too weak and too little trained to perform a shock charge, and a hammer is no use if it does not hit hard. Also, early hoplites were far more mobile than phalangilites, and as such would have found it little trouble to turn and face the cavalry. As such, Greek cavalry mainly were scouts and skirmishers.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Also, the Greeks idealized the hoplite and his bravery and steadfastness in battle. The fluid hit-and-run tactics of skirmishers were looked down upon as cowardly. Given that Greek cavalry was mainly used for skirmishing as well, I don't think they were held in high regard. This is off course not conductive towards developing more effective cavalry.
It is easy to say that the Greeks and Romans should have developed better cavalry, but in the end of the day it is a hell of a job to get good horsemen and good horses trained, and very expensive to boot. It also requires an institution (e.g. the army) that organizes this. The Romans and Greek simply did not do things this way. They just called their citizens and allies, and these turned up with whatever equipment they had. As such, they couldn't train their citizens to become better horsemen. And, when all is said and done, they seem to have done fairly well without it.
How could the early hoplites being more mobile than phalangilites? Didn't they wear heavier armor and also fight in a phalanx? In any case, a phalanx cannot change fronts rapidly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
The Greeks occasionally had visionary leader who could appreciate a strong complementary cavalry even Spartans like Agesilaus despite the disadvantages of geography. So I doubt it was simply because of a lack of equestrian tradition and pasture.
The Romans under Marius made sweeping changes across the military. He could've built up a cavalry arm but did not. My point is not whether they did well without them, but how such a blind spot could have existed in the first place.
Actually he could not. Marius mainly just abandoned the property requirements for his infantry and supllied them with weapons but changing the requirements for the equites would have changed the whole society. The roman army changed slowly during that time not at once through reforms. Allied troops and cavalry from Italy continued to serve aside the legions until the social war and the velites are last mentioned during Sulla's campaign against Mithridates of Pontus.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
When the equites are mentioned (I think last time) during the Jugurthine war, shortly before Marius fisrts consulate, a numidian ally of the romans requested a bodyguard of them but Metellus harshly refused it since it was beyond the dignity of an roman eques to serve as guard for a foreign king. As long as cavalry service was part of the roman upper classe's identity you could not simply create a huge cititzen cavalry force from scratch.
Besides that as Ludens correctly said you simply can't build a large high quality cavalry force from scratch in a few months/years only for a single war. The bulk of the great armies of the late republic were still raised before new wars and disbanded thereafter. Not until the nearly permanent warfare later in the first century they become a semi permanent force and finally under Augustus reign a regular standing army.
The Greeks did not fight in a Macedonian phalanx. Their spears were far shorter, making it easier to turn. I don't really see how armour has any bearing on this, as it is only a matter of individual soldiers turning round to face incoming cavalry. Also, since every citizen had to bring his own armour there were big differences in how well hoplites were armoured.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
The fact that they did very well without them suggests that it was not such a blind spot as you imply.Quote:
The Greeks occasionally had visionary leader who could appreciate a strong complementary cavalry even Spartans like Agesilaus despite the disadvantages of geography. So I doubt it was simply because of a lack of equestrian tradition and pasture.
The Romans under Marius made sweeping changes across the military. He could've built up a cavalry arm but did not. My point is not whether they did well without them, but how such a blind spot could have existed in the first place.
Also, your point ignores availability. Good horses and good horsemen have to come from somewhere. Marius didn't have them. Neither did the Southern Greeks. As such they couldn't implement them in the army no matter how much they reformed. Off course, if they intended to establish a permant organization for the training of soldiers they could have imported them. However, like cunctator said the Romans did no such thing until the late first century BC.
Did I ever mentioned Macedonian phalanx or just phalanx? And I'm just stating the obvious that a Greek phalanx has trouble changing fronts and is vulnerable in the flanks/rear. And the hoplites heavy armor would be a hindrance if they had to rapidly change their facing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Actually the Romans were fortunate not to have encountered too many enemies like Hannibal with well balanced armies who could exploit their weakness. And its fortunate that Hannibal never got his reinforcements and was saddled with allies.Quote:
The fact that they did very well without them suggests that it was not such a blind spot as you imply.
Also, your point ignores availability. Good horses and good horsemen have to come from somewhere. Marius didn't have them. Neither did the Southern Greeks. As such they couldn't implement them in the army no matter how much they reformed. Off course, if they intended to establish a permant organization for the training of soldiers they could have imported them. However, like cunctator said the Romans did no such thing until the late first century BC.
I think it was more Hannibal's genius and his inexperienced adversaries that caused his victories than the balance of his army. A more inovative roman commnader at Cannae could have made better use of his numerical superiority instead of concentrating all heavy infantry in an extra deep center. Positioning an extra line spearmen behind the equites on the right flank in an extra line, as Casar did a Pharsalus or Casius against the parthians in Syria, could have stopped the iberian/celtic cavalry attack and collapsed his strategy.
Although after the cavalry of rome and her allies decided so many crucial battles in Rome's favour, as Telamon were the roman and italian cavalry first defeated the celtic cav. and then decided the battle with their charge against the infantry or Magnesia (especially here Antochus army can't be called unbalanced) where they routed the seleukid cataphracts and outflanked the phalanx and turned the battle after Antiochus with his elite cav. braught through the roman heavy infantry or Zama, I don't think that their weakness and need for change was too obvious for the republican romans. As said they did very well with their cavalry.
Cuncatator pointed out the most important factor: The Roman Cavalry did their job well enough. Their job was scouting, initial screening, holding the flanks - often supported by infantry in doing that and making a victory more complete.
Given that good heavy horses are a great logistic hassle and cost factor in most parts of Europe and northern Africa compared to sturdy human mules with two legs, the cavalry remained as small as possible for the required job.
You asked why hoplites would be more mobile than phalangites. My answer to that was (sorry if I wasn't clear the first time) that the Greek phalanx, or at least the early one, was very different from the Makedonian one. The spears were far shorter and I also think the formation was less dense. As such it was far less dependend on its tight formation and thus could move more freely.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
To which I replied that I was not talking about changing the facing of the formation, but just individual soldiers turning round to face incoming cavalry. Heavy armour would not hinder this. Also, I think the majority of hoplites would have worn linothorax or no armour at all (varying with time and place off course). After all, bronze armour is expensive, and that huge shield hoplites used already provided a lot of protection.Quote:
And I'm just stating the obvious that a Greek phalanx has trouble changing fronts and is vulnerable in the flanks/rear. And the hoplites heavy armor would be a hindrance if they had to rapidly change their facing.
I really don't think it was better troop balance that made Hannibal victorious. Firstly: he was a military genius in command of an army of crack troops. Secondly: Rome still won the Punic wars. Admitedly this was very much a result of Rome's ability to field legion after legion of troops while Carthago could not or would not do the same, but it does indicate that Rome's troop balance was sufficient to overcome armies led by lesser generals and made up of with less experienced troops. Thirdly, exactly in what way was Hannibal's army balance different? Fourthly, the relative scarsity of well-balanced armies, as you call them, that opposed Rome is also an indication that truly good cavalry is hard to obtain while not necessary for military success.Quote:
Actually the Romans were fortunate not to have encountered too many enemies like Hannibal with well balanced armies who could exploit their weakness.
I resent that. Parthian Cataphracts destroyed the Romans....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
My point was that hoplites are always at a big disadvantage in mobility and vulnerable to flank attacks because they fought in phalanx, wear heavy armor and weild long spears all of which is simply stating the obvious. Whether or not they were Greek phalanx or Macedonian phalanx is beside the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Linen armor was also tied to the innovation of longer spears and smaller shields so you can't have it both ways. The longer spears will be even more cumbersome.
I agree that the Greeks and Romans did not have the capacity to produce a strong cavalry arm on their own because of social and geographical reasons.
But I still think that the Romans especially could've raised larger numbers of Roman cavalry in the early years.
I always imagined that the Greek phalanx would have been more dense. However hoplites would generally be better outside dense formations because of their equipment. Hoplites were simply better combatants individually.
The argive shield, while bulky and unweildy, covers almost all of your body. It can also be used to ram your enemy and knock him off balance. Your spear gives you a good reach while you're safe behind your shield. Should you lose your spear, you still have a short sword. Hoplites were still at their best in a dense phalanx, but could be decent in other situations (wich of course varies with time and place)
The Macedonian shield was small, but also unweildy. It's strapped to your upper arm, limiting the angles and moves you can do with it, and your hand is somewhat exposed. As for your weapons...the sarrissa is of course useless, and all you have is a short sword. Should the phalanx be outflanked or disrupted, phalangites will be cut in ribbons.
Hoplites were reasonable all round infantry, while phalangites were specialised. The Macedonian phalanx wasn't cut out to operate on its own, but to serve as a specialised part of a combined arms strategy. The advantages of the old phalanx formation (very strong front) appy even more so to the Macedonian phalanx, as do the disadvantages.
The Greek phalanx had less ranks than the macedonian phalanx making it less dense.
The shorter spears of the Greek hoplite however is held by only one arm making it unwieldy to use as an individual weapon.
The protection of the hoplite depended upon the overlapping spears and shield of the person on the right in a phalanx.
Not at Carrhae. Or at least not until the Romans had first been softened up by hours of arrow fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Anyway, what is the point? I never said it wasn't useful to have good heavy cavalry, merely that it is possible to be succesful without.
Probably. Still, most of their Italian opponents did not field significant cavalry either by my knowledge, and lateron the Romans would have obtained good (better than their own) cavalry by hiring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Regarding the phalanx, we are going off-topic here, but it is your topic, so if you don't mind, I don't either.
Yes, a phalanx is at a disadvantage at the rear and flanks. However, my point was the early Greek phalanx (before Iphikrates, because I am not sure what came after him) was less so than the later Makedonian one because it relied less on its formation. Individual soldiers could more easily have turned and faced of its cavalry. Their spears were far shorter and were used overhand. I do not agree this makes them less wieldy. On the contrary: you can turn around without knocking over you comrades just by lifting your spear a little. Also, overhand spears cannot be that long, also improving mobility. The better protection of individual soldiers would also have helped. A phalangite is only powerful in formation, a hoplite can fight as an individual as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
I guess I was wrong about this one. Still, most hoplites couldn't have afforded bronze armour, so what did they wear?Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
The point is not whether they were successful but why were the Romans content with being such a slow moving entrenching army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Shorter spears or not, they were about nine feet in length and wielded by one arm. By 'lifting a little' you mean both ends of the spear must clear the heads of those around them without taking out an eye.Quote:
Yes, a phalanx is at a disadvantage at the rear and flanks. However, my point was the early Greek phalanx (before Iphikrates, because I am not sure what came after him) was less so than the later Makedonian one because it relied less on its formation. Individual soldiers could more easily have turned and faced of its cavalry. Their spears were far shorter and were used overhand. I do not agree this makes them less wieldy. On the contrary: you can turn around without knocking over you comrades just by lifting your spear a little. Also, overhand spears cannot be that long, also improving mobility. The better protection of individual soldiers would also have helped. A phalangite is only powerful in formation, a hoplite can fight as an individual as well.
I guess I was wrong about this one. Still, most hoplites couldn't have afforded bronze armour, so what did they wear?
Perhaps it is because they were succesful that they were content with what they had?Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Given that they were able to engage in normal combat without taking each other's eyes out I think this should very well be possible. Anyway, you can just point the thing upright and turn. It is not like hoplites had no freedom of movement.Quote:
That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Shorter spears or not, they were about nine feet in length and wielded by one arm. By 'lifting a little' you mean both ends of the spear must clear the heads of those around them without taking out an eye.
The Macedonian/Hellenic phalanx was a pike formation. Frankly a little primitive one too (the Medieval ones were quite able to fight in multiple directions if necessary), but did its job in the "hammer and anvil" scheme quite well and was an utter pain for most anyone to take on frontally.
The old Greek hoplite phalanx was simply the good old heavy-infantry shieldwall, which was used already in ancient Mesopotamia and highly popular everywhere infantry fought in close "heavy" order. All sources (including the fact heavy-infantry spearmen elsewhere did the same) suggest their long one-handed spears were wholly capable, if somewhat clumsy, weapons also in personal combat outside the ordered formation, which was never the case with the pike.
The hoplite citizen-soldiers who couldn't afford monolith bronze armour would have used lighter "composite" cuirasses - multiple layers of linen glued together, or fabric-covered scale corselets. They may at one point have been going entirely without, but this is apparently controversial.
You seem to be missing my point that extra cavalry would've been advantageous. The fact that they suffered from deficient cavalry but preferred the entrenching model infers a mental block on their part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
The point was never whether hoplites had freedom of movement. The simple fact is that all infantry is vulnerable to flanking attacks even moreso for phalanx formations. Are you trying to say that the phalanx is more or less intrinsically protected from cavalry?
They had no need for cavalry as all their opponents were less advanced than them, or used hoplites. There was some limited cavalry in Greek armies, but they relied on their hoplites because as stated before:
1) They are citizens levied to fight, who probably don't have much in the way of equestrian skill if they've just farmed or studied their whole life.
2) They provide their own equipment, and a horse would be expensive to buy and maintain.
3) The mainland Greeks have generally only fought: other Greeks (I'm including Minoans as Greeks for convenience), Persians, Makedonians, Italian tribes, people who populated Asia Minor. The Persians were the aggressors, so hoplites were perfect for a defensive war. Other Greeks used hoplites. Italian tribes weren't incredibly advanced, and the Greeks didn't take over much of Italy anyway. I don't think the people of Asia Minor had much in the way of cavalry either. Makedonians had cavalry and a specialised phalanx, which explains why the Greeks were subdued by them.
Where did infantry spearmen fought one-handed outside close formation? I assume they carried shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
:inquisitive:
...
...
...nope, still indecipherable. What exactly are you asking ?
Which infantry spearmen fought one-handed with their spears outside close formation? I assume they carried shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Well, for starters all who did not for one reason or another fight in close formation. Duh. Given that spears were about the first weapons humans used, and the idea of shields id pretty old too, I'd say examples aren't too hard to come by. Take any "primitive" or "barbarian" culture with a metal shortage and no reason to form into potentially quite unwieldy close mass, and you'll have a brilliant example right there.
As well as of course any spearman who normally fought in close order but right now could not for whatever reason. Duh again.
The relevance and point rather elude me. Spearmen were the infantry most likely to carry very large shields, after all.Quote:
I assume they carried shields.
I am a bit too tired to give a proper answer, but suffice to say I think your use of the word "suffered" completely wrong. The Roman army conquered half of the known world without developing a better cavalry arm of its own. Yes, they lost some battles, but what army doesn't? Also, the Roman military could hardly be called entrenching: it was very aggresive, even in its early phases. Lastly, if Roman generals felt they needed good cavalry, they would hire it. So why go through all the expense and social issues of trying to raise good cavalry at home?Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
You have lost me there. All I was trying to prove was that early hoplites would have found it easier (comparatively) to ward of cavalry attacks than phalangites, especially if you are not dealing with true shock cavalry (which early Greek cavalry certainly wasn't).
Blast! I meant they would have found it comparativily easier to ward of a flank or rear cavalry attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I guess I really need to get a proper night of sleep.
Well duuuuh can you then name a few example barbarian cultures "with a metal shortage and no reason to form into potentially quite unwieldy close mass" which had spearmen carrying shields with one arm who fought in loose formation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I think key word here would be broken terrain.If you fighting in forest,hills or mountains.Using close order infantry formations would be rather pointles. Already in Gaul and lot more in Germania Roman legions faced problems on broken terrain. Also in these kind of enviroments using of cavalry in massed formations would have been futile. For example lets compare Greeks to their neighbours Thracians and Illyrians. Greeks were customed to fight on plains with phalanxes. And it was a good way to fight in open terrain becouse before stirrups cavalrys shock value wasnt really enough to brake spear armed infantry units alone and also heave armored infantry like Hoplites had pretty well protection against missile weapons.In those conditions the best way to fight Hoplites was to use your own hoplites.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
But in hill country like Illyria or Thracia the peltast was a natural choice becouse in the broken terrain they had to rely more on individual fighter,rather then massed body of heavy infantry.The peltast became so succesfull that eventually the Greeks adopted them also.
I think specially movies have twisted our opinions so that the Swordmen are made in to something superior to spearman and spearmen are projected as some levys with pointy sticks.
A stabbing spear is formidable weapon against both infantry and cavalry.And also cost efficient compared to swords,like Watchman mentioned.The majority of Ancient and medieval warriors through out the World didnt carry spears for nothing.A good example for this is Sengoku Jidai Japan,where the swords were almost worshipped.Still the main weapon of most Samurais was yari spear and Katana was sidearm.
As a general rule it can be sayed that if you look through out the history.The people who fought mainly on open terrain was it infantry(Romans,Greeks) or Cavalry(Parthians,Huns,Mongols).Relyed much on dicipline of their troops so they worked well together.
The people who fought mostly on broken terrain developed a warfare that was much more relied on individuals capability but if someone would say that they didnt rely on tactics at all i wouldnt agree. Both used tactics,just tactics that suited their enviroment.
Warfare is just an extreme version of any human project.You either adapt to circumstances or you die.:bow:
Well well, if we aren't copping an attitude. But as you wish, I'll list a few I can think right off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
ancient Celts
ancient German peoples (who had a serious iron shortage and relied on spears above everything)
ancient Thracians
ancient Dacians
ancient Iberians (who often used rather loose-order "light" infantry tactics)
the Vikings (ie. Scandinavians after the Roman period)
And those are just the ones I can actually name out of hand; the full list includes roughly everyone who ever used both spears and shields, and that includes "civilized" folks. The dedicated heavy-infantry spearmen of the latter would often carry very long spears and very large "body" shields, which contemporaries often describe as "being leaned against" (ie. the lower edge resting on the ground); the ancient Persian sparabara, the Medieval Italian pavesari and many incarnations of the Chinese take on the spearman are examples of this I can immediately think of.
Look, you seem to be missing something here. An average spearman virtually regardless of time and place would have his spear as a primary weapon, a shield of any but usually large size, and some sort of backup weapon. The spear would tend to be pretty long (the "international standard" bracket for long one-handed spears seems to have been about 2-2.5 meters), unless it was for example a dual-purpose design meant to double as a javelin or there was some similar reason for it to be shorter, and the warrior's primary weapon. This usually went even for the elite warriors who could afford swords and the time to train in their use; spears were after all cheap, deadly, and offered reach virtually incomparable in one-handed weapons. It would have been a foolish man who did not use it as long as it was tactically viable to do so (ie. until it broke or "range control" failed and the enemy got in too close), all the more so if his backup weapon was along the lines of a large knife as was rather common among the rank-and-file combatants.
This goes both in and out of formation. Spearmen work best in close order and would tend to try to do so most of the time, true, but close order itself isn't always an option (particularly in obstructed terrain) and not everyone used it even when possible for their own reasons. If nothing else not all warrior cultures operated on a mindset suited to such relatively organized ranks. And is the warrior going to simply abandon his main (and often only real) weapon just because he isn't in the optimal conditions for it ? Heck no.
Can anyone give me detailed info about the following greek cavalry:
-Thessalonian Cavalry
-Seleukid Cataphracts
-Kleruchoi Agemata Cavalry
-Heitaroi
Equipment, training, books about them.... :book:
Eh? I didn't know you were so sensitive with all the duhs in your previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I just wanted clarification on why you said spearmen would continue using their unwieldy weapons one-armed in loose combat or why they would fight in loose formation in the first place.
Well, are you satisfied or should I elaborate more ? I must say the underlying logic of your line of inquiry strikes me as quite odd - if the spearmen can use long spears and shields simultaneously in formation, why in the world would they not continue to do so outside it as long as their "distance control" allowed ? Pikes are useless in individual combat solely due to their grotesque size which makes them difficult to manuver and a lone one thus easy to largely bypass, after all.
@Watchman: To use the word of Germanicus (roughly)
"Don't fear the Germans in the woods, as they are in disadvantage, due to their huge lances and shields " - still a good spear and a big shiel are excellent outside of formations, just not so good against a Roman with gladius and scutum.
A true watershed in European history was the ever increasing use of spears with large shields and a backup axe/sword/dagger from roughly 700 BC onwards, displacing largely the bow and axe/sword as main maidens of the warrior.
A fine longbow and a handy strong axe are great for skirmishing and ambush tactics, but don't allow men to stand up to a group of spearmen with big shields.
You're implying that the Romans had some advantage fighting in woodland against Germans, while history shows us differerntly. Just look at Varus in the Teutoburg forest. To be fair, that probably was more of a giant ambush then a 'real' battle, but it stands that the Germans had an advantage wich they used for their maximum advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gealai
Just because there is evidence of some Germans fighting in a shield/spear wall, doesn't mean that all of them did. Even tribal Germans must have recognised the potential of a bunch of poorer soldiers armed with dirt cheap spears and large shields clumped together on favourable terrain.
?Quote:
A true watershed in European history was the ever increasing use of spears with large shields and a backup axe/sword/dagger from roughly 700 BC onwards, displacing largely the bow and axe/sword as main maidens of the warrior.
As far as I know, the Celts gradually started switching from small to larger swords for their more elite infantry (of course the lower end warriors would still carry spears mainly)
The Germanians used axes, but gradually use of swords started becoming more and more prevalent towards the first century BC.
All I've read on the topic suggests the Germanics were dirt poor as far as metal goods went for pretty much the whole Roman period, so they'd naturally have loved the simple, effective and metal-light spear to the death.
It's not like they'd had too much choice in the matter anyway.
Most sources seem to suggest that all other things being equal "barbarian" infantry tended to be superior to their "civilized" colleagues in obstructed terrain - although sometimes the choice of weaponry, like the Thracian rhompaias which were apparently a bit long for fighting in forests, limited this effect. I'm guessing this was simply due to the fact the "barbarians" were more individual warriors, and the disciplined formations that normally gave "civilized" soldiers a clear edge naturally didn't work nearly as well on rough ground.
Can anyone give me detailed info about the following greek cavalry:
-Thessalonian Cavalry
-Seleukid Cataphracts
-Kleruchoi Agemata Cavalry
-Heitaroi
Please?:book:
I'm not implying anything, I'm just marking Germanicus words. :sweatdrop:
You rightly point out that the specific nature of the "battle" doesn't allow for the standard yardstick. How well various warriors/soldiers do outside the battle formation is quite comples and can't be reduced to weaponary. Costume, terrain, overall plan and so on are all important facts. Watchman's argument is well suppported by history, although I might change "civilized" into "trained" or "formed". Regular troops, even very brave ones - see Roman heavy infantry, prussian line infantry - often performed poorly when they had to face nimble warriors in a chaotic situation, when the drilled mechanism failed
EB has a neat line-up of Germanic warriors, which shows well the fact the germans were both able to fight in dense shieldwalls with long lances and in shallow order. Given their bravery and loyality they were hard to beat as the long Roman-German demostrates.
About the axes...
When you study european history starting way back - as I do in the uni - you can recognize interesting patterns. The bow was of immense importance well until the late bronze and early Iron/ La Tene'. There are huge numbers of arrowheads dating from this timeframe, and a good deal of them sticking in human bones.
The axe was and is a great weapon and tool, making it an ideal secundary weapon in low intense tribal warfare, with small raids and ambushes.
The spear - as well as the not so visible (wooden) shield - becomes more and more important as weapon, when the nature of warfare changed from champions with full panoply and some followers to high intense conflict with large amount of warriors on each side ( dating depends on the area, starting 600-500 BC in central Europe). The combination of spears/ shield with an axe is effective in large groups and cheap. Later on the axe gets replaced more and more by swords, although it never ceases to be used in Europe. The bow becomes more and more a siege weapon before the use of Rome ( ~ 0 AD and steppe tribes ( ~ 200 onwards) renew it's use.
For more info ask.