famous battle strategies

[71-hour Ahmed]

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

Examples (these got me wondering):

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

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

Please pass on your knowledge/opinions/reasons-why-I-am-an-idiot.

[Vrashk]

Cant do anything but agree..

Quote[/b] ]Roman Turtle

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

Quote[/b] ]Hoplites

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

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

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

[Postino]

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

[Hakonarson]

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

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

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

At Zama he had no opportunity to do so and lost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 23 2003,16:57)]Greek soldiers - hoplites? - with all those huge spears - why? can't you just hit the tips with a sword and cut them off or get into them? After all the way all the images show them these units are completely inflexible and cannot change shape, nor can you stab forward with your spear (I think you'd need all your energy to hold the stupid thing up for hours).

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

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 23 2003,11:57)]Roman turtle , the thing with the shields. Surely you could just attack them on the right hand side where there will be no shields or the rear? Soldiers/officers would have poor visibility in this formation so they cannot react effectively to threats on their flanks.

The turtle, I thought, was used to protect the advancing formation from missile fire. They didn't engage in hand to hand combat while still in the turtle formation.

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

[Rosacrux]

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

Good call about the difference between the hoplite phalanx and the macedonian phalanx.

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

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

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

[Red Peasant]

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

Hi Rosacrux,

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

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

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

[Coldstream]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 23 2003,11:57)]Greek soldiers - hoplites? - with all those huge spears - why? can't you just hit the tips with a sword and cut them off

I'm sorry, but my friend and I had to laugh at you for that one. Have you EVER tried to cut wood with an axe? A light axe? Heavy axe?

Probbaly not.

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

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

k.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Coldstream @ Jan. 26 2003,02:35)]

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ Jan. 23 2003,11:57)]Greek soldiers - hoplites? - with all those huge spears - why? can't you just hit the tips with a sword and cut them off

I'm sorry, but my friend and I had to laugh at you for that one. Have you EVER tried to cut wood with an axe? A light axe? Heavy axe?

Probbaly not.

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

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

k.

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

[Postino]

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

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

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

[eXoMagus]

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

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (eXoMagus @ Jan. 26 2003,08:49)]About Roman warfare tactics, it seems to me, even though I've never did any in-depth research into it, that all they rely on most of the time is their heavy infantry. Wouldn't this tactic prove fatal if the enemy had very mobile cavalry and just screwed up all their formation and stuff?

In the hands of a poor general (and the Romans had many of those) this was invariably the case, but the legion was adaptable enough in the hands of a competent commander to overcome cavalry. The Romans fought and defeated many excellent cavalry forces inc. Gauls, Sarmatians, Hellenistic states, even Parthians (though they are mainly remembered for Crassus' defeat at Carrhae).

[Red Peasant]

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

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

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

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

[CBR]

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

Well I dont have much info except a few comments about in books and these links:

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

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

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


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

CBR

[Red Peasant]

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

CBR

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

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

[Postino]

arte della guerra? is that "art of war"? if so then this is precisely where i got the information. i would like to add that Niccolo does address harbequesses but not to any great extent as the technology was still quite new. he does address cannon, and not to my surprise, it can only be fired once safely from the front of the army. only a nutcase like that longshanks character would use his cannon with his troops infront of them.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 26 2003,07:28)]

True, the legionaries would be pushed back initially by the phalanx, sometimes by a considerable distance. However, at some stage they would find a way round the flanks and penetrate the 'hedge', or both.[/QUOTE]
Not "would be pushed back", but WERE pushed back - Pydna is the only time legions defeated phalanxes frontally in the classical era without much in the way of "external" influences.

Against Mithridate's son Sulla defeated the phalanx of slave troops - but these were newly freed and untrained, and yet Plutarch notes in his life of Sulla that they still resisted bravely.

Of course there was also the battles vs Phyrrus - but then the legio at that time was probably 60% armed with the Hasta - the spear used later solely by the Triarii - it seems to have been after Phyrrus that the Princepes dropped it and used Pila.

And of course the Romans lost 2 out of the 3

There is no particular reason to assume that legionary "flexibility" must've allowed victory - Pydna was a damned close run thing where the main reason for teh Macedonian defeat seems to have been Phillipus' incompetance, while Cynocephalae just goes to show that pikemen needed time to deploy.....which everyone knew anyway.

[Hakonarson]

The main battle TACTIC (why do people keep calling it strategy??) used by all successfull commanders was to attack the foe in a flank - where a flank didn't exist then teh brilliant ones persuaded their enemy to create one - sometimes on the battlefield, sometimes by grand manouvre leading to another battle.

Invariably the great commanders avoided head-on struggles like the plague - sometimes they got caught (such as Marlborough at Fontenoy) or they lost their "touch" (Napoleon at Borodino).

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Jan. 27 2003,03:26)]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 26 2003,07:28)]

True, the legionaries would be pushed back initially by the phalanx, sometimes by a considerable distance. However, at some stage they would find a way round the flanks and penetrate the 'hedge', or both.

Not "would be pushed back", but WERE pushed back - Pydna is the only time legions defeated phalanxes frontally in the classical era without much in the way of "external" influences.

Against Mithridate's son Sulla defeated the phalanx of slave troops - but these were newly freed and untrained, and yet Plutarch notes in his life of Sulla that they still resisted bravely.

Of course there was also the battles vs Phyrrus - but then the legio at that time was probably 60% armed with the Hasta - the spear used later solely by the Triarii - it seems to have been after Phyrrus that the Princepes dropped it and used Pila.

And of course the Romans lost 2 out of the 3

There is no particular reason to assume that legionary "flexibility" must've allowed victory - Pydna was a damned close run thing where the main reason for teh Macedonian defeat seems to have been Phillipus' incompetance, while Cynocephalae just goes to show that pikemen needed time to deploy.....which everyone knew anyway.[/QUOTE]
Lol The Romans were just lucky....a lot...then, I guess

True, there is the much-admired tactical 'genius' Pyrrhus way back in early C3 BC; but didn't he scuttle back to Greece at the first opportunity, leaving his allies in Magna Graecia firmly mired in the deep, brown smelly stuff? I'm sure the Tarentines sent him a nice birthday card.

Give me the tactical flexibility of the Legion any day over the phalanx: once set in motion, the phalanx was only going one way, forward. Once its momentum was spent or it lost cohesion for any number of varying reasons then it was easy meat for the legionary. The phalanx needed special battlefield conditions to be effective whilst the legionary could operate in almost any kind of terrain or circumstances, as noted by Polybius.

[Hakonarson]

[QUOTE=[b]Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 27 2003,03:55)]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Jan. 27 2003,03:26)]Lol The Romans were just lucky....a lot...then, I guess

yes the Romans were lucky a lot - they also lsot a huge number of battlesand vast numbers of men, and it was their social system that kept them going rather than their military system.

Their social system enabled them to continue fielding large armies. there are few battles where their tactical system can be shown to have had any great effect - and IMO there were probably as many where the system was a drawback (eg Bagradas) as when it was beneficial (eg Zama)

Phyruss went to Sicily after winning 2 battles - then came back to Italy and lost a 3rd - his main problems weren't tactical - they were strategic - lack of reinforcemnts specifically. although his losses were high in the first 2 battles the Roman losses were higher - but as above they were able to replace theirs and Phyrrus couldn't replace his so easily.

Since his army was relatively small in the first place (25,0000 infantry nd 3000 cavalry) this was the decisive factor.

As is pointed out in various places the Macedonian tactical system was probably superior to the Roman one as it was all-arms, and relied upon outflanking the enemy rather than trying to batter through their centre.

the phalanx would pin and hold the enemy centre while teh cavalry won on the flanks and then attacked the centre causing the enemy to break.

However very few commanders after Alexander appreciated or were able to apply this. Instead they seem to have become enamoured with the apparent power of the phalanx, making it the offensive weapon instead of the cavalry.

that this was a incorrect application of the system was obvious from all sorts of battles - not just those vs romans - phalanxes tended to surrender when surrounded rather than fight on (a very sensible move&#33 - indeed the outflanked phalanx at Cynocephalae tried to surrender - indicated by raiding their pikes, but the Romans didn't understand the gesture and killed them all anyway.

As for tactical subunits - Alex's phalanx had units of 256 menthat were supposed to (and did) operate semi-indepenantly. He made much use of formations such as refusing flanks, squares, arrowheads, etc., and under his father Phillip the Phalanx had actually wowed some tribesmen by performing drill in front of them then making a 90 degree turn and attacking uphill before they realised teh show was over and the fighting was due to begin

as above tho it took a good general to get teh best out the the Macedonian system.

Contrasted to this the Roman system was inflexible but tough - 3 lines of heavy infantry were very forgiving of ordinary generals in a head-on slog.

But they were jsut as vulnerable to being outflanked as anyone - as Hannibals victories showed.

I'd be happy to take any decent Hellenistic army against the Romans of the time and expect to win - they joys of 20/20 hindsight make it much easier to use in a game than it appears to have been historically

It is really only much later - say the Early Empire - that the Roman army becoems tactically as flexible as the Macedonian one was under Alexander, and then it is becaue it becomes a more balanced army, with proper emphasis on cavalry and light troops as well as the heavy infantry.

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Good analysis, Hark.

Short Version of Main Points being: (1) Roman Govt. Infrastructure; and (2) Intrinsic "staying power" of the Legion; (3) Combined Arms approach by Alexander.

I would only also mention the two following:
(1) The old quote, "matters have come down to the triarii." to bring up the way the romans rotated their lines. The over all effect being that the Roman Lines were not as brittle as other lines- but this also makes the Romans a Narrowly Fronted army. Mix in the famous Roman Cavalry... and the flanks can be a problem.

(2) Lake Trasimene 217 b.c. The nice thing about the Romans is that even if their Pro-Consul is a total nutter, the Roman troopers still had the ability to fight on and extradite themselves. At the lake, they were losing, but 10,000 were still able to march (and not route) their way out of some situations. Seems like the Roman Army is a bit more forgiving to commanders.

From my standpoint, I always pick the army that is fighting the Romans (Barbarians, Successors, Carthoginians, etc.). It's more fun that way.

~BW

[Rosacrux]

This thread has actually become one of the best here at the Monastery and I am quite happy about it.

Red Peasant, I think Hakonarson gave a credible account of the phalanx's pros and I shouldn't go into more detail. Allthough I shall disagree on him in the "mobility" factor - the Legion (especially the late Republican legion) was much more mobile than any phalanx system, even though it lacked the high quality cavalry.

I am also of the opinion that Rome's strength wasn't the legion per se, but the whole social, economical and political structure behind it.

I would like to point out something else though.

In terms of military competence and effectiveness, the Macedonian phalanx was way better than the Greek hoplite phalanx. So much was proven by Phillipos and Alexander (even by defeating the best hoplite phalanx of the time, the Thebean).

But what about the general value of the hoplite system. The concept behind it, even culturally.

Free men, fighting for their polis, not to gain land, but to fend off their enemies, leaded (from the first line) by those they elected themselves, armed on their own expense, fighting a war they and not their leaders have chosen to fight.

Not to mention the whole "strong when united" concept - the formation was only so strong as the least brave man in it was, and cooperation was the key to survival.

Does anyone else share my admiration on the first and only military system of the free thinking, responsible, democratic citizen?

[Hakonarson]

Um...the Greek states weren't quiet as wonderful as your post makes out tho - for example Athens had 26000 citizen & metic hoplites as accounted by Thucidydes, but another 100,000 lower class non-hoplites and even more slaves.

By our current standards Greece was ruled by oligarchies of various classes/types of citizen - it may have been where the principles of democracy were born, but the Greeks themseves were actually quite brutal in excluding those who they didn't want to share in power.

Hansen's "The Western Way of War" is a great expose of hoplite warfare and its place in society - well worth geting - it should still be in print.

As for the mobility of thephalanx - I don't think you're really talking about mobility - AFAIK there's no evidence that legions were any more mobile in battle than phalanxes in terms of being able to move.

I suspect that you're talking about the abiliaty of a legioary to fight in rough terrain - perhaps his flexibility in that respect.

But even then Alexander a couple of times shorened his pikemen's sarissa and had them pretty much skirmishing in minor actions in order to increase their mobility - again it sems to be the commander, not the troops

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Aye -

Commander > Troops

Off the top of my head, I can't recall the name of Alexander's Super Storm Troopers - other than their name translated into "silver shield bearers". They were modified pikemen (super short - down to spear length) and they were almost medium infantry for all purposes. Rough ground did not bother them.

Of course, let's not forget the Secret Weapons ™:
http://home.pacbell.net/ittybear/too..._small/ele.gif
http://home.pacbell.net/ittybear/too...all/scythe.gif

(not quite sure how to post them in post)

~BW

EDIT: Ahh - I remember that their name sounds like Angry Aspids...

[Leet Eriksson]

I'd say Khalid bin Al Waleed had a succeful tactic called Karadees,it won him every battle he foughtthe greatest muslim general to ever live was him,he also defeated the byzantines and persians in 20 daysnow who can possibly do that?sadly his tactic was never passed on and it died with him btw he died of an unknown disease.also hes the first muslim to organise the Islamic army into several groups(no more archers walking with swordsmen or cavalry )

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (BlackWatch McKenna @ Jan. 30 2003,17:39)]Aye -

Commander > Troops

Off the top of my head, I can't recall the name of Alexander's Super Storm Troopers - other than their name translated into "silver shield bearers". They were modified pikemen (super short - down to spear length) and they were almost medium infantry for all purposes. Rough ground did not bother them.

EDIT: Ahh - I remember that their name sounds like Angry Aspids...

You're thinking of Argyraspids - "aspis" being the Macdeonian shield, Argyr being silver.

Alex's elite foot were called Hypaspists but were re-equipped in India and received a lot of very flash gear - enough so they picked up the name Argyraspid apparently 'cos of the amount of silver decorating their shields

We don't actually know how they were armed or operated - we know that they were elite footmen, and that they formed up on the right of the phalanx.

Some have postulated that this means they were a sort of fast-moving troop to be a "hinge" between the phalanx and the cavalry, but they never seem to have used any extra mobility and IMO forming on the right means nothing more than they were occupying the place of honour in the traditional Greek battle-line.

Well after Alexanders time the Seleucids called their elite pikemen argyraspids too.

However no - the pikemen that Alex equiped with javelins and lightened the equipment of for forced marches or operating in difficult country were both Hypaspists and Pezetairoi - "foot companions" - standard/line/common or garden variety pikemen.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (faisal @ Jan. 30 2003,19:44)]I'd say Khalid bin Al Waleed had a succeful tactic called Karadees,it won him every battle he foughtthe greatest muslim general to ever live was him,he also defeated the byzantines and persians in 20 daysnow who can possibly do that?sadly his tactic was never passed on and it died with him btw he died of an unknown disease.also hes the first muslim to organise the Islamic army into several groups(no more archers walking with swordsmen or cavalry )

You can read teh definitive biography of the Sword of allah HERE

I don't know about his tactictical "genius" tho - many of his battles were little more than frontal assaults where the skill and fanaticism of the Moslems won teh day. Occasionally he used unengaged units to flank the enemy, and he managed to rally apparently defeated Moslem armies a few times to lead them back to eventual victory.

He didn't sem to have any great tactical plans tho', and he certainly took longer than 10 days to conquer Persia and drive the Byzantines out of Syria

[Rosacrux]

Hakonarson

You are being rather unfair to the Greek city states of the time and their democracy, by measuring them with 20th or 21st century standards.

I believe up until the late 19th century slavery was still a crucial part of the American economy. And I also believe the right for women to vote was established well after the first WW in the same region. And up until the 60s (in the 20th century) "colored" people had not the same civil rights as "white" people in the same country.

Yet, USA passes along as an "Exemplar modern democracy"... Even though people do not decide about anything there.

So, how can you be so harsh on Athens, for instance? The greatest population Athens ever had was in the range of 130.000, included the varius Attica settlements which were populated by citizen of the Athenian democracy.

In that number we have the free citizen, the women, the "lesser" citizen (metiki and others) and the slaves, alltogether.

The free citizen account on the height of the Athenian power, just prior to the Peloponesian war, was 34 or 36.000. So, 1 out of three people living in Attica was participating in the public affairs and had the right not just to vote for somebody to do the dirty job for him, but actually do it himself. Even in the beginnning of the 20th century, the number of people voting (not participating, just voting to elect a leader) in the western democracies was smaller than that 1/3. Hell, even today in USA 60 mi people do the voting, out of population of 260

That is democracy, not the system of today where 300 to 1000 people decide for the fate of nations of millions.

[Hakonarson]

I don't think I was being harsh at all.

I clearly said "by our standards".

I know we have quite different ideas as to what constitutes democracy from the Greeks and that's the point I was making.

however rather than being harsh I think my comments were simply more realistic than the honey-dripping analysis that I was replying to that bore little or no relation to what Greek democracy actually was.