What about the Germans?

[Oaty]

Julius Caesar has mentioned the Germans fighting in a phalanx formation. So obviously that is correct even theough they were "barbarians"

[Ptah]

A 'phalanx' is a tactical formation that's been around since the days of Sumer and Assyria. While the Germanic tribes' version of the 'phalanx' has no relation with the universalized phalange of the Orient/Hellenistic worlds, frankly it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that a lot of people with long spears are going to be powerful if they are banded together in such form.

Like someone mentioned, the basic posture of one holding the spear in a position of defense can be tracked back to the days of the cavemen. Hunting poweful animals meant many people would have to hold the spears firm, and they would need to fight one's instincts to 'break the line' and run away in terror in face of a huge bear. Hold the spear, and stay the ground even the animal lunges forward at you. It is not hard to imagine that this basic principle would be also more or less very well known even to the tribes of the north during the days of Rome and Greece.

The problem with the 'phalanx' in the Germanic tribes, was an socio-economical one.

Warriors would need regular amount of training needed to maintain such discipline in face of a battle. The potential of the spear-armed warrior multiplies with numbers, but in turn, a 'warband' armed with a spear would need very many people trained in a regular manner to maintain a combat-efficiency of a certain level. The culture surrounding the battle in the Gaulish/Germanic tribes was totally different from the 'civilized' countries.

Whereas the 'civilized' armies operated within standard procedures as a tactical force, designed to maximize efficiency in obliterating the enemy, the Germans or the Gauls, had no such concept of a 'regular army'. Many texts portray Germans or Gauls as savage, violent people - however, despite all the savagery and violence, fighting and war-making was a way of life, rather than a true military/political means to end the enemy. A young warrior growing up in such tribes would be considered a man by showing his valour in combat. All the 'characteristic portrayal' of sword-loving people who prefer individual levels of combat, rather than organized warfare, revolves around that fact.

Contrary to such concept of 'war', to the Romans, a war was a 'total war'. It wasn't a way of life, nor a cultural heritage that had any meaning in the society. There were no rules, no holds barred, and whatever actions necessary to win was taken. To us living in the modern times the Roman concept of war is more familiar to us, but in the Medieval times(which inherited a significant proportion of mental concepts which became the foundation of the Western world after Rome) the 'tribal concept' of war was no doubt more familiar.

The Roman concept of war is to be known as 'bellum romanum' - a ruthless, massively efficient method of war-making focused on total destruction of the enemy. Opposed to this concept, the tribal Gauls or Germans upheld the traditions of 'bellum hostile'. The difference in efficiency in war-making between the two concepts was roughly the equivalent of professionals and amateuers.

Apparently, not having such 'professional' concept of battle, the Germanic 'spear warband' would have had not much more effect than present a rude surprise for the conquerors such as Caesar.

[moksha]

Yep, sure surprised Varus.

[chemchok]

I posted this in another thread, here's the actual account from Gaius Julius...

"Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above. Although the army of the enemy was routed on the left wing and put to flight, they [still] pressed heavily on our men from the right wing, by the great number of their troops."

from Commentaries on the Gallic War

[Oleander Ardens]

If you collect all the data at our disposal, all the quotes from Ceasar to Tacitus, the equipment used by some Germanic tribes/warriors, it surly looks rather impressive, so that it seems that some Tribes/warriorgroups did use a "Phalanx"...

@Ptah: Your a right that the socio-economic enviroment doesn't seem it likely that the standard warriors, mostly free farmers with a contained interest of war fielded a "professional" phalanx. However the socio-enviroment is not equal for all members of the comunity and also not for all warriors. Professional warriorgroups did exist in the free Germania as Tribal leaders and influent men collected around them devoted warriors. The size and their grade of discipline or quality was determined mostly of the influence; Marbod the Marcomanni for example could field a strong army, trained "almost up to Roman discipline" according to Tacitus.

But the socio-economic enviroment can change due to interior or exterior evolution, for the example migration. The Cimbri and Teutoni for example became terrible enemies, as they became men basing their wealth on their strengh alone; They became richer, getting better gear, and more experienced due to the many fights they had to sustain.

This resulted in three crushing victories over Rome, triggering the reform of Marius. This men were surly capable of a higher degree of military organization, having had time and ressources to refine their military strenght, which was absolutly vital for them. With all the men, women and children in the big treck every battle could mean the end, making warfare a matter of live or death, a matter of existence...

OA

[aw89]

this realy suprised me, i thought the germans where a totally barbaric faction in RTW, il try them when i unlock them.

[Ptah]

Marbod, or Marobodus should be treated as an exception - as his concept of a standardized army was way ahead of the usual "warring" most Germans had in mind. Particularly since Marobodus himself had spent time in Rome and witnessed how Romans organized armies to the concept of "total war".

The problem with the Germans was that they could manage to rally professional warriors in service of the warlord, and often in significant numbers. Their tactical prowess might perhaps even surpass that of the Romans in some occasions. But facing the Romans required something more than just trained soldiers. A standard element of armed forces in constant movement that stretched along all the tribes of Germania that would act under a unified strategic objective, was something the Germans just could not do.

There are debates about the Marian reforms, but evidently as the surrounding social/political struggles from the times of the Gracchus brothers to the end of the Civil war by Augustus would suggest, the German victories should be accounted to the decline of the quaility of the Roman military as much as strengthening of the Germans themselves. The economical destruction of the farming classes of everyday Romans had resulted in the conscription of the "proletari" - a class which was formerly exempt from military duties due to their low social status and poor morale. Marius' judgement is crucial and telling, as he imediately concluded that the standard soldiers currently in service could not be trusted when he was given the duty of driving off the Germans.

In a sense, one might be able to say the tribes fought as a means to live - a concept akin to the mercenary mentality. However, the Romans fought for the Republic - an abstract cause. And abstract causes have a way of making actions radical, swift, ruthless and efficient. When the social status of the people who are conscripted as soldiers were so poor that they could not find any 'cause' in the identity of Rome, they failed. And bam! Marius came up with a solution.

[Oleander Ardens]

Well I cited Marbod as a extreme consequence of the "comitatus" idea - he is obviously some spans over the simple Warlord..

The lack of a common strategy, goal and a logistic was always a hinderance for the Germans. Sometimes great leaders like Arminius could rally a great numbers of good warriors under a precise goal and with a common strategy, but the logistic was never tackled by them. This is also a important factor why the Goths were easy to contain, this is way the Cimbri and Teutons were defeated..

I agree with the rest of your analyze...

OA