Militia vs Trained

**Kobal2fr** · 12-10-2006, 00:32

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Also the hoplomachus gladiator proved to be so seriously overpowered initially that his shield was shrunk and his spear made heavier (and longer) so as to give the others a chance. That is the first case of playbalance I have heard of, and it was in the real world.

Haha, I didn't know that. Brilliant trivia

. I can imagine the talk on the forums "No you idiot, Sauromatae are not modelled accurately in the colliseum, I don't care what you say !"

Thanks for all your explanations in any case, everyone ! Things are a lot clearer to me now.

**Kraxis** · 12-10-2006, 01:02

Well, to be honest you shouldn't take it that literal. I wrote it like that to make a point.
But I doubt the Roman watching the hoplomachus devastate other gladiators felt he was particularly overpowered. He was a man, and as a man he was attributed the victory.

"Ahhh... Yes Decimus pwns every time, he is simply teh roxxors!!!!11111!!!" Rather than any comment on the hoplomachus as a kit.

However over time the Romans refined the gladiator system, made it more streamlined, longer fights (armour not protecting your life, merely protracting the fight) ect ect. Obviously a man with a small shield and longer spear would be more fun to watch than a man who looked much like a hoplite.
It would be more mobile and a lot more gory (lots of small wounds ect, rather than single thrust and that was it).

So it was never a contious effort to balance the gladiators as the strength were believed to lie with the fighters themselves. But in the end the results were the same. The spearmen had been nerfed.

**Carl** · 12-10-2006, 02:22

Btw, the gladius went through many changes. There is no one gladius. And gladius means sword, and 'gladiator' has taken the name from the armament rather than the other way around. Just like one gladiator was a trirarius, a man with a net and a trident. Trident = trirarius... well about so. And there are other examples.

Fair enough, all I was stating was what the Documentary said, which identified the Swords used by Spartacus’s men specifically as Gladius, and as being specifically different (and superior), to the sword used by the Legions, which was given a totally different name (although I can't remember what it was).

Obviously the documentary was either wrong, or was using an unusual naming system of some kind.

That Pike Info is actually quite surprising TBH, as I noted I can't see many ways for a pike to actually hurt a Legionnaire due to the size and type of use employed by the Legions. Of course, a Pike wall might well have been able to prevent them closing if it was well trained, and then wear them down over a long period. Just seems a littlie odd that the Romans didn’t do better.

**dopp** · 12-10-2006, 05:56

Well the phalanx was hardly invincible anyway. Alexander had to bail his phalangites out at Issus and Gaugamela. The latter in particular saw Persian cavalry break through gaps in the Macedonian line and sack Alexander's baggage train, forcing Alexander to break off pursuit and allowing Darius to escape. It was easily for even elite units to lose formation in the heat of battle, hence the need for good cavalry support. The Athenians (or was it Thebans?) managed to defeat a Spartan phalanx with skirmishers.

Attacking a phalanx was hardly instant death unless you rushed at them and went out of your way to get spitted (like that lunatic Elf in LOTR). It's just a bunch of guys with sharp sticks going poke-poke-poke and using their mass to force you to break formation, not some mighty Hedgehog of Doom that kills all it touches. With good armor and a discipline (like the legions possessed) you could engage them head-on and hold them in place until the cavalry outflanked them. If the pila volley did its work you might even be able to break their formation on the charge. The least would be a draw with few losses on either side (you can't hurt them and vice versa), since most casualties are inflicted only when one side routs. I think a penknives vs spears comparison is unnecessary to explain why the Romans defeated the phalanx.

**JeffBag** · 12-10-2006, 06:52

The Macedonian Pike Phalanx is not the same as the Hoplite Phalanx of the Peloponessian wars. The Spartans only ran when they saw the Athenian Hoplites forming up; the peltasts mainly decimated their morale. Only 250 of the 600 were killed in total, including those killed during the rout, so the peltasts initial volleys probably weren't that damaging, especially since the peltasts were able to engage all around the Spartans, avoiding their shields.

At Issus and Gaugamela the phalanx was under tremendous strain, if you follow tradition numbers given for that battle. It is obvious to see why they needed to be bailed out. The fact that they did held on for so long proves something. Anyway, the phalanx was designed to be part of a military system which incorporates infantry, cavalry, and archers, and it required all systems to work in order to fight properly, which is in the hammer and anvil system. If the hammer was not functioning, as Kraxis has said earlier, then obviously the system will fail. The Legion was designed to require no other support, therefore in a pure Legion vs Phalanx match the Legion will win of course, but thats like saying that a man without arms will lose to another with arms in a boxing match.

The phalanx could have been 'just a bunch of guys with sharp sticks going poke-poke-poke', and it wouldn't have mattered; since they only supposed to hold down the enemy, while minimalising casualties. The kills will come from the cavalry and the light and medium infantry.

**dopp** · 12-10-2006, 08:22

Yes, and that's why arguing whether spears are always better weapons than swords or vice versa and using the legion vs phalanx example is a problem. Lots of other things going on there, making it much more complicated than "legion beats phalanx therefore swords always beat spears". Morale, terrain, tactics, other arms and plain luck (the Romans charging and routing the phalanx before it could form up properly) could all play a factor.

Having said that, I do believe the phalanx did more than just poke people and pin the enemy down. It was a concentrated mass designed to bludgeon its way through the enemy line and prove once and for all who the REAL MEN were, heavy infantry fighting in its toughest and most unrelenting form. However, this did not make it invincible or even irresistible, hence the need for cooperation with other arms. This cooperation was missing against the Romans for a variety of reasons, hence the loss. I wasn't trying to downplay the effectiveness of the phalanx, I was just attempting to explain how the Romans could have fought it face-to-face and not died instantly as some people seem to think. It is a strong formation and, some historians think, quite a bit more mobile than it appeared.

As for Issus and Gaugamela... inflated force figures aside, the vast majority of the Persian armies were camp followers and irregulars, which would only have served to impede the serious fighting men (ie the Greek mercenary phalangites and elite Persian cavalry), which were roughly equal to Alexander's 40,000 or so. All of Alexander's men, moreover, were hardened veterans of relatively high social standing, used to working together and in high spirits after previous victories and plenty of phat lewt. Alexander was quite adamant about maintaining as few camp followers as possible to increase the marching speed and logistical efficiency of his army. Most of the Persian army was routed without even crossing swords with their opponents (having your king run away almost immediately will do that to you). Fear and defeatism is really infectious. Yet the phalanx did run into trouble in both battles when it faced elite troops that stood their ground. That's not to say that they got beaten up badly, just that they needed help from time to time.

Btw, I think castle troops should be termed 'feudal' or 'mercenary' rather than 'professional'. The true professional troops are the state troops you get from high-level militia barracks and military academies ie gendarmes, demi-lancers, pikemen and musketeers. Professional armies require centralised taxation rather than feudal dues to maintain. There were no real professional troops in the West from the demise of the Roman legions until the rise of the dynastic state armies in the early 16th century.

**Fisherking** · 12-10-2006, 12:42

Well spear vs. sword huh. Today the sword is a ceremonial weapon of most armies of the world. However, the spear, while absent other than as a flag staff is still in use, have you though of the last ditch effort of a bonnet charge? Every solider is issued that knife that fits on the end of his rifle, making it into a spear if I am not mistaken. It sure isn't used like a sword and it is a lot more effective than just the knife alone held in the hand.