Militia vs Trained

[Kraxis]

Yes we agree on the first part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Oleander Ardens]

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

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

Cheers
OA

[Kraxis]

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

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

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

[Comrade Alexeo]

Hmmm...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Oleander Ardens]

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

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

Cheers
OA

[elbasto]

mmmm...

¿wrong forum?


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

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

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

[Kraxis]

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

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

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

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

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

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