Was the legion really that superior to the phalanx?

[Kitsunegari]

Before the stirrup we have to assume that masses cavalry charges were indeed very rarely that decisive, except in special instances, eg the Companions. At Carrhae the Parthians cataphracts initial charge caused some shock but were chewed up by the legions eventually, so Surena withdrew them for use against pursuing Roman cavalry.

[JaM]

Even with stirrups, you would be not able to run full gallop at infantry. usual cavalry attack was oblique attack so horsemen ran near the infantry line and tried to thrust their lance into the formation.. Whole purpose of cavalry attacks was to take advantage of demoralized enemy and rout it by its presence.. once infantry starts running, cavalry would just drive them off, slowing down a bit to match the speed of routing men and slaughter them... (the way how it is modeled in Rome 2 is totally wrong.. they would not run in circles to kill infantry...)









It is also the main reason why cavalry was usually used for flanking attacks.. it was much easier for them to cause total rout this way, as infantry was quite prone to panic if they discovered enemy from such direction.. oh and one thing about flanks - actual flank attack was practically impossible as formations were usually not that wide.. flanking attacks were practically always rear attacks.

[Principe Alessandro]

We have plenty of literary evidences stating clearly that ancient cataphracts indeed did performed frontal charges against infantry from Ammianus to Plutarch and we have even clearly documented episodes in more recent times like the cavalry charge at the battle of Eylau where pretty much the cavalry held the centre of the French formation saving the day.

That frontal cavalry charges were often unsuccessful is the truth, but negating that they historically happened is revisionism of centuries of military history.

In both cases we are talking about some very fine breed of horses like the Nisean mounts or the prussian horses requisitioned by Napoleonic France.

Indeed you need a lot of training to force a horse to make him perform a frontal charge but not impossible.

[John Adams]

sorry John, but you are wrong on so many levels.. that i don't have time right now to even reply.. i will later though.
Ok, let me first start with Cavalry. During Ancient times, there were no WARHORSES. All horses available at those times were more like ponies in comparation to modern times. Yet, horse behavior didnt changed much during all that time. Horse is an herd animal. it will behave exactly as the horses on the left and right. Anyway, horses are quite intelligent animals. They would never run FULL SPEED (Galloping) against a wall, no matter how much they are trained. and tightly packed formation of men is like a wall for them. Horses have relatively fragile bones, they are quite vulnerable if they accidentally crash into some object. It quite often results with terminal internal wounds for the horse. Yet, it is in their nature to avoid obstacles and they can be quite fast at it, just check what barrel horses could do, how fast they can turn..

You can train them to do so. Have you ever worked with horses? They run into walls all the time (without being ridden) after getting spooked.
What makes you say there were no warhorses? So what you are saying is for thousands of years, men who rode horses never thought "huh, we should train this animal in the ways of war." It was just a magical thought process that appeared during the Medieval Ages?

Now lets talk about thrusting and slashing. There is a plenty of sources available from battlefield chirurgeons, or even todays military doctors, and they all will tell you the same thing - thrusting attack is more lethal as it can enter the body deeper and damage the vital organs. With slashing and cutting, wounds are usually shallow unless you use a lot of force to deliver slashing attack. In close combat the most important thing is your own FATIGUE. you can only fight if you are not tired. If you get tired, you are no longer to hold your shield the way you need, your attacks are weaker... As i said, SLASHING attack required a lot of strength to be deadly. initial few attacks you would be fine, yet if you had to fight in prolonged melee, after few minutes you would be completely exhausted, which would make you much easier target.. and don't forget that with overhead slashes you are completely open for any counterattacks..

You don't need to go that deep to damage vital organs. It is perfectly feasible to kill someone with a slashing attack. And no, a cutting attack requires no more strength then a strike. And as for the few minutes, that's complete and utter trash. Yes, for your average untrained person of today, I'd be amazed if they could survive for twenty seconds with any weapon without being entirely exhausted. We are talking trained soldiers, however. And no, an overhead slash does not leave you completely open for any counter attacks, anymore then a stab or thrust would. You need no more then five inches away with a gladius to cause a killing blow from a cut. We aren't talking bringing it back over your head and then forwards, that is completely unnecessary.
Again, it's clear you've never picked up a weapon in your life, much less trained with it. If you had, you'd know the nonsense you are talking about. One of the easiest possible things to avoid is a straight thrust. You can parry it with no problems. It isn't some magical cut that "OMG he is thrusting his sword at me, there's no way I could possible block this, I'm going to die!" *Dies*. Does that mean it doesn't work? No. But you must use both a cut and a thrust to be effective with any blade. They are designed to be used for both the cut and the thrust.

With thrusting attacks, you dont need that much strength to deliver a hit, and any hit to a torso is lethal hit unless stopped by armor. Gladius is nasty stabber with its width, creating huge entry holes which would cause immense blood loss very quickly, which would result in imminent shock and death. yet, you are able to thrust several times in same time you would need to perform single slashing attack.. as an added bonus, you can perform thrusting attacks while still protected by your shield.. Using Gladius as slashing sword would be the least effective way how to kill the opponent..
Overall, Roman Sword tactics had huge impact in battle, as it was practically the most effective way how to preserve fatigue and cohesion even in prolonged melee - something that was an huge issue with other armies of the era..

Again, no, there are plenty of places to hit the torso where it isn't lethal. You are mistaking pain and wounding for lethality. They are not the same.
And no, you can still slash multiple times in the same time it takes for a thrust. You aren't moving the weapon sixteen feet in every direction every time you cut with it, just like you don't need to back up and run at the guy full tilt to thrust with it.
And there are plenty of slashes you can do while being protected by your shield in between. It is physically impossible to be completely protected while doing any attack by the shield. You have to expose yourself for a few seconds for any attack (i.e the arm you are using for battle), which you would know if you knew how to fight with a sword and a shield.

Before the stirrup we have to assume that masses cavalry charges were indeed very rarely that decisive, except in special instances, eg the Companions. At Carrhae the Parthians cataphracts initial charge caused some shock but were chewed up by the legions eventually, so Surena withdrew them for use against pursuing Roman cavalry.

The Roman four horn saddle was just fine. There were several good Iberian saddles as well. With these saddles why do we have to assume that mass cavalry charges were not effective?

~John

[TWWolfe]

Two months.

Two months is all it will take to get a horse to charge a solid object and not slow/stop.

This is coming from my mother, who rode/trained horses right up until she had me, and one of those horses went to be a police horse.

[John Adams]

Two months.

Two months is all it will take to get a horse to charge a solid object and not slow/stop.

This is coming from my mother, who rode/trained horses right up until she had me, and one of those horses went to be a police horse.

On cue yes, they do that naturally already though . Especially in storms (that's why almost all people with horses prefer to stable them outdoors. It's safer to risk them getting electrocuted then them breaking themselves trying to escape being enclosed).

~John

[HuangCaesar]

Those images come from the Arch of Constantine, everybody knows that legions have already adopted the hasta long ago.

That is Columm of Marcus Aurelius, notice the Segmentated armour.

[Kitsunegari]

They weren't always ineffective, but they rarely decided battles before the 4th century CE, with some notable exceptions, like the Companions. I believe Tigranes the Great used an unusually large number of mounted lancers against the Romans without success.

[HuangCaesar]

From what I know the Legion and Phalanx can get destroyed by cavalry easily without their own missle and cavalry support.

For example:
The Battle of Ipssus: Due to Antiognus son' failing to break past the Selucid elephants, Selucid horse-archers flanked flanked the Phalanx. The hail of arrows caused them to retreat.

Battle of Magnesia: Due to failed chariot attack, the Roman and Pegamese allied cavalry charged the Selucid left causing their support troops and left cavalry to route instantly. The Phalanx to avoid being flanked formed squared making easy targers for both Roman Pila and missle fire from flanking cavalry.

Battle of Cahrae: Romans stretched he line out super long. Crassus ordered his cavalry to pursue very far without no heavy infantry support. The bombardment of arrows from horse archers and flanking attacks annihilated the Romans.

Mark Antony's Campaign: Antony leaves 10,000 men to defend his siege equipment. A force of 40,000 Parthians annihilates the Siege train instantly.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

They aren't really directly comparable, I'd say. The legion is a system of organization, not a formation like the phalanx. The advantage legionaries had regardless of what armament they'd be using was far more flexible chain of command, which enabled them to be far more adaptable in most combat situations. The use of large shields and swords just allowed them to exploit said flexibility to the maximum.

[HuangCaesar]

Before the stirrup we have to assume that masses cavalry charges were indeed very rarely that decisive, except in special instances, eg the Companions. At Carrhae the Parthians cataphracts initial charge caused some shock but were chewed up by the legions eventually, so Surena withdrew them for use against pursuing Roman cavalry.

Stirrups don't provide any effect the charge. Its easier to mount, easier to ride, a better shooting platform, and better for prolonged melee. The Medieval rise of cavalry is overstated. Most warfare in the Medieval era is raiding and small encounters between Knights where horses are more in use, also battles are often small. I don't expect the average disorganized peasant infantry with a 6 foot spear to withstand a highly trained knight with a 12 foot spear.

[Principe Alessandro]

That is Columm of Marcus Aurelius, notice the Segmentated armour.

I am talking about the second picture which clearly comes from arch of Constantine.
http://faculty.nmu.edu/kkendall/HS%2...ch%20Const.htm

In the first case I'm not even sure that the weapon is really a hasta or some kind of javelin.

[JaM]

I am talking about the second picture which clearly comes from arch of Constantine.
http://faculty.nmu.edu/kkendall/HS%2...ch%20Const.htm

In the first case I'm not even sure that the weapon is really a hasta or some kind of javelin.

Hasta is just a name for spear... Romans called hasta even javelins.. early Hastati, and leves used Hasta Velitaris, which was medium javelin with a precursor head a bit shorter than the one used on pilum.

[JaM]

John Adams:

Cut, Slash, Thrust.
At Heilsberg (1807) Colonel Chipault
of 4th Cuirassiers had received 56 cuts
and recovered perfectly.
.
In Napoleonic Wars there were three basic movements one could make with the saber:
- cutting
- slashing
- thrusting

Much depended on the type of weapon the men carried and the tactics they used. The narrow straight sabers were the best weapon for thrusting, the broadswords for cutting, while the curved sabers for cutting and slashing.
Of course one could also cut with the straight saber and thrust with the curved one. According to Charles Parquin, Prince Louis of Prussia, the king's nephew was killed by a thrust to his chest delivered by French hussar Guindey. "Brushing aside Guindey's weapon, the prince struck Guindey a blow across the face with his saber. He was about the strike a second time when Guindey countered and ran him through the chest. Killed instantly the prince fell from his horse."
Officer Chlapowski of Napoleon's Guard lancers, wrote that his lancers were also trained with the curved sabre to use the point. They typically inflicted many 'kills' while suffering only wounds and bruises from the wild cuts and slashes of the Hungarian hussars. (Chlapowski - "Memoirs of a Polish Lancer" p 68)
.

• Thrust. Thrusting was up close and personal.
  Roman Legionnaires were trained rely upon the thrust in preference to cutting attacks. If someone attacks you with a knife or spear, know that you are dealing with someone who is not afraid of combat, and has the psychological mindset to back it up.
  Knife, bayonet, spear, lance and straight-blade saber penetrated through the clothes and body deeper and easier than the curved saber. By the way, approx. 3cm allows penetration of the ribs, and 4cm allows penetration of the heart. According to recent FBI statistics wounds inflicted by knife are very dangerous. Only 10% die from their shot wounds, and as many as 30% die from their knife wounds.
  Advantages of the thrust in cavalry combat:
  1.
  A saber raised for a cut, or slash, left the body,
  especially the torso, very exposed to the thrust
  2.
  The point reached the target faster than the edge
  because it traveled in a straight line, whereas the
  later had to move in a curved path
  3.
  A parried point could be re-aligned faster than
  the edge as the thrust required less strength to
  wield
  When two cavalrymen were charging each other at greater speed, the advantage was on the side of the cavalrymen with the longer, straight-blade sabers. He could thrust and be far out of reach within a second ! In this very short momemnt it was impossible for his opponent to parry and then cut.
  Although this situation favored the man with long straight saber, he rarely used it. There were at least two reasons for this:
  1.
  It was very difficult to retrieve fast enough the blade
  from enemy's torso without having the hand twisted
  or even being thrown off the horse. To avoid this the
  thrust couldn't be deep. Shallow thrust however was
  not deadly.
  2.
  To deliver an effective thrust one must lean forward.
  It exposed his head to a cut ("he made a thrust at my
  groin I parried it off and cut him down through the
  head.")
  If the cavalrymen were charging each other at moderate speed and one did deliver a quick thrust, and his opponent missed his parry, he was at least wounded. This however was not common as at this speed majority of thrusts were parried. (An English hussar wrote "I had a cut at one man myself, who made point at me, but which I parried.")
  .
  Cut.
  The cuts were delivered either diagonally or horizontaly and were aimed at the face, head and forehand of the adversary. The cut was by far more instinctive blow than the thrust and slash. The men tended to cut even if their sabers were more suited to the thrust !
  The cut however often failed from the blade turning enough to make the blow one with the flat. "I, too, was wounded on the leg above the ankle by a Hungarian that day, but his sword twisted in his hand and the wound was not deep. But it was quite a blow and I felt it for many years." (Chlapowski, - p 68)
  The cut also required more physical force than thrust and slash.
  .
  Slash.
  The difference between the cut and the slash is the same as the difference between using a butcher's knife and a kitchen knife; one forces an edge straight into a meat while the other is pulled along the meat to get more of a slicing action.
  The slash was the most effective against opponent to your right side. Thus to deliver this blow you must do some maneuvering with your horse. It was possible only if there was enough space for doing it.
  For this reason the slash was used far more often in fights between small bodies of troops, than in combats involving large forces. For example in 2,000 men vs 2,000 men the field was literally packed with men and horses. They barely moved. In 50 vs 50 men there was a lot of space and the cavalrymen were continually circling and looking for the opportunity to deliver the blow.
  .
  Other differences between
  thrusts, cuts and slashes.
  The cuts and slashes made often horrible wounds but they were not as deadly as the thrusts. Although historical accounts tell about cavalrymen taking numerous minor punctures and surviving, generally the thrust was more deadly than cut and slash. The thrust made a narrow wound but it was deep and damaging not only the surface and bones but also to the most vital organs (causing internal bleeding, infections etc.)
  A captain of British dragoons wrote about the French using the thrust "It is worthy of remark that scarcely one Frenchman died of his wounds, although dreadfully chopped, whereas 12 English Dragoons were killed on the spot and others dangerously wounded by thrusts."
  In 1809 a "... regiment of [French] cuirassiers which after one charge got into a melee with some Hungarian hussars. I was surprised to see when the Hungarians retreated that far more of their bodies were lying dead than French. The main reason for this was that the Hungarians slashed with their sabers, while the French thrust." (Chlapowski, - p. 63)
  There were numerous cases where cavalryman received many slashes or cuts and continued his fight. Cut or slash to man's (or horse's) face resulted in a lot of blood, but was not life threatening. At the battle near Lapochin Major Potapov of Russian Soumy Hussars was surrounded by French chasseurs and received 7 wounds to his head before the hussars rescued him. None of these wounds was deadly. In 1807 at Heilsberg Colonel Chipault of the 4th Cuirassiers had received 56 sabre cuts and recovered perfectly.
  Only rarely enemy's head was taken off with a clean cut or slash but it made a life lasting impression. Authors would devote entire page to describe such single slash or cut. "I saw him (Wilson) engaged hand to hand with a French dragoon: I saw him - for I was by this time disabled by a severe wound, and stretched at length beside others of my suffering comrades - give and receive more than one pass, with equal skill and courage.
  Just then, a French officer stooping over the body of one of his wounded countrymen, who dropped at the instant on his horse's neck, delivered a thrust at poor Harry Wilson's body, and delivered it effectually. I firmly believe that Wilson died on the instant: yet, though he felt the sword in its progress, he, with characteristic self-command, kept his eye still on the enemy in his front; and, raising himself in his stirrups, let fall upon the Frenchman's helmet such a blow, that brass and skull parted before it, and the man's bead was cloven asunder to the chin.
  It was the most tremendous blow I ever saw struck, and both he who gave, and his opponent who received it, dropped dead together. The brass helmet was afterwards examined by order of the French officer, who, as well as myself, was astonished at the exploit ... " (George Robert Gleig - "The Light Dragoon")
  Prince Louis Ferdinand (Friedrich Ludwig Christian), the Prussian king's nephew was killed by a thrust to his chest delivered by French hussar Guindey. Parquin writes, "Brushing aside Guindey's weapon, the prince struck Guindey a blow across the face with his saber. He was about the strike a second time when Guindey countered and ran him through the chest. Killed instantly the prince fell from his horse."
  Prince Louis Ferdinand was a prominent member of the Prussian court war party, a cultivated man of great administrative and military potential. His death was deeply felt.
  "On the 15th July 1812 near Salamanca an English officer, riding behind the scouts of his army, caracoled his horse almost in front of French outposts. "What does that officer want ?" - inquired Marshal Marmont.
  Parquin:"My lord, that officer is evidently desirous of exchanging a few saber- cuts with one of us.." Parquin spurred his horse to a gallop and attacked him. He parried the cut and returned it by a point-thrust which felled the Englishman to the earth. Passing the blade of saber through his bridle he led back the horse into French line being welcomed by the hearty plaudits of Marmont and his staff."
  

[conon394]

You can train them to do so. Have you ever worked with horses? They run into walls all the time (without being ridden) after getting spooked.

Without being in very confined space and very panicked I have rarely/never seen a horse run into a wall no matter how spooked

What makes you say there were no warhorses? So what you are saying is for thousands of years, men who rode horses never thought "huh, we should train this animal in the ways of war." It was just a magical thought process that appeared during the Medieval Ages?

I suspect what he means is the stature and type of Ancient horse was not at all like the later derived classical European warhorse

Two months.

Two months is all it will take to get a horse to charge a solid object and not slow/stop.

This is coming from my mother, who rode/trained horses right up until she had me, and one of those horses went to be a police horse.

But into and through? And semantics that is certainly not a green horse or rider to begin with.

[JaM]

what he forgets is that even if it was possible to train horse to run and crash into solid object FULL SPEED, such horse would be dead because of impact.. and rider would be dead or wounded as well... no SANE horseman would do this no matter what.. and we are talking about entire unit to practically commit a suicide..

Cavalry never worked as a steam roller Hollywood movies and PC games.. Cavalry charge was always practically a bluff, to call infantry.. If their morale was low, plain sight of cavalry would cause them to rout and run, which would allow cavalry to masacre them on the run.. In case, Infantry held their ground, Cavalry would have to stop the charge or turn sideways so they would not be caught in front of infantry - usually, cavalry commander ordered his unit to turn sideways about 30m/100ft in front of infantry positions..

It might sound easy for infantry, they just need to hold the ground, thing is it was easier said than done - usual mechanics worked like this - if I run, and my neighbor doesn't, i might live, while he is dead. If I stay, and other run, i'm dead.. if everybody stays, we live... in such situations, human psychic would make you run away to save your life.. that is the most natural behavior for human being.. Which means, only very determined Infantry with a plenty of experience would stand the ground against cavalry attack...

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

The phalanx was extremely useful in combined arms situations (as support for missile infantry) but biggest weakness the Greeks had was that their missile infantry was quite poor. Hoplite and phalangite warfare was highly ritualized and rigid in terms of how it functioned, whereas Roman warfare was based on versatility. Greek vulnerability to missiles was also a significant issue, as is the fact that the phalanx is slow.

[HuangCaesar]

The phalanx was extremely useful in combined arms situations (as support for missile infantry) but biggest weakness the Greeks had was that their missile infantry was quite poor. Hoplite and phalangite warfare was highly ritualized and rigid in terms of how it functioned, whereas Roman warfare was based on versatility. Greek vulnerability to missiles was also a significant issue, as is the fact that the phalanx is slow.

Not really, Hellenistic armies at the time of Alexander had a lot of good missile infantry(Pealtasts). They served very well in Gaugemela fending off cavalry. The most elite of them being Thracian Aginanes and Cretan archers. Missle infantry was quite good in Selucid armies as shown in Ipsus and Magnesia.

Roman Republican light infantry, the Velites and Roarii seemed pretty good at Zama, skirimishing with Hannibal's Baelric's slingers and driving off elephants. Due to manpower shortages, Marius disbanded them and creating a class focus on Heavy infantry. The reforms of the Marius, created a heavy focus on heavy infantry. After the Battle of Cahrae, Romans rethought their tactics and fielded a high ammount of missle troops, such as Syrian archers and Baeleric slingers. Bassus and Mark Antony both incorporated high ammounts of missle units.

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

Not really, Hellenistic armies at the time of Alexander had a lot of good missile infantry(Pealtasts). They served very well in Gaugemela fending off cavalry. The most elite of them being Thracian Aginanes and Cretan archers. Missle infantry was quite good in Selucid armies as shown in Ipsus and Magnesia.

Roman Republican light infantry, the Velites and Roarii seemed pretty good at Zama, skirimishing with Hannibal's Baelric's slingers and driving off elephants. Due to manpower shortages, Marius disbanded them and creating a class focus on Heavy infantry. The reforms of the Marius, created a heavy focus on heavy infantry. After the Battle of Cahrae, Romans rethought their tactics and fielded a high ammount of missle troops, such as Syrian archers and Baeleric slingers. Bassus and Mark Antony both incorporated high ammounts of missle units.

A handful of quality javelins and archers from two disparate regions does not a missile-heavy army make. Thrace gets cut off, or Crete gets cut off, and you lose your source of missile troops. Same for men for the Baleares or Syria. And Hellenic javelin men do not have the kind of range to stand up to quality archers.

There's another reason the phalangite system fell into disuse before the Roman system did. As many great missiles as you're going to have, an army like what the Romans would field is going to have more. The same is true against Parthians, too.

[TWWolfe]

what he forgets is that even if it was possible to train horse to run and crash into solid object FULL SPEED, such horse would be dead because of impact.. and rider would be dead or wounded as well... no SANE horseman would do this no matter what.. and we are talking about entire unit to practically commit a suicide..

AT the school where i learned to ride, we ad a retired racehorse who discovered he could escape his pasture by leaning on our (fairly sturdy) wooden fence until it collapsed. so we reinforced the fences, know what he does. he rams it at almost full speed, and he barely got more that a few scratches across his chest. Horses are quite a bit sturdier than people want to give them credit for. the ones you hear about all the time, breaking bones easily, are usually racehorses, who due to breeding are very light and (for a horse) incredible fragile when it comes to thier build.

If all horses were built so that any hard impact could kill them, I somehow doubt they would survive as a species.


THis doesn't exactly scream fragile to me, and thats a build closer to what i imagine a warhorse would have.