Formations

which Formation would you rather fight in:

(Front Rank only people) 

a) Phalanx

b)Shield Wall

c) Shiltron

d) Loose Formation ( Celitc Mob style)

I'd rather be sailing!

If I would be "chosen/selected" to be in the front rank the first think I would think of would be how to survive.

Anyway, the worst of all is, by my standards, the loose formation. If possible I would combine the phalanx with the shield wall. Just hope there are no tanks around!

Originally posted by John the Kern a) Phalanx b)Shield Wall c) Shiltron d) Loose Formation ( Celitc Mob style)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by each of these ?
I have a rough idea but they are not precisely defined terms
viz
Phalanx is a Greek term that simply means body of troops, it implies a regular formation, rank and file structure etc.. but can be used for many things.
Shieldwall, is a  general Germanic term for  chaps fomed up with shields.
Shiltron  is a Scots word for large infantry unit.

I'm assuming that you have more specific meanings in mind.

phalanx is almost completely defensive its offensive power is limited to a slow grinding attack

Maniple is a sheild phalanx and is more flexible but still is a grinding slow attack

how do post roman formations differ than these?

it sort of looks like the maniple is a missile formation. (they look like they are throwing spears) what exactly is it used for?

Maniple formation is (often) smaller and more flexible than hellenic troops. I think it was durin the first martial reform when Maniple formations were created: more speed, easier to change formation, possibility to fight next AND with other units such as Velites (missile units).

Almost all roman (non-missile) units were armed with pilas (PILUM = short javelins) that were fired just before charging.

It you want to learn more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniple_%28military_unit%29

In 390 B.C., the Gauls sacked Rome after defeating the Roman Republican army at Allia River. One of the weaknesses of the Roman army that the Gauls had exposed was the inflexibility of their Hellenic style phalanx formation that they inherited from the Etruscans. To overcome this sort of limitation, the army was split up into subsets called Maniples (it translates roughly to English as 'handfuls') that could perform actions with more independence from one another.

During the Roman Republic, the army was organized into three lines, the hastati, the principes, and the triarii. Each of these lines was divided into maniples of 120, 120 and 60 men, respectively. Thus, the legion proper consisted of about 3,000 men. The three lines of infantry were divided by experience and fighting ability, with the youngest soldiers in the hastati making the first engagement. Where resistance was strong this rank would dissolve back through the Roman line and allow the more experienced soldiers in the principes to fight. In turn, the principes could yield to the hardened triarii if necessary.

Cheers.

Edited by sedamoun

 The phalanx is an excellent defensive formation but almost useless in attack, extremely difficult to keep formation unless the ground is perfectly level and the ground isnt wet and boggy.

 All formations are going to decay to an extent over long distances, but the phalanx relies on its formation retaining 100% of its integrity to survive and be effective.

 A good example of the major weaknesses of the phalanx are well displayed in the battle of Cynoscephalae, a phalanx takes a long time to form up in battle formation. It also is totally incapable of defending itself from an assault from the side and rear, it is also almost impossible to disengage the phalanx once its been commited into battle. The poor order of the Macedonian left flank was a major factor in the Macedonian defeat at Cynoscephalae, but it also showed a major strength of the maniples, its flexibility allowed 2000 men to detach and take full advantage of the Macedonians disorder.

 At that critical moment in the battle the inflexibility of the phalanx and the flexibility of the legion came greatly into play. Even on the defensive the phalanx had been outclassed by the legion and its maniples, its quite simply a far more effective formation and superior in just about everyway.

Originally posted by Heraclius   A good example of the major weaknesses of the phalanx are well displayed in the battle of Cynoscephalae, a phalanx takes a long time to form up in battle formation. It also is totally incapable of defending itself from an assault from the side and rear, it is also almost impossible to disengage the phalanx once its been commited into battle.

I agree, that's why the first slow-moving roman armies (Etruscan and Hellenic warfare heritage) got massacred by the Gauls who plundered Rome. Hence the martial reform.

But the formation has proved its effectiveness, Alexander conquered 3 continents with mainly Phallanx, [some] archers and Companions.

Cheers.

If im right alexanders phalanxe was alot more mobile and less armoured than later phalanxes,he also used combined arms forces instead of just phalanx he used cavalry and skirmishers to protect the flanks of his phalanx,

The persians also had a phalanxe type formation but with short spear and wickeer sheilds but they couldnt seem to outflank the macedonians in battle ,either because they didnt outnumber the greeks like we are told or they were so unorganized they couldnt manouver the infantry

Originally posted by sedamoun Sorry Albino, I don't know what "ANDA LEGIONs" are. Are you sure it is writen that way, i didn't find anything on the net. If you do find out, please let me know. Cheers. i meant to say "what exactly were the tacttical and formational purposes of a legion">