Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
John the Kern
Samurai
Joined: 08-Mar-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 137
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Formations Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 19:23 |
which Formation would you rather fight in:
(Front Rank only people)
a) Phalanx
b)Shield Wall
c) Shiltron
d) Loose Formation ( Celitc Mob style)
|
My peoples tale is written in blood
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 20:32 |
My favourite is the maniple. It has more flexibility than all of those except the "loose formation". And for a reason to choose maniple over loose formation, see Boudicca's last battle with the Romans.
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 21:48 |
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!
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2006 at 07:30 |
I agree with Constantine XI on the maniple.
The other formations have major weaknesses and more often than not require very precise conditions and ground to be effective. E.G the Phalanx is great front on, but if the ground is uneven then the formation will not be properly united which the phalanx relies upon utterly. It can also be easily flanked if not properly protected by cavalry or lighter infantry.
If I was in a loose formation recieving a charge the chances are myself and my comrades would be totally cut to pieces, a loose formation is no match whatsoever to something as organised and as disciplined as a legion and the maniples within it.
I think a maniple and legion in general has far fewer areas of weakness and has more flexibility and adaptability to respond to threats, the other formations are either almost entirely defensive (thus limiting its value) or have major weaknesses.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2006 at 09:38 |
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.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2006 at 10:59 |
Phalanx formation for sure but with much larger shields (roman style):
Shield wall - very good formation too:
Maniple Formation (Roman):
More about Maniple (form small units): http://www.imperiumlarp.org/www/Starstone/editorials/maniple .htm
Cheers.
|
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2006 at 16:15 |
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?
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 07:28 |
BigL,
I agree with you, but it's defense is unmatched... it's like a spike wall and by waving the "phalanxes" (long spears) in the back, many arrows are projected out of their course.
I think that with a larger shield than the hoplite shield this formation should be like a human tank. The long spears cause great damage to any unorganised offensive line.
(hoplite shield):
I think roman formations are quicker because the spears are not as long as helenic ones.
Cheers.
|
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 07:32 |
it sort of looks like the maniple is a missile formation. (they look like they are throwing spears) what exactly is it used for?
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 07:33 |
anda legion is exactly what?
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 08:03 |
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
|
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 08:06 |
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.
|
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 11:58 |
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.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2006 at 16:56 |
Yes this is why it puzzles me as too why the swiss pike formations were effective in late medieval times
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 06:06 |
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.
|
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 07:15 |
Originally posted by sedamoun
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.
|
Of course I dont want to make out like the phalanx is totally useless, it obviously has its strength and if used properly is effective. About Alexander, to be fair I dont rate Persian armies of that moment in time very highly, grood cavalry and archers but absolutely shocking infantry in general. Alexander had possibly the best cavalry of his day in the Companions to accompany his phalanxs, also i think i'm right in saying Alexanders phalanxes were vastly superior to those the Maceconians had in the 3rd century. I can't remember the details, i'm sure someone will elaborate further on that.
My summary of a phalanx is basically it was great at what it was designed to do, but useless at almost everything else, largely negating its value in all but ideal conditions. The legion had far fewer weaknesses and much greater internal flexibility.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Feb-2006 at 15:18 |
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
|
|
Benedict
Immortal Guard
Joined: 26-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 12:55 |
Imagine this.
Center is held by lighter phalanx ( lightened, because, it seems that alexander started to make the phalanx more flexible just before his death ), it's wings protected by heavy infantry ( Agrians, armed with scutum, armored, short sword - possibly falcata, and two throwing spears), in essence Macedon Legionaries, supported by cretan archers and some peltast javelinmen; the skirmishers. On the wings Dahae, Scythian horse archers, some fast light spear armed cavalry, and finaly Kataphracts, Kataphraktoi, the fearsome, cumbersome, huge, mater fank ubber killers, along with Companion, or Thessalian cavalry.
Oh, and some ten-twenty elephants in armour. Under a good commander.
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 07:34 |
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"> |
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 06:42 |
Personally i'd rather be with the fleet!
Depends on the unit and period. Loose formation is useless on rolling plains but in a forest is very effective. Personally I'd rather be in the Maniple due to its flexibility.
|
|
|