Basically every depiction of the roman legionnaire has him with a gladius. And it makes me wonder how they managed to beat the macedonian phalanx, given how they were using not just a regular range extending spear, but 20-foot long pikes. Spears were basically THE weapon up until the gunpowder era, so how and why didn't the romans follow this trend?>inb4 javelinsThose aren't the same, and it just adds to the question because they could clearly make spears so why did they just use them for throwing?
>>65606763They used to, but they ditched them due to the change in doctrine.
>>65606763>Why didn't the use spearsThey copied the Samnites during the Samnium Wars, and started phasing out the spear in favour of javelins and longer swords. Spears still stayed with the Triarii, but the Roman and allied armies slowly standardized around the Principes load out of javelins, heavy shield, sword, and mail which was later codified into the legion standard>Why did they beat the phalanxThe Macedonian style pike phalanx requires high levels of discipline, favorable terrain, and a combined arms with heavy cavalry and light infantry. That's the system developed under Philip and utilized by Alexander. When done properly it could and still did beat the Romans, but with those elements missing it was prone to becoming disorganized and ineffective. You can check out the major battles of the Macedonian Wars and see that happen in most cases.The Romans really advantage was that they had original xbox huge levels of manpower and a military system that allowed them to tap into that. They could lose to Macedonian system and recover, but they only needed a big win to achieve a strategic victory.
>>65606763Roman used to use spears, but then they were so impressed with Iberian swords during the Punic War they completely ditched the spear and switched over to swords. In the ancient/medieval world such a sudden and dramatic shift in weapons doctrine upon contact with a foreign enemy system has never been seen before or since, apart from arguably the Japanese contact with matchlocks.As for surviving the Macedonian phalanx, it wasn't really that hard. Infantry of any flavor tended to take few casualties until the rout. So nothing unique there. As for specifically the Roman Legion vs Macedonian Phalanx match-up, it's difficult to see how a phalanx could possibly inflict casualties, given the Roman's massive shield. As long as the legionary does not recklessly expose himself he can't possibly be harmed. Meanwhile the phalangite would had been heavily exposed to the pilum, which he couldn't dodge or block easily (this probably explains the extremely unusual and pyrrhic amounts of casualties phalanx armies took against Romans even when winning battles). The phalanx was so unthreatening the Romans could do a slow retreat lasting several minutes over a lot of ground without breaking up or taking casualties during the Battle of Pydna.>Spears were basically THE weapon up until the gunpowder eraAnybody living at the end of the four centuries long heyday of gladius dominance would had said the sword was THE weapon. It's not even that clear cut during the medieval period. For infantry, in the early medieval period spears were in vogue, but the later periods strongly favored pole-arms, and then the pike, instead. Hell, if you look at the melee scenes (i.e. not the javelins) of the Bayeux tapestry spears might be the most numerous weapon, but they were hardly an overwhelming majority.
>>65606763Spears weren't invented until the middle 11th century, and they took another couple of decades to get from Mesoamerica to Rome via Lemurian traders.
>>65606763The phalanx was not a killing piece, it was a holding, and pushing one. it could of course kill inferior troops, but it mostly was there to fix the majority of your enemies troops in place.Under the Goat Phillip it was designed to have hoplites, elite swordsmen, and skirmish infantry on its flanks for maneuver and protection, and then the killing blow would be the heavy greek, and macedonian cavalry. O and this cav would of course be protected by skirmish cavalry. And the whole thing would have slingers and archers behind the phalangites to provide even more skirmish and cover.Now look at the order of battle for when Rome ended Macedonia. The Macs just showed up with phalangites and companion cavalry. Without the mobile infantry, skirmishers, and skirmish cavalry it was just a dumb fucking brick of pikes that couldnt react.
>>65606763Because swords beat spears. Theres a reason why spears are cheaper than swords anon.
>>65606763They had Pilum https://youtube.com/watch?v=33AL7xs91pUThere is Big Hollywood induced misconception that Romans were fighting in close combat when their real tactics revolved around ranged attacks with pay to win items
>>65606763>Spears were basically THE weapon up until the gunpowder era, so how and why didn't the romans follow this trend?Spears were their primary for the majority of their military history.
>>65606763They originally fought with thrusting spears similar to Greek phalanxes but shifted towards smaller, more maneuverable units with an emphasis on javelin and short sword use after picrel.Fighting in a spear phalanx is a great tactic when you're in a battle against some untrained rabble or against another spear wall but the tactics you can use are entirely predictable. Spear walls can only push forward and their tactical use is limited to either pinning the enemy force for cavalry to smash the rear (Alexander and the Diadochi's only strategy) or holding formation, pushing forward until the enemy formation loses cohesion, breaks and flees.At Cannae, Hannibal exploited this principle of phalanx warfare by placing sword-armed Gaulish and Iberian troops in the center of his formation who could not hold a rigid line against the enemy and thus withdrew step by step into a convex line, which allowed the Romans to push forward until their linear formation had become a giant ball of men. The Carthaginian troops on the flanks then closed the pocket and utterly destroyed Rome's army of spearmen.
>>65606763>Why didn't the roman use spears?Because they were part of the Celtic military world that strongly favoured sword&board tactics.
>>65606763>Spears were basically THE weapon up until the gunpowder eraThey really weren't. What weapon you wanted depended on the tactics you and your enemies employed, and even spear equipped infantrymen or cavalrymen are repeatedly attested to have ditched spears, whether in the midst of combat or even before combat, for their swords, as it better suited what they were going for.Poking at each other for five hours is all well and good but it doesn't really win you battles decisively. Getting in close to kill your enemy does.
>>65607552of their military history?what about the non military history parts?The Roman empire was at its height with the sword, expanded to its greatest extent with the sword. And even before the legionary, the Hastati and Principes fought with swords
>>65607648The vast majority of those roman troops primary weapon was a sword.
The spear diverged into the pike and the pilum.A notable feature of roman infantry ocrtine was the use of tightly packed infantry with stabbing weapons
>>65606855The spear was the quintessential main arm of infantry around the globe until the early modern era. On the other hand, the sword was pretty much the perfect sidearm. And unlike the pistol of the modern era, you would have to pull out your sword eventually, as the battle went on. So I would say that sword and spear were equal in popularity
>>65607875I don't think sidearm is a good word for it or the way they thought about it. There were numerous battles where spears were actively discarded for swords before the fighting even began.
>>65606763They cut down polearm with a barbarian-like axe, than move in closer or simply go under with dagger in Italian fashion
>>65606763Because reach is substantially less important when you have armor or a large shield, and can become a disadvantage. They also fought in MUCH looser formations than people assume. 3-6 feet of space on either side per man- the legionary was actively maneuvering and duelling his target(s) and sword, again, work much better when doing this with a shield.
>>65606763Also>How'd they beat the phalanxIn most cases, by fucking up the support troops. There's one battle that came down to the phalanx not actually being able to deploy and eventually breaking up on shitty terrain, but other than that, it's universally >The phalanx mauled the shit out of the romans>The wings routed>The romans then surrounded the phalanxEven then at magnesia they couldn't actually break the phalanx, which formed squares and started marching off the field, so the romans proceeded to shoot at the elephants in the center until they snapped and rampage through the squares from the inside out.
>>65606763They got their asses kicked by Samnites when they were using spears
>>65608199It's odd that nobody ever used a very small contingent of mercenaries trained in the phalanx as a auxiliary to the Roman formations during some campaigns where the terrain permitted it. Greek Mercenaries were available so its little different from hiring Gallic cavalry.
>>65606763I dont know but they got their empire destroyed when the barbarians used superior spears so it must not have been the greatest idea of all time
>>65610081I'd say "giant block of defensive infantry" is too much of an overlap in function with the Roman legion formations.
Italy is a very rugged hilly, mountainous and wooded land, and all the peoples there fought in a loose formation that consisted of lightly and/or heavily armored fighters throwing javelins before closing in to deliver the killing blow with the spear, sword or axe. It's uncertain but it's possible that the Celts introduced the heavy javelins and the thureus shield to Italy. Before the Romans first disastrous war with Celts they mostly used Greek swords and shields but afterwards switched to Celtic swords, armor and shields. It wasn't until after the second Punic war that they adopted the gladius and mail became common. Roman cavalry also used to fight nude or without body protection, they would ride around and mostly use their horses as taxis to get to wherever the line needed help. One old Roman senator is recorded showing off his scars all over his body from his time as a cavalryman and disparaged the younger ones using armor.Romand and Italian warfare was very fluid and consisted of showering enemies with javelins with rapid charges and disengagements. This gave them flexibility and the ability to quickly maneuver and respond to new developments on the battlefield.
When Pyrrhus invaded Italy the Romans initially struggled against the Hellenistic war machine, their javelins didn't disrupt the phalanx too much and they struggled reaching the phalangites so many are recorded impaling themselves on the sarissa, attempting to grab and cut off the tips or crawling under without much success. The Roman and allied cavalry also struggled but performed better against Pyrrhus cavalry, they would dismount and drag off Epeirote riders. However, it wasn't easy for Pyrrhus either since his kingdom was small and each loss hurt and the Italians didn't give up until the first elephant charge broke them. Afterwards the Romans adapted to the elephants but didn't have an edge over the phalanx, they simply grounded them down through attrition. Pyrrhus eventually left when his army suffered too many casualties and the Romans kept raising new legions.Now, the Macedonian wars and the Syrian war are slightly different. Rome was much larger and more powerful than Macedon, both in money and men. Macedon was a regional power but essentially a backwater compared to the Seleucids and Ptolemies. Philip V and Perseus had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find enough men to have a large enough phalanx but they lacked cavalry. Greece and Macedon were depopulated at this time due to migrations to the east, especially wealthier individuals that could afford horses. So the Romans faced one army of conscript phalangites ranging from actual children to old men, they just needed one victory each time to cripple the Macedonians.
>>65606855>In the ancient/medieval world such a sudden and dramatic shift in weapons doctrine upon contact with a foreign enemy system has never been seen before or sinceHow about motherfucking tribals using firearms
Stop answering the stupid questions of black hole brained poojeets and other mud"people" that can't be arsed reading a book, let alone google things. Fucking retards
It's the same story in the Syrian war, the Seleucids, who had the largest empire in the world, had a much smaller manpower pool than the Romans since they relied on Macedonian settlers. Though they had a well-drilled phalanx, the best cavalry in the world and plenty of skirmishers they still lost two battles that crippled their manpower for a generation.The Romans respected the Macedonian way of war, and even feared the phalanx which they described spearing men through shield and armor, but their command system was more flexible and they had a massive manpower advantage.
>>65610081Why bother? The romans had their own heavy infantry that nobody but the hellenes could match. Plus, the demographic the phalangnites drew from was mostly dead. There wasn't anyone left to train them on an individual level, and no polity to organize them on a large scale. You might find bands of the more modern varieties of hoplite, but at that point you're just paying for different looking legionaries. If you're going to pay for hellenes, you grab the speciality troops like cavalry or skirmishers.
>>65610214>their javelins didn't disrupt the phalanx too much and they struggled reaching the phalangiteslmao, Pyrrhus phalanxes took massive casualties against the legions and the only reason they won their battles was because elephants saved the day before the phalanxes could get slaughtered, so instead of getting completely wiped out they merely had a pyrrhic victory.
>>65606763The romans did use spears, every legionary was issued two throwing spears and a short stabbing spear as part of their standard kit
Macedonian phalangites used pikes that were 9-12 ft long tip to tip, and were much lighter, thinner, and tapered towards the head with two counterweights at the butt namely the bronze buttspike and iron handle. Also, they had a shoulder sling over the left shoulder to transfer the already light weight of 1kg to that shoulder and to turn it into a fulcrum. Also, the left arm goes through both handles, one at the center back and the other near the rim, to hold the pike and a shoulder sling connects the shield over the right shoulder, so that some pike weight is also transferred to the right shoulder. The shield weighed 3 kg, a smaller light aspis. They also wore linothorax, open face helmets, and most phalangite didnt wear bronze greaves. The peltasts charged forth to attack enemy skirmishers with hatchets and wide thin center-grip shields that also weighed 3 kg and they attacked the enemy spearmen with javelins and slung stones, before retreating around phalanx and through channels between phalanx formations as the pikemen got close, the pikemen would then point their pikes to the enemy's face and thrust into them. The phalangites also wore their cloaks over their left side including their shields to also stop missiles and hide their shield and body. When the phalangite let go of his pike with both hands but kept the shoulder sling over the left shoulder, the butt of the pike swung down and the head swung up. The center of weight woudl be at the iron handle connecting the buttspike to the butt of the pike shaft. Phalangite fought more aggressively and in conjuction with cavalry and peltasts (skirmishers). Also, Romans held spears and fought with it. The gladius short sword was a secondary weapon.
>>65612188>The gladius short sword was a secondary weapon.Nope.
>>65610081The truth is that there wasn't that much different between the various dense masses of heavy infantry. They all did the job they needed to. What mattered more was there ability to fight in formation, march and maneuver when needed, and their morale.
ITT peak dunning kruger effect>>65606855>they completely ditched the spear and switched over to swordsThey didn't and never truly did. The Romans kept spears in the Triarii and their Socii allies provided spear troops. Then during the empire the Auxilia infantry were almost always spearmen. Some emperors would raise spear troops specifically, like Caracalla.>it's difficult to see how a phalanx could possibly inflict casualties, given the Roman's massive shield. As long as the legionary does not recklessly expose himself he can't possibly be harmed. Except pikes could stab right through shields. Pikes like the Sarissa were incredibly large, heavy objects and carried a ton of momentum behind them, they would often just punch right through the relatively thin Scutum and were even effective at defeating armor. We know this because the Romans endured a ton of casualties to them trying to face them dead on.>Meanwhile the phalangite would had been heavily exposed to the pilum, which he couldn't dodge or block easily.Phalanxes used the pikes themselves to deflect incoming missiles. The pikes would be waved up and down by the rear troops and break their speed, meanwhile their helmets and strapped shields could actually stop them.>Anybody living at the end of the four centuries long heyday of gladius dominance would had said the sword was THE weapon. It's not even that clear cut during the medieval period.The Gladius wasn't even the main sword of the Romans for that long. After the 2nd century it was the longer Spatha and then spears like the Lancea and Spiculum came back to be the main weapon of Roman armies. The Gladius was also a family of swords that ranged from very short pseudo-daggers to full size swords as long as medieval ones. The blade profile and hilt were the only consistent things.
>>65607648>Fighting in a spear phalanx is a great tactic when you're in a battle against some untrained rabble or against another spear wall but the tactics you can use are entirely predictable. Spear walls can only push forward and their tactical use is limited to either pinning the enemy force for cavalry to smash the rear (Alexander and the Diadochi's only strategy) or holding formation, pushing forward until the enemy formation loses cohesion, breaks and flees.Spears and pikes are not the same thing. Gauls and Germans fought overwhelmingly with spears too(ranging from 7 to 9 feet vs 16 to 24) and were very fluid and explosive in movement. Phalanxes were also very varied, some depictions were rigid, others show phalangites fighting in very open and fluid formations. Pike phalanxes were a very specific formation not replicated with smaller spears because that is impossible and also retarded.Meanwhile Romans according to Vegetius fought in fairly loose but still compact 3-6 feet apart formations and the main point was the ability to cycle fresh troops through gaps. Swordmen fought in closer ranks and focused on stabbing as a result, legionaries were trained specifically to remain calm and fight at a very personal distance.>>65607830>The Roman empire was at its height with the sword, expanded to its greatest extent with the sword.Wrong on both accounts. The greatest territorial gains were during the Republic and were done while they still used plenty of spears(annexation of Greece, Anatolia, Levant), and their greatest extent, 117AD were done with considerable use of spear auxilia.
The Romans did use spears, but Im assuming you're talking about mid to late republic era.Spears were more of a standoff weapon, poke poke stay the fuck away from me. You engage the enemy and lock them in place so that your cavary can flank them. Once two formations get in fighting range, no one can turn and run.What made the Romans unique is that they didn't rely on that. Javelins would be thrown to break up enemy formations and they just closed in with deticated , personal murder weapons, the short Gladius. Their infantry formations were the main killing force, not the cavalry.
>>65612677>>65612682>The greatest territorial gains were during the Republic and were done while they still used plenty of spears(So in your opinion was switching mostly to a sword loadout a mistake?
>>65608185>Because reach is substantially less important when you have armor or a large shield, and can become a disadvantage.Armor cannot make you phase through a very big stick pushing you and digging into your joints and crevices. You can try that vs one spear but dozens of them will just knock you back and find weak spots eventually.>>65608223>>65610211They kept using them long after the Samnites were gone, they just weren't using actual pikes. Roman Hasta were 7 to 8 feet long, very maneuverable size for a spear.>>65610081They actually did, the Germans were said to have fought with fairly long spears in tight "phalanx-like" formations as mercenaries, the Belgae too were some of Rome's best foreign fighters and during revolts they kicked the ass of several legionary forces by being more disciplined than Romans themselves. Syrian and African infantry also fought with spears.
>>65612685No, because they never actually did. Armies need different types of troops to do different jobs. Spear troops performed a different job from sword infantry, Romans simply began offloading spear duties to allies, mercenaries and auxilia, which somes made up 50 or even 60% of any given army, then reverted when the realities of war changed again.
>>65612689I can see which posts are yours and you are wasting your time. I have had arguments like you are having now for a decade here. I don't even know where some of the ideas that you are encountering keep coming from (eg. the superiority of the Empire over the Republic) and others are just a waste of time (the only way that people understand classical battle formations like phalanxes without studying classics is literally by playing rugby, and if they did either then you wouldn't be arguing with them).
>>65612687It doesn't need to. Armor causes those spears to either slide off, or not harm you, which allows you to be much more aggressive in how you bypass them. >Dozens There's literally no scenario in which dozens of phalangnites can threaten you. Because of simple physical reality, every man has a few feet less reach than the man in front of him. At most 3-6 can actually threaten you at a time, and that's if the file next to yours isn't being engaged. In reality they probably are, and anyone past the 2nd rank can't fucking see and also can't maneuver his sarissa to engage anyone not directly in front of him anyway, so really, it's 1-3 in most situations.The simple reality is we can see what happens when Romans go at a Macedonian phalanx frontally, because it happened repeatedly, and phryuus suffered severe casualties because they absolutely could and did get past the pikes. Not often enough to break the formation, but often enough to inflict horrible losses.
>>65612682By the time of Pompey's conquests the spear was a rarity. The Principe had long been the bulk of the legions. And by the time of Pax Romana the height of Rome, you obtuse sperg. auxilia on foot were mostly all fighting in the roman style, thus with swords. This wasnt the punic wars.
>>65613425>There's literally no scenario in which dozens of phalangnites can threaten you. Because of simple physical reality, every man has a few feet less reach than the man in front of him. At most 3-6 can actually threaten you at a time, and that's if the file next to yours isn't being engaged. In reality they probably are, and anyone past the 2nd rank can't fucking see and also can't maneuver his sarissa to engage anyone not directly in front of him anyway, so really, it's 1-3 in most situations.On a proper Macedonian pike phalanx you're facing at least 5 pikes frontally and several more coming down if you get past. Spears can whip you and smack you around and you dont get to move laterally out of the way of the pikes in front when there are several ranks close together to each side. Romans could NOT penetrate well formed phalanxes in Cynoscephalae and Pydna and suffered heavy casualties without accomplishing anything until the formation was disrupted.>The simple reality is we can see what happens when Romans go at a Macedonian phalanx frontally, because it happened repeatedly, and phryuus suffered severe casualties because they absolutely could and did get past the pikes. Not often enough to break the formation, but often enough to inflict horrible losses.Except Epirus wasn't using pike phalanxes and Romans were using spears too at that time. Romans would only be using swords only by the time of the second Punic war. The Legion fought in a Manipular system which was explicitly described as a phalanx with hinges and were facing the Greeks in roughly equal terms.
>>65613450Literally nobody has ever described the manipular system that way, and phryuus absolutely did have Macedonian phalanxes at the core of his army. This isn't even vaguely debated. >Muh five ranksI give you a sarissa. You hold It in two hands, with your body turned sideways. Your actual reach is the length of the weapon extending past your rear hand, as you, being in front, can bend and lunge, negating the loss of effective reach from your stance.The man behind you cannot, because you are in the way. His reach is the length of the weapon extending past his LEAD hand, minus the length of your body. This amounts to several feet lost. The man behind him loses two body lengths. No, you're not giving five spears at once. You're facing up to two at once, then the rest in succession. >Muh shaftIrrelevant. The simple way the phalanx is structured means nobody past the front or maybe second rank can swing it to hit you with the shaft, as the bodies of their own men get in the way. >But muh roman spears They commonly carried swords by this point, and the tactical considerations of engaging pikes don't change. You're covering two or three less steps.
>>65613442>By the time of Pompey's conquests the spear was a rarity. The Principe had long been the bulk of the legions.Pompey wasn't even a general yet when the manipular system went away, he commanded Marian style legionaries and even then the Roman army was still 50% Auxilias just like the Manipular army was 50% Italian Socii and they all fought with spears. Sword fighting was a specialized role because Romans took care of sieges and assaults and other sensitive missions themselves.>And by the time of Pax Romana the height of Rome, you obtuse sperg. auxilia on foot were mostly all fighting in the roman style, thus with swords. This wasnt the punic wars.Auxilias fought like the cultures they were recruited from fought which overwhelmingly meant spear fighting among Germanic tribes for infantry combat. The most notable exceptions were peoples like the Iberians, Thracians and Dacians. Auxilia troops from Foederati still made up a huge chunk of the Legions' numbers in battle, Romans never did without some kind of spear troop.
>>65613473>Literally nobody has ever described the manipular system that way,Goldsworthy, Lindon, Polybius himself>and phryuus absolutely did have Macedonian phalanxes at the core of his army. This isn't even vaguely debated.He had "phalanxes" doesn't mean he had either a carbon copy of Alexanders' shield companions or anything close to what Macedonians or Seleucids were fielding hundreds of years later. >They commonly carried swords by this point, and the tactical considerations of engaging pikes don't change. You're covering two or three less steps.Everyone was carrying swords dummy, they were the backup weapon. They were carrying Greek style Xiphos too and would absolutely not drop their spears to close in with with swords just because because that would destroy their cohesion.>No, you're not giving five spears at once. You're facing up to two at once, then the rest in succession.So you're facing five spears because you can't just move sideways among the pikes without dropping to your hands and knees and then you'd be stuck from above when pushing. There is a reason medieval and renaissance pikes had forlorn hopes do this kind of thing, it was absurdly difficult to get through and many died in the process.
This fucking retard always appears in these threads, with the same stupid and deranged arguments.>>65612677>They didn't and never truly didExcept you know, the Marian reforms when the spear-armed Triarii disappeared.>pikes could stab right through shieldscool story bro, go show us a video of any handheld blade (sword or spear) stabbing through even the cheapest plywood of appropriate thickness right now, you can even do this in your kitchen. GO ON DO IT (he never does).>Phalanxes used the pikes themselves to deflect incoming missilesYeah, I'm sure that really helped the completely unprotected first few ranks which were the natural target of thrown pila, especially given the range and trajectory of thrown pila>>65613450>delusional nonsenseNot even going to bother refuting this, there's no point, I'm fully confident nobody is stupid enough to fall for this bizarre make-believe.
>>65613474ahhh yes Marian style legionaries. Sad there was no marian reforms, they were just literally made up.
>>65613789Lmao, no. That isn't how they describe the Roman army of the time, and there's tons of reason to assume that is the case regardless .>doesn't mean he had either a carbon copy of Alexanders' shield companions or anything close to what Macedonians or Seleucids were fielding hundreds of years later.Except he literally fucking did, by virtually every description, and simple deduction from:Him borrowing troops from a Macedonian pretenderThe simple fact that the romans had fought hoplite phalanxes plenty of times before, and would not have found them unusual enough to remark on, much less struggled to break them. >Muh five pointsExplain how five sarissae of the same length reach the same man at the same time when the workers are standing in s file. You can't, because that isn't actually possible. You'd know this if you'd ever actually fought in a formation, with spears, or done anything in a tight press.>>65613793He's retarded, but the idea that the pila was a major factor just doesn't reflect reality. In truth the front ranks ARE protected from anything plunging down on them, as the sarissae are that long, and the men are wearing shields that are likely around 24" (this'll cover the entire torso) along with helmets and body armor. You can expect more greaves among the front ranks, too, as they'd typically be more experienced and better equipped in general.We actually have an example of phalangnites having to sit and get shot up at magnesia, and it just didn't do much until the romans started shooting at the selucids elephants, which panicked and brine their formations apart. Sarissae punching through shields and armor is something period sources discuss. It's worth noting the phalanx was not the ponderous caterpillar people assume, and could and did charge people. 20' of pike hitting a pectoral or lighter shirt of mail at a run will probably penetrate.
>>65613793>Except you know, the Marian reforms when the spear-armed Triarii disappeared.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_auxiliary_regiments>>65613793>blade (sword or spear) stabbing through even the cheapest plywood of appropriate thickness right now, you can even do this in your kitchen. GO ON DO IT (he never does).https://youtu.be/9U-q2sKU5G0?>Yeah, I'm sure that really helped the completely unprotected first few ranks which were the natural target of thrown pila, especially given the range and trajectory of thrown pila>With this point in our minds, it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about.
>>65606763They did use spears. People that think that the Roman military was just Marian era heavy infantry are just retards.
>>65613837>Sad there was no marian reforms, they were just literally made up.They literally didn'tThere wasn't some kind of law or decree that declared the legion should work under a new system, the shift was gradual, informal and inconsistent, based entirely around the generals raising legions in a period of institutional chaos, you can't find any ancient author who actually says they happened only them describing things differently
>>65613872So we are to believe that there was a mysterious secret law. that lead to a gradual and inconsistent change in roman armies, over generations and completely un attested to in any form.Maybe it was simply a natural change in tactics and equipment like happens with most every other army in history. Instead of trying to fit the roman legions into a Phillips reforms kind of thing.
>>65606763>Basically every depiction of the roman legionnaire has him with a gladius.Because Hollywood taught everyone for the past seven decades that everyone used swords before guns, instead of a pointy stick.
do you ever wonder if newer tactics could have been adopted to work with older technology? like would 16th century tercio tactics have worked with greek phalanxes but with archery instead of handgunners? could small catapults have been used in the place of towed artillery?
>>65613852Pyrrhus's army didn't beat the Romans because they were anything special, they did because he was a great commander who knew how to use combined arms tactics whereas every Daidochi just spammed bigger and longer phalanxes to win
>>65613939People had hundreds of years to think about formations and I'd like to believe it was always technology that made changes possible.
>>65613939>like would 16th century tercio tactics have worked with greek phalanxes but with archery instead of handgunners?Probably not, since shields largely invalidate archery. Hence archers being pretty irrelevant for all of history as infantry except that time the English tried to brute force it and it only kinda worked.>could small catapults have been used in the place of towed artillery?Yes. The Romans and Greeks did use various forms of artillery just like this.
>>65613894no because the roman legions used swords you tard. Unless you mean the ERE. But we know you dont.
>>65614434this is a retarded take. Horse archery was titanically impactful to world history.
>>65606793Good shit>>65606855Bullshit
>>65614505Yes, that would be why I said>Hence archers being pretty irrelevant for all of history as infantryBecause horse archers mattered, while infantry archery was an afterthought. (in Europe, anyway)
>>65613857Anon, that.... doesn't really support your argument the way you think it does. That amount of penetration wouldn't cause significant injury, and likely would cause none as the shield isn't held pressed against the body. It's also being held firm by an inanimate object. In actual use the users arm will bend with the blow, which may prevent penetration in and if itself, and that's IF it's being used as a static, passive defense and isn't actively being used to try to put the point aside. >>65613975Yeah no argument there. But he did have Macedonian troops and men armed in that style along with various other types of heavy infantry, and the romans mauled them all in every battle regardless of type. It's a clear indication that people could and did get past the sarissas. Then again, we've got evidence of that all the way back to alexander, with his infantry routinely facing a fucking meatgrinder even against mercenary greeks or lighter armed Anatolian and Persian troops.
>>65614660>That amount of penetration wouldn't cause significant injury, and likely would cause none as the shield isn't held pressed against the body. The damage is cumulative, you'd be getting frantically jabbed by several soldiers who are very aware they need to keep you away to not get stabbed, and the shield is going to rapidly lose structural integrity from many holes forming. Maybe a spear is gonna find it's way into an already made hole. >It's also being held firm by an inanimate object. In actual use the users arm will bend with the blow, which may prevent penetration in and if itself, and that's IF it's being used as a static, passive defense and isn't actively being used to try to put the point aside.That's why the formation is huge, deep and wide and you can only let the shield get pushed aside so much before the shield is completely out of the way and it's just your body against another spear point. You can also try to step to the side and also face another spear. You can also try to just press through and deflect as many blades as possible but then you're helping the spear tips drive into and maybe through the shield. If it really was as easy as just pushing through with a shield they would have done that because Romans were the kind of based retards who solved most problems that way, see Pydna and them trying the fucking legion eagle tossing trick and still failing.
>>65606793No faggot, the Romans were uniquely advantaged on the battlefield due to their superior tactical flexibility (formation structure etc.) and pragmatic small unit (century level) doctrine. Don't try and minimize their success to 'le zergrush superior numbers.' The Romans routinely wiped the fucking floor with Hellenic/Sarissa style armies from Cynoschepalae to Magnesia to Pydna etc due to the aforementioned aspects and more. Roman cavalry was also notoriously bad and happily outsourced to Allies which only makes their infantry success even more commendable considering Hellenic cavalry was of much higher priority and imperative for the phalanx to succeed. A nascent Rome punched well above its weight against Pyrhhus and beat him in the final battle and also strategically (thanks additionally to the fact he was an indecisive glory chasing ADHD retard.) Legionary discipline, training and high morale/motivation was also extremely high relative for its time. Their high manpower just afforded inexperienced fuckhead ego driven Roman commanders the privilege to get their legions routinely slaughtered which combined with an absolutist all or nothing mentality allowed Rome to keep on trucking. Same applies to much of their wars/history particularly during the Republic.
>>65607539They did both you dumb cunt. The Pilum was a javelin. The Hasta was a spear and for most of its units/history the legionary's primary weapon was the Gladius (where the real killing was done) not the Pilum which was either thrown or kept on purposely to counter enemy horses. The Romans cut phalangites and barbarian niggers to pieces thanks to their ever increasingly shortened and wide blade/long tipped stabbing sword having superior leverage and mobility in tight close quarter scrums which is exactly the kind of fight they wanted.
>>65606763Anybody else remember when the History channel wasn't just ayyliens and le nazis? I do.https://youtu.be/1xOepuz2hBo?t=880&si=A9JKtFX9byoxBjSe
>>65613939>like would 16th century tercio tactics have worked with greek phalanxes but with archery instead of handgunners? could small catapults have been used inNo because arquebus completely overmatches bow in range and power. You can't get same firepower with bow at all.>could small catapults have been used in the place of towed artillery?Same thing. Muscle powered stone throwers are extremely weak comparing to the cannons. Catapults are mostly Hollywood invention. They simply didn't exist and aren't possible.
>its units/history the legionary's primary weapon was the Gladius (The term legion was already used to describe the roman army during the Roman Kingdom. And it wasn't until ca 250 BC that the majority of legionaries used swords as their primary weapon. By 284 AD the spatha had replaces the gladius and legionaries used both spear and shields in melee combat again.
>>65614931So for the entire good period. Also what gives you the 250BC date?
>>65614883Magnesia isn't a very good example for legion superiority over the phalanx considering that the Seleucid right beat an entire allied legion with a cavalry charge and the Seleucid phalanx was able to disengage and form a giant square that was retiring from the battle until Roman and allied skirmishers made the Seleucid elephants in the square go amok. If anything all the credit goes to the Pergamene for defeating the Seleucid left, the Romans essentially didn't do anything of note. The Macedonian wars on the other hand...
>>65614924>Catapults are mostly Hollywood invention. They simply didn't exist and aren't possible.Here comes another random faggot claiming stuff that goes against every source and literal archeological finds with the authoritative tone of a schizo that read his first hoax science book.
>>65614924how are you this retarded. catapults absolutely existed. But field artillery was not really a thing until gunfire.
>>65613857>>65612677See pic related. Putting that aside, choosing this quote>they repel missiles which have carried OVER THE FRONT RANKS and might fall upon the heads of THOSE IN THE REARin response to someone saying>Yeah, I'm sure that really helped the completely unprotected first few ranksReally isn't beating those schizo allegations.
>>65614883You play up their successors and downplay their failures and the very ability to downplay their failures stems from the fact that they had the manpower reserve to survive those defeats which other states rarely had. >A nascent Rome punched well above its weight against Pyrhhus and beat him in the final battleAnd lost to him in two early battles yet survived because of their military structure allowed them to raise armies so cheaply and quickly. The same way the Romans could get trashed at the Bagradas River by a Phalanx system and yet it meant nothing because of the ability to absorb losses. The 'tactical flexibility' of the Roman field army shrines precisely because their tactical victories are frequently strategic victories due to their enemies inability to so easily recover from decisive victories. It was an advantage so extreme that it puts any debate about throwing spear vs long stabby spear to shame.
>>65613857>https://youtu.be/9U-q2sKU5G0Unless you're playing with semantics, for all practical purposes the spear didn't penetrate, the shield clearly stopped the spear. Sure, a small length went through but the rest of the spear didn't and it can't possibly harm the wielder. And that's under ideal circumstances, in real life no one can hold the shield that sturdily, even if they were bracing, and a sarissa is long and floppy, every replica I've seen has the sarissa noticeably bending under its own weight, it' certainly won't be able to replicate the level of force that short and stout spear was able to generate.>But it is a penetration, the words in my head says it isSorry, we're a weapons board here, words have a formal meaning. Much like we wouldn't call pic related a penetration, neither is your video. it didn't stab through, deal with it. Neither is your ludicrous cope valid about how if the shield took infinity stabs it would fall apart.
>>65616066>protectThat formation is setup so that as each line falls, the line behind it lowers their weapons and becomes the first line.
>>65606793>The Romans really advantage was that they had original xbox huge levels of manpower and a military system that allowed them to tap into that.That's how they got the Carthagians. They got raped CONSTANTLY, and then they just went home and raised another ten legions.
dude everyone used spears even unironicallyswords where used in charges.
>>65616066Arrows and javelins weren't capable of long range plunging fire like in videogames, and bows were also very underpowered before true composite bows came around. Most archery was done at extremely close ranges, especially before medieval times, so the front ranks would be mostly concerned with shots coming from the front, and for this, they wore heavy helmets and bronze shields, and then the reqr ranks would mostly be concerned with glancing shots. An enemy approaching to throw javelins would also have to get even closer, at which point the phalanx could actually run them down or pin them to be run down by cavalry or light infantry. The maximum thrown range of javelins wasn't long enough to give anyone comfortable standoff distance from an aggressive formation, you can try to do olympic style throwing but heavy anti armor javelins like Pilums have very short range anyway. Romans had pilums at Cynoscephalae and Pydna and even as far back as Heraclea and it didn't do much to stop phalanxes dead on. The Celts and even other Greeks also used javelins, especially the Celts who used them almost as much as Romans and got bodied by a Greek coalition at Thermopylae in 279BC, where the Greeks managed to negate the Celtic swords by simply not letting them get close enough to use them.>>65617114The thing you're missing is that it's also a test done perfectly calm. The phalanxes would be actively stabbing, pushing with their whole body and trying to find ways around the shields, especially under it at the legs or above to the face. The soldiers holding the shields against a real phalanx would also feel the instinctive urge to back away and psychologically it would be terribly difficult to just push on anyway. But we know they could and did pierce Roman shields and armor because the Romans themselves say they experienced heavy loses trying to assault them dead on in several battles and they only win by not actually charging the pikes.
