Hmmm..good insights.
Here's a followup. If Rome's tactics were able to make the phalance obsolete (they had large, curved shields and a "decentralized" or "individualistic/loose" formation fighting style, allowing them to slip in between the pikes and stabby them) what stopped other European nations from doing the same thing later on and rendering swiss pike squares obsolete?
Sure the pike squares had cavalry and ranged troops to support the squares, but so did the greeks to an extent. What do you think?
Did I say anywhere I do believe in any of it? I am interested in such stuff and able to make my own thoughts unlike you small minded people. :mrgreen:The normal person made his own thoughts on such ludicrous claims already. Even finding such a read just worth the time to look at it suggests a rather strange disposition, let alone mentioning it in a serious historical debate. (Though the premise sounds at least entertaining to read. Like, the way an animal tripping it's own tail is entertaining. :lol:)
So the real question would be "why didn't the romans use sarissae to complement their way of fighting". Especially against the parthian cavalry or the likes...
The normal person made his own thoughts on such ludicrous claims already. Even finding such a read just worth the time to look at it suggests a rather strange disposition, let alone mentioning it in a serious historical debate. (Though the premise sounds at least entertaining to read. Like, the way an animal tripping it's own tail is entertaining. :lol:)
Awesome textAnd how did shielders fare against a pikewall? Or heavily armored footmen? In my imagination, hurting these with a pike must have been difficult... but i must be wrong here. Could you explain?
And how did shielders fare against a pikewall? Or heavily armored footmen? In my imagination, hurting these with a pike must have been difficult... but i must be wrong here. Could you explain?
Necron stop copying texts you obviously didn't write yourself and if you do just paste the link.
(click to show/hide)
The normal person made his own thoughts on such ludicrous claims already.Indeed, because the "normal person" has the intelligence of a cucumber. In fact, they don't make up their mind regarding stuff like that. Their mind is made up for them: if it gets taught in school, it's fact. If it didn't, it's not. Going against what you were told in school is at best silly; at worst, lunacy. Same applies for the media, really. If you saw it on the telly, it's gospel. Critical thinking and using logic is something most people can't comprehend.
Hey man you don't believe I wrote a post in a forum on the internet cool man. That's your right. Why it matters I don't "get" but do you have a counter point to my posts? If so let's get this back on track.
Indeed, because the "normal person" has the intelligence of a cucumber.You're quite the example, I might say.
...
Critical thinking and using logic is something most people can't comprehend.
You know it's a common rule to write down the reference of a copied text you didn't write yourself? or at least qoute it? If it's easier to leave the references out doesn't matter at all. Copying text from other people and acting as if you wrote it yourself is just a bad way of posting.That list IS impressive. I wonder wether necron is actually a certain german ex-minister of defence...
Hey man you don't believe I wrote a post in a forum on the internet cool man. That's your right. Why it matters I don't "get" but do you have a counter point to my posts? If so let's get this back on track.
(click to show/hide)
well I, for one, knew this was copied/pasted from another work.
It is polite practice to cite your source though, very true.
Cavalry suddenly became the dominant force on the battlefield, so there needed to be a quick, cost effective way of countering them, without years of training. Phalanxes would not have been much use against the catapults and heavy infantry of the Romans, and once they were wiped out, spearmen became that much more useful.
From what I've read the phalanx formation was vulnerable to being flanked or hit from behind. It was a very "forward" oriented fighting formation. If it had cavalry or some other lighter/more mobile infantry on the flanks it was less vulnerable.
Spear and shield classes of fighters were still very common up through the end of the middle ages, just not necessarily in the phalanx formation.
While Eumenes' camp was being plundered and his left flank dissolving into rout, the Argyraspides advanced on Antigonus' phalangites. Completely smashing them, the Argyraspides routed Antigonus' entire phalanx killing five thousand men without a single loss. Eumenes ordered Peucestas to go back into combat with his cavalry and pursue the advantage, but the latter refused to move. Seeing this, Antigonus then ordered his light horse under Peithon, just finished plundering Eumenes' camp to attack the Argyraspides in their rear. However, the Argyraspides were not ordinary soldiers, instead of panicking and fleeing, they calmly formed a large square and safely marched off the field.
Those guys were veterans of all of Alexander's campaigns though, like the wiki page says they weren't "ordinary" soldiers. They were fighting against brand new levies from Macedon that had almost never seen battle, certainly not the ammount that they had.