pothos.org

It's good to hear that someone is a bit of an experimental historian- it would be good if you can make sure you have some men acting as the opposing maniples- despite the quality of the phalanx the maniples would still have to in large deal with the wall of spear tips and according to history still hold their line overall despite their short weapons.I feel incline to agree with the degradation of phalanx and factors leading to the outcomes of the historical battles mentioned however I am more interested in how the maniple can physically maintain its formation and deal with that wall of spear tips. It would be good if someone can act it out can see how it actually worked- the spear tips could easily slip between the shields of the Romans whilst the bulk of the Romans would be unable to retaliate with their short swords. History still maintained the Romans were still able to by and large hold the line and not get routed...and later exploit the imperfections of the phalanx and win the day.....

I think that 50 guys is all we are going to be able to muster. The Sarissa were originally used for a Japanese documentry film patly in Armidale under Minor Markle's direction. There was really no drilling officially done and there were problems encountered by students with the weight f the weapon. Thats why we are using the straps this time to simulate the neck strap used by the Macedonians. As far as the maniples go I think it was inevitable that the Roman would eventually figure out some way to beat the Macedonians just as they figured out how to beat most of the known world.One way would have been to use enveloping maneuvre just as Hannibal had used against them at Cannae. Without cavalry support the Phalanx was extremely vunerable. The length of sarissa by 168Bc were probably extented by one hellenic army to try for some extended reach over another hellenic army. Further to my enveloping theory I just want to add that the Roman could break the Phalanx by concerntrating pilum, arrow and artilery fire on one section whilst feigning retreat, a tactic used by Philip the II to great effect at Chaeronaea.I think it was a foregone conclussion that the Phalanx was destine to die. The Roman alas were just too damn good. And too stuborn.Dj

The individual phalangytes were ordered and disciplined never to break ranks and to hold that sarissa at all costs. To drop your sarrisa and defend yourself was cowardice...a tough spot to be in for any soldier. After this victory, the greeks went over to the enemy en masse. That has been the bane of the Greek polis from day one.
later Nicator

The source is Plutarch's life of Aemilius Paullus

Concerning the later phalanx; one might distiguish between the professionals of the Achaean League ,Macedonia ,Kleomenes III etc and later forces such as the polyglot Eastern rabble of Mithradates Eupator (although he still had his victories). That the later phalanx lost to the Romans has much more to do with their system than the phalanx's. Polybios tells us that the Romans formed on a six-foot frontage twice that of the phalanx in normal order; this alllows room for manoeuvre. the phalangites' pikes protruded from the fourth rank but the heads would be staggered as contrary to myth they were all the same length thus a Maniple faced one frontrank pike every twelve feet/ six if in syapsismos to loose order swordsmen this is not an impenetrable hedge; perhaps Dave can enlighten us on the feasability of thrusting with a sarissa, since otherwise the weapon will rely on forward motion to acheive any effect and in the later battles the terrain nullified this and indeed fragmented the formation allowing the Romans to infiltrate.Alexander never faced an enemy with the will power or organisation of the Romans; in this he was lucky

All tests so far have shown that it is almost impossible even with the lighter weight mock up units to thrust. The first re enactment used 50 uni students who had difficulty keeping it up. The sarissa that is (pun intended). Alexander as you know did not alway use the sarissa anyway and very few battles were decided by his infantry.I have photos of the sarissa re enactment if you want some for your info.

Hello Karl,Not that I want to get into an argument concerning who was better, the Romans or Alexander, but I would say it was the Romans who were lucky not to have been faced with an opponent as willful as Alexander. He was relentless in drive, reckless in his daring, masterful in skill, brilliant in battle, and fast as lightning to victory. As the Romans did not use cavalry, they would be at a grave speed disadvantage, and speed kills! Running right through them and on to Rome itself to change history...later Nicator

HiI have to congratulate Sam on the selection of the topic. Ancient warfare has alway beeing an inspiring field. Here is what i read:From the early years the macedonian phalanx was supposed to work like the anvil and mainly the canalry along with other units were the hammer to crush the enemy on the macedonian phalanx. Each line had a role: the front rows pierced the enemy, the middle rows were turning their sarrissas in small circles to protect the front rows from objects thrown by the enemy(arrows, stones ecc) the last rows were holding their sarissas up and appart their reinforcing role, they protected the whole phalanx from catapulted objects. The disadvantage of the phalanx was that if the line was broken and the enemy entered the lines the phalangites had difficult time defending themselves with the small sword and shield they were holding, they were loosing their contact with the rest of the phalanx exposing the sides.
On the contrary the Romans had smaller phalanx, bigger shields (covering the whole body) and when they were in march formation they formed the famous "Turtle" with a front and side rows and a top cover of shields, thus making it quite difficult to be pushed back. For the Romans the phalanx was attacking tool while for the Macedonians was the tool to crush their opponents uppon.

Must agree here. The phalanx cannot be considered as a stand alone fighting unit since it was so vulnerable. Any significant length to the Sarissa means lack of manueverability which means holding formation. Protecting it's own flanks is nearly impossible. The only way for the phalanx to be effective is either when used in conjuction with cavalry or alone against another phalanx. The Phalanx by itself has no defense against the Roman pilum.