Thread: Roman Maniple vs. Macedonian Phalanx

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Then tell me how Xerxes cavalry won the day at Thermopalye.

Or how Queen Boadicea of Iceni's cavalry rode down the vastly outnumbered(30:1) Roman infantry at the battle of Mancetter.

Tell me about the glorious "charge of the Light Bde" and how it smashed through the Russian defenses at the Battle of Balaclava.

And hey, fill me in about Pickett's charge while you're at it too please.

And, oh...nevermind...

With respect to Queen Boadicea, there was Roman cavalry. The roman general exploited its cavalry to draw Queen's cavalry away from the infantry from a formation standpoint. When the infantry came down, the cavarly wasn't in proper formation and thus lost its tactical mobility. Besides, the majority of the Queen's army were ill trained and amauters, not comparable to any professional standing army or even a semi professional one. They had no order no discipline. ALl they relied on was their sheer numbers and sheer rage. Prior to that battle, they never faced an highly trained army on the battlefield. All the roman legions they defeated were in the midst of transit or victims of guile and sabotage. But when it came to a battlefield, the Queen's army were solely outmatched in nearly every respect except numerical superiority.

Charge of the LIght Brigade and the Pickeet's charge examples are not applicable to this discussion because it is about the ancient form of warfare, not the form of warfare where bullets and artillery are the mainstay. Before the advent of trenches and fences, cavalry did rule the battlefield. I mean witness Stuart's cavalry raids and the Battles of Manassas Run. The confederates used their cavalry to great effect and overran the Union infantry.

With Xerxes, I don't think that's a fair analogy because it wasn't really on a battlefield. It was on a narrow pass, very confining. Still, Xerxes made a lot of mistake with the cavarly that I wouldn't do.

Boutica and the battle of Manceter:

From the writings of the Historians Tacitus and Dio:

"On the British side, cavalry and infantry bands seethed over a wide area. Their numbers were unprecedented [Dio puts the figure at 230,000, which clearly is an exaggeration], and they had confidently brought their wives to see the victory, installing them in carts stationed at the edge of the battlefield."

With her daughters in front of her, Boudica drove her chariot among the tribes, shouting encouragement, as the assembled Britons, compressed in the defile, struggled to come onto open ground. The Romans waited, hurled their javelins, and then shouldered their way forward in wedge formation, hacking their way through the throng. Dio describes the battle.

"Thereupon the armies approached each other, the barbarians with much shouting mingled with menacing battle-songs, but the Romans silently and in order until they came within a javelin's throw of the enemy. Then, while their foes were still advancing against them at a walk, the Romans rushed forward at a signal and charged them at full speed, and when the clash came, easily broke through the opposing ranks.

The British chariots scattered the Roman archers, but then, without the protection of breastplates, were driven back by a volley of arrows. The shock of the <Roman> javelins, followed by the charge of the INFANTRY, routed the Britons, whose escape was impeded by the wagons and dead animals in the rear that now blocked their retreat. The battle became a massacre; even the women, says Tacitus, were not spared. "It was a glorious victory, comparable with bygone triumphs. According to one report almost eighty thousand Britons fell. Our own casualties were about four hundred dead and a slightly larger number of wounded. Boudica poisoned herself."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/...canrevolt.html
References: The Rebellion of Boudicca (1962) by Donald R. Dudley and Graham Webster; The Boudican Revolt Against Rome (1997) by Paul R. Sealey; Boudica: The British Revolt Against Rome, AD 60 (1978) by Graham Webster; The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain (1993) by Peter Salway; Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (1987) by Sheppard Frere; Book of Roman Britain (1995) by Martin Millett (English Heritage); The Fasti of Roman Britain (1981) by Anthony R. Birley; The Tain: Translated from the Irish Epic Tain Bo Cuailnge (1970) translated by Thomas Kinsella; Celtic Art (1985) by I. M. Stead; Roman Britain (1997) by T. W. Potter. The Brigantes (1988) by B. R. Hartley and R. Leon Fitts; The Catuvellauni (1985) by Keith Branigan; The Trinovantes (1975) by Rosalind Dunnett; The Oxford Classical Dictionary (1996) edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth; Celts: Europe's People of Iron (1994) by the Editors of Time-Life Books. Two popular accounts are The Warrior Queens (1988) by Antonia Fraser, who provides a feminist perspective, and In Search of the Dark Ages (1987) by Michael Wood. Tacitus: The Histories (1975) translated by Kenneth Wellesley (Penguin Classics); Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome (1959) translated by Michael Grant (Penguin Classics); Dio Cassius: Roman History (1925) translated by Earnest Cary (Loeb Classical Library); Tacitus: On Britain and Germany (1948) translated by H. Mattingly (Penguin Classics); Caesar: The Conquest of Gaul (1982) translated by S. A. Handford (Penguin Classics); Plutarch: Fall of the Roman Republic (1972) translated by Rex Warner (Penguin Classics).

Well dude, that's the historical record with mindnumbing referencing.
It completely contradicts your interpretation of the battle of Mancetter.

Boudica's army was crushed by INFANTRY.

-----------------------------

Battle of Thermopalye:

Cavalry was irrelevant. Utterly.

And yes, it counts. It was a battle, they fought on a battlefield. Cavalry was there and was of absolutely ZERO use whatsoever.

----------------------------

Light Bde/Pickett's charge:

Since i posted the thread to begin with i think it should be up to me to define the parameters of the discussion, don't you?

The gunpowder era is very much relevant because muskets and later rifles became the archers of the day.

So one could say that it was archers that made cavalry obsolete(a situation which has since been undone due to the introduction of armored vehicles).

At any rate, Cavalry is a supporting arm. Yes, it is often a decisive force, and on occasion even THE decisive force, but it is a supporting arm notheless, and it is not needed to achieve victory if one is choosing the battlefield. or if one has massed archers or riflemen/muskateers, or even massed pikeman.

Classical cavalry was highly vulnerable, lightly armored, and a logistical burden.

What it gives you is mobility to explit openings CREATED by your infantry forces and a good screening/reconnaissance force. Cavalry is best exemplified by the hammer and angle or pincers attack, sealing off the enemy rear to prevent escape while the INFANTRY destroys the enemy force trapped before them.

Friggin' amatuers...

Then explain Mongol tactics. They were entirely cavalry and even had lighter protection than their enemies and yet they completely routed their enemies despite being outnumbered. They had very little infantry to speak of.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Friggin' amatuers...

frigging selective memories....

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Then explain Mongol tactics. They were entirely cavalry and even had lighter protection than their enemies and yet they completely routed their enemies despite being outnumbered. They had very little infantry to speak of.



frigging selective memories....

If you have no infantry than Cavalry HAS to be your focus, does't it?

I seem to remember the Mongols to be mounted ARCHERS primarilly. And odds are, it was they that normally picked the ground where they'd fight.

In a wood they'd be at a terrible disadvantadge to an infantry force, or in a narrow pass or valley, etc, etc, etc...except that they'd stand back and shoot the infantry force to pieces. So the infantry would need their own archers as well.

All the forces intertwine to support. The. Infantry.

I'll leave the Mongols to the Good Colonel at any rate. He knows a lot more about them than me. I'd be interested to get his take on this issue anyway.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Then explain Mongol tactics. They were entirely cavalry and even had lighter protection than their enemies and yet they completely routed their enemies despite being outnumbered. They had very little infantry to speak of.

Contrary to popular belief, the Mongols did in fact had infantry, at times, even heavy infantry, especially during the latter part of their reign. In the beginning of their march, they were, however, mounted infantry and dismounted for a ground fight when the need arise.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Contrary to popular belief, the Mongols did in fact had infantry, at times, even heavy infantry, especially during the latter part of their reign. In the beginning of their march, they were, however, mounted infantry and dismounted for a ground fight when the need arise.

Thanx much sir.

Appreciate the information. For whatever reason, i've just never been much interested in the Mongols.