Interesting chapter from a book I've just stumbled across this morning (online).
https://zoboko.com/text/lmpg1y9r/an-invincible-beast-understanding-the-hellenistic-pike-phalanx-in-action/18
its a great book and goes into a lot of detail on the mechanics of combat
I have just read that - seems to be well thought through if a bit hacked about in edit. I don't use pikemen much but how does this fit with the idea of a wedge formation or is that wrong. Do most rulesets agree with high defence and low kill values for pikes as this suggests?
I've just downloaded the pdf and the formatting is preserved properly therein.
I'm only just starting to read it myself but so far it's well written and argued.
I suggest that the author should give more emphasis to the logic tgat aiming at the body is almost certain to hit unless deflected by the shield, whereas aiming at the head would be much more likely to miss and if a head strike dies miss tge pije could become uselessly stuck over the opponent's shoulder. It would be very difficult to hit a small target withha pole that projected fifteen feet ahead of tge pikeman.
Also , did someone not mention on this forum that the wounds that so terrified Philip's men were made by cavalry swords and not the gladius?
Roy
Quote from: aligern on October 10, 2022, 12:17:58 PMAlso , did someone not mention on this forum that the wounds that so terrified Philip's men were made by cavalry swords and not the gladius?
There is no reason to believe that at this date the Roman cavalry used a different sword from the gladius hispaniensis.
OK well I don't know specifically in the case of Zoboko.com if it is a legitimate site or not, but generally speaking, any site that offers free downloads of in-print and for sale books is engaging in theft, as is anyone downloading such books. Down with that sort of thing.
If Zoboko is legit then of course that's different, though you can get electronic versions of An Invincible Beast for under a fiver from guaranteed legitimate sources such as the publisher (https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/An-Invincible-Beast-Paperback/p/20585).
As to the value of the chapter, Matthew does go into a lot of the reenactment and experimental stuff (which other books don't do), the value of which is IMHO doubtful (in this case), but many people like it.
It's most likely illegit - will put book on xmas list to rectify my fault!
Ive got the ebook and the hard back :)
Quote from: Wien1938 on October 10, 2022, 12:38:24 PM
It's most likely illegit - will put book on xmas list to rectify my fault!
Very decent of you! :)
Quote from: RichT on October 10, 2022, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: Wien1938 on October 10, 2022, 12:38:24 PM
It's most likely illegit - will put book on xmas list to rectify my fault!
Very decent of you! :)
Five pdfs later... I hope Pen & Sword appreciate you, Rich! 😁
Quote from: Wien1938 on October 10, 2022, 03:20:14 PM
Five pdfs later... I hope Pen & Sword appreciate you, Rich! 😁
I hope Rich's own books are included among those five!
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 10, 2022, 04:13:14 PM
Quote from: Wien1938 on October 10, 2022, 03:20:14 PM
Five pdfs later... I hope Pen & Sword appreciate you, Rich! 😁
I hope Rich's own books are included among those five!
No, I have his two in hardback - read them last year.
Hhh Duncan, is therecany reason to believe that the Roman cavalry who had previously carried long swords had converted to an infantry length hispaniensis?
To quote tge late Patrick Waterson in 2014.
Well ... in Dionysius VIII.67.5 the Roman cavalry of the 5th/4th century BC carry 'xiphesi makroterois' (long swords), and as we assume that Roman infantry had rearmed with the gladius Hispaniensis by the time of the war against Macedon we might with some justification assume that the cavalry had, too.
Whether the cavalry's gladius Hispaniensis was identical to that of the infantry is another question, which I should not care to attempt to answer. Livy does however explicitly use the term for the Roman cavalry's swords, so the prima facie interpretation would have them the same.
Did tge Roman cavalry re arm? If so, being a cavalry that largely fought Celts why adopt a shorter sword?
Roy
It depends what one means by "long". According to AMPW, some of the earlier Roman swords were 27.5 inches in length, though weighted for thrusting attacks. I've always been a little sceptical of the Livy passage about the horror evoked in the Macedonians at the sight of their dead, eviscerated by the Romans in combat, since the prime Greek sword for cavalry seems to be the kopis which itself is attested as slicing limbs off etc.
Personally, I think it quite reasonable to assume that the gladius hispaniensis was in use by the Roman cavalry of the period (early 2nd C).
A shorter sword makes no sense for cavalry
Quote from: Holly on October 10, 2022, 06:22:33 PM
A shorter sword makes no sense for cavalry
And yet, Alexander's cavalry carried and fought with what we would have thought of as short swords.
Good piece here (https://www.academia.edu/8989188/The_Battle_Scene_on_Aemilius_Paulluss_Pydna_Monument_A_Reevaluation) on the Aemilius Paulus monument.
The Dionysios passage suggests that the 5th-century cavalry swords were longer than the infantry swords then in use. Assuming this is true (and not Dionysios making anachronistic assumptions based on 1st century BC cavalry spathae), remember that the gladius hispaniensis is itself longer than earlier infantry swords, so a universal change to such swords may not have meant any change in length for the cavalry.
Although slightly off topic. I could qualify the Statement by adding that a shorter pointed sword primarily used for thrusting makes no sense for cavalry
I think one can get too hung up on cavalry swords having to be long:
a) ancient horses are typically quite small, so not quite the same thing as a Napoleonic heavy cavalryman astride his mighty charger when it comes to reaching down;
b) the sword is not the primary weapon of most ancient cavalry, who either have a long pointy stick or two, or a bow;
c) Roman cavalry as late as Cannae are said to dismount in action quite frequently anyway;
d) the short akinakes suited the Persians and Scythians, far better cavalry than the Romans, quite well. Ditto the short axes also often favoured by nomadic types.
I am not saying that, all things being equal, a longer sword is not a good idea, but it may not have been a high priority, save perhaps for cataphracts who are probably on bigger horses anyway, and may have less mobility in the saddle.
good points (see what I did there). The main method of use from horseback is either an overarm or underarm slash so yes the sword length is important but not exclusively so.
Please read the section where Mathew adduces the sharp Roman swords as evidence and see what you think. I wondered if he had attributed the savage wounds to infantry.
Roy
I don't think Matthew commits to the users of the swords being infantry or cavalry, and I don't think it matters either way to his argument.
"Livy describes the horror experienced by Philip V and his army upon seeing the wounds inflicted by the gladius for the first time... This then suggests that the Greeks, and probably the Macedonians as well, did not regularly target an area of the body, or strike it to a depth, which would cause such injuries." (Matthew pp. 204-5).
Matthew's argument is that Macedonians and Greeks were used to relatively minor (at least visually) penetration wounds, not deep slashing or cutting wounds. (While that argument can't really be faulted since it is what Livy says, I find the general thrust of this chapter unconvincing). Livy's comment comes in a section where the Macedonians are surprised and taken aback repeatedly by Roman excellence (cutting swords! neat camps! fierce cavalry! well-equipped light infantry!), the historical basis of which might well be real, but does read (to me) a little rhetorically embellished.
For those who can't be bothered going to Perseus, the relevant passages:
"Philip, it is true, saw that everything round about was in confusion and that the people were greatly terrified, but not knowing in which direction the consul had marched, he sent a squadron of cavalry to ascertain where the enemy had gone. The consul was equally at a loss; he knew that the king had left his winter quarters, though ignorant of the region to which he had marched. He too sent out cavalry to scout. These two cavalry forces, coming from different directions, after they had wandered long and aimlessly over the roads in the land of the Dassaretii, finally met on the same highway. Neither was unaware, since they heard the sound of men and horses from far off, that the enemy was approaching. So, before they came in sight of one another, they had prepared horses and arms for battle, nor was there any delay in charging as soon5 as the enemy came in sight. Not unequal, as it chanced, in either numbers or courage, since both consisted of picked men, they fought on equal terms for some hours. The weariness of men and horses ended the struggle without a decision in favour of either party. Of the Macedonians, forty troopers fell; of the Romans, thirty-five."
Livy 31.33.7-10
"Philip, thinking that he would do something to secure the affection of his people and increase their readiness to encounter danger on his behalf if he undertook the burial of the cavalrymen who had fallen on the expedition, ordered their bodies brought into camp, that the funeral honour might be seen by all. Nothing is so uncertain or so unpredictable as the mental reaction of a crowd. What he thought would make them more ready to enter any conflict caused, instead, reluctance and fear; for men who had seen the wounds dealt by javelins and arrows and occasionally by lances [lanceis], since they were used to fighting with the Greeks and Illyrians, when they had seen bodies chopped to pieces by the Spanish sword [gladio Hispaniensi], arms torn away, shoulders and all, or heads separated from bodies, with the necks completely severed, or vitals laid open, and the other fearful wounds, realized in a general panic with what weapons and what men they had to fight."
Livy 31.34.1-4
The note to the Sage 1935 translation (on Perseus) says for 'gladio Hispaniensi': "The long and heavy sabre, adapted to slashing blows, carried by Roman cavalry: cf. Dion. Hal. VIII. 67. The short infantry weapon, used for both cutting and thrusting, was called gladius Hispanus in XXII. xlvi. 5"
"The Gauls and the Spaniards had shields of almost the same shape; their swords were different in use and in appearance, those of the Gauls being very long and pointless, whilst the Spaniards, who attacked as a rule more by thrusting than by striking, had pointed ones that were short and handy."
Livy 22.46.5
So Sage seems to make a distinction between a 'gladius Hispaniensis' (a long cutting cavalry sword) and a 'Gladius Hispanus' (a short thrusting infantry sword). I don't think this is a sound distinction at all.
Polybius says:
"With the shield they also carry a sword [machaira] hanging down by their right thigh, which is called a Spanish [Iberiken] sword. It has an excellent point, and can deal a formidable blow with either edge, because its blade is stout and unbending."
Pol. 6.23
The Dionysius passage - which applies to some time in the 5th Century, so the relevance of which is at best doubtful - is:
"Accordingly, the legionaries of the two armies [Romans and Volscians] continued fighting the greater part of the day with equal success; and the unevenness of the terrain afforded each side many advantages against the other. The Roman horsemen having divided themselves into two bodies, one of these attacked the enemy's right wing in flank, while the other, going round the hill, stormed across it against their rear. Thereupon some of them hurled their spears at the Volscians, and others with their cavalry swords, which are longer than those of the infantry [τοῖς ἱππικοῖς ξίφεσι μακροτέροις], struck all whom they encountered on the arms and slashed them down to the elbows, cutting off the forearms of many together with the clothing that covered them and their weapons of defence, and by inflicting deep wounds on the knees and ankles of many others, hurled them, no matter how firmly they had stood, half dead upon the ground."
Dion. Hal. Rom. Ant. 8.67.4-5
τοῖς ἱππικοῖς ξίφεσι μακροτέροις - tois hippikois xiphesi makroterois - 'bigger cavalry swords'
I don't think any especially firm conclusions can be drawn from these passages about Roman cavalry swords. The implication of Livy 31.34 to me is that they used (in the early 2nd C) the same Spanish sword as the infantry, but who knows? Not I, that's for sure.
Interesting stuff on cavalry swords, but what about the sarissa? What is the earliest evidence for their use?
Quote from: Keraunos on August 15, 2023, 09:19:18 AMInteresting stuff on cavalry swords, but what about the sarissa? What is the earliest evidence for their use?
If we assume by sarissa you mean the long Macedonian pike then the usual answer, and one I think Richard also refers to in his book, is that longer spears had been experimented with, notably by the Thebans under Epaminondas - Philip II was a hostage at Thebes for a while. It is then Phillip who really takes this on gets his professional soldiers armed with them and then drills them in their use so as to be the effective fighting force they became. For more do read Richard's excellent 'Macedonian Phalanx'.
Ditto re the book recommendation
Quote from: Ian61 on August 15, 2023, 12:59:25 PMIf we assume by sarissa you mean the long Macedonian pike then the usual answer, and one I think Richard also refers to in his book, is that longer spears had been experimented with, notably by the Thebans under Epaminondas - Philip II was a hostage at Thebes for a while. It is then Phillip who really takes this on gets his professional soldiers armed with them and then drills them in their use so as to be the effective fighting force they became. For more do read Richard's excellent 'Macedonian Phalanx'.
I don't think that it is "the usual answer" that the Thebans had experimented with long spears. As far as I can see there is no evidence for this at all, and it is very much a minority view.
What is closer to "the usual answer" is that Philip may have been inspired by the "Iphicratean reform", if that is Iphicrates of Athens really
did equip his peltasts with longer-than-usual spears, as Diodoros and Nepos suggest.
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 15, 2023, 02:45:10 PMQuote from: Ian61 on August 15, 2023, 12:59:25 PMIf we assume by sarissa you mean the long Macedonian pike then the usual answer, and one I think Richard also refers to in his book, is that longer spears had been experimented with, notably by the Thebans under Epaminondas - Philip II was a hostage at Thebes for a while. It is then Phillip who really takes this on gets his professional soldiers armed with them and then drills them in their use so as to be the effective fighting force they became. For more do read Richard's excellent 'Macedonian Phalanx'.
I don't think that it is "the usual answer" that the Thebans had experimented with long spears. As far as I can see there is no evidence for this at all, and it is very much a minority view.
What is closer to "the usual answer" is that Philip may have been inspired by the "Iphicratean reform", if that is Iphicrates of Athens really did equip his peltasts with longer-than-usual spears, as Diodoros and Nepos suggest.
I stand corrected. Guilty of mixing up who Philip was taking the ideas from for what.