The discussion of shooting formation depth on the Longbow thread brought up (well, I brought it up) the topic of light troop formations in the hellenistic manuals.
Question: they talk about insertion of files of LI between files of HI. I can understand placing lights in front of, behind and on either side of a heavy infantry line, but why insert them within the heavies? My theory: it protected them from cavalry. Comments?
I think it depends on what we mean about light troops within the heavies.
Are sparabara a formation of light archers protected from a harsh and uncaring world by a screen of heavy infantry?
Tyrtaeus speaks of light armed who might or might not be within a 'heavy infantry' formation
Archers shooting from behind hoplite shields are common in Archaic art, and van Wees' theory on the evolution of the early hoplite phalanx suggests that light infantry were intermixed among the heavies until a relatively late date (he might even argue until the early 5th century). This is at a period when there isn't much of a cavalry threat in Greece. Perhaps it is because there is no effective control method for indirect shooting, so you need to put your archers in the front rank, protected by a hoplite's shield from return fire.
Quote from: Tyrtaeus"You, light-armed men, as you
crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw
huge rocks and hurl your smooth javelins at them,
standing close to those in full armour."
Despite the manuals, I'm not convinced it was done much if at all in the Hellenistic period - I can't offhand think of any examples.
Lights are mixed in with dismounted knights and fyrd at Northallerton in the early 12th century. This is aimed at getting in shots at unarmoured Strathclyders who are charging the Anglo- Norman foot . This does indeed protect the archers, otherwise they wouldbe a weak unit in the battl line. Importantly it enables the Anglo Normans to sting the Scots as they advance .
At Jaffa, Richard I intermingles spears and crossbowmen tio keep an army of enemy horsebowmen at a distance.
Roy
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 22, 2018, 09:08:23 AM
Question: they talk about insertion of files of LI between files of HI. I can understand placing lights in front of, behind and on either side of a heavy infantry line, but why insert them within the heavies? My theory: it protected them from cavalry. Comments?
Answering a question with a question: is this
deployment of light troops between files of heavies, or
movement of light troops between files of heavies? If one has light troops in front of one's lines and wishes to get them out of the way for the heavy infantry fight, slipping them through between the files of heavy infantry is the easy and logical way to extract them.
So is it rest or motion the manual is describing? (Not having a copy to hand.)
We should also remember recent discussions elsewhere of Burgundian armies mixing pikes and archers. We have the training of ordonnance companies in 1473, which places pikemen in front of the archers and outside of them if drawn up in a circular anti-cavalry formation. We also have Waurin's description of militia pikes in 1471
From each castellany [came] one or two men-at-arms to lead these pikemen, every ten of whom had a disenier whom they obeyed. These pikes make very convenient poles for placing a spike between two archers against the terrifying efforts Of cavalry trying to break their ranks, for there is no horse which, if struck with a pike in the chest, will not unfailingly die.
Note in passing the command structure - something we looked in vain for in our longbow discussions.
Finally, we can note the muster at Lausanne in May 1476, where the pikemen are in units with the crossbowmen and handgunners, rather than the archers.
In both Roy's and these examples, the intermixing is an anti-cavalry measure. Whether this has any bearing on Hellenistic reasoning is unclear.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 28, 2018, 08:17:15 AMAnswering a question with a question: is this deployment of light troops between files of heavies, or movement of light troops between files of heavies?
Deployment:
Quote from: AsclepiodotusThe light infantry and targeteers will be stationed by the general as the situation demands, sometimes before the line of battle, sometimes behind it, and on other occasions now on the right flank and again on the left; the first is called van‑position (protaxis), the second rear-position (hypotaxis), and the third flank-position (prosentaxis). Sometimes they are incorporated in the phalanx and stationed one beside each man; and this is called insert-position (parentaxis), because there is an insertion of different branches of the service, e.g., light infantry with hoplites;
from Asclepiodotus online at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Asclepiodotus/6*.html
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 22, 2018, 09:28:04 AM
Archers shooting from behind hoplite shields are common in Archaic art, and van Wees' theory on the evolution of the early hoplite phalanx suggests that light infantry were intermixed among the heavies until a relatively late date (he might even argue until the early 5th century). This is at a period when there isn't much of a cavalry threat in Greece. Perhaps it is because there is no effective control method for indirect shooting, so you need to put your archers in the front rank, protected by a hoplite's shield from return fire.
Quote from: Tyrtaeus"You, light-armed men, as you
crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw
huge rocks and hurl your smooth javelins at them,
standing close to those in full armour."
Despite the manuals, I'm not convinced it was done much if at all in the Hellenistic period - I can't offhand think of any examples.
That poem appears to refer to a period when armies were in a much looser grouping, something like Papua-New Guinean tribal warfare (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4) (this is the only authentic video of skirmisher vs skirmisher combat I know of). But I imagine that if it was incorporated into regular phalanxes with ranks and files then we are talking about a later period as well.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 28, 2018, 09:50:45 AM
Deployment:
Quote from: AsclepiodotusThe light infantry and targeteers will be stationed by the general as the situation demands, sometimes before the line of battle, sometimes behind it, and on other occasions now on the right flank and again on the left; the first is called van‑position (protaxis), the second rear-position (hypotaxis), and the third flank-position (prosentaxis). Sometimes they are incorporated in the phalanx and stationed one beside each man; and this is called insert-position (parentaxis), because there is an insertion of different branches of the service, e.g., light infantry with hoplites;
from Asclepiodotus online at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Asclepiodotus/6*.html
Thanks, Duncan.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 28, 2018, 09:46:39 AM
We should also remember recent discussions elsewhere of Burgundian armies mixing pikes and archers. We have the training of ordonnance companies in 1473, which places pikemen in front of the archers and outside of them if drawn up in a circular anti-cavalry formation. We also have Waurin's description of militia pikes in 1471
From each castellany [came] one or two men-at-arms to lead these pikemen, every ten of whom had a disenier whom they obeyed. These pikes make very convenient poles for placing a spike between two archers against the terrifying efforts Of cavalry trying to break their ranks, for there is no horse which, if struck with a pike in the chest, will not unfailingly die.
Note in passing the command structure - something we looked in vain for in our longbow discussions.
Interesting; thanks, Anthony.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 28, 2018, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Tyrtaeus"You, light-armed men, as you
crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw
huge rocks and hurl your smooth javelins at them,
standing close to those in full armour."
That poem appears to refer to a period when armies were in a much looser grouping, something like Papua-New Guinean tribal warfare (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4) (this is the only authentic video of skirmisher vs skirmisher combat I know of). But I imagine that if it was incorporated into regular phalanxes with ranks and files then we are talking about a later period as well.
I think this analogy is a mistake. There is a big difference between the tactics we would expect from unarmed and shield-less men like those in the video and men with large shields and extensive armor. Once you have a big shield and armor it makes much more sense to stand behind your shield under a missile barriage, as Persian Sparrabarra do, than to scamper around and rely on nimbleness to avoid missiles. An outgrowth of this is that men with shields and armor will want to stand beside other men with armor in order to cut down the possible angles of incoming missiles. Sticking archers literally between men puts men without shields in the front line, leaving them defenseless because they cannot scamper around and opens avenues of attack on the two adjacent shield-bearers. The logical next step is for an archer to stand behind a man with a shield and shoot over him. This is pedantic I know, but you would be surprised how many do not get it. If we give our army of heavies and lights this simple rule, we spontaneously get a shield-wall with archers stationed behind and shooting over top. This is what I believe Tyrtaeus is describing above and also the way I would describe later Saxon shield walls. Archaic hoplites would have been a mix of heavy and light, but not Van Wees "motley crowd". This also shows why the lights later get shoved to the wings. Deeper ranks make it harder to shoot over and the tactic of charging through missile range negates a role of missile shooting over top.
As for missile troops between files, I could imagine a phalanx of sarissaphoroi attempting to ward off enemy lights by moving archers up between files- but don't try it with slingers! As Alexander's proposed mixed phalanx showed, you cannot shoot arrows over more than a few ranks of sarissa.
Quote from: PMBardunias on July 13, 2018, 04:43:05 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 28, 2018, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Tyrtaeus"You, light-armed men, as you
crouch beneath a shield on either side, throw
huge rocks and hurl your smooth javelins at them,
standing close to those in full armour."
That poem appears to refer to a period when armies were in a much looser grouping, something like Papua-New Guinean tribal warfare (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4) (this is the only authentic video of skirmisher vs skirmisher combat I know of). But I imagine that if it was incorporated into regular phalanxes with ranks and files then we are talking about a later period as well.
I think this analogy is a mistake. There is a big difference between the tactics we would expect from unarmed and shield-less men like those in the video and men with large shields and extensive armor. Once you have a big shield and armor it makes much more sense to stand behind your shield under a missile barriage, as Persian Sparrabarra do, than to scamper around and rely on nimbleness to avoid missiles. An outgrowth of this is that men with shields and armor will want to stand beside other men with armor in order to cut down the possible angles of incoming missiles. Sticking archers literally between men puts men without shields in the front line, leaving them defenseless because they cannot scamper around and opens avenues of attack on the two adjacent shield-bearers. The logical next step is for an archer to stand behind a man with a shield and shoot over him. This is pedantic I know, but you would be surprised how many do not get it. If we give our army of heavies and lights this simple rule, we spontaneously get a shield-wall with archers stationed behind and shooting over top. This is what I believe Tyrtaeus is describing above and also the way I would describe later Saxon shield walls. Archaic hoplites would have been a mix of heavy and light, but not Van Wees "motley crowd". This also shows why the lights later get shoved to the wings. Deeper ranks make it harder to shoot over and the tactic of charging through missile range negates a role of missile shooting over top.
As for missile troops between files, I could imagine a phalanx of sarissaphoroi attempting to ward off enemy lights by moving archers up between files- but don't try it with slingers! As Alexander's proposed mixed phalanx showed, you cannot shoot arrows over more than a few ranks of sarissa.
The point though is that Asklepiodotus is quite clear that insertion of lights among heavies is done by file, not by rank. And Tyrtaeus (at least following the English translation and I always mistrust translations) is equally clear that the men with shields are on either side of the skirmisher, not in front of him. The tacticians also are clear that skirmisher foot would line up in front of the heavy foot with as many files but half as many ranks -
without the benefit of shield-protection by the heavies. The implication is that each skirmisher had a space about 3 feet wide and 6 feet deep. No room for running around at all. When they skirmished with enemy lights, they gave it and took it without being able to evade incoming missiles. Despite this skirmishing could go on for a long time with relatively few casualties. What are we missing?
Just to clear the goalposts, what is under discussion is presumably Asklepiodotus VI.1:
The light infantry [psiloi] and targeteers [peltasts] will be stationed by the general as the situation demands, sometimes before the line of battle, sometimes behind it, and on other occasions now on the right flank and again on the left; the first is called van‑position (protaxis), the second rear-position (hypotaxis), and the third flank-position (prosentaxis). Sometimes they are incorporated in the phalanx and stationed one beside each man; and this is called insert-position (parentaxis), because there is an insertion of different branches of the service, e.g., light infantry with hoplites; but the incorporation of like arms, such as hoplites beside hoplites or light infantry beside light infantry — the reason for this will be discussed later — is not called insert-position, but rather interjection (parembole).
and X.17:
The term doubling is used in two ways: either of the place occupied by the phalanx, while the number of the men remains the same, or of the number of the men; and each of these may be by file or by rank, also called by depth or by length. Doubling of men, then, takes place by length when we interject or insert between the original files other files of equal strength, maintaining all the while the length of the phalanx, so that a compact order arises only from the doubling of the men; doubling takes place by depth when we interject between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth. The difference between insertion and interjection has been explained before.
The 'interjection' of Asklepiodotus is simply doubling up files* to halve individual frontage and give a denser formation (cf. Calisthenes' description of Alexander's approahc to Issus in Polybius XII.19.6). The 'insertion' of files of light troops between heavies remains tactically puzzling. Is this something doen by hard-pressed generals to bulk out their phalanxes when outnumbered by opposing heavy infantry (and if so, why does not Antiochus III do it at Raphia?) or is it an intermediate condition awaiting the commitment of said light infantry in a skirmishing role and then their subsequent withdrawal through the phaalnx, which then 'denses up' after the light infantry's withdrawal?
[*In X.17 he also has doubling of ranks, i.e. depth, on the same frontage, but not for different arms of service.]
My understanding is that what would happen would be a three-stage process.
Stage 1 (probably the approach): the light infantry files are placed alternately with the phalanx files, and march with them as part of the same formation.
Stage 2 (skirmish time): the light infantry files run forwards and line up in front of the heavy foot, forming with half the depth of the latter. They then skirmish as per the book until the powers that be decide to get on with the main action.
Stage 3 (changeover): the light infantry retire, filing back between the files of heavy infantry; the heavy infantry then closes up into its battle formation while the lights reassemble behind.
Subsequently, the light infantry can a) spectate b) try to shoot over the heavies or c) be redeployed out to the wings.
Does this fit the various bits together?
Anyone wishing to look through Asklepiodotus can see him at Lacus Curtius here (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Asclepiodotus/home.html).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 13, 2018, 09:01:34 AM
Stage 1 (probably the approach): the light infantry files are placed alternately with the phalanx files, and march with them as part of the same formation.
Stage 2 (skirmish time): the light infantry files run forwards and line up in front of the heavy foot, forming with half the depth of the latter. They then skirmish as per the book until the powers that be decide to get on with the main action.
Stage 3 (changeover): the light infantry retire, filing back between the files of heavy infantry; the heavy infantry then closes up into its battle formation while the lights reassemble behind.
Subsequently, the light infantry can a) spectate b) try to shoot over the heavies or c) be redeployed out to the wings.
That makes sense. I see another possible reason for inserting lights among the heavies. It would be effective against an enemy formation that does not have lights of its own, permitting the lights mixed with their own heavies to keep shooting the advancing enemy until the last possible moment before retiring and allowing their heavies to double files.
I must admit I cannot see a lot of reason for stage 1.
You could advance on the same frontage and have the files of light troops outside the files of pike men. When they went forward to skirmish then it might take them slightly longer to deploy. Falling back they could fall back through the files before the pikemen doubled their files and closed up.
But I see no reason for them being intermingled on the march. If anything the lights would be in the way if the force was suddenly surprised, and with the lights on the outside, it means that you've got lighter troops on the flanks of the formation when you advance if the terrain is at all dubious.
Jim
Asklepiodotus does not put the formation into a battlefield context, so we are reduced to guessing when and where it would be employed. It is in his book, so was presumably employed by someone somewhere on occasion. Like Jim, I cannot see it as a useful march formation; the most logical time to employ it would be when advancing in order of battle towards the enemy on the battlefield, as it allows the lights and heavies to keep the enemy in view and conceals the number and type of light troops until they are committed, for what that is worth, and also allows the heavies to deploy on their intended frontage (they will fill in their files once the light troops have done their thing and retired through the gaps between files).
The most obvious advantage, which Jim has touched upon, is easy station-keeping for the heavy infantry files; when the formation halts to let the skirmishers out to do their stuff, the heavies are in nice neat files with proper man-size gaps between them - and stay that way until the lights need to use those gaps at the end of skirmishing. In essence, this would mean it was a station-keeping exercise, an easy way of keeping the right gaps for the light infantry to advance, skirmish and then retire through the heavies.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 14, 2018, 04:12:40 PM
I see another possible reason for inserting lights among the heavies. It would be effective against an enemy formation that does not have lights of its own, permitting the lights mixed with their own heavies to keep shooting the advancing enemy until the last possible moment before retiring and allowing their heavies to double files.
This would be a different slant to the usual mixed formation type, which seems to have relied upon heavy infantry in front and misilemen to the rear. I wonder how the two systems would compare for missile count, accuracy, weight and pattern of shooting.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 14, 2018, 07:22:03 PM
Asklepiodotus does not put the formation into a battlefield context, so we are reduced to guessing when and where it would be employed. It is in his book, so was presumably employed by someone somewhere on occasion. Like Jim, I cannot see it as a useful march formation; the most logical time to employ it would be when advancing in order of battle towards the enemy on the battlefield, as it allows the lights and heavies to keep the enemy in view and conceals the number and type of light troops until they are committed, for what that is worth, and also allows the heavies to deploy on their intended frontage (they will fill in their files once the light troops have done their thing and retired through the gaps between files).
It also keeps the files of the lights and heavies in perfect alignment, i.e. when the mixed formation stops the lights just advance ahead of the heavies, shoot, and then retire quickly and without disorder by simply turning 180 degrees and marching straight back between the files of the heavy infantry. Useful in battlefield conditions where light troops need to keep shooting at advancing enemy until the last possible moment.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 14, 2018, 07:33:34 PM
It also keeps the files of the lights and heavies in perfect alignment, i.e. when the mixed formation stops the lights just advance ahead of the heavies, shoot, and then retire quickly and without disorder by simply turning 180 degrees and marching straight back between the files of the heavy infantry. Useful in battlefield conditions where light troops need to keep shooting at advancing enemy until the last possible moment.
I am wondering if this arrangement may have made a brief appearance at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. The Seleucid phalanx is described as being '32 deep', which from Polybius XII.19.6 was, at least in Alexander's time, the starting depth for a phalanx which ended up eight deep before contacting the enemy. However later Hellenistic phalanxes tended to be 16 deep (this is the depth Polybius assumes as standard in Book XVIII where he discusses the Macedonian phalanx) so a 32 deep phalanx, through which archers retired near the beginning of the battle, would presumably be a 16-deep phalanx not yet closed up and hence still able to admit light infantry between its files.
The effect was rather spoiled in the actual battle when the light infantry, apprehensive about the noises of defeat emanating from the Seleucid left, piled back through the phalanx and just kept running, but the principle may have been there. If so, it would be an actual instance of Asklepiodotus' method having occurred on a real battlefield. (I am not saying that it
has to be, just that it looks like a candidate.)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 15, 2018, 06:54:33 AM
I am wondering if this arrangement may have made a brief appearance at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. The Seleucid phalanx is described as being '32 deep', which from Polybius XII.19.6 was, at least in Alexander's time, the starting depth for a phalanx which ended up eight deep before contacting the enemy. However later Hellenistic phalanxes tended to be 16 deep (this is the depth Polybius assumes as standard in Book XVIII where he discusses the Macedonian phalanx) so a 32 deep phalanx, through which archers retired near the beginning of the battle, would presumably be a 16-deep phalanx not yet closed up and hence still able to admit light infantry between its files.
The effect was rather spoiled in the actual battle when the light infantry, apprehensive about the noises of defeat emanating from the Seleucid left, piled back through the phalanx and just kept running, but the principle may have been there. If so, it would be an actual instance of Asklepiodotus' method having occurred on a real battlefield. (I am not saying that it has to be, just that it looks like a candidate.)
It doesn't really gel with Appian's account
"The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again. Thus crowded together, Domitius easily enclosed them with his numerous light cavalry. Having no opportunity to charge or even to deploy their dense mass, they began to suffer severely; and they were indignant that military experience availed them nothing, exposed as they were on all sides to the weapons of the enemy. Nevertheless, they presented their thick-set pikes on all four sides.
They challenged the Romans to close combat and preserved at all times the appearance of being about to charge. Yet they did not advance, because they were foot-soldiers and heavily armed, and saw that the enemy were mounted. Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again.
The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps; but circled around them and assailed them with javelins and arrows, none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them.
After suffering severely in this way they yielded to necessity and fell back step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans. The latter kept their distance and continued to circle around and wound them, until the elephants inside the Macedonian phalanx became excited and unmanageable. Then the phalanx broke into disorderly flight."
The bit I had in mind was:
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 15, 2018, 07:13:14 AM
"The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again."
Appian has it 'open' and 'close' - but if the light troops were in a hurry, could they really wait for a 32-deep phalanx to 'open'? Or did they dash through already-open file-width lanes?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 13, 2018, 08:16:06 AM
And Tyrtaeus (at least following the English translation and I always mistrust translations) is equally clear that the men with shields are on either side of the skirmisher, not in front of him.
Yes, the light armed have men with shields on either side, but that does not mean they lined up between them in a single rank. What you are reading is more likely in my opinion to indicate missile troops throwing/shooting over the space between two heavies with overlapping shields. In this case probably the rear rank of a few ranks of heavies given Tyrtaeus's constant pushing of heavies towards the front. The basic tactics of Tyrtaeus's day are really no different than those of the Near Eastern tradition. In fact you can read into Tyrtaeus and urging to break with the standard tactic of the era to use your heavies as a wall to protect the missile duel happening around them, and move more swiftly to direct attack with spears of the enemy line. This tactical change births the classical phalanx. See an Assyrian example from a hunting scene below.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 13, 2018, 08:16:06 AMThe tacticians also are clear that skirmisher foot would line up in front of the heavy foot with as many files but half as many ranks - without the benefit of shield-protection by the heavies. The implication is that each skirmisher had a space about 3 feet wide and 6 feet deep. No room for running around at all. When they skirmished with enemy lights, they gave it and took it without being able to evade incoming missiles. Despite this skirmishing could go on for a long time with relatively few casualties. What are we missing?
This is clearly not the way peltasts or psiloi fought, and perhaps represents a shift in tactics made possible by the thureos. Surely even velites ran forward and back rather than stood in ranks to fight. One thing that always gets forgotten in these discussions of frontage is that you are only limited laterally by frontage measures, ranks of men at 6 foot frontage could be 20 feet apart or haphazardly staggered as they move for and aft to throw.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on July 14, 2018, 04:12:40 PM
That makes sense. I see another possible reason for inserting lights among the heavies. It would be effective against an enemy formation that does not have lights of its own, permitting the lights mixed with their own heavies to keep shooting the advancing enemy until the last possible moment before retiring and allowing their heavies to double files.
Why hide them within the ranks if the enemy has no missile troops? It seems to me it would be easier to form in front and either run around the flanks prior to contact or move through a staggered portion of the phalanx than to move back out of file and then move in the rear half of the file of pikes when the enemy in oncoming. I would not want to have to double sarissa with the enemy charging on me.
But I think the opposite setting may see a use for this. When the enemy has lights, or horse, but no heavies they cannot charge sarissa even in opened order, so there is no downside to moving up a file of archers to ward them off. This would have the effect of a fulcum, mixing missile and spear.
So it seems as if there could be uses for Asklepiodotus' alternate light-heavy file arrangement. Interesting.
Incidentally, nice Assyrian shield wall pic, Paul: it has just been added to my collection! OK, it is an arrangement for hunting, but it looks well alongside the siege reliefs.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 16, 2018, 07:00:15 PM
So it seems as if there could be uses for Asklepiodotus' alternate light-heavy file arrangement. Interesting.
Incidentally, nice Assyrian shield wall pic, Paul: it has just been added to my collection! OK, it is an arrangement for hunting, but it looks well alongside the siege reliefs.
Yea, I love that image because you can see how the usual Spearman/Archer pairs we see from the side in reliefs could be, and I think were, brought together to form a shield-wall and archer support. The hunting scene required the artist to show the "box" of men from a bit above in a manner that they do not usually show. This puts their tactics completely within the range of those of the Persians and Archaic Greeks.
It is also interesting that it shows only a 2 man deep formation.
And suggests that the confidence in the bow against a determined enemy was low.
A spearman to protect him? Not a shield barer alone, he has a long spear, and not an anti cavalry protection either, for the spearman is operating one handed and downward, not braced and at a horse level.
Quote from: Mark G on July 17, 2018, 09:35:56 PM
It is also interesting that it shows only a 2 man deep formation.
And suggests that the confidence in the bow against a determined enemy was low.
A spearman to protect him? Not a shield barer alone, he has a long spear, and not an anti cavalry protection either, for the spearman is operating one handed and downward, not braced and at a horse level.
how deep did the Burgundians form up with their pike/bow combinations?
And Italian city state crossbowmen behind a single rank with pavise?
Quote from: Mark G on July 17, 2018, 09:35:56 PM
It is also interesting that it shows only a 2 man deep formation.
And suggests that the confidence in the bow against a determined enemy was low.
A spearman to protect him? Not a shield barer alone, he has a long spear, and not an anti cavalry protection either, for the spearman is operating one handed and downward, not braced and at a horse level.
I was about to say, it
is a hunting scene, and game animals are not known for riding horses, so I'd be vary of assuming it representative of battlefield usage in that regard, but it turns out it's not hard to google up an image (https://www.realmofhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Incredible_Assyrian_Army_Facts_Ancient_2.jpg) showing similar poses in battle against enemy infantry.
Quote from: Mark G on July 17, 2018, 09:35:56 PM
It is also interesting that it shows only a 2 man deep formation.
And suggests that the confidence in the bow against a determined enemy was low.
A spearman to protect him? Not a shield barer alone, he has a long spear, and not an anti cavalry protection either, for the spearman is operating one handed and downward, not braced and at a horse level.
This formation of spearman with shield in front of light troops or archers is very common. Not sure why fewer archers mean less confidence, but this is a hunting scene, so it could be that normally the archer/spearman pair segregated into multiple ranks of spearmen and archers for battle. Probably no more than 3 or 4 though, based on other shield walls. But Persians used a single rank of shieldmen in front of multiple ranks of archers to great effect.
As to the spear position, this is a common ready position for a spear used with one hand in overhand- that droop saves you a lot of energy when holding it. Just as hoplites who held their spears like this were, these men would have been quite effective against horse as well as infantry.
Oh, id missed that it was a hunting scene.
Rather nullifies the post in that respect.