Roman Legions against Macedonian Phalanx and Carthaginian Phalanx.

[Justin Swanton]

A counterpoint might be to ask why the Macedonians were still using pikes at Cynoscephalae and Pydna and the Greeks using pikes at Sellasia when the Pyhrric Wars and Punic Wars had demonstrated that Rome might be onto something? (Apologies to the Greeks as Sellasia predates the 2nd Punic War.)

Because pikes worked?

Not to take it away from the pikes - they did do OK and could have won these battles.  Imagine if the results of Beneventum, Cynoscephalae or Pydna had of been reversed - would Rome have adopted pikes phalanxes as a result? Would they have studied readily available histories of the Diadochi Wars and decided pikes versus pikes was inconclusive and our mounted and lack of horses cannot win? Or did Philip V or Perseus think conservatively that pikes were good enough for my father and my father's father etc, or was a military change just too damn hard (think of how poorly imitation legions performed)?

My own take is that there is a limit to how far a military system can adapt to deal with new opponents. So Philip was able to take the Greek hoplite phalanx and turn it into the pike phalanx because he didn't have to do too much to turn hoplites into phalangites. The dory is replaced with a sarissa that has to be held with two hands, so Philip tweaks the aspis to make that possible. Othismos remains, just now it's a push of pikes instead a push of shields. Pretty much everything else is the same.

The legionary system constantly adapted over 600 years but remained substantially the same until the Sassanian mounted archer-lancer essentially made it obsolete. The foulkon was an attempt to make the Roman legion effective against the new brand of HC but it was an unwieldy formation, relegated to a passive role on the battlefield whilst mounted units did the manoeuvring. The Late Romans / Byzantine armies didn't turn into anti-cavalry Mediaeval pike blocks (manoeuvrable and without any vulnerable flanks) but let their infantry arm slowly wither whilst their HC became the backbone of their forces. My take is that it was too much for the infantry to adapt to the new cavalry reality so it didn't.

Edit: on second thoughts, the Byzantine lance-armed infantry square within which the cavalry could shelter was a pretty good adaptation to the new HC, but it was still rather passive - the Byzantine cavalry were the units that decided the battle.

Questions and more questions. Someone, please write the article for Slingshot?!

I know, I know. Just need time and energy. Mainly energy.

[Erpingham]

The foulkon was an attempt to make the Roman legion effective against the new brand of HC but it was an unwieldy formation, relegated to a passive role on the battlefield whilst mounted units did the manoeuvring.

While the foulkon could be used defensively against cavalry, Maurice gives an extensive discussion of how to use it offensively against infantry too.

[Justin Swanton]

The foulkon was an attempt to make the Roman legion effective against the new brand of HC but it was an unwieldy formation, relegated to a passive role on the battlefield whilst mounted units did the manoeuvring.

While the foulkon could be used defensively against cavalry, Maurice gives an extensive discussion of how to use it offensively against infantry too.

How so?

[Erpingham]

They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or
three bowshots from the enemy's line and they are getting set to
charge. The command is: "Close ranks."" Joining together, they
close in toward the center, both to each side and to front and back,
until the shields of the men in the front rank are touching each other
and those lined up behind them are almost glued to one another.
This maneuver may be executed either while the army is marching
or while it is standing still. The file closers should order those in the
rear to close in forcefully on those to the front and to keep the line
straight, if necessary, to prevent some from hesitating and even hold-
ing back.
They move in a foulkon when the two lines, ours and the enemy's,
are getting close, and the archers are about to open fire, and the
front-rank men are not wearing coats of mail or knee guards. The
command is: "Form foulkon." The men in the front ranks close in
until their shields are touching, completely covering their midsec-
tions almost to their ankles. The men standing behind them hold
their shields above their heads, interlocking them with those of the
men in front of them, covering their breasts and faces, and in this
way move to attack.

When ranks have been properly closed, and the line is about one
bowshot from the enemy, and the fighting is just about to begin, the
command is given: "Ready." " Right after this another officer shouts:
"Help us." In unison everyone responds loudly and clearly: "О
God." ' The light-armed troops start shooting their arrows ovег-
head. The heavy infantry, who are drawn up in the front line,
advance still closer to the enemy. If the men have darts or missile
weapons, they throw them, resting their lances on the ground. If
without such weapons, they advance more closely, then hurl their
lances like javelins, take out their swords and fight, each man re-
maining in his proper position and not pursuing the enemy if they
turn to retreat. The men to the rear keep their heads covered with
their shields and with their lances support those in the front. Ob-
viously, it is essential for the soldiers in the first line to keep them-
selves protected until they come to blows with the enemy. Other-
wise, they might be hit by enemy arrows, especially if they do not
have coats of mail or greaves.


https://archive.org/details/maurice-strategikon-dennis-1984/Maurice_Strategikon_Dennis_1984/mode/2up.  See p146.

[Justin Swanton]

They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or
three bowshots from the enemy's line and they are getting set to
charge. The command is: "Close ranks."" Joining together, they
close in toward the center, both to each side and to front and back,
until the shields of the men in the front rank are touching each other
and those lined up behind them are almost glued to one another.
This maneuver may be executed either while the army is marching
or while it is standing still. The file closers should order those in the
rear to close in forcefully on those to the front and to keep the line
straight, if necessary, to prevent some from hesitating and even hold-
ing back.

OK. This clearly the line initially deployed in something resembling open order and then closing to intermediate order when in proximity to the enemy. Reminds me of Issus when Alex's phalanx initially deployed 32 deep (open order), doubling files to 16 deep (intermediate order) as they approached the Persians, then doubling again to 8 deep (close order) when near the enemy. The Byzantines seem to just close up files rather than double them, though I need to check the Greek text.

They move in a foulkon when the two lines, ours and the enemy's,
are getting close, and the archers are about to open fire, and the
front-rank men are not wearing coats of mail or knee guards. The
command is: "Form foulkon." The men in the front ranks close in
until their shields are touching, completely covering their midsec-
tions almost to their ankles. The men standing behind them hold
their shields above their heads, interlocking them with those of the
men in front of them, covering their breasts and faces, and in this
way move to attack.

My guess is that the line is advancing pretty slowly at this point to keep the shield covering shield arrangement intact. Can the front rank see where they are going?

When ranks have been properly closed, and the line is about one
bowshot from the enemy, and the fighting is just about to begin, the
command is given: "Ready." " Right after this another officer shouts:
"Help us." In unison everyone responds loudly and clearly: "О
God." ' The light-armed troops start shooting their arrows ovег-
head. The heavy infantry, who are drawn up in the front line,
advance still closer to the enemy. If the men have darts or missile
weapons, they throw them, resting their lances on the ground. If
without such weapons, they advance more closely, then hurl their
lances like javelins, take out their swords and fight, each man re-
maining in his proper position and not pursuing the enemy if they
turn to retreat. The men to the rear keep their heads covered with
their shields and with their lances support those in the front. Ob-
viously, it is essential for the soldiers in the first line to keep them-
selves protected until they come to blows with the enemy. Other-
wise, they might be hit by enemy arrows, especially if they do not
have coats of mail or greaves.

This is a true testudo in that the rear rankers have their shields above their heads, about the only case where the Hollywood obsession with Romans always fighting in testudo has an historical foundation. Interesting that the men in the rear "with their lances support those in front". This could only be done if the lances are presented above the shoulders and the lances are as long as pikes. Very pike phalanx-like, this, just more preoccupied with guarding against missile fire.

[Keraunos]

OK. This clearly the line initially deployed in something resembling open order and then closing to intermediate order when in proximity to the enemy. Reminds me of Issus when Alex's phalanx initially deployed 32 deep (open order), doubling files to 16 deep (intermediate order) as they approached the Persians, then doubling again to 8 deep (close order) when near the enemy.

Is the comparison with Issus valid?  Surely there it was not a case of open or close order but a practical issue of the Macedonians having to march through a narrow pass and then deploy in ground that slowly opened out, so having to begin in very deep order and gradually extending their line as space became available?

[Erpingham]

I tend to think Maurice's foulkon (I say Maurice's but this piece of the text seems to have been copy-pasted from an earlier work) describes a take on a northern European shieldwall refined by a regular army with an awareness of previous tactical manuals.

I think the point about it being slow is valid.  Keeping it in good order and not getting ragged takes precedent over speed.

On the testudo, the Romanists may wish to comment but this formation does not have full "moving shed" form.  Only one rank (the second) is holding shields overhead.  On spear length, the kontos/kontarion is thought to have been 10-12 ft long and held with one hand.  Overhand would be normal for the time.

[nikgaukroger]

On spear length, the kontos/kontarion is thought to have been 10-12 ft long and held with one hand.  Overhand would be normal for the time.

I think the length of the spear at the time of the Strategikon is somewhat uncertain. The Strategikon certainly talks about it being thrown and the infantry then using swords in some situations (against infantry IIRC).

[Justin Swanton]

OK. This clearly the line initially deployed in something resembling open order and then closing to intermediate order when in proximity to the enemy. Reminds me of Issus when Alex's phalanx initially deployed 32 deep (open order), doubling files to 16 deep (intermediate order) as they approached the Persians, then doubling again to 8 deep (close order) when near the enemy.

Is the comparison with Issus valid?  Surely there it was not a case of open or close order but a practical issue of the Macedonians having to march through a narrow pass and then deploy in ground that slowly opened out, so having to begin in very deep order and gradually extending their line as space became available?

Open order would be the correct disposition for marching cross-country in formation. Re Issus, the phalanx would have the space to deploy in its standard width of just under a km not far after issuing from the pass.

[Justin Swanton]

Only one rank (the second) is holding shields overhead.

What about "The men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields and with their lances support those in the front"?

[Erpingham]

Only one rank (the second) is holding shields overhead.

What about "The men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields and with their lances support those in the front"?

Fair point.  I had read "men standing behind" the front rank as literally that, rather than the whole 15 other ranks.

[nikgaukroger]

Fair point.  I had read "men standing behind" the front rank as literally that, rather than the whole 15 other ranks.

Are the formations that deep. Pretty sure that the Strategikon talks about formations in defence as being 8 deep and in attack 4 deep - or that may be just one section as 16 is mentioned along the way and it may be contradictory.

[Erpingham]

Are the formations that deep. Pretty sure that the Strategikon talks about formations in defence as being 8 deep and in attack 4 deep - or that may be just one section as 16 is mentioned along the way and it may be contradictory.

Well, p133 says ranks might be as few as four (+1 light infantry) or as many as eight (+2 light infantry).  On pp140-141, the preferred formation is 16 men (+4 light infantry).  Each file also has two supernumerary "camp guards". The file may be organised with the light infantry placed between each group of four or all at the back.  The 16 formation is in Chapter 12, which is the one that describes the foulkon in detail.  So, it is quite varied, if not actually contradictory.

[nikgaukroger]

Varied is probably the correct description 

[Justin Swanton]

Only one rank (the second) is holding shields overhead.

What about "The men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields and with their lances support those in the front"?

Fair point.  I had read "men standing behind" the front rank as literally that, rather than the whole 15 other ranks.

Rereading the passage, the "men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields" does seem to refer to "the men standing behind them hold their shields above their heads" but it would help to read it in the original Greek.