Various
> > > Yes, the roman legionaire shield & gladius was a nasty
combination in a
> > > shieldwall. A real macedonian phalanx would eat them for
breakfast tho,
> >
> > Well, not at, say, Kynoskephalai 197 B.C or Pydna 168 B.C, famous
battles where
> > Roman legions wiped out Macedonian phalanxes. (True, they were
late hellenistic
> > phalanxes, and so heavier armed and less mobile than earlier, but
still.)
> > Macedonian-style phalanxes actually went out of fashion because
it was
> > generally aknowledged that they could not stand up against Roman
style
> > legionaries.
>
> All the mentions I've seen of battles between romans and macedonians
> seem to tell that the romans had no luck breaking the phalanxes
unless
> they managed to lure them into forests, or other unfavorable
terrain.
>
The BBC just had a good documentary on Rome at War based on Trajan's
Column. The explanation of how legionnaries with tower shields and
short swords beat the phalanx was the Romans use of heavy weapons.
They used onagers, auxilary archers, slingers and similiar from a
range to disrupt the enemy phalanx before closing in with the ground
troops to mop up. The program made the point that the Romans were
excellent in tactics and combined arms operations. (So lots of heavy
artillery for those regular lunar troops then).
Ian