Mikko Rintasaari wrote:
> Sloppy of me, but I do know that. I was trying to simplify. Hoplites is
> what I meant. Tho hoplite actually means "Heavy infantry", or "heavy
> weaponed", and vere called so even after the introduction of phalanx
> tactics.
Hoplite means a wielder of a hoplon, the large shield (although hoplon also means "weapon"), but was used as a general term for what we would call heavy infantry. They usually fought in phalanx ("line of battle") formation, regardless of whether they were classical hoplites (with one-handed spear and shield) or hellenistic pikemen.
> 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.
> but is sure was mean on those unarmed celts that were used a manly free
> for all melee.
Which is doubtless why the Romans preferred not to close with them, preferring to take them out with skirmishers. Er... ;-)
Just a view from somebody who has painted far more 15mm ancients than is good for me.
--
Henrix
Powered by hypermail