Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Aqizithiuda]

It's a great read. Later work has shown that Engels overestimated what a horse or mule would be fed in grain by twice what most historical sources say, but that just increases the amount of fodder needed on the desert crossings by another ten pounds per animal.

Also, Engels got it absolutely right when it comes to the issued rations: it's less than a starvation ration, whatever Roth thinks.

What tickles me most is the large amount of work done to study the Roman army; not without reason, as it takes more than a few logistical geniuses to muster what Rome could at its height. But the Macedonian army under Philip and Alexander seems to generally be a footnote, underneath some sparing detail of why Alexander is called the Great. In ten years they went far farther east than Rome ever dreamt, and I personally have little doubt that had Alexander lived long enough to set his sights on the west he would have made it. Even with what they did do, a lot more credit should be given to Philip, Alexander, and their generals for planning and executing a military expedition that hasn't really ever been matched in terms of what it accomplished. I know I tend to buy into the romance of Alexander more so than the more pessimistic works done about him, but I contend the most nonbiased of historians would, upon reviewing the facts, agree that the stars really aligned for the Macedonians between Philip's early years and the death of Alexander.

It's honestly amazing how Alexander almost never seems to have outrun his supply lines, while other greats like Caesar end up having all sorts of supply issues. And given crop yields and the tech level, the kind just boggles at it all. It's some real tricky shit to get that good.

Macedonians were pretty dumb tbh. They should have anticipated Rome and dropped the phalanx long before they got fucked by it.

Shield Turtle > All

The Romans won because those who followed Alexander didn't understand combined warfare and, in at least one case, that you need to engage an equal size force with all your men, not half of them (he nearly won, too).

[Minroz]

What tickles me most is the large amount of work done to study the Roman army; not without reason, as it takes more than a few logistical geniuses to muster what Rome could at its height. But the Macedonian army under Philip and Alexander seems to generally be a footnote, underneath some sparing detail of why Alexander is called the Great. In ten years they went far farther east than Rome ever dreamt, and I personally have little doubt that had Alexander lived long enough to set his sights on the west he would have made it. Even with what they did do, a lot more credit should be given to Philip, Alexander, and their generals for planning and executing a military expedition that hasn't really ever been matched in terms of what it accomplished. I know I tend to buy into the romance of Alexander more so than the more pessimistic works done about him, but I contend the most nonbiased of historians would, upon reviewing the facts, agree that the stars really aligned for the Macedonians between Philip's early years and the death of Alexander.

It's honestly amazing how Alexander almost never seems to have outrun his supply lines, while other greats like Caesar end up having all sorts of supply issues. And given crop yields and the tech level, the kind just boggles at it all. It's some real tricky shit to get that good.

Macedonians were pretty dumb tbh. They should have anticipated Rome and dropped the phalanx long before they got fucked by it.

Shield Turtle > All

The Romans won because those who followed Alexander didn't understand combined warfare and, in at least one case, that you need to engage an equal size force with all your men, not half of them (he nearly won, too).

It's not surprising that Alexander's Empire collapsed shortly after his death, with his generals fighting over who gets to be his successor. And the difference is the Roman Empire lasts for over thousand years.

[Husseinarti]

I think everybody here by Aqui knows and gets that the Romans used the phalanx system for decades (Which they had inherited from or learned from the Etruscans, depending on what you believe) the mythical kingdom times into the late 300s of the Republic until the manipular system was adopted and even then we have the fact that the first iterations of the hastati were spear armed men, who owned their name from the Hasta who later dropped the spear for the sword. The Triarii were still spear armed veteran soldiers, who fought in a phalanx style, but more suited to the hilly terrain of Latium.

These systems weren't changed until the Marian reforms in the 1st century BC, and then they just opted to draw from local auxiliaries if they needed such personnel.

The Greek colonists brought with them the Phalanx in like, 800 BC or whatever. After a while the local Latin, Etruscan and Samnite tribes began to adopt these kinds of tactics for their own. The legion system is an evolution of the phalanx system, but was an offshoot at first and later overcame the phalanx system.

Blame the Macedonians for not writing enough about themselves.

They did write a lot, but a lot was destroyed. Most of the sources we have for them(Arrian, Plutarch, etc.) themselves used sources closer to Alexander, sometimes even contemporaries like Ptolemy or Aristobulus of Cassandreia. I blame early Christians for hating cool stuff.

>mfw it was probably kasier or mooselums.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

It's honestly amazing how Alexander almost never seems to have outrun his supply lines, while other greats like Caesar end up having all sorts of supply issues. And given crop yields and the tech level, the kind just boggles at it all. It's some real tricky shit to get that good.



The Romans won because those who followed Alexander didn't understand combined warfare and, in at least one case, that you need to engage an equal size force with all your men, not half of them (he nearly won, too).

It's not surprising that Alexander's Empire collapsed shortly after his death, with his generals fighting over who gets to be his successor. And the difference is the Roman Empire lasts for over thousand years.

People will argue forever about why Alexander wanted to do what he did, but there's a strong school of thought that believes it's more because he wished to both travel east and emulate his hero, Achilles. (Recall how he slept with a copy of The Iliad by his bedside?)

Alexander also attempted to make a Greco-Persian Empire. This would never have worked, because there was no way both the many tribes of the east and the Hellenistic peoples would have an heir that they all accepted. Alexander IV was -sort of- accepted by the common Macedonians, but he was the son of an Afghani princess that I doubt his kingship would have been widely accepted. In any case, it wasn't.

Of course, his empire didn't collapse the way the Western Roman Empire did. The Antigonid Macedonians lasted until 168 BC, the Seleucid Empire lasted until 63 BC, and Egypt was ruled by the Ptolemies until 30 BC. That's entirely discounting the many long-lasting effects Alexander had on the world.

[EsToVnIa]

If you want a fun drinking game, take a shot every time pre-gunpowder tactics or weapons get brought up on a page

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

roman is worst

I was speaking more along the lines of Marian legions against Diadokhi warfare. Here's what I do want to say, and much of the information I have on this subject is lifted from this site, so if you just want to bypass what I have to say and read that, go right ahead.

Even after Alexander's death, the Macedonian style of warfare was nothing to sneeze at. This(skip to about halfway through to get to the good part) is one of the best close-up reenactments of what the sarissas in formation probably looked like, even if it's in Italian and they don't have any Macedonian clothing or armor; this is one of the best and prettiest reenactments I've seen of Macedonian kit, although you'll have to pick out the non-Macedonian reenactors in that album.

When going up against so stout a foe, there's just very little way to attack. One singular man isn't going to do a darn thing against the serried rows of spearheads; the Romans would almost certainly have to attack in something like a flying wedge to have a hope in hell of getting past the spearheads. Missile weapons, especially pila, are recorded as doing pretty much nothing against sarissa phalanxes, on account of rear ranks of pikemen holding their spears at 45 degrees and sometimes waving them back and forth which would knock around missiles. It's weird to imagine, for me at least, but that's what multiple independent sources record.

Wars with Pyrrhus:
Heraclea: first known battle between Macedonian phalanx and Roman legions.  Romans hold the phalanx, and actually turn a flank, but Pyrrhus' elephants rout the Roman cavalry and the Roman army is beaten.

Asculum: The Roman legions hug the tree line on hills to disrupt the phalanx on the first day. Pyrrhus' fights on the flanks and does not commit the phalanx to unsuitable ground, the battle is drawn.  The next day Pyrrhus maneuvers his army in such a way to force the Romans out of the hills and marshes. On more open ground, the Romans suffer a heavy defeat, worse than Heraclea, and almost vote for peace, but a Carthaginian alliance against Pyrrhus materializes and they gut it out.

Maleventum/Beneventum: Roman Legions defeat an Epirote surprise attack, then join battle in the plains.  The Romans at one point are pushed back to walls of their camp by the phalanx and elephants, but a Roman reserve emerges from the side of the camp and panics the elephants, this reverses their fortune, and causes a sharp defeat for Pyrrhus.

Second Macedonian War:
Siege of Atrax: A phalanx has its flanks covered as it defends a breach. No amount of Roman effort can dent their line at all.  Javelins (pila) are described as having no effect. Eventually a Roman tower almost collapses on the Roman attackers and they leave the phalanx alone. Flamininus is forced to retreat and gives up the siege.
Cynoscephalae: Romans and Macedonians meet in the fog between a range of hills. The Roman left wing is pushed back down the slope to its camp by the Macedonian phalanx.  The Roman right wing  attacks with elephants and routs the undeployed Macedonian left wing phalanx (apparently the left wing commander was unaware a battle was happening).  The Romans split off maniples from their victorious wing and rout the engaged phalanx by attacking from behind and the flank.   The phalanx collapses and runs.
Third Macedonian War:
Kallinikus hill skirmish: In rough ground a cavalry and light infantry battle turns into a serious action. The Romans are heavily defeated, but Perseus does not allow the phalanx to intervene.  The demoralized Romans are caught with their backs to the Peneus river, Pyrrhus lets them off the hook and they retire unmolested across the river. Peace attempts fail.
Pydna: After an early skirmish turns into a general deployment late in the afternoon, the Macedonian guard phalanx surges ahead.  A cohort of Pelignii (Alae) are covering the skirmishers and hold firm to allow the rest of the army to set its positions.  The Paelignii are overrun even after their standard bearer throws their standard into the midst of the phalanx to get them to hold, but they are routed with heavy losses.
The rest of the Macedonian phalanx deploys and rolls up over the river into some rolling ground where the legions are deployed.  The maniples fall back against the push of the phalanx.  On the flanks the Macedonians are not prepared for the Roman assulat by their allied Pergamene heavy cavalry and elephants (despite an anti-elephant unit). Both flanks cave in as the phalanx engages the legions.  As the Romans retire the ground gets more broken and the phalanx is less cohesive.  Aemilius Paulus orders the maniples to "act independently" and they start to break into gaps in the phalanx line.   These counter-attacks halt the phalanx advance, at the same time the Roman victorious flanks roll up both wings of the phalanx.  Perseus does nothing with his reserves and apparently rides off.  The phalanx is penetrated in front and with no firm flanks is cut to pieces. Units lift their pikes to signal surrender, but the Romans just cut them down in place.  The Macedonian army is massacred. The Macedonian guards may have fought to the last man rather than surrender.

The two big defeats(Cynoscephalae and Pydna) for the Macedonian style are both things that would have caused the loss of pretty much any kind of army. But as is elaborated in the linked article, the Romans suffered more than their share of minor - and sometimes major - defeats at the Hellenistic systems of war. As I said before, Cynoscephalae and Pydna were very close battles, and for much of both battles it looked like disasters for the Romans. At Pydna, had the Macedonians not been led by an incompetent fuckup who didn't even bother to send in any cavalry once the Romans were in retreat, they very well could have won, and we might now be talking about the vulnerability of the Roman manipular system instead of the inflexibility of the Macedonian system.

[Gallia-]

idt 11,43mm [no swords]

[Fordorsia]

If you want a fun drinking game, take a shot every time pre-gunpowder tactics or weapons get brought up on a page

It doesn't really work when you complain about this stuff more often than it's discussed

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

idt 11,43mm [no swords]

sarissa =/= sword

pozhaluysta

[Gallia-]

does it propel lead and copper spitzer bullets with explosions?

if not

it's a sword

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

in gayla's defense a spear is just a really short sword on a really long handle

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

does it propel lead and copper spitzer bullets with explosions?

if not

it's a sword

:<
just jealous
modern infantry don't get bling of war like they did back in the day

[Gallia-]

does it propel lead and copper spitzer bullets with explosions?

if not

it's a sword

:<
just jealous
modern infantry don't get bling of war like they did back in the day

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

:<
just jealous
modern infantry don't get bling of war like they did back in the day

Colour me shocked.

Here I thought Gallan Systems far prefers the US Army in WWII to the Wehrmacht.

E: also

worst

uniform

ever

[Gallia-]

is there really a difference, now?

the us army even outreiched the reich with FCS

[Fordorsia]

worst

uniform

ever

Hugo Boss rolling in his grave

[Puzikas]

:<
just jealous
modern infantry don't get bling of war like they did back in the day

That's impressive tbh.

[Husseinarti]

It's honestly amazing how Alexander almost never seems to have outrun his supply lines, while other greats like Caesar end up having all sorts of supply issues. And given crop yields and the tech level, the kind just boggles at it all. It's some real tricky shit to get that good.

Alexander also had the advantage of invading an empire with the best road and courier system in the known world at that time to help him out.

Unlike Caesar, who conducted campaigns in places that had nothing in terms of Roman, Greek or Persian infrastructure, Alexander was fighting an enemy that had hundreds, possibly thousands of years of complex infrastructure that made the Greeks blush in envy built up.

Then Alexander crushed everything and made it his.

Then rip.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Colour me shocked.

Here I thought Gallan Systems far prefers the US Army in WWII to the Wehrmacht.

E: also

worst

uniform

ever

NWU jokes are very old hat, and they're retiring them anyways

[Gallia-]

in five to ten years theyll replace those too

shouldnt have went past BDU and DBDU rly

peak uniform 'coincided' with peak america

[Aqizithiuda]

It's honestly amazing how Alexander almost never seems to have outrun his supply lines, while other greats like Caesar end up having all sorts of supply issues. And given crop yields and the tech level, the kind just boggles at it all. It's some real tricky shit to get that good.

Alexander also had the advantage of invading an empire with the best road and courier system in the known world at that time to help him out.

Unlike Caesar, who conducted campaigns in places that had nothing in terms of Roman, Greek or Persian infrastructure, Alexander was fighting an enemy that had hundreds, possibly thousands of years of complex infrastructure that made the Greeks blush in envy built up.

Then Alexander crushed everything and made it his.

Then rip.

I didn't know the Persians had conquered Afghanistan and India and held them for thousands of years.

[Husseinarti]

Alexander also had the advantage of invading an empire with the best road and courier system in the known world at that time to help him out.

Unlike Caesar, who conducted campaigns in places that had nothing in terms of Roman, Greek or Persian infrastructure, Alexander was fighting an enemy that had hundreds, possibly thousands of years of complex infrastructure that made the Greeks blush in envy built up.

Then Alexander crushed everything and made it his.

Then rip.

I didn't know the Persians had conquered Afghanistan and India and held them for thousands of years.

:<

muh

roads

in

500 BC

[Aqizithiuda]

I didn't know the Persians had conquered Afghanistan and India and held them for thousands of years.

:<

muh

roads

in

500 BC

The point is, Alexander went places where there weren't Persian roads and still didn't outrun his supply lines.

[Gallia-]

*still didn't Rommel.

[Aqizithiuda]

*still didn't Rommel.

I keep forgetting to try and make that a thing.