Romans lay siege to German town

[Timotheos]

The Macedonian Phalanx had several rows of men, each carrying a pike, so that about five metal tips stuck out in front of the front row. The remaining rows had their pikes elevated, which helped break the fall of missiles from above. Unfortunately if an enemy soemhow got past those pikes, the soldiers were more vulnerable, though they did have a sword and the big round shield.

Hi Martin

It's not a phalanx, just an auxiliary of spearmen.  I pulled "Macedonian" out of the air.  I was going to use Illyrian (Illyria was in the area of Serbia???) or Briton but decided Macedonian was a safer bet.

-Tim

[playmofire]

[quote author=Timotheos link=topic=2496.msg28193#msg28193

Back on the subject of a few ferocious men driving the battle--

super-jocks in the line, half-mad, must have made a real difference.
 
[/quote]

There's something of the concept of the "berserker", the Viking warrior who would tear off his upper clothing (bersek= bare shirt, without a shirt,  in what you're saying, Tim, but in a Roman context, and maybe not something to be expected of the civilised Romans.  But, as you say, it would certainly make a difference and in two ways - it would encourage his comrades and scare the dickens out of the enemy!

[Timotheos]

The Romans, as I understand it, threw their pila before the clash and as you've shown, used their short swords to stab through gaps in the shield wall. What did the rows behind do, apart from step forward to replace a fallen comrade? Could a tired man step back and allow another to take his place? Probably not, it would be too risky in the melee, even if it was allowed.

I think they did replace comrades in the battle line.  The fighting probably wasn't continuous but came in pulses as individuals grew exhausted. 

As for the men in the other rows: I get the impression they would push their brothers forward.  One of the historians I read questioned the use of sharpened shield bosses because pushing that against your comrade's back would injure him. 

But melee appears to have commonly boiled down to a big shoving match, one mass of men against another.  Granted, it seems guys in the middle would have suffocated (I've read about this happening (suffocation), but only when a unit was pressed from all sides and everybody was trying to escape toward the center).  So maybe all the ranks weren't actually pushing forward.
   

[Timotheos]

There's something of the concept of the "berserker", the Viking warrior who would tear off his upper clothing (bersek= bare shirt, without a shirt,  in what you're saying, Tim, but in a Roman context, and maybe not something to be expected of the civilised Romans.  But, as you say, it would certainly make a difference and in two ways - it would encourage his comrades and scare the dickens out of the enemy!

Hi Playmofire:

I've actually read that berserk = bear shirt and those guys wore bear hides to identify themselves with certain cult practice.  (In the one of the medieval sagas I've read (Vatnsdoela saga) a family of werewolves remove their wolf skins by day and hang the skins in trees.  By night they don the skins to rob people / murder enemies.

The saga hero finds the wolfskins, kills the family, and keeps a skin for himself.  So similarly by wearing the "bear shirts" the beserkers symbolicly became bears.

The Celts had something similar to beserkers (minus the skins)--around the 2nd century BC, there was a band of landless Belgians who hired themselves out as mercenaries and fought completely naked.  They would rile themselves up into a fury, chew the rims of their shields, and otherwise intimidate their opponents.

Unfortunately the Romans pinned one such company up on a hilltop and pelted them to death with javelins. 

So much for bravado.  (source "Celt and Roman", Peter Berresford Ellis)

-Tim

[playmofire]

Hi Playmofire:

I've actually read that berserk = bear shirt and those guys wore bear hides to identify themselves with certain cult practice.

-Tim

Now that's very interesting, Tim.  I suspect that two definitions have grown up because of the homophones, bare and bear.

[Martin Milner]

Hi Martin

It's not a phalanx, just an auxiliary of spearmen.  I pulled "Macedonian" out of the air.  I was going to use Illyrian (Illyria was in the area of Serbia???) or Briton but decided Macedonian was a safer bet.

-Tim

Sorry Tim, didn't mean your guys, I was referring to actual Macedonian Phalanxes, as I've seen them illustrated in books. I had two illustrated books as a kid, one called The Roman Army, the other The Greek Armies, with lots of great pictures.

[Timotheos]

Now that's very interesting, Tim.  I suspect that two definitions have grown up because of the homophones, bare and bear.

Hi Gordon, over here we pronounce "Berserkr" as "bur-zurk-kur" and there is no homophone with "bare shirt" (or "bear shirt" for that matter).

Do you remember your source?

Merriam-Webster dictionary lists Berserkr's etymology as "Bear + shirt", and M-W is usually meticulous about etymology.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/berserker
-Tim

[playmofire]

Hi Gordon, over here we pronounce "Berserkr" as "bur-zurk-kur" and there is no homophone with "bare shirt" (or "bear shirt" for that matter).

Do you remember your source?

Merriam-Webster dictionary lists Berserkr's etymology as "Bear + shirt", and M-W is usually meticulous about etymology.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/berserker
-Tim

Hi Tim, we pronounce it like that, too.  I was referring to the homophone in the translation, bare and bear, i.e. maybe someone heard "bear" and thought it was "bare" and then went on from there.  I can't remember the source, it may well have been in junior school, so that's going back some!  However, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary suggests either source may be correct, although with a preference for "bear".  (The Oxford English Dictionary is the UK standard.)

[CountBogro]

... The Macedonian Phalanx had several rows of men, each carrying a pike, so that about five metal tips stuck out in front of the front row. The remaining rows had their pikes elevated, which helped break the fall of missiles from above. Unfortunately if an enemy soemhow got past those pikes, the soldiers were more vulnerable, though they did have a sword and the big round shield.

The Romans, as I understand it, threw their pila before the clash and as you've shown, used their short swords to stab through gaps in the shield wall. ...

A slight side note.
The main problem with Phalanxes were the extremely exposed sides. A Phalanx hasn't great manouvrability. It can go forward, back and turn a bit. It cannot turn face; for example. Disruption of the line as the result of casualties or the effect of terrain makes continuation of the Phalanx form extremely dangerous as there's a hole in the line that's not easily closed again. If it's fighting a group that's fighting flexible or is being flanked; it's doomed.
I've read somewhere that the way or warfare that rose with the Phalanxes were more the result of a form of inbred warfare (it only works really against other opponents who fight the same way) that only was adopted in Greece. As soon as they started to fight other nations with other tactics it was quickly abondonned.

As to the Pilum; I've read that the shaft would bend on impact. If they would hit a opponent it would hamper him greatly and if it hit a piece of equipment it would make it's use almost impossible. As a side effect the enemy couldn't pick it up and throw it back as it would be too bend to be usable. That's why they never used them as spears in battle. It would be a charge, throwing the pila, and then draw the gladius, close the ranks for some heavy close in fighting.

At least, that's what I've read ...

[Martin Milner]

As to the Pilum; I've read that the shaft would bend on impact. If they would hit a opponent it would hamper him greatly and if it hit a piece of equipment it would make it's use almost impossible. As a side effect the enemy couldn't pick it up and throw it back as it would be too bend to be usable. That's why they never used them as spears in battle. It would be a charge, throwing the pila, and then draw the gladius, close the ranks for some heavy close in fighting.

At least, that's what I've read ...

That was true of the early Pila. The barbed point was hardened, but the metal shaft was not, so on impact, as often as not through a shield or body (uurgh), it would catch with the barbs and the shaft would bend. The opponent would usually have to drop the shield if this happened.

Later on they improved the system. The metal shaft was attached to the wooden handle by two dowels or rods, one metal, one wooden. On impact the wooden one would break, leaving the unlucky recipient with an unwieldy wood/metal hinged thing, just as impossible to throw back, and just as encumbering if it stuck through a shield.

After the battle, the pila would be collected up, a new wooden dowel popped in to replace the broken one, and it's good for the next battle. Saved a fortune on blacksmithing work, and a heck of a lot quicker and easier to do in the field.