Hulver's site || Comments || Cohorts all gleaming in purple and gold

Advantage by anonimouse (4.00 / 1) #3 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST

I'm not sure why the facts surprise you.

Once one side gets an advantage, it is able to exploit the advantage in one part of the line of battle to create a weakness in all. When a line sees a group running away, it is more likely to start running, and it becomes a simple chase where an organised army is hunting down a disorganised mob. Casualties are bound to be heavy.
I think a factor is that Greek terrain is not conducive to moving the machinery of siege warfare.
I don't think the Macedonian Phalanx was really any better (or worse) than any other phalanx. Alexander won battles because he creatively used his other forces to support the phalanx. The phalanx on its own is very vulnerable to more mobile armies. The Roman army, with its principles of rotating troops in the front line and flexible formations, was a far more revolutionary concept.
If it weren't for Persian Satraps, atreides would have to invent them. :-)
What does surprise me about Alesia (and Rome) is how population levels fluctuated over the centuries. Rome went from 1.5 million down to 20,000 before recovering. Alesia went from several tens of thousands to just 600 today. (Mind you, it's believed that Caesar killed about a million Gauls, so that may have had something to do with it).

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL

Cannae isn't unique by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:23:44 PM EST

I think it's somewhat surprising that warfare with spears and swords is more deadly than warfare with guns.

I think the Macedonian phalanx has to be considered significantly better than the Greek phalanx. Longer spears, professional instead of part-time troops, a two-handed underarm grip, twice the depth and tight integration with cavalry add up to quite a big difference.

It's hard to judge how revolutionary the Roman legion was when nobody really knows how it operated. Fagan points out that in the Renaissance using similar edged weapons they tried to recreate Roman tactics of line relief through gaps, but nobody could get them to work. They may just have been parade-ground maneuvers that the writers observed but nobody used on a battlefield. It seems to have been pretty effective however it worked though.
--
"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise." -- Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

War with guns by Vulch (4.00 / 1) #5 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST

Once the guns can shoot more than once most battles take place from cover, trenches, foxholes and small fortifications, making it more like seiges than the army vs army battles of the stuff with sharp edges era. There's less inclination to go chasing after opponents as it's a lot easier to for them to turn round and pop off a few shots to encourage you to stay in your trench.

[ Parent ]

Did he give any reason for the difference? by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 1) #6 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST

Is it just a matter of being able to break off better when you've already started at a distance?

It is a interesting detail.

[ Parent ]

It was basically just bigger by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #7 Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:53:54 AM EST

But as anonimouse says, the integration with other units was another big factor.

Check your email, depending on how interested you are.
--
"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise." -- Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

: Got it. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #10 Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:39:47 AM EST

Thanks.

[ Parent ]