Triarii adopt Sarissa Phalanx of Macedon

[octoberman]

Triarii were one of the elements of the early Roman military manipular legions of the Roman Republic. They were the oldest and among the wealthiest men in the army and could afford high quality equipment. They wore heavy metal armor and carried large shields, their usual position being the third battle line. They were equipped with spears and were considered to be elite soldiers among the legion.

What if they upgraded to the Sarissa Phalanx of Macedon ?

Will this strengthen the Roman military ?

How this effect Roman history ?

 

[Mildtryth]

Given that more often than not the Romans, with their normal tactics, wiped the floor with the Hellenistic-style armies it encountered (espcially from 200 BC onward), I can't see how this will be anything other than a downgrade.

And you know, this blog is doing a ongoing series (it's not finished yet and it hasn't touched upon the Roman element yet, though) exactly on that topic, so check it out.

 

[Diego]

I see two main problems with this concept. First that the triarii are meant to be in the back only watching the younger folks fight and getting involved only if some "cowards" try to flee the battle or if the battle is going really bad, having them holding those long spears in the rear would be the opposite of the best use of those weapons, they are meant to be used in front with some hoplites or peltasts and cavalry covering theirs flanks and rear. The second problem is that the Roman Army is evolving away from the greek phalanx adopting a warfare style that more resemble their enemies mainly the samnites, as they found the phalanx too rigid for their needs and needed something more flexible.

I think that if another military reform is made and they adopt the sarissa they would need to give it to the units in the front, in other words they either put the triarii in front or give those spears to the Hastati.

 

[octoberman]

Given that more often than not the Romans, with their normal tactics, wiped the floor with the Hellenistic-style armies it encountered (espcially from 200 BC onward), I can't see how this will be anything other than a downgrade.

And you know, this blog is doing a ongoing series (it's not finished yet and it hasn't touched upon the Roman element yet, though) exactly on that topic, so check it out.

May be Rome would've adopted if it was defeated by shock cavalry earlier

 

[octoberman]

I think that if another military reform is made and they adopt the sarissa they would need to give it to the units in the front, in other words they either put the triarii in front or give those spears to the Hastati

Is that feasible?

 

[Keb]

Is that feasible?

Not really? It is possible, but it would require both different reforms and possibly a different series of conquests by Rome and possibly even other powers.

A phalanx is more than just issuing a pile of pikes to infantry. The cavalry arm was crucial to its success. The phalanx had its role in holding the line, but it was the heavy cavalry (the Companions, the Thessalians and, eventually, the other formations that emerged such as the Cataphracts) that was the deciding arm of the war.

Rome had cavalry, of course. It was ... decent, but far from the key part of their military. A cavalry arm is expensive and land in Italy wasn't the best suited for raising large numbers of horses (Northern Italy can sustain it, but for the formative years of the Republic, that area was controlled by Cletic tribes). That flaw was immaterial by the point Rome started to truly clash with the Successors - their own cavalry arms had withered and the incessant warfare had left them strapped for funds. An attempt by Rome to adapt a phalanx would require a strong cavalry arm. Without one, you're left with an even more unwieldly version of the hoplite phalanx.

Maybe if Alexander lives longer and pursues his planned Italian and African campaigns? But then we're looking at a very different Rome from history, one which might well turn out to be unrecognizable. Though Rome joining the Successor thunderdome as one of the Successors would be interesting.

 

[alexmilman]

Not really? It is possible, but it would require both different reforms and possibly a different series of conquests by Rome and possibly even other powers.

A phalanx is more than just issuing a pile of pikes to infantry. The cavalry arm was crucial to its success. The phalanx had its role in holding the line, but it was the heavy cavalry (the Companions, the Thessalians and, eventually, the other formations that emerged such as the Cataphracts) that was the deciding arm of the war.

AFAIK, at Alexander’s time the infantry formation included the high quality hoplites used as “shock infantry”. They were armed with the usual spears because their role in a battle was hand-to-hand combat.

 

[Keb]

AFAIK, at Alexander’s time the infantry formation included the high quality hoplites used as “shock infantry”. They were armed with the usual spears because their role in a battle was hand-to-hand combat.

Shield-bearers / Hypaspsists, yes. They remained in limited use throughout the Successor period, though as time passed, there was a greater shift towards using skirmishers in the role of guarding the flanks. Skirmisher equipment kept getting heavier as time passed - with increasingly heavy armour making an appearance. These eventually gave rise to the idea that the Successors were imitating Roman legions. The Hellenistic world took a divergent path, but they did end up with something reminiscent of legionnaires in equipment and tactics, if not battlefield role (even at the end, they remained principally in charge of guarding the flanks of the phalanx).

 

[alexmilman]

Shield-bearers / Hypaspsists, yes. They remained in limited use throughout the Successor period, though as time passed, there was a greater shift towards using skirmishers in the role of guarding the flanks. Skirmisher equipment kept getting heavier as time passed - with increasingly heavy armour making an appearance. These eventually gave rise to the idea that the Successors were imitating Roman legions. The Hellenistic world took a divergent path, but they did end up with something reminiscent of legionnaires in equipment and tactics, if not battlefield role (even at the end, they remained principally in charge of guarding the flanks of the phalanx).

So, obviously, providing the elite troops with the weapons pretty much useless for performing their primary tactical function was not the case even in the Macedonian phalanx and “adopting” it for the elite Roman troops would make even lesser sense.

 

[octoberman]

So, obviously, providing the elite troops with the weapons pretty much useless for performing their primary tactical function was not the case even in the Macedonian phalanx and “adopting” it for the elite Roman troops would make even lesser sense.

Why not if Rome faced Shock cavalry earlier it could've developed a wall of pike with soldiers rich enough to full body armor to replace the shield because it is too heavy to be carried with a Pike. Macedonian Phalanx held out well against infantry also.

 

[Hoffman]

Triarii were one of the elements of the early Roman military manipular legions of the Roman Republic. They were the oldest and among the wealthiest men in the army and could afford high quality equipment. They wore heavy metal armor and carried large shields, their usual position being the third battle line. They were equipped with spears and were considered to be elite soldiers among the legion.

What if they upgraded to the Sarissa Phalanx of Macedon ?

Will this strengthen the Roman military ?

How this effect Roman history ?

Without the large heavy cavalry arm required to make the phalanx effective, it's unlikely Rome would have ever adopted the Macedonian style phalanx.

If it had, it likely would have abandoned it very quickly.

 

[alexmilman]

Why not if Rome faced Shock cavalry earlier it could've developed a wall of pike with soldiers rich enough to full body armor to replace the shield because it is too heavy to be carried with a Pike. Macedonian Phalanx held out well against infantry also.

Taking into an account that triarii had been forming the third line of tactical formation, practicality of your proposal is not clear.

As for the shock cavalry, please be specific where the Romans would encounter it prior to 107BC.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Given that more often than not the Romans, with their normal tactics, wiped the floor with the Hellenistic-style armies it encountered (espcially from 200 BC onward), I can't see how this will be anything other than a downgrade.

And you know, this blog is doing a ongoing series (it's not finished yet and it hasn't touched upon the Roman element yet, though) exactly on that topic, so check it out.

A Roman army with the triarii carrying pikes would still be a Roman-style army, not a Hellenistic-style one. Macedonian-style pikemen usually beat spearmen -- that's why the pike became so widespread -- so re-equipping the triarii with pikes would probably represent an upgrade in their capabilities and that of the army as a whole.

 

[alexmilman]

A Roman army with the triarii carrying pikes would still be a Roman-style army, not a Hellenistic-style one. Macedonian-style pikemen usually beat spearmen -- that's why the pike became so widespread -- so re-equipping the triarii with pikes would probably represent an upgrade in their capabilities and that of the army as a whole.

Few comments:

1. Macedonian infantry with the long pikes represented center of their tactical formation. The striking infantry force had been armed with the conventional spears and placed on a flank near the cavalry. The Roman triarii had been forming the last, third line of the pre-Marius Roman tactical formation. So the obvious question is how exactly these long pikes will be useful if the first two lines are armed with the spears/javelins?
2. Phalanx was performing well on a reasonably level ground and, as its experience against the Romans demonstrated, it could not maintain cohesion on the uneven ground, it could not maneuver and could not be easily (or at all) broken in the small tactical units which were giving the Romans great flexibility in a battle.
3. As for the pike being widespread, AFAIK, it hardly was in the Ancient World and much later in Europe the pikemen (Swiss, Spanish, German, Italian) had been forming columns, not phalanx, and their opponents had been quite different from what the Romans had been facing when they still had triarii.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

1. Macedonian infantry with the long pikes represented center of their tactical formation. The striking infantry force had been armed with the conventional spears and placed on a flank near the cavalry. The Roman triarii had been forming the last, third line of the pre-Marius Roman tactical formation. So the obvious question is how exactly these long pikes will be useful if the first two lines are armed with the spears/javelins?

Firstly, it's misleading to describe the hypaspists as a "striking infantry force". Their main job was to stop gaps emerging between the cavalry (the true strike force of a Macedonian army) and the pikemen. They could also be used as a strike force, but then so could the phalanx.

Secondly, I must confess I don't see the point of your obvious question. Why would having the first two lines armed with javelins make it more sensible to arm the third line with shorter spears than with longer ones?