Women

[Paal_101]

The phalanx was dead by the time of the Second Punic War. Yeah it was dangerous, but there were three major ways a phalanx could get into trouble: terrain, training, and organization.

Terrain: Phalanx needed flat ground without obstruction like rocks or trees, otherwise the formation breaks up.

Training: Romans were highly trained and the Hellenistics, while formidable, were not nearly as professional as even the citizen soldiers of the Punic Wars. Once the Romans got past the phalangites' spears they were butchered because they knew squat about sword fighting.

Organization: Roman units were infinately divideable, from 5400 man legion down to 8 man contuburnium (sp?). The Battle of Cynoscephalae (sp? again) shows how flexible the legions could be. Plus the phalanx was extremely vulnerable to outflanking or encirclement because it was extremely rigid, unlike the manipular battle system used by the Romans. Where do you think we get our word "manipulate"?

Plus as far as Germans go, after Teutonburg Wald the Romans came back in 16 AD and kicked the Germans in the head at Idistaviso! My apologies to all German members of the board

And for Hannibal, he relied heavily on his Celtic allies and Spanish mercenaries to wear down the Romans before he ever sent in his phalanx of African pikemen. At Trasimene and Cannae the Celts did most of the heavy fighting, and at Zama Hannibal's phalanx was held back to prevent the troops in front of them from running!

[Fire Giant]

The phalanx was dead by the time of the Second Punic War. Yeah it was dangerous, but there were three major ways a phalanx could get into trouble: terrain, training, and organization.

[...]

See the battle of Pydna, where the last Greek Phalanx was destroyed. The terrain wasn't too formidable for a Phalanx, the Roman line managed to withstand the first contact with the Phalanx and then little Roman units managed due to rocks and trees, to get into the approaching Phalanx and the greek soldiers had to throw their spears away in order to defend themselves with the sword - and the Romans were trained to perfection at sword usage, so the rest of the battle was just a formality, as after the the Phalanx formation broke, Rome won with less than 200 casualties, while the Greeks lost the half of their army.

Plus as far as Germans go, after Teutonburg Wald the Romans came back in 16 AD and kicked the Germans in the head at Idistaviso! My apologies to all German members of the board

No problem, the old Germans were just a bunch of barbarians Anyway, I would have rather liked it if Rome had established itself in the north of Germany as well, because we'd have some nice archaeological stuff here then. But as things developed, the only start at the limes line, approx. 200 km south of where I live

[Titus Ultor]

Also, the Phalanx could be defeated by mobility. The problem with the phalanx was that it was a very slow and ponderous formation, and had enough trouble going forward, much more so when turning. A well-used cavalry, or even a lighter infantry, could strike at the phalanx from a direction not nearly as strong as the front.

[Paal_101]

Plus the phalanx could not turn one side of its formation to face a threat without compromising another flank. They all had to turn as one.

[Titus Ultor]

Of course. Roman legions almost always had the edge on a phalanx. How else could they counquer so many Hellenistic nations? The problems came when other, unconventional tactics were used.

[Paal_101]

Well, to resurrect this thread, here is an interesting find in Britain. Still highly circumstantial evidence and support being used, but it is interesting none the less. Also note that the two women found were 2 out of 180.

RAT discussion of the find, conatins links to other material:

http://p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1...icID=1211.topic

Also, for your information Mike Bishop is a major force in the Roman military history world

[Argalius]

Romans that let women fight, really strange...

[Paal_101]

Very, although they say the fort housed an irregular unit at that time. My personal feeling is that they may have been related or married to the commanders of the unit. They probably recieved the sword for self-defence or the commanders gave up a fine scabbard (note that no swords were present) to commemorate the death of their wives/girlfriends/mistresses.

Also, notice that they haven't certified that the bones are from the Danube. They only guess that these women are from the Danube because there was a unit present at the fort from that are at that time. Doesn't mean they weren't from the area, but there is no evidence to say that they weren't British prostitutes, Gallic wives, etc, etc.

History is its own evidence and we have to believe what it says, but this is far from proven.

[Titus Ultor]

Either way, there haven't been too many recorded instances of such behavior for women. Then again, Britain isn't regular, even less so in a specifically irregular unit.

The thought of six-feet tall women charging at me arrayed in battle regalia does scare me.

[Paal_101]

Strangely enough it doesn't scare me Maybe its because I fight women in karate Believe me, in general the guys are the ones to be afraid of. There is the odd female who is VERY good but in general your average male is better than your average female, in my limited experience anyway. *prepares to get flamed *

[Mythos_Ruler]

You needn't have worried about 6 foot women chasing you down and hacking you to pieces. No one was 6 foot tall back then. Alexander the Great himself might not even have been 5 foot tall.

[Paal_101]

Not in the Roman or Greek world. Celts and Germans were on average 6 feet tall. Average Romans were 5'7.

[akya]

*flames Paul* just for the heck of doing it ^^

*waves* I'm gonna try and be back more often to participate in the 0AD topics ^^

[Mythos_Ruler]

Are you sure about those heights, Paul? I have seen armor from middle ages knights that looks like children could wear it.

[Titus Ultor]

The Dark Ages weren't kind to the constitutions of most people. Even though there are not many clear records, most of what I've read points to a decline of nearly everything in the Dark Ages.

[Wijitmaker]

A nice research paper on the subject of height:

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/wwl/koepke...womillennia.pdf

[Paal_101]

Agreed Cory. There was a general decrease in size from everything I've heard. I've seen Scottish basket hilt swords from the 1700s that I could not use because my hand wouldn't be able to fit through the grip. But on the other hand most reenactment equipment (built to period sizes) from ancient times seems to easily fit most modern reenactors.

[Titus Ultor]

I believe literally everything, besides the things mentioned in Paul's profile, decreased in the Dark Ages.

[Taron Quintus]

Hello, just needed to add my two-cents as a history major:

Yes, ancient Romans, Greeks, and even some "Barbarians" had superior agricultural and husbrandry skills than later, Dark Age peoples, at least until the 14th-15th centuries.

Second, Medieval suits of armor on display were built at about 7/8th scale or there abouts to better show the intaglio, fluting, and gilding on the various pieces of the armor. The few pieces of actual combat armor are less ornate, but seem to fit 6'+ men, since knights and other soldiers would have been better fed than the average peasant.

[Paal_101]

Did not know that!! I was also talking with guys on RAT about this and they said that the remains of a 6'4 legionnaire were discovered somewhere in either Denmark or Holland. Obviously that was rare, but big people existed back then.

[Titus Ultor]

Just as we have people towering past seven feet tall. Rare, sure, but they exist, and they play for the NBA.

[Red_08]

And that's how we find out about them.

I don't think the Romans had NBA.