#2 (permalink) Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:58 pm Articulated formation |
|
|
. Some hints:
1-- The Hungarian field armies were drawn up into an articulated formation (as it happened in Battle of Przemysl- 1099, Battle at Leitha- 1146, Battle of Morvamezo- 1278, 1349), in three main battle (formation) (1146, 1278, 1349). According to the contemporary sources and later speculations, the first line was formed by light cavalry archers (Battle of Oslava- 1116, 1146, 1260, 1278).
2-- The Demise of the original Greek Phalanx
As has already been pointed out by many others, it was just too inflexible a formation. Slow to set up, nearly impossible to manouevre, very hard to adapt to the terrain. The military equivalent of trying to win in the NFL using nothing but linemen.
As soon as the phalanx came up against any kind of well-articulated formation, it was in trouble. Philip of Macedon did very well using the (adapted) phalanx combined with cavalry, spearmen and skirmishers, but against the Roman legions it was hopeless. Can you imagine trying to form up soldiers into blocks 16 wide and 16 deep, shoulder-to-shoulder, for a charge against an enemy who was working with independent groups of 60 or so in a loose three-deep formation? Like trying to swat hornets with a sledgehammer.
3-- Epaminondas arranged or allowed his separate contingents freedom of action, changing his phalanx from a solid block of spearmen into an articulated formation, allowing the Boeotian army to concentrate its power against the most dangerous part of the enemy line rather than attempt to engage the entire force at once. . _________________ Native English teacher at Mister Micawber's |
|
Mister Micawber Language Coach
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 13015
|