First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the creators of the film “The Battle of the Five Armies”. It’s hard to spoil many good things the way they did. “It's a fairy tale,” many will say. Rather, fantasy, and just the central element - the most massive battle. And almost all sides of the confrontation have heavy infantry. And the mass viewer sees what he sees. And he creates a very strange impression of the clash of large armies of the pre-powder era.
No, mistakes happen, but when literally everything is done the other way around ... serious doubts creep in.
So, a little about heavy infantry. Why is it good and why is it needed. Almost all authors historical books telling about the legendary adventures of Iskander the Two-Horned in dusty Asia have some difficulties in substantiating his phenomenal victories over the Persians. The trouble is that these very victories are absolutely fabulous and even fabulous.
No matter how much you clarify or cut down the size of the armies of the king of Persia, we have to admit: they were much more of Alexander Filippovich's army. No matter how sophisticated, no matter how sophisticated, you have to admit (taking into account the fact that Darius put up on the battlefield every time in general battles new army), that the soldiers of the Persians was about an order of magnitude more than the Macedonians. No wonder, if we compare the population of the Persian Empire and Macedonia with Greece.
No, of course, Alexander the Great is a great man, and innumerable amounts of chairs (still in antiquity) are broken around him, but as the examples of Hannibal and Francis I (both of them, by the way, fought in Italy!), Even a genius is powerless against the strategic superiority of the enemy in power. No matter how cool you are, no matter how “get out” ...
A version is suddenly used that Darius III is a coward and a "loshara." Exactly, “on the opposite side”, they say, Alexander is a hero and a genius, and Darius is his complete opposite. Actively "forcing" and advancing this topic. There is even a mosaic on this subject: they say, Alexander “dawned” on Darius so much that he was frightened and lost both courage, and valor, and empire ...
However, not everything is so simple: if it were about a collision between two cavalry units, then yes, the courage of the commander would be of fundamental importance. Like his fighting skills. But in the course of a gigantic battle, in which tens of thousands of soldiers are involved, the heroic gesture of the commander-in-chief means little. You still know, these very “raids of Alexander” at the head of the getyers on the right flank somehow do not inspire warm feelings. It's not about courage / cowardice: if he had fallen during such a dashing attack from a random spear / arrow, what would happen to his army? With the state?
One immediately recalls Epaminondas and his death. Moreover, even the "noble Spartans" beat Epaminondas quite purposefully. The Spartans, who glorified the “bold spear” and cursed the “cowardly arrow”. The Spartans, whose swords were the shortest in Greece ... And even they, in the case of the brilliant Epaminondas, “beat on the staffs”. Categorically.
But just as the Persians were famous for their ability to shoot a bow. The Persian nobility taught their sons three things, and to ride a war horse and shoot a bow was one of the three irreplaceable skills. Feel what it smelled like "reckless Alexander"? But the gods were on his side, there can be no other explanation. Lucky man, how rarely someone lucky in war ... As we all understand his life was critical for the successful completion of the campaign and such a risk was not completely justified.
And what is this battle, where the commander-in-chief personally participates, albeit in an important, but flank attack? Army who will lead? There were other sensible commanders? So why exactly them Do not lead the very decisive attack on the right flank? If, apart from Macedonian itself, no one could do this ... what kind of army is this? Guerrilla unit?
But he won? Really. He defeated "countless hordes of Persians." But the reason is not only and not so much in the genius and heroism of the commander on the battlefields, but in that the basis of the Macedonian army was a phalanx of heavy infantry. But with this phalanx itself, of course, covered by archers and light infantry, and the cavalry from the flanks, the Persians could do nothing. Paradoxically, it sounds, but the numerical ratio did not matter much. Either you have enough well-trained heavy infantry in sufficient quantities, or you don’t have it. In the latter case, you can only sympathize.
To fight head-on with heavy enemy infantry, you need your own heavy infantry. In another way. Understand, there are no other options. Trying to crush a phalanx box with a “big crowd” is just wasting people. If the phalangites keep the line, and from the flanks this line is securely covered, then they can be “broken” only by other heavy infantry. This is very difficult for an ordinary person (and even a historian-specialist in antiquity) to understand. Understand the fact that if you do not have a sensible heavy infantry, a head-on collision with an enemy, who possessing, most likely, will end very badly for you.
To level the presence of the enemy of such units with numerical superiority is very, very difficult. Therefore, in the absence of the Persians' own heavy infantrymen, holding a major field battle turned into a real puzzle for them - there are a lot of troops, but no one can stand against the phalanx. "Dial" heavy infantry fail. A prosperous and free peasantry is needed (social factor). Requires serious traditions, etc.
"Vundervaffe" Macedonians (phalanx with sarissy was created before Alexander) was just largely in the ordinary free Macedonian, who, on the one hand, was free and felt personal interest in the battle / campaign (as opposed to the ordinary Persian infantryman). On the other hand, he obeyed strict discipline and was ready to keep his place in the ranks not only out of fear of punishment.
As a result, the phalanx was simply “too tough” for the Persians. No, of course, Alexander is very skillfully used and acted very competently and decisively (the victory itself does not come to visit). But without this "tactical domination" it is unlikely that he would have been able to achieve something, had he been three times brilliant. Heavy infantry. It was she who largely determined the fate of the Persian Empire. Granic, Issa and Gavgamela without phalanx with sarissy would be impossible.
Alexander's cavalry was certainly good ... but it would be very difficult to surprise the Persians with it. Darius chose the place of the last battle precisely for reasons of ease of use as large masses of cavalry as possible ... But this did not save him. It is extremely difficult to “gall” phalanxes with masses of cavalry.
The paradox is that with a gigantic numerical / resource superiority the general battle to the Persians was absolutely unprofitable. In the general battle they were weaker. All because of the lack of the very klyatoy "heavy infantry." Persian military experts failed to understand this. Every time they "simply did not believe their eyes."
But the army of Macedon was extremely vulnerable in the vast expanses of the Asian ... the army is mostly on foot. The terrain is unfamiliar, the climate is unfamiliar, the distances are enormous ... and the Persians (how rarely any other civilized people) had masses of excellent horse archers ... Once again: the Macedonian cavalry could in no case "fight one on one" with the Persian cavalry. It was absolutely impossible. Moreover, the Greeks / Macedonians did not have any "horse archers". Somehow I remember the fate of the Crassian legions ...
The funny thing is that Surena Mihran's cavalry was much smaller than Darius (there was no infantry at all!), But the Crassus forces were quite comparable to the forces of Alexander the Great. Crassus himself is very difficult to compare with Macedon, I agree.
But Darius III preferred large field battles, while not having his own heavy infantry (mercenaries, of course, were). The victory could not end in any way ...
But just the "invincible Macedonian phalanx" was completely beaten under Kinoskefalami. And without any frills and monstrous sacrifices. Spit found a stone - just the Romans with heavy infantry everything was in order. And even more. In fact, legions are the very heavy infantry. But even more disciplined and broken into maniples. That is the basis of all the victories of the Roman republic / empire.
Battlefield, general battle ... and iron-clad maniples of Roman legionnaires. And practically no one could do anything about it. Is that a brilliant Hannibal. But genuine geniuses are rare. Most of the authors writing on military themes love three things very much, namely, true heroism, the magical "vundervaffly" and countless hordes of enemies. Therefore, the victory at Kinoskefalah is shrouded in some mysticism. And someone even tries to proceed from the fact that the Roman Republic had much greater resources than the Macedonian kingdom. So it is so, and if the fight with the phalanx was reduced to "filling it up with corpses," then one could speak of a "relationship" between resources and human potential.
The Battle of Pydna had approximately the same result: the complete defeat of the Macedonian phalanx without any significant losses for the legionnaires. So it's not a matter of "great numerical superiority." The scythe found on the stone. The Macedonian "heavy infantry lovers" faced the Roman pros. Alexander and his diadochi were lucky: rarely any of their opponents could put a box of heavy infantry on the battlefield. The phalanges of the sarissophores were "impenetrable". But not for the Romans.
The sudden "collapse" of the phalanx when confronted with the legions is surprising to many, but we must remember that before that phalanx simply did not have a worthy opponent. An intelligent heavy infantry (disciplined and well-trained) is not as easy as it seems. Not everyone had it historically. The strength of the Roman legion lay in its ability to act on the battlefield with cohorts and maniples.
The Macedonian phalanx was also divided into small phalanxes, syntangms and fuckers, but separately they, as a rule, only moved to the battlefield. They struck blow together. And that was the problem. "Violation" of the phalanx on the battlefield probably happened before, many times. Where have you seen absolutely flat fields for the march of 16 thousands of people build? In computer games? But few could take advantage of these "breaks" system. On the battlefield, it is not so easy to do.
As a rule, the opponents of the Macedonians not only did not have disciplined heavy infantry, but also stupidly controlled the troops only until their entry into battle (in most cases). Manage the same individual units on the battlefield few people knew how. And in the phalanx a gap ... and you see it, what's next? Poorly organized random fighters who rush in there, stupidly cut. And to competently there to hit you need to have on hand the very cohort / maniple. And who were they (or their analogs) other than the Romans?
So the reason for the pogrom of the phalanx is not only in the “inability of the phalangites to fight with swords,” the reason is also in the principled tactical superiority of the Roman legion. It was extremely difficult to do something while staying within the phalanx. If at all possible. The use of multimeter sariss outside of very large units is pointless. The problem was not in some kind of “fading of the phalanx”, which some historians like to write about. The problem was that the phalanx system, which was fully developed and formed over the course of generations, suddenly faced with the tactical superiority of the heavy infantry of the Romans.
And hardly anything, just like that, could be invented in response. The Macedonians fought on the battlefield with the order they had and fought as best they could. Against most opponents, this was quite enough, but not against the Romans. The Romans could resist on the battlefield, except the tactical genius of Hannibal ... All the others in the "right battle" they carried out from the battlefield. That way peremptorily.
Such is the Roman Empire. The reason is the same - the competent use of heavy infantry on the battlefield. Repeat and master the Roman cohort / manipulative system so no one could really (although some attempts were certainly made). But all in vain. And in the future there were of course failures, failures, and defeats ... But the superbly organized Roman state (the eastern monarchies were largely inferior to it) and the superbly organized heavy infantry of the legions (with the support of cavalry and auxiliary troops) did their job time and again.
Once again - to beat the heavy infantry on the battlefield in the general battle, not having its heavy infantry, is extremely difficult. The various Gauls / Celts / Germans with long swords could by no means be a worthy contender for obvious reasons “no organization” on the battlefield. The Romans and the Greeks (in contrast to the barbarians) fought systems. This each time gave them an undeniable tactical advantage. The Romans (unlike the majority of the rest of the “civilized” nations) could act on the battlefield by separate units, close / unlock the ranks, rebuild, without losing the order.
The opponents knew how to do, at best, elite / shock parts. The Romans did not use unorganized mobs on the battlefield at all. Do not need it, too much. The Roman soldier, while his unit was not defeated, acted in the ranks and even in the heat of battle obeyed the orders.
Just copy and reproduce it all. on the battlefield very few people were on the shoulder. Therefore, the heroic barbarians could endlessly fight for their freedom - almost every "right" battle ended in defeat for them. Trying to compensate for the structure, discipline and training of personal heroism and fearlessness - an exercise, as a rule, of little use.
The Romans “infinitely won” for the simple reason that a worthy opponent for them was most often a rarity. Their defeats show that in itself heavy infantry is absolute weapons was not. In the period of the decline of Rome, when discipline began to fall, then the fighting qualities of the legions rushed down. Iron discipline is the basis of Roman fighting power, with its loss, the superiority of the legionaries on the battlefields was lost.
It is not a matter of arming and defending a Roman legionary; it is not always reasonable to consider an army at the level of individual soldiers. It is more logical to look at the unit, albeit small. A separate soldier / officer is just a cog in a big "car." And from a certain point, due to the fall of discipline, the Roman military machine went racing. There was nothing “extraordinary” in her weapons and equipment.
And it was not only and not so much in the courage of individual soldiers, but in the organization of that same flawless “war machine”. The physical condition of the soldiers and the level of weapons at the same time could not be too high. God is on the side of the big battalions, speak? Somehow in the battle of Alesia it didn’t have much effect ... and the Gauls were armed somewhat better. The Gallic sword, you know, is no match for the Roman ...
The knightly era of the Middle Ages is historically much closer to us, when for quite objective social reasons the equestrian knight was the king of the battlefield. But this is just one historical moment. Equestrian knight could dominate on the battlefield in the absence of the very “heavy infantry”, if someone did not understand, then a frontal attack with heavy cavalry of a heavy infantry box is insanity. Complete insanity.
For example, the epic fantasy battle in the description of Sapkowski himself (when there is only heavy cavalry on one side) looks absolutely wild: you can beat a heavy infantry head-on only with heavy infantry, well, or shoot crossbows (as allegedly shot by Chinese crossbowmen during a collision with Roman legionnaires after being captured in the service of Parthia). You can not attack them with cavalry, even if the cataphract type - this is nonsense and madness. A horseman (his horse) is expensive, much more expensive than an infantryman. Heavy cavalry, his armor and horse, capable of carrying it all on themselves, are very expensive. Equestrian knight / knightly cavalry "superunit" are not in any time.
They are expensive and vulnerable. And retraining / recovery of losses is very difficult. All nations that relied on heavy cavalry faced this: the Parthians and the Teutonic Order. To compensate for the loss is extremely problematic. After a devastating defeat, “recovering” is not at all easy and quick. That is, heavy cavalry, of course, a magnificent "unit" at first glance - powerful, beautiful and speedy. However ... in the realities of a difficult, long war - by no means the most interesting.
And why popular movies and books are mentioned (and numerous idiotic illustrations with knights attacking a dense system of spearmen in armor!) - a common point in the public consciousness was that anyone could fight with heavy infantry and in any way. The battle - she is such a battle ... some troops fight with others (and this battle by all means splits into a series of individual fights!). And even the “experts” on the Middle Ages and knighthood give out very wild pearls ... In reality, a tough collision with a formation of heavy infantry meant great unjustified losses for almost anyone. The valiant knights of the Middle Ages were so valiant, precisely because there was no need to break through such a system. By the way, the violation of the system of heavy infantry in battle - sharply devalued it.
The paradox of Alexander of Macedon (which “in the light” reached India!) And the paradox of Rome (which created the greatest empire and defeated almost all opponents) is explained by the correct preparation and competent use of heavy infantry units.
