![spiked hoplite shield spiked hoplite shield](https://staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/110/images/5134-1-1325494916.jpg)
But they tended to accompany some fairly specific tactical systems and AFAIK were nigh invariably a feature of relatively small, maneuverable shields. Spiky shields existed well enough in history, in several different forms too. In general the Roman legionary had about double the space a Hoplite had, making personal movements actually possible. In essence there was not much that would make the phalanx and maniple look alike, aside from being drilled fromations with a specific position for each man. The Romans (and Samnites) didn't lose cohesion and gained tactical adaptiveness (if the leaders were brave and intelligent enough). And not surprisingly the Romans did very well when they could face off against an enemy in dense formations who had to advance over broken terrain. They specifically fought in lighter equipment and in more open formations so as not to get broken up by the rugged ground that they called home. The maniple however was more of an adaptation to fightin the mountains, and seem to have been a copy of the Samnites' formations. Well technically the Romans actually fought as hoplites prior to the manipular formations. It wasn't as tightly packed as a phalanx, but it still had the idea of tightly-grouped men working as one. The point is that originally they did, until they stole the manipular formation, which in itself was an adaptation of the phalanx formation. But I don't think they generally fought in a shield wall when attacking it seems to me that Romans relied more on wearing their enemies down than trying to overrun them. As individuals Romans obviously pushed with their shields since a good way to knock someone off balance is to bang them with a big piece of wood.
![spiked hoplite shield spiked hoplite shield](https://wiki.nordinvasion.com/lib/exe/fetch.php?w=440&tok=28087b&media=general:items:steel_hoplite_shield.png)
![spiked hoplite shield spiked hoplite shield](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gM8jtk2ckB8/U0qdpW6m_hI/AAAAAAABPPU/c0LzUc42qGM/s640/5.jpg)
If an army is going to try that the only way to do it is to put everyone into an unbroken and deep line because the simple fact is that a think line is not going to get much momentum behind it, that is after all why even before they created the sloped phalanx the Thebans were such formidable hoplites all they did was make their formation deeper than that of other Greeks. They should learn to dress in a straight line and to keep an equal and just distance between man and man."Īlso I don't think that the Roman tactic of putting footsoldiers in relatively thin lines and having them periodically withdraw is in keeping with trying to break an enemy by physically pushing them. Recruits should therefore be constantly in the field, drawn up by the roll and formed at first into a single rank.
![spiked hoplite shield spiked hoplite shield](http://www.houseoftheorangemonkey.co.uk/monkey/hats/images/hoplite3.jpg)
Whenever this happens and they are attacked in the rear, universal disorder and confusion are inevitable. If their order is too open and loose, they give the enemy an opportunity of penetrating. Troops too much crowded can never fight as they ought, and only embarrass one another. "No part of drill is more essential in action than for soldiers to keep their ranks with the greatest exactness, without opening or closing too much. If they locked shields to form a wall and push I don't see how they could have thrown their pila or used the gladius or any other weapon held underhand. I don't think the Romans fought in such close order unless there special reasons to do so, such as to resist a cavalry charge.