"Very Long Spears"?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I've always had doubts about the effectiveness of a Macedonian Phalanx. They get smaller stats than their hoplite couterparts, and the only bonus they seem to get are their "very long spears". But then, let's go to historical matters.

The sarissa, presumed to be work of the genius of Philip of Macedon, was a cumbersome and heavy pike. It would take two hands to carry it, and it was heavy enough for a strong soldier to carry and use all the day, so the phalanxes had smaller shields and lighter armour than the previous greek hoplites. Historically, this proved to be an advantage because phalanxes could engage enemies with impunity, as it would take a very strong enemy to get through the first and second line of spears and then do damage to the phalangites; even so, the phalangites had reserve swords for a close fight. They would also have an advantage against hoplites, because the thrusting hoplite spear was smaller despite the hoplon and the heavy armour hoplites could afford.

In-game, that's not the case. Where's the strenght in "Very Long Spears" if anyone can go through them and attack the phalangites? It's very easy for an Armoured Hoplite to get close to the enemy line and start thrusting the pike phalanx. In this case the hoplite's superior stats would make them win the day unless the phalangites have superior cavalry support. In fact, I think phalanxes are underrated: they should be able to do lots more damage to the enemy thanks to their long pikes, but they don't seem very superior to their hoplite counterparts anyway. A Levy Pikemen will rout Militia Hoplites, but will lose against normal Hoplites. Here we have the advantage of hoplites over a pike phalanx: they get more armour and attack, so they're less vulnerable to missile fire and manage to destroy both infantry and enemy phalanxes.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

Phalangites got completely screwed by those Roman-loving game designers who couldn't afford a historical consultant.

In reality, the Macedonian phalanx (even at the time of the Roman invasion of Macedon) was absolutely invincible from the front. Any Roman unit that stood in its way got completely obliterated. Spartans, Thebans, Athenians all got owned by the Macedonian phalanx. Yet, in the game, it's completely reversed.

What allowed the legions to defeat these phalanx armies were:
1) superior leadership & flexibility from Rome's junior officers which allowed the Romans to send in reserves at a moment's notice and the initiative required to re-direct maniples on the battlefield to encircle & slaughter the phalanx from its only vulnerable locations (the rear & flanks)
2) rough terrain which destroyed the cohesion of a phalanx front
3) declining quality of Macedonian cavalry at the time of the Roman invasion which was necessary to protect the flanks of the phalangites
4) the lack of a great commander who could control the phalanx & heavy cavalry in tandem

To answer your question: the longer spears is just a graphical difference. As you already noted, pikemen/phalangites get owned by Spartans, Armoured Hoplites, Sacred Band Spearmen. And it certainly doesn't do much to prevent them from getting beaten by Urban Cohorts from the front, rear and sides. I think it's funny when Urbans simply jump over the sarissas. If any unit really tried that against a wall of sarissas, they would've been impaled Dracula-style.

[unfortunate crow]

1) superior leadership & flexibility from Rome's junior officers which allowed the Romans to send in reserves at a moment's notice and the initiative required to re-direct maniples on the battlefield to encircle & slaughter the phalanx from its only vulnerable locations (the rear & flanks)

Just a side note; Unrelated. While great generals are important. Leadership and flexibility in the lower tiers of military leadership is usually the start of an impressive military machine to come. When this goes away, even great war machines can be only a shadow of their former self. Just look at the United States military and you can see this slow decline in progress.

[Roman Clone]

Uhh, Historically, didn't roman legions pwn Macedonian phalanxes?

[Prince_of_Macedon]

Uhh, Historically, didn't roman legions pwn Macedonian phalanxes?

Uhh, didn't you read my post?

[Paul d]

look at the wikipediia wiki on the battle of pydna. almost EXACTLY what Barbarian prince said.


the makedonians were screwed because:

1. improper use of Thorakai(sp?) heavy javelinmen similar to roman legios

2. over the years the hammer and anvil tactic deteriorated, because hellenic nations had greater difficulty fielding the heavy cavalry of Alexander's day. so it was the shoe and anvil.


3. inflexibility. if on a slope, they have no chance. at the battle of pydna, the roman legios managed to lure the phalanx up a hill, where they could slip between the pikes.

4. lack of competent command.



my solution:

go to the export-descr_units and increase attack by 4, and shield defense by 4.

[Subrosa Florens]

I am very disappointed in the Macedonian pikemen in RTW. I started my first Macedonian campaign a little while ago, and I was thinking "Wow, I will have both good infantry and cavalry at the same time."

Wrong. The Macedonian pike units cannot seem to hold their own against anyone I throw them against. Even fighting in the streets they were continually thrashed. It is always up to the cavalry (which is excellent) to save the day. Eventually I stopped using pikemen altogether and switched first to hoplites, and now finally to hypaspists.

Historically speaking, it should also be noted that in the time of Phillip and Alexander the sarissa was 12-15 feet long. By Pydna it had lengthened to around 21 feet, making it an even more cumbersome weapon, thusly exacerbating the ponderousness of the phalanx.

[sumaznguy]

I am playing RTR, so I dunno if the phalangites are any stronger or weaker than Vanilla phalangites. But they are amazing. Although I use mass phalangites(since the AI does so too). I use other phalangites to outflank enemy phalangites lol. Although their stats are often inferior, the very long spears work great. At least for pinning the enemy. Then I use whatever I have left to attack from the rear. And for city defense its great.(Although its more likely due to bad pathing). I just have one phanlanx unit set up sideways along the gateway(so its parallel to the road from gateway to city). As the enemies rush in they get stabbed to death by my phanlangites. I originally tried having them face the gate, but it worked poorly because the enemy will spread out to the sides and the sheer amount of enemies would push my units back. But the phalangites suffer on the walls because enemy elite infantry hack them apart.

[Whiskeyjack]

Part of the problem i think is how the phalanx formation works in game, if you watch the unit in battles often only a few of the pikemen are actually attacking while most are not(particularly the middle of the formation), this leads to the killing power of phalanx units being quite a bit less than their attack stas would imply.
Regarding hoplites vs macedonian style phalanx, this could be due to hoplites in general having higher mass than their macedonian equivalents giving them the ability to push throught pikes better, when combined with their superior stats this makes them more effective than they should be.

@Barbarian Prince- nice post, just an additional point to take into account at Pydna, it seems likley that the romans at this time where more battle hardened than the macedonians (having just come through the 2nd punic war).
Also it was perhaps not the absence of a great commander but the presence of an incompetent(and possibly cowardly to boot) one that made the difference.

The only way to fix this problem as far as i am aware is to modify pike phalanx stats to better represent the rank bous of these troops(annoyinginly not carried over from mtw), giving them +2 attack +4 defence should do the job, though it would need to be tested to ensure they dont become to strong.

[Roshak]

In reality, the Macedonian phalanx (even at the time of the Roman invasion of Macedon) was absolutely invincible from the front. Any Roman unit that stood in its way got completely obliterated. Spartans, Thebans, Athenians all got owned by the Macedonian phalanx. Yet, in the game, it's completely reversed.

Just thought I point out though while your post is correct, the reason the Macedons won against the Greeks wasn't entirely thanks to their phalanx powers but also because of them being drained from the Peloponnesian War.

[polarbear297]

to bad that in the game, it says that the pikeman are made to defeat the hoplites. I guess they were wrong. :/

[Prince_of_Macedon]

to bad that in the game, it says that the pikeman are made to defeat the hoplites. I guess they were wrong. :/

They also say that Rome has "limited cavalry."

[Titan Of Gaul]

Sacred Band own Royal Pikemen any day of the week.

[Dr. Croccer]

Its fairly obvious they lose with a shield the size of a frisbee.

[celtic_warlord422]

Royal Pikemen have large shields don't they?

[Colossus]

Yes, fairly large, but pikemen such as silver/bronze shield have very small shields, hence a defense of 14, rather than 17 of the royals.

[Gleemonex]

Its fairly obvious they lose with a shield the size of a frisbee.

And look at a WWII infantryman -- he doesn't have ANY shield. He'd definitely lose against a hoplite.

-Glee

[Roman Clone]

look at the wikipediia wiki on the battle of pydna. almost EXACTLY what Barbarian prince said.


the makedonians were screwed because:

1. improper use of Thorakai(sp?) heavy javelinmen similar to roman legios

2. over the years the hammer and anvil tactic deteriorated, because hellenic nations had greater difficulty fielding the heavy cavalry of Alexander's day. so it was the shoe and anvil.


3. inflexibility. if on a slope, they have no chance. at the battle of pydna, the roman legios managed to lure the phalanx up a hill, where they could slip between the pikes.

4. lack of competent command.



my solution:

go to the export-descr_units and increase attack by 4, and shield defense by 4.

Thats the battle I was thinking of.