True Story of the Phalangite's decline

[Hurlbut]

Many of you are aware about the battles between Rome and Greece/Macedon in which for most part the phalangite army lost against the legion army of Republic of Rome. What you don't know is exactly *why* the phalangites lost.

By the time Rome rose as a promiment power, the Greek nations's armies were different from Alexander the Great's time. The biggest mistake they ever made was using the phalangite as an ASSAULT TROOP, that is, to be used as the decisive unit. Recall that in Alexander's time, the phalangites were used as an anchor line, a way to FIX the enemy line in place while the rest of the army flanked the line and breach/hammered it. The companion cavalry was an excellent example of the hammer. the Alexander army was a true combined arm force, there were several distinct troop types in addition to the phalangite. A problem arose after Alexander's death, that being of which there were shortage of competent horses in Greece to provide for heavy cavalry. The greeks start using the phalangites more as the decisive arm in an army that was increasingly becoming less of a combined arms force.

That's why the phalangite was ultimately doomed in the battles against Rome; it lacked sufficient distinct troops that could have cooperate with and support it and it was being used in an assault role that it was ill suited for.

In XGM, if you chose to play as a greek faction, you probably won't repeat the same mistakes. Take the lack of competent horses for example; you can represent a national horse breeding program by recruiting cavalry units in sufficient numbers. You can stay true to the Alexander's Macedon army by having a well balanced army that have various units backing up the phalangites if you remember to use the phalanx as an anvil to fix the line in place and nothing else (except defending towns, they're real gooood ).

[Boriak]

I didn't know that. Thank you for an interesting historical snack.

[Spartan198]

Rome experimented with phalangite troops during the late Imperial period.

[nhinhonhinho]

Good post Hurlbut

I really don't know about it.I always think Roman and their Legionaries is a most important reason for the fall of Phalanx style

[Hurlbut]

The phalangite was not as well trained in sword as the Roman soldier was. So when the phalanx advanced without sufficient and on rough ground, especially after a long battle, the line staggered and become irregular in places that smaller units of roman legions could exploit and close in with their swords. That's why the phalangite was never suited for assault role, the phalanx formation required good flat ground and advancing in a long battle meant your formation coherent could easily weaken.

Roman Republican Legions' smaller units, led by junior officers seizing initiative, with their good sword training won the day exploiting those flaws and mistakes. Well that and the Republican Legion was more tactically flexible than the phalanx.

Rome experimented with phalangite troops during the late Imperial period.

Right, because at that point in time the East and West Empires were under constant attacks by cavalry heavy enemies.

[Dog Fart]

Let's not forget the phalanx steamrolled through anything in it's path. That's another thing ppl seem to forget.

[Hurlbut]

You mean back when the hoplite was the main troop of the day? Yeah (there was that one battle where a spartan phalanx unit literately got steamrolled by a very deep phalanx).

But the phalangite phalanx isn't really suitable for steamrolling. It was used to pin the enemy line in place.

[Lord Fred]

What you are getting confused with here is the a traditional Greek phalanx and a later Macedonian/Successor state phalanx.

A Greek phalanx was a group of heavily armored troops that fought in close formation with relatively short spears. These could and did rely on using pushing power of a shield wall for victory.

The Macedonian phalanx with its much longer spears were used more to keep an enemy at bay and were much less movable.

I think it would have been interesting to see how a roman legion would have fared against a old style greek phalanx

[Legio]

What you are getting confused with here is the a traditional Greek phalanx and a later Macedonian/Successor state phalanx.

A Greek phalanx was a group of heavily armored troops that fought in close formation with relatively short spears. These could and did rely on using pushing power of a shield wall for victory.

The Macedonian phalanx with its much longer spears were used more to keep an enemy at bay and were much less movable.

I think it would have been interesting to see how a roman legion would have fared against a old style greek phalanx

like you know how in 300 they get pushed back but then they push them into the sea

like that^

[Hurlbut]

Well the old hoplite phalanx didn't come armed with javelins like the roman legion did. They also have a better reach with their spears even if they weren't as long as sarrisas, they were at least wieldable in one hand and more nimble.

[Dog Fart]

Anyone who thinks the Macedonian phalanx had no push power needs to do some serious study on history instead hollywood movies, inaccurate games, and comic books. The pike phalanx had max push power for the time because the ranks were deeper than the classic phalanx combined with each man pushing the guy infront of him with his sheild during the battle.

[Hurlbut]

Um that's not entirely true. Their power lay in the EXTRAORDINARY LONG REACH of their spears. Seriously, the old hoplite phalanx's power came from the shield wall and the ranks pushing behind it.

The macedon phalanx's power came from a very dense formation of long pikes, for every attacking man against such a phalanx, you had at least 5 spears facing him.

[Spartan198]

Um that's not entirely true. Their power lay in the EXTRAORDINARY LONG REACH of their spears. Seriously, the old hoplite phalanx's power came from the shield wall and the ranks pushing behind it.

The macedon phalanx's power came from a very dense formation of long pikes, for every attacking man against such a phalanx, you had at least 5 spears facing him.

Not to mention there's the difference in the size of their shields. I doubt the small dinner plate-sized shields of the phalangite would be useful with the pushing tactic as it offered little protection, whereas the hoplite shield covered pretty much the entire upper body and offered considerably more protection.

[Dog Fart]

Not to mention there's the difference in the size of their shields. I doubt the small dinner plate-sized shields of the phalangite would be useful with the pushing tactic as it offered little protection, whereas the hoplite shield covered pretty much the entire upper body and offered considerably more protection.

Maybe I should have been a bit more descriptive. What I meant was each phalangite pushing the phalangite infront of him with his shield. Not the phalangite pushing the hoplite advancing toward him with his shield. It should be obivious that phalangites pushed the enemy with their pikes.


Hulbekrhekhrkelhr whatever your name is..... Yes the cavalry did end the battle while the phalanx held the enemy line. But what I am trying to explain is that the phalanx was just as much as an offensive force as the cavalry and even more so than the classic phalanx. Otherwise Phillip II would have just stuck with classic hoplites. With so many pikes presented to the enemy combined with deeper ranks and heavier pressure, the hoplite phalanx would break giving the cavalry a perfect chance to end the battle with a charge. If the Macedonian phalanx was not designed to break up formations infront of it and allowing the enemy to stay cohesive and coordinated then the cavalry charge would not be as effective.

As I said, I'll come back with lots of material to further explain this.

[Legio]

there were also spartans

[Dog Fart]

Hurlbut, here is quick link that mentions how the deep ranks of the Macedonian phalanx gave it the critical push power that made it successful. This is what broke up the classic shield wall of hoplite phalanxes. The pressure from the Macedonian phalanx broke their ranks causing all sorts of calamity. It's not practical to have a bunch of guys just standing still and holding their pikes out as you would suggest.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Cla...bcj/16-04.html

I'll try to find some time to dig out all my books and crap and explain how the pike phalanx actually worked.

[Hurlbut]

You forgot one thing: I never said the macedon phalanx had to be immobile, only that it was used to pin the enemy line down.

[Dog Fart]

It was as much of an army crusher as it was an army catcher. This is something you are overlooking.

[Hurlbut]

Not really, just take a look at Alexander's field battles. See who won the days? It was his heavy cavalry that he led himself for most part, his macedon pikemen helped to pin down the enemy while his cavalry could hammer the line.

[Legio]

the cavalry has more hitpoints
look in the edu, dirty
you are also neglecting the charge bonus and that you dont have to keep pressing F to form phalanx