what happened to phalanx warfare?

[Zvornik]

I have always wondered why the phalanxes stopped being used after the romans conquered. It was obviously a very effective military tactic. My guess would be maybe technological advance specifically designed against phalanxes...but I don't know

[.L.]

Romans weren't used to it.

[Double A]

I've always heard it was "outdated" by the Roman times, but I honestly can't say why. Maybe because it was too easy to manuver around and charge with cavalry if already engaged, or perhaps pillum just wrecked it to hell.

[Kalinin]

My understanding of the decline of the phalanx is that firstly it was very easy to out maneuver them and secondly very few generals were ever really capable of effectively using the phalanx in the way Phillip and Alexander did.

[tefras14]

Also armor evolution meant that the long sarissa was not able to penetrate it very well. There was also a change in the old traditions of war.

[Toho]

using phalanxes on light armored Persian troops is much more different then heavily armored roman troops with their great shields...

[Aeratus]

The Phalanx became obsolete because they were beaten by the Romans' heavy infantry.

The reason why pikemen made a comeback was because the Middle Ages had for centuries ingrained a culture in which elite warriors were heavy cavalrymen, and pikes/phalanxes are good against cavalry. If Medieval Knights were primarily infantry, like the Romans, then the pike would never have made a comeback.

[Silverheart]

The Phalanx went out of use for several reasons, the most important ones I shall try to hastily explain in a simplifyed manner:
1) Vulnerability/lack of adaptability - A phalanx formation moves slowly, and is hence very vulnerable to archers, spear throwers and the like, and they can also be easily defeated by pinning them down with some light troops and outflanking them with some lancer cavalry. It is also designed specifically to counter enemies who charge the hoplites/phalangists dead from the front, which makes it difficult to adapt to pretty much any other strategy.
2) Decline of Poleis and lack of recruits - Beginning after the conquest of Philip II, and finishing after the conquest of Rome, the greek system of Poleis (independent city-states) went into decline and disappeared as the cities of Greece were instead to be conformed to the new rulers kingdom/empire.
As a direct result, the system behind the recruitment, equipment and training of the Hoplites (which the Poleis system had upheld) vanished, as did the Hoplites themselves.
3) New tactics/decreased spread of greek influence - With the Roman empire expanding its´ influence, and the greek culture steadily losing its´ international influence, the use of Hoplites/phalanx tactics declined greatly. New advances in weapons- & armourmaking and warfare also contributed to make the phalanx formation obsolete and unnecessary in comparison to other, more easily adaptable troops. Hoplites, which had dominated the battlefields of most of the Mediterranean and nearest East for centuries, were no match to volleys of steel-tipped javelins, or legionary shields, or a decisive charge from the rear by heavily armoured cavalry - simply, it became better to just replace them with other troops, which were more adaptable - and thus better at handling the new tactics emerging in this period.
Also, this was an age were the qualities of heavy cavalry had begun to become apparent, making them a more frequent sight on the battlefields even around the Mediterranean.

And, as has already been mentioned, the comeback of the phalanx formation (spear wall) in the late medieval era was basically a result of heavy cavalry being the new dominant force on the battlefields, in combination with the fact that a wall of spears was the most effective way to stop a wave of charging knights (it was also a good way to make use of the multitude of the peasants)

[Aeratus]

Actually, the defeat of the Greek cities was what brought the Phalanx to its glory. The Macedonian (Phalangite) Phalanx proved to be superior to the Hoplite Phalanx.

There were three distinctive phalanx systems, each with distinctive tactics: (1) the Greek Hoplite Phalanx, (2) Alexander's Phalangite Phalanx, and (3) the Diadochi Phalangite Phalanx.

The difference between (1) and (2) can be seen in RTW (the former has big shields and shorter spears, the later has smaller shields, longer spears, and more depth in the formation). The difference between (2) and (3) is mainly in the depth of the formation.

The Romans mostly fought (3) during its expansion.

[eugenioso]

i think that i should bring up a small point: by 400 ac, the city state of sparta was a shadow of its former self but it still remained a city which produced great fighters, if not obsolete ones. there is evidence that a spartan phalanx beat back a goth raiding party during those final years of conflict for the roman empire. what i mean is that yes it was obsolete, but was still usable in the right conditions.

[Silverheart]

Actually, the defeat of the Greek cities was what brought the Phalanx to its glory. The Macedonian (Phalangite) Phalanx proved to be superior to the Hoplite Phalanx.

There were three distinctive phalanx systems, each with distinctive tactics: (1) the Greek Hoplite Phalanx, (2) Alexander's Phalangite Phalanx, and (3) the Diodochi Phalangite Phalanx.

The Romans mostly fought (3) during its expansion.

Nonetheless, we were talking about simply phalanx warfare, not any specific type of phalanx.
Also, you misunderstood me.
I said that the defeat of the greek Poleis by Philip II begun their decline - that is specifically what I said, not that the macedonians destroyed the entire system of city-states and hoplites.
Remember that I did simplify my explanation.
But since the greek Poleis by definition no longer existed, that brought about the earliest decline of the system which produced hoplites.
Then, when the romans took over Greece and forced the cities to conform to their rule, that brought about the final end of the Poleis system.

[AJStoner]

A large part of it was that the small city-states could produce extremely well-trained armies that only had to be so large. The phalanx requires a great deal of skill to perform on the part of every soldier. Anyone who has done military service will tell you that drill & ceremony (all the precision marching) is a LOT harder than it looks when you are watching it. As time went-on military forces became larger and these small phalanx units, which were slow and unwieldy--especially on uneven terrain--were outmatched by numbers and maneuverability. The time and effort that went into training them simply became less and less cost efficient.

[Aeratus]

Maneuverability was always a problem, but numbers were not a problem to the Phalanx armies that the Romans faced. Post-Alexander phalanx armies were spectacularly large, with a huge line of phalangites extending several miles wide, and backed with scythed chariots and war elephants.

[AJStoner]

Maneuverability was always a problem, but numbers were not a problem to the Phalanx armies that the Romans faced. Post-Alexander phalanx armies were spectacularly large, with a huge line of phalangites extending several miles wide, and backed with scythed chariots and war elephants.

True, but remember that these were not Hellenic hoplite troops that the Romans were facing. These phalangite units were, at best, a pale shadow of the forces Philip II and Alexander commanded; typically conscripts and even slaves as they pushed further east. The phalanx was only as effective as it was because the Greek and Macedonian forces that used them were heavily armored and elite soldiers. I would argue that the successor states would have made far better use of the numbers they had by not attempting to emulate their predecessors in the use of the phalanx at all since the forces available to them simply weren't up to it.

[Double A]

It also probably would have worked better if they were denser in the middle and had wings instead of a stupid, giant, and easily-broken-by-legions line.

[PrestigeX]

The phalanx formation, was optimal for a hard frontal attack - once you commit a phalanx to battle, its extremely difficult to withdraw. It excelled at fighting on flat even terrain.

If they are flanked it is worse than it would be for other troop types. The romans themselves were highly trained and equipped professional soldiers , the reasons they didn't use phalanxes well...could be many things - The shields and pilums and swords worked very well enough for them! The earlier armies still had 'triari' men in heavy armor and with spears as a third and final line... Romans had 'siege spears', and there are some battles where Roman units were using 'siege spears' in battle to counter enemy cavalry.

Romans had fought against Phalangites and won the day, although facing up to the phalanxes they did suffer casualties , it was a tough fight.. They were able to seize the intiative and won the day -- flanking and maneverobility.

[Zvornik]

I just can't see how the phalanx went from conquering the known world (Alexander), to being irrelevant in warfare...I guess the commanders knew how to use them better in more ancient times.
In my opinion the positives outweigh the negatives of the phalanx

[Doge Domenico]

I just can't see how the phalanx went from conquering the known world (Alexander), to being irrelevant in warfare...I guess the commanders knew how to use them better in more ancient times.
In my opinion the positives outweigh the negatives of the phalanx

It wasn't that people stopped learning how to command them. Its that the romans tried the phalanx formation and when they met the barbarians who were lose and able to manuever around the formation they realized " Hey, instead of just arming ourselves for an attack to the front and limiting our ablilty to do much of anything other than charge and brace, lets organize manuverable, heavily armoured well armed maniples. "
First, A pila barrage would reap havok amongst a pike wall. Then, while the men were reforming, a charge by cavalry in the back infantry in the front left your men surrounded and destroyed.

the arguement that generals just didnt know how to use them anymore is odd. A general could have said, "An arquibesier is better than a musket" no matter how great that general is, the arquibesier just isnt a better gun.

[TWWolfe]

and phalanxes did make a comeback of a sort once warfare reached a point where most battles were once again fought in frontal slugfests that they were designed for. and they were deadyly when they were combined with muskets.

[Double A]

Medieval pikemen didn't use shields.