Pike phalanxes - why ?

[Husayn Bayqara]

Just trying to imagine why pike phalanxes even existed. Think of the recruiting and training up to coordinate the pike block ( a technical, non- ethnic way of " fighting " ), and sure you end up with an impressive number of pike heads to the front. But then ,tactically , consider steadily walking forward ( or standing in defence) to contact with........well, kamikaze head - on charging cavalry, but that should never occur ; another phalanx - the now clumsy long pikes would be pushed backwards or otherwise deflected, probably dropped, the whole thing would degenerate into a shield wall push like a rugby scrum, swords drawn ; similarly against shielded / armoured spearmen and swordsmen eg legions, better equipped to pick the pike block apart man by man. And consider the huge close formation vulnerability to missiles sent in from close range ( javelin showers, slings ), long range ( arrow storms ), and horse archers, and artillery ( stone, bolt ). And an exposed flank inviting disaster.There seems no way the investment in pikes is worth it, apart from the psychological challenge to foes up close and in front, with the hope that they will break without the phalanx being seriously tested. Romans described phalanxes as a terrifying sight, but the legionnaries systematically destroyed them anyway. Maybe Hellenistic warfare had become codified, with bluff and morale and formal manouvre playing a large part, like with the condottiere in Renaissance Italy......and then the Romans ( the French in the Italian Wars) come with no manners and cut them to pieces. And of course pike blocks did have a renaissance too, then, in the 15 th century, and were shot to bits by longbows and crossbows and cannons , and then muskets , and cut to bits by sword - and - bucklermen, and armoured billmen..........phalanxes have such self evident liabilities that the fact that they were ever in vogue is mystifying. If you class infantry as skirmishers, missile , or melee, pike "fighting" does not square with the image of hand to hand melee. They looked good , and could push away cavalry - big investment, limited return, always courting disaster. How should they fare in the combat algorithms of TWR2?

[HigoChumbo]

Mmm... the french got steamrolled in the Italian Wars, and they kept getting beaten for the following 150 years, so i wouldn't say they were the romans in your comparation. The pike square dominated the battlefields from the late 15th. century up to early-mid 17th. century, so i don't know why do you give it such treatment (hell, if the longbow as so superior i wonder why the English put so much effort in the navy...).

Cannons in the 15th century were not nearly as effective as the one Napoleon used. If people used pike squares in battles against cannons, it is because they could. The more the cannons (and muskets) evolved, the more that pike square became obsolete and thiner lines of gunpowder units started to dominate, but that did not happen until -roughly- the second half of the 17th. century. Btw, it's not like Tercios for isntance were composed just by pikemen and got owned just by sword-and-buckler men, Tercios were composed by many types of troops (swordmen, pikemen, musketeers, etc) who complemented each other in combat, i mean, there were several types of fighters inside the very square of pikemen, and other units (like musketeerS) would take refuge inside the squares if they needed to. The formation was flexible in that field.

And Swiss pikemen were famous because they completely changed the military tactics that had dominated the battlefield in the last several centuries, rendering heavy cavalry useless (or at least not as superior as they had been).


So i'd say that if the macedonians used phalanxes, it is because they worked.



Btw, you should use paragraphs, it makes reading the post much easier and you will get more responses (because many people will just enter the thread, see the wall of text and close the tab automatically).

[ignaciospain1]

I recommend you take a look at Alatriste, a Spanish movie that depicts a couple of units at the battle of Rocroi, in which French cavalry/infantry attack a stationary Spanish Tercio.

Of course there are great differences between this and how phalanx battles probably were fought (you can forget the musket usage, and add some skirmishers throwing javelin to formations instead, change the armor, add the small shield from Macedonian Phalangites...).

But what can be of interest to you is from the minute 3:00, when you can see how the two formations of pikemen confront each other, and how rogue soldiers broke their formations to stab the other enemies pikemen, and the kind of chaotic melee that surely happened B.C. and A.D.



I am pretty new here, and it seems i messed something with the video. I will post just the link, and sorry for the double-post (I don´t know how to edit :S)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_dd4kf5po

[oOIYvYIOo]

Why ?

This has been one fo the weirdest questions i ever saw .
But im not any expert to explain ... even if i think there is no need for a expert to explain ...

[Numring]

My guess would be that warfare and it's tactics ever changed to counter specific movements: When the Macedonian phalanx came up, it's foes had no means to counter it as the hoplite phalanx would face a wall of pikes, without experience in flanking whatsoever. And then the Macedonian phalanx would of course be assisted by heavy cavalry, another uncommon sight on Greek battlefields.
As this tactic obviously worked very well against numerous enemies, it would quickly be adapted by other powers, making for a period in which; as you said; the unit types would be pretty equal and in which terrain and questions like: Whose heavy cavalry is better/more numerous?/Who is able to deploy his phalanx better? would determine most battles.

Such a system works, of course until someone invents a completely new way of fighting pike phalanxes which throws the system over. That's what the Romans achieved with their mobile, flexible army structure.

In Middle ages, the Pikes proved immense worth when they first came up - as a means to counter the cavalry charges of knights in full armour. It established itself thus in many countries until - again - a new way to counter it would be invented; here the advance of firepower and artillery.
I think that every development in that regard is a matter of countering established tactics and then again getting countered.

[Hannarr]

Macedonian pike formations were different to medieval formations. initially pike formations worked well against the romans. but clearly you don't know anything about pike or formation combat at all, and it would probably have been alot easier and less painful to at least minimally research the subject first.

[Husayn Bayqara]

I am saying imagine yourself fighting in a pike phalanx - how do you actually fight ?. Then imagine fighting against one , say, in a legion, or throwing javelins ( or shooting Scottish schiltrons down time and time again as an English longbowman - " when will they ever learn ? " ). Imagine being a general having to counter the threat of a phalanx, with tactics. With the right forces, it did not prove too hard. And the Italian Wars analogy referred to the French invading and fighting tough, in the 1490s , rudely interrupting the condottiere formal battlefield posturing - I was not not looking at the Imperial "end game", Pavia and all .The point being that maybe Hellenistic ( like Italian ) battle thinking had become codified , in the Hellenistic case around the pike phalanx, at the expense of real tactical solutions ( noting that "imitation legionnaries" did start to be adopted, but too late ).Because interestingly, at the end of the day, phalanxes did not work, and for seemingly obvious reasons.

[Dan113112]

I am saying imagine yourself fighting in a pike phalanx - how do you actually fight ?. Then imagine fighting against one , say, in a legion, or throwing javelins ( or shooting Scottish schiltrons down time and time again as an English longbowman - " when will they ever learn ? " ). Imagine being a general having to counter the threat of a phalanx, with tactics. With the right forces, it did not prove too hard. And the Italian Wars analogy referred to the French invading and fighting tough, in the 1490s , rudely interrupting the condottiere formal battlefield posturing - I was not not looking at the Imperial "end game", Pavia and all .The point being that maybe Hellenistic ( like Italian ) battle thinking had become codified , in the Hellenistic case around the pike phalanx, at the expense of real tactical solutions ( noting that "imitation legionnaries" did start to be adopted, but too late ).Because interestingly, at the end of the day, phalanxes did not work, and for seemingly obvious reasons.

The Romans almost always had difficulty fighting phalanxes. Unless the Romans could actually flank the pike formations they could not beat it head on. Even when trying to flank the Macedonian phalanx the Macedonians or other Hellenistic kingdoms had heavy and light infantry at the rear and flanks. There was also cavalry at the flanks. It's harder than you think. Another thing to think about is that the phalanxes that the Romans faced were nowhere near as well trained/equipped as Phillip II/Alexander the Great's armies were. A movie to watch that quite accurately depicts the Macedonians phalanx is Alexander (2004). The movie was crap but the battles were pretty good.

Disagree about Roman are superior than Phalanx
It simple because not many generals able to work his army the way Philips and Alexander did

I think Hannibal can but Carthage don't have such army system, Pyrrhus did able to do it but not really when he should do it but often too late so his army suffer a big lose before he can win.
In the end Roman never able defeat a true worthy General which have an army like Alexander

I agree. Another problem is that Pyrrhus didn't usually have the flexible light/heavy infantry that Alexander had. The phalanxes after Alexander were also way better trained. Most phalanxes by the time TWR2 takes place were used as the battle winner. A role they were never mean to play.

[torongill]

I am saying imagine yourself fighting in a pike phalanx - how do you actually fight ?

by levelling the pikes as a start. The question here is not how do you fight in this formation, how do you fight the legion. The question you should ask yourself is what bravery is needed to stand up to those pikes. IIRC it was Polybius who talked how at Pydna due to the less dense Roman formation each legionary had to face ten(10!) pikes.

Pikes worked. Nobody ever managed to pass through the pike wall, unless it was another pike wall.

[Ichon]

And the Italian Wars analogy referred to the French invading and fighting tough, in the 1490s , rudely interrupting the condottiere formal battlefield posturing - I was not not looking at the Imperial "end game", Pavia and all .The point being that maybe Hellenistic ( like Italian ) battle thinking had become codified , in the Hellenistic case around the pike phalanx, at the expense of real tactical solutions ( noting that "imitation legionnaries" did start to be adopted, but too late ).Because interestingly, at the end of the day, phalanxes did not work, and for seemingly obvious reasons.

First of all its been widely challenged that condottieri had any 'codified' way of fighting. Most of those complaints were from employers who wanted to win a quick victory but did not understand warfare- the reason they employed condottieri in the first place. Several harsh battles with large condottieri losses were fought but only when outcome was in doubt. Condottieri switching sides in middle of a campaign was very rare- it usually meant the end of future employment. However after a contract had ended condotierri often switched to the former enemy because they had proven capable and were offered higher pay. Condottieri fought constantly and had understanding of maneuver warfare and logistics- if the battle was disadvantageous too much one side would retreat. Amateurs might hope for miracle victories (because no doubt such do happen occasionally) but for professionals fighting repeatedly the odds are important. Also much of what condottieri warfare was about was attacking or defending supply lines- occasionally some more daring enterprises were carried out but even the most famous condottieri were mostly killed in battle which if they were fighting so safely wouldn't have occurred. Relatively small armies of condottieri defeated invasions by much larger feudal style forces though they also lost some battles it was often when facing French or Imperial forces commanded by other condotierri. The end of the condotierri age coincided with experiences of Spanish in Italy that formed basis of tercio and established the nearest thing to dominance other than Swiss until Sweden.

Pikes are usually greatly reliant on other factors. Scottish and Flemish had as many losses as victories using pikes but they were also relatively one dimensional armies and where the pikes were victorious the terrain and enemy army composition made a big deal of difference. Ancient phalanx style existed for over 500 years and was dominant for about 200 years of that time defeating many other styles. Of course individual generals and other factors are as or more important than any single style of warfare which makes judging it difficult until it seems to completely fall out of favor. The biggest difference between those pike phalanx that were generally successful and those that weren't was ability to hold initiative. Where Flemish and Scots won the pikes attacked and where they lost the pikes were fixed in place and either surrounded or shot to pieces by archery.

The battles between Pyrrhus and Rome don't establish much. Only a couple of battles and both were mostly decided by supporting forces. It appears that the phalanx and legions were mostly in a stalemate where they met directly- only about half of the Greek forces were experienced with the rest being local Geek city levies and a few Italians who had joined. Elephants broke Roman cavalry and then the Roman line at Heraclea while Asculum the legions defeated the weaker part of Greek line with the levies but Pyrrhus experienced units defeated the legions on their side, deployment of elephants but more importantly the defeat of the Roman cavalry by Greek cavalry led by Pyrrhus himself lost that battle for Rome. Pyrrhus had relatively few experienced troops and alot of commitments so when he lost 2,000 from 20,000 that was 10% losses he couldn't well replace in 2 battles in a row as well as even higher losses amongst the local Greek levies (Greek cities on the coast had much smaller population to draw from than did Rome). Romans lost a higher number of men but a lower % of their total manpower and this in the end led Pyrrhus to withdraw. So between Legion and Phalanx in 2 battle with relatively equal numbers with the phalanx having decent supporting troops the phalanx came out slightly ahead as head to head the experienced phalanx defeated the experienced legions it faced. Of course Legion tactics and experience increased in decades ahead which were nearly full of constant warfare for Rome but couldn't the same be said of any military force it should improve given that much experience? The starting points were established by Pyrrhric campaigns though I'd guess... Legions were more dynamic than phalanx and could defeat weaker phalanx even with support but vs heavier experienced phalanx had trouble especially when that phalanx was well supported. In later direct confrontations the Romans had quite better support than the phalanx but even then didn't easily crush phalanx though did gain victory. Beneventum is not as good an example since Pyrrhus had just arrived from Sicily and majority of his army was locals with only a few Greek hoplites- the remaining Samnite tribes which had not submitted to Rome sided with Pyrrhus and were defeated by legions while drove at the phalanx but were checked until the Romans were able to stampede the elephants into the phalanx leading to its withdrawal though not a rout as Greek cavalry checked the Roman cavalry allowing Pyrrhus to complete withdrawal. Pyrrhus probably had only 20-30,000 men from Epirus and after 6 years of campaigns in both Italy and Sicily he returned to Epirus with just under 10,000 men having defeated Rome in 2 large battles and stormed Carthaginian Eryx capturing it in a bloody siege battle then fought several smaller battles vs Carthaginians and Mamertines that cost him valuable cavalry and support troops (in the skirmishes the phalanx was usually not participating). Pyrrhus did not have enough men to assault the remaining strongholds of Carthage in Sicily so decided to try what Rome would afterwards- invasion of Africa to force Carthage to withdraw from Sicily.

Pyrrhus lacked the number of ship crews to make an invasion of Africa possible and despite making himself master of most of Greek Sicily and having funds to construct enough ships had to impress Greek crewmen who didn't want to get involved in an invasion of Africa and insurrection resulted against all of Pyrrhus garrisons with some Greeks even joining Carthaginians and Mamertines. His plan to invade Africa in shambles Pyrrhus elected to try his fortunes in Italy where Rome had recovered from earlier battles and defeated some Italian tribes who thought the losses to Pyrrhus earlier signaled Roman weakness Rome was now pressing into Greek territory again. Pyrrhus turned the fleet and men he had gathered to invade Africa towards Italy... Carthage had gathered a large fleet to defend any attempts to invade Africa and knowing Pyrrhus plans to return to Italy the Carthaginian fleet found and defeated Pyrrhus fleet in battle with reportedly over half the Greek fleet lost. Pyrrhus landed in Italy but the Mamertines had scouts watching the potential landing beaches and when saw Pyrrhus landing sent an army. Pyrrhus then defeated this army but the Mamertines had fortified the way to Tarentine territory in the north and Pyrrhus had to assault the fortifactions and defeat the Mamertines who constantly ambushed and harasses his army the entire way. Pyrrhus thus reached his garrisons with only about 1/3 of the army he departed Sicily with. Anyway- there is more interesting details of his campaigns in Sicily which explain partially why Hannibal placed him 2nd of all generals after Alexander when asked.

[Ichon]

Originally Legion might not have been an expert in any role but had centuries of warfare by the time of Caesar as well faced many enemies and adopted some of those enemies tactics and equipment.

[Dan113112]

Originally Legion might not have been an expert in any role but had centuries of warfare by the time of Caesar as well faced many enemies and adopted some of those enemies tactics and equipment.

Rome had a fairly homogenous army. This was both a strength and a weakness in my opinion. It's very flexible but also might not stand up to certain kinds of attacks/maneuvers.

[vietanh797]

Originally Legion might not have been an expert in any role but had centuries of warfare by the time of Caesar as well faced many enemies and adopted some of those enemies tactics and equipment.

and centuries later they are killed by Jesus

[Ichon]

and centuries later they are killed by Jesus

Rome was already in decline when Christianity entered... that was on reason it spread so successfully- also if not for Christianity Constantine might not have been able to make the eastern Empire so strong.

[Highlander of Scotland]

the reason pike formations were used was to counter the threat of knights, who were at the time the elite op troops of their day.

[vietanh797]

Disagree about Roman are superior than Phalanx
It simple because not many generals able to work his army the way Philips and Alexander did

I think Hannibal can but Carthage don't have such army system, Pyrrhus did able to do it but not really when he should do it but often too late so his army suffer a big lose before he can win.
In the end Roman never able defeat a true worthy General which have an army like Alexander

[EdmireDragonbane]

Disagree about Roman are superior than Phalanx
It simple because not many generals able to work his army the way Philips and Alexander did

I think Hannibal can but Carthage don't have such army system, Pyrrhus did able to do it but not really when he should do it but often too late so his army suffer a big lose before he can win.
In the end Roman never able defeat a true worthy General which have an army like Alexander

I raise You Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, all those generals would have an easy time against Alexander. Also Pydna..Perseus had a god army heavily trained phalanx troops and he got destroyed. Lucullus fought a force of 50,000-100,000 Armenians, who by quality were far superior to the Persians. He had a force of 10,000-20,000 men. Marcellus beat Hannibal for the first time at the battle of Nola, he also was a great general winning many victories. Of course you Macedonian lovers should be happy Epaminondas died..or Alexander wouldn't be anything.

[Husayn Bayqara]

Just describe how you would actually do the fighting against legionnaries with pikes in your ( collective ) hands ( if you had firstly survived various missile insults ).

[Murfmurf]

Keep them at pike-distance, lock them in. That's the point of the phalanx - to tie up the enemy so other units can attack freely. The phalanx was supposed to be the anvil against which the killer blow was struck. It's a combined arms tactic as someone else has already said.

By the time of the Romans many states had the phalanx, but few knew how to use them properly or lacked the elite supporting units with which to cause the damage.

[Husayn Bayqara]

How do you keep determined pilum -throwing and then gladius- wielding shielded armored swordsmen out at pike point distance when they are pushing through - penetrating - to close with you - what is your pike and its distant point actually doing while you stand or walk, perhaps with a pilum in your own shield.......... what do you do when the Roman is in your face ? What does the guy behind you do ?