Pike phalanxes - why ?

[MicCal]

I found it a rather striking example of how the formations of elite pikemen can be defeated without actually fighting them. Interestingly enough the battle also featured 6000 supposedly invincible cataphracs and 1000 companion cavalry that were defeated by roman cavalry and foot

I would say that Magnesia is a great example of how the Murphy's law actually works. Cataphracts on the right wing had proven their worth, breaking through the Roman line. The fact that this was not exploited by Antiochus to charge Roman flank was only his fault. On the other side, the cataphracts on the left wing were defeated by their own chariots rather than enemy cavalry (not to mention that many of this cavalrymen were not Romans, but Greeks of Pergamon, and this force was under overall command of Eumenes).

leaving the pikemen at the mercy of the Romans, forcing them to break their phalanx into a square formation to avoid being attacked in the back. They were then destroyed.

But before they were destroyed (by their own elephants), Romans were not so eager to fight them. Yes, they were eventually destroyed, but I doubt if there were any soldiers in the history of mankind who would maintain their formation with mad elephants going frenzy within their own ranks.

[Ichon]

I would say that Magnesia is a great example of how the Murphy's law actually works. Cataphracts on the right wing had proven their worth, breaking through the Roman line. The fact that this was not exploited by Antiochus to charge Roman flank was only his fault. On the other side, the cataphracts on the left wing were defeated by their own chariots rather than enemy cavalry (not to mention that many of this cavalrymen were not Romans, but Greeks of Pergamon, and this force was under overall command of Eumenes).

But before they were destroyed (by their own elephants), Romans were not so eager to fight them. Yes, they were eventually destroyed, but I doubt if there were any soldiers in the history of mankind who would maintain their formation with mad elephants going frenzy within their own ranks.

That brings up interesting point- in past TW 'friendly' units rarely caused much damage (arrows in back, scythed chariot killing friendly cavalry I can't remember if that occurred or rampaging elephants?) Numerous battles with elephants they seemed to had disrupted their own ranks more than the enemy and only half the time successful guided into enemy ranks and worked as planned.

Magnesia is a good example of Scipio avoiding engaging phalanx head on and only when surrounded and support cut off did Roman heavy infantry move in on the pike blocks trying to leave the field and carve them up.

The point of pikes is not they are superior to Legion which seems to be insecurity of Roman fanboys but they did 1 job really well- frontal engagement. Not 100% effective even there as rough ground could disorder the advance especially in less well trained units but superior to any other unit type in frontal engagement. Of course around half of ancient battles seemed to be won on the flanks or by rear attack so it is really of limited use but does offer some security in having relatively secure pivot to operate around but still requires superior unit/tactics on the flanks which Alexander and a few others had and Romans often had as well.

[JaM]

That brings up interesting point- in past TW 'friendly' units rarely caused much damage (arrows in back, scythed chariot killing friendly cavalry I can't remember if that occurred or rampaging elephants?) Numerous battles with elephants they seemed to had disrupted their own ranks more than the enemy and only half the time successful guided into enemy ranks and worked as planned.

Magnesia is a good example of Scipio avoiding engaging phalanx head on and only when surrounded and support cut off did Roman heavy infantry move in on the pike blocks trying to leave the field and carve them up.

The point of pikes is not they are superior to Legion which seems to be insecurity of Roman fanboys but they did 1 job really well- frontal engagement. Not 100% effective even there as rough ground could disorder the advance especially in less well trained units but superior to any other unit type in frontal engagement. Of course around half of ancient battles seemed to be won on the flanks or by rear attack so it is really of limited use but does offer some security in having relatively secure pivot to operate around but still requires superior unit/tactics on the flanks which Alexander and a few others had and Romans often had as well.

Roman Legions did frontal engagements well too. If you take some other factions facing Roman Legions, Roman Tactics of getting close, pushing enemy with shields and thrusting and stabbing with gladius was extremely lethal combination.

[Ichon]

Roman Legions did frontal engagements well too. If you take some other factions facing Roman Legions, Roman Tactics of getting close, pushing enemy with shields and thrusting and stabbing with gladius was extremely lethal combination.

Right but Romans were defeated frontally by Gauls, Germans, Pyrrhus, etc. Phalanx less so at least that we know of but still had many defeats by other means.

[JaM]

Yes, With some "unbreakable" formation, you can always play battle of attrition, and engage them from distance, while pressing the attack at the flanks.. Whole idea of pressing the attack along the entire line is just not very effective, instead concentration of force and local superiority can get you much better results.. (and Alexander knew this quite well, thats the reason why he didn't rely on his infantry as the all defeating force,but used his heavy cavalry and assault infantry for his breakthroughs.. was there ever a battle that was decided by Phalanx only??)

[Påsan]

Back in Archaic Greece, yeah.

[JaM]

Can somebody post an example where Phalanx line would respond by maneuver to a threat on their flank? Things like this happened a lot to Roman Legions, and their cohorts were able to respond this way because each cohort was led independently. Anyway i never read about a battle where it would be possible to turn the Phalanx Line let say 90 degrees to the left...

[vietanh797]

Can somebody post an example where Phalanx line would respond by maneuver to a threat on their flank? Things like this happened a lot to Roman Legions, and their cohorts were able to respond this way because each cohort was led independently. Anyway i never read about a battle where it would be possible to turn the Phalanx Line let say 90 degrees to the left...

I did not once but 2 or 3 times you just need to check my posts again

and about my "misconception about spear beat sword" you guys can ask any weapon master(not some god damn one weapon user) why they prefer longer weapon

The issue of Phalanx vs Legion has already been extensively covered in this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=#post12050963

The proper tactic for taking on a Phalanx head on invovled the Romans packing closely together, shield to back, several rows deep, creating a strong counterpush to the Phalanx. The Roman scutum however was wide enough that it left a narrow corridor in between each line of men, and it was through these that Legionnaires from the back rows would advance. And once up at the front ranks these Legionnaires would squeeze themselves out through the corridors and into the gaps created in the spearwall, hacking away at the pikes whilst making their way forward torward the first physical row of Phalangites.

A Phalanx in the process of being broken on its' right flank (Notice the 'shield to back' push of the Romans):

your pic simply wrong sire.
The truth is the phalanx formation are twice the dense compare to Roman's so you will have 2 columns of phalangites face you instead of one like you have in your picture which make the "push" job become impossible

[Dan113112]

Can somebody post an example where Phalanx line would respond by maneuver to a threat on their flank? Things like this happened a lot to Roman Legions, and their cohorts were able to respond this way because each cohort was led independently. Anyway i never read about a battle where it would be possible to turn the Phalanx Line let say 90 degrees to the left...

Well, in order for a cohort to march to a different location to counter a flanking attack they need to receive orders from their general. Just moving on their own under the cohort commander would be a punishable offence. Phalanx brigades/battalions were each made up of around 1500 men. These 1500 men were subdivided into syntagma of 256 men each. Each syntagma had it's own officers and NCOs. There were probably higher ranking officers in charge of the overall brigade. So, if you didn't press all of your brigades together at the front line you could respond to attacks. The problem is that by the time of the Macedonian Wars, Hellenistic countries fought more and more in deep single lines. Sort of like the earlier hoplites. At least that's what I've read. They might also keep reserve troops to the rear of the main army like at Gaugamela. The problem is I've never yet read that a Macedonian general even implement this simple measure.

The issue of Phalanx vs Legion has already been extensively covered in this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=#post12050963

The proper tactic for taking on a Phalanx head on invovled the Romans packing closely together, shield to back, several rows deep, creating a strong counterpush to the Phalanx. The Roman scutum however was wide enough that it left a narrow corridor in between each line of men, and it was through these that Legionnaires from the back rows would advance. And once up at the front ranks these Legionnaires would squeeze themselves out through the corridors and into the gaps created in the spearwall, hacking away at the pikes whilst making their way forward torward the first physical row of Phalangites.

A Phalanx in the process of being broken on its' right flank (Notice the 'shield to back' push of the Romans):

I find this hard to believe. There's also no real source that says the Romans ever broke the phalanx head on. It's like you think those pikes aren't moving.

Edit: There's also 7 other people in each file that would lower their pike. Each pikeman also has a sword. I've also seen tests done where the pilum doesn't go through metal/metal covered shields as easy as board shields.

[Anna_Gein]

Even with Cohortal system Roman standard deployment was with 3 lines, where 4 cohorts would be in first line, 3 in second and 3 in third, where third line could be used to extend the line.

check this: http://www.garyb.0catch.com/pharsalu...eployment.html

THis is the Deployment of Caesar army at Pharsalus during Civil War. As you can see both Pompey and Caesar used standard deployment,anyway Caesar took several cohorts from third rank to face Pompey's cavalry.


btw this entire web page is full of excelent info about roman tactics and weapons

http://www.garyb.0catch.com/site_map.html

Ho I see. I stand corrected then.

Plus i dont understand whit this obsession to have to defeat something frontally as the only comparator of unit strength... Warfare is not some DUEL fought by some fixed rules... The most stupid thing to do in warfare is to attack where enemy is strongest... Warfare was always about exploiting enemy weaknesses instead of sacrificing men in futile attacks against enemy strong-points... Second tactics would also work, but would cost you a lot of resources. Just check what USSR did in WW2...

Because I am not so much interested in a juvenile Legion/Phalanx comparison ... It is not if I was ever comparing the absolute force of each formations to say if one was absolutely superior.

And as a clear nationalist I did not even argue against the fact that a pikemen phalanx will be in trouble if flanked. That is why I was "obsess" to always precise in frontal confrontation. I also took care to look at the reasons why the Romans were able to flank the phalanx and which as we saw earlier happened due to the nature of each formation only once in six confrontation. At Pydna. Only against low-trained troops. So the manipular formation who flanks the phalanx thanks to its flexibility is more a stereotype than anything else.

I ironically my strong opposition against the idea that Romans soldiers could frontally defeat pikemen phalanx comes from a good part of theses wild theories such as the Romans soldiers who block 5 ranks of pikes with his oval curved scutums ...

I even had this terrible video posted by Sir. Cunningham in mind ...

No, you are very, very wrong. Roman primary weapon was ever the shortsword, and as the most professional soldiers of their age they consistently proved to be superior to all their spear-wielding adversaries due to the advantages pointed out earlier.

Just to be clear what advantages ? You surely mean sturctural advantage like proffesional soldiers or manpower right ?

And no they wont defeat a Macedonian phalanx from the front. Luckily they did not have to either, because they were flexible enough to defeat them by other means such as outmaneuvering or outflanking them, as opposed to the Macedonians which was more of a one trick card left close to helpless if the battle did not go on their premises. Such as in the battles of Thermopylae or Magnesia. This makes them inherently superior from a tactical standpoint no matter your misconceptions of "spear beats sword".

Yeah. And one day people will realize that Pikemen just like swordsmen are just a part of their armies. The fact that the Hellenistic kingdom did not manage to maintain their military branch or their leadership was not able to use their troops properly does not denote any spectacular inferiority from the Macedonian Warfare.

[Påsan]

[QUOTE=Anna_Gein;12763649]

Just to be clear what advantages ? You surely mean sturctural advantage like proffesional soldiers or manpower right ?

So basically what you got with a legionary is an extremely flexible and highly enduring fighting formation of professional heavy infantry that are capable of dealing with a large range of situations given their protection, a ranged attack and their scutum and gladius, which historically proved of more worth than the situational brilliance of the Phalanx, which can be broken if they are not used in optimal conditions.

Yes, I was referring to the post-Marian legionaries.

Yeah. And one day people will realize that Pikemen just like swordsmen are just a part of their armies. The fact that the Hellenistic kingdom did not manage to maintain their military branch or their leadership was not able to use their troops properly does not denote any spectacular inferiority from the Macedonian Warfare.

No, Macedonian warfare was excellent in its heyday. But eventually it gave way to either the Roman legion and Persian cavalry, the reason of which is essentially the subject of the thread.

[Sir. Cunningham]

The issue of Phalanx vs Legion has already been extensively covered in this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=#post12050963

The proper tactic for taking on a Phalanx head on invovled the Romans packing closely together, shield to back, several rows deep, creating a strong counterpush to the Phalanx. The Roman scutum however was wide enough that it left a narrow corridor in between each line of men, and it was through these that Legionnaires from the back rows would advance. And once up at the front ranks these Legionnaires would squeeze themselves out through the corridors and into the gaps created in the spearwall, hacking away at the pikes whilst making their way forward torward the first physical row of Phalangites.

A Phalanx in the process of being broken on its' right flank (Notice the 'shield to back' push of the Romans):

[JaM]

Mad elephant just need a space where it could go... its animal, it wont crash into closely packed barrier if it sees free path... Romans did this with Carthaginian elephants at Zama..

[vietanh797]

Mad elephant just need a space where it could go... its animal, it wont crash into closely packed barrier if it sees free path... Romans did this with Carthaginian elephants at Zama..

those elephants at zama aren't mad

[torongill]

Yes, With some "unbreakable" formation, you can always play battle of attrition, and engage them from distance, while pressing the attack at the flanks.. Whole idea of pressing the attack along the entire line is just not very effective, instead concentration of force and local superiority can get you much better results.. (and Alexander knew this quite well, thats the reason why he didn't rely on his infantry as the all defeating force,but used his heavy cavalry and assault infantry for his breakthroughs.. was there ever a battle that was decided by Phalanx only??)

You could say that Raphia was won because by the phalanx, although the appearance of the Egyptian cavalry(from the right flank) in the rear of the Seleucid phalanx. Chaeronea was p

Can somebody post an example where Phalanx line would respond by maneuver to a threat on their flank? Things like this happened a lot to Roman Legions, and their cohorts were able to respond this way because each cohort was led independently. Anyway i never read about a battle where it would be possible to turn the Phalanx Line let say 90 degrees to the left...

Gabiene, Magnesia.
You are first wrong in using Caesarian/Imperial legions to compare to the Hellenistic phalanx and second, how many battles of the Polybian legion were won by the infantry only?

The issue of Phalanx vs Legion has already been extensively covered in this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=#post12050963

The proper tactic for taking on a Phalanx head on invovled the Romans packing closely together, shield to back, several rows deep, creating a strong counterpush to the Phalanx. The Roman scutum however was wide enough that it left a narrow corridor in between each line of men, and it was through these that Legionnaires from the back rows would advance. And once up at the front ranks these Legionnaires would squeeze themselves out through the corridors and into the gaps created in the spearwall, hacking away at the pikes whilst making their way forward torward the first physical row of Phalangites.

A Phalanx in the process of being broken on its' right flank (Notice the 'shield to back' push of the Romans):

That "proper" tactic is probably the fruit of the imagination of an arm-chair Alexander, because it assumes two things, both of them highly unlikely:

1. The phalanx is static and yields all initiative to the legionary infantry
2. Pikes can point only straight ahead

Mad elephant just need a space where it could go... its animal, it wont crash into closely packed barrier if it sees free path... Romans did this with Carthaginian elephants at Zama..

When a wounded animal, angry and hurting and scared, is looking for a way out, it won't notice things like people in its way, especially people it has no fear of, because it had been around them for years. Hannibal's elephants at Zama were first smaller and second untrained. It's like the difference between a trained cavalry horse and a courrier horse. It's not at all the same, besides Scipio provided the elephants with wide corridors they could readily see.


P.S. I also have a problem with people assuming that cavalry horses won't crash into an infantry formation. Might as well be saying "dogs won't walk on their hind/fore legs" or "dogs won't ride horses" or even "dolphins won't make jumps through hoops". Usually it would be the rider who is scared, although it's common knowledge that it's the horse that has the more brains of the two.

[Anna_Gein]

I am not sure what is specifically the "large range of situation". Anyway I was mistaken as you compared the Republican infantry to "all their spear-wielding adversaries" and not pikemen.

Yes, With some "unbreakable" formation, you can always play battle of attrition, and engage them from distance, while pressing the attack at the flanks.. Whole idea of pressing the attack along the entire line is just not very effective, instead concentration of force and local superiority can get you much better results.. (and Alexander knew this quite well, thats the reason why he didn't rely on his infantry as the all defeating force,but used his heavy cavalry and assault infantry for his breakthroughs.. was there ever a battle that was decided by Phalanx only??)

How often did an army composed of a unique element beat combined troops army ? Not that much ...

Alexander use different arms in combination because that is the very basis of Macedonian warfare, to use specialized troops in coordination, and the reason why it was so much revolutionary as no other army in the region pushed this concept as far as this before.

[JaM]

P.S. I also have a problem with people assuming that cavalry horses won't crash into an infantry formation. Might as well be saying "dogs won't walk on their hind/fore legs" or "dogs won't ride horses" or even "dolphins won't make jumps through hoops". Usually it would be the rider who is scared, although it's common knowledge that it's the horse that has the more brains of the two.

You are ignoring the second part of the statement apparently... Whole sentence was - horses wont crash into infantry formation at full speed..

That "proper" tactic is probably the fruit of the imagination of an arm-chair Alexander, because it assumes two things, both of them highly unlikely:

1. The phalanx is static and yields all initiative to the legionary infantry
2. Pikes can point only straight ahead

As mentioned before, with 6m sarissa you would have no idea where your pike head is pointing.. and another important fact about pike (quite obvious) it can only hurt with its end.. once you are past it, its just a long stick you are holding...



And i add a new one.. what do you think, how long would average soldier be able to hold 6m pike horizontally and thrust with it forward... and what happens when he is tired and unable to do it anymore?

[Anna_Gein]

That "proper" tactic is probably the fruit of the imagination of an arm-chair Alexander, because it assumes two things, both of them highly unlikely:

1. The phalanx is static and yields all initiative to the legionary infantry
2. Pikes can point only straight ahead

You know what is the most funny with this theory ?

Even if you accept that it was possible to the Romans to do so god know how with their oval shield they are the only ones credited for it after just a few confrontations against a pikemen phalanx yet all the soldiers who lived and fight in an environment shaped by the pikemen phalanx fought with similar equipments as far as this technique is concern like the Galatians or the Hellenic Thorakitai are not.

Why not ? I am biased after all ...

As mentioned before, with 6m sarissa you would have no idea where your pike head is pointing.. and another important fact about pike (quite obvious) it can only hurt with its end.. once you are past it, its just a long stick you are holding...

That is why there are multiple ranks of pike in and not fives pike of different lengths.

And i add a new one.. what do you think, how long would average soldier be able to hold 6m pike horizontally and thrust with it forward... and what happens when he is tired and unable to do it anymore?

Didn't you said earlier melee would only last for a very short time before a pause ? The Pikemen use lighter equipment too. I agree the Romans used a better management of fatigue but they are never credited to defeat the phalanx by attrition.

[Dan113112]

Didn't you said earlier melee would only last for a very short time before a pause ? The Pikemen use lighter equipment too. I agree the Romans used a better management of fatigue but they are never credited to defeat the phalanx by attrition.

Not to mention there's a large counter-weight at the other end of the sarissa. This helps balance the weight and makes it easier to wield. It also only weighed around 6.6kg. The Roman shield was heavier and they only held he scutum with one hand. The Macedonians braced their sarissae with two hands.

[torongill]

You are ignoring the second part of the statement apparently... Whole sentence was - horses wont crash into infantry formation at full speed..
As mentioned before, with 6m sarissa you would have no idea where your pike head is pointing.. and another important fact about pike (quite obvious) it can only hurt with its end.. once you are past it, its just a long stick you are holding...
And i add a new one.. what do you think, how long would average soldier be able to hold 6m pike horizontally and thrust with it forward... and what happens when he is tired and unable to do it anymore?

That's exactly it, you have no real idea where your pike is pointing, but the graph suggests that you do have exact knowledge of the position of the pike and that you choose to point it only forward, whereas the legionary facing you also has exact knowledge of the pikes he's facing and that there won't be another one coming from the side to stab him in the side while he's concentrating on the pikes in front.
The problem with the sarissa phalanx is that once you're past the sarissa point, there are four more left.
Depends on training and on the balance of the sarissa. With a carrying sling on his shoulder providing additional support and the shield hanging from the strap the pikeman will have a big part of the load removed from his hands. I haven't held a sarissa, but I'd say that with training you won't be outlasted by the legionary, who has a 8-10 kilo of shield in his left arm and a 0.8-1 kilogram sword in the other and is trying to either hack the pike heads off or move between two adjacent pikes Of course, the problem you are facing is that when the legionary tires, he will be substituted by another fresh one, whereas it's not entirely certain someone will take your place. At best you may look forward to a second pike to replace the first broken one