Pike phalanxes - why ?

[Stívarðr Reynitré]

The phalanx formations of ancient warfare were as near mobile, terrifying and unstoppable in comparison to a tank.

Obviously, you have to view that statement with a point of reference, but you should see my analogy.

[torongill]

As the phalanx advanced it held its pikes upright to facilitate change of direction if it is needed. The space between individual soldiers was enough for skirmishers to be able to filter through if they didn't want to use the gaps between the formations. We tend to think of units as solid blocks, but they had space between the soldiers and these soldiers could also move to allow retreating men pass through.
After the phalanx had lowered their pikes in attack position the skirmishers might be used to seal the seams between adjacent units or counter the light infantry that might try to get under the pikes, but for the most part I think they would've been spectators

[JaM]

torongill: But Phalanx can only keep effectivity if it is solid along the whole line, not just those small units. I'm comparing it to Napoleonic formations because its a good example how line was problematic to maneuver - its doesnt matter how deep it is - it was impossible to change marching directions as a whole line - they could change directions as a single units,but that would not work that well for phalanx, because they would have flankx exposed... Those Syntagmas were deployed in linear formation, one next to another (to protect each sides)... but If entire line moved forward, gaps would be created, no matter what terrain there are in - same problems as any formation had with movement in closed ranks would emerge.

Point i'm trying to make is simple - at Pydna - Roman withdrawal forced Phalanx to follow, and because they had to move slightly longer distance than usual, previously solid line broke, and Romans were able to exploit those gaps...

[torongill]

torongill: But Phalanx can only keep effectivity if it is solid along the whole line, not just those small units. I'm comparing it to Napoleonic formations because its a good example how line was problematic to maneuver - its doesnt matter how deep it is - it was impossible to change marching directions as a whole line - they could change directions as a single units,but that would not work that well for phalanx, because they would have flankx exposed... Those Syntagmas were deployed in linear formation, one next to another (to protect each sides)... but If entire line moved forward, gaps would be created, no matter what terrain there are in - same problems as any formation had with movement in closed ranks would emerge.

Point i'm trying to make is simple - at Pydna - Roman withdrawal forced Phalanx to follow, and because they had to move slightly longer distance than usual, previously solid line broke, and Romans were able to exploit those gaps...

You can't compare it to the Napoleonic linear formation, because the correct comparison would be the Napoleonic column, you know, the one everybody used.
The whole line doesn't need to change directions, it needs to go forward and win. Still, parts of the line did change directions and position relative to each other.
The Phalanx doesn't need to be one single great formation, because it can effectively defend the small gaps that allow it to be more flexible.
The depth has everything to do with how cohesion is maintained; the loss of cohesion is what you described with your example with Napoleonic era raw recruits maneuvering in a formation 3-deep and 300 across and it cannot be compared to the 16 by 16 syntagma block.

Your entire premise is wrong - you believe the reason why gaps appeared in the Macedonian phalanx is because they had to advance more than usual. That's simply not true at all - according to our sources the reason why the gaps appeared is from the broken terrain(think rocks, trenches, dry river courses) and the uneven resistance the Romans offered - some units advanced easier, while others were held by stiffer Roman resistance. It was not the fact that the phalanx had to move a bit more, which is what you seem to be suggesting. If it was that, then how did the Macedonian phalanx manage to advance down the face of a hill chasing the Romans at the Dog Heads?
It doesn't really matter whether it's a phalanx or a Persian sparabara fighting line, a shieldwall or a manipular line. Everybody may cause gaps to appear. You also don't need to maintain a perfect line to be able to advance, that's just insane. Cannae rings a bell?

Of course maintaining of the line is important, but maintaining the line doesn't mean "everybody make 75 cm steps, because if you make 74 we are going to die a horrible death". It means no gaps in the line through which the enemy can pour through and hit us in the rear. Besides, it's not really a line in the strict geometric sense.

[vietanh797]

They don't really have to be a line, they just need to maintain the Syntagma and the distant to others Syntagma. And the Syntagma trained to defend themselves up to some point. if they are experience enough as you can see in my old example they can defend even if they surround by enemies. Hanibal could have lost if he faced well trained Macedon phalangites instead of clumsy Roman troops. Roman as you can see have their flank and rear attacked and become pigs wait for butchers come

[JaM]

vietanh797: this is pointless discussion... Macedonians got butchered by Romans, Romans, got butchered by Carthagians, Carthagians got butchered by Romans... you cant take one example and assume its some sort of a dogma... If Macedonians faced Hanibal's veterans in same situation as Roman did at Canae, they would be butchered as well... no ancient army would stand a chance when completely surrounded... and yes, within years Romans sent another army to Carthage which wiped those same men at Zama, and then defeated Macedonians... go figure.

They don't really have to be a line, they just need to maintain the Syntagma and the distant to others Syntagma. And the Syntagma trained to defend themselves up to some point.

All Macedonian defeats against Romans happened when Romans were able to flank or gap the Phalanx... which means your theory is not valid,because those small units couldnt fight effectively on flanks and rear....


Plus, dont forget what Greek historians wrote after battle - Macedonians complained about Roman Gladius causing too unhumane damage..

[Deafening Milk]

vietanh797: this is pointless discussion... Macedonians got butchered by Romans, Romans, got butchered by Carthagians, Carthagians got butchered by Romans... you cant take one example and assume its some sort of a dogma... If Macedonians faced Hanibal's veterans in same situation as Roman did at Canae, they would be butchered as well... no ancient army would stand a chance when completely surrounded... and yes, within years Romans sent another army to Carthage which wiped those same men at Zama, and then defeated Macedonians... go figure. All Macedonian defeats against Romans happened when Romans were able to flank or gap the Phalanx... which means your theory is not valid,because those small units couldnt fight effectively on flanks and rear.... Plus, dont forget what Greek historians wrote after battle - Macedonians complained about Roman Gladius causing too unhumane damage..

Enjoying this whole thread but Ive gotta say because it annoys me for some reason, Hannibal wasnt beaten in with the same army, he was beaten with a very crappy new army if i remember correctly.

[vietanh797]

If it is pointless discussion then you also should stop say things like "in ths battle" "Legion outflank phalanx" because they also are historical event. They are all fix with the dis advantage pretty clearly in one side and big advantage on the other side. You don't need a legion to win a fail general just handful groups of barbarians is enough.
You also can't win if you don't use the right troops for the right job. The phalanx in Macedon army should pin down the enemies while the cavalry and the Assault troops flank them then take the chance to chase enemies that routing/retreating before they can regroup.If you use them to push then it also have a limit; push, push, push, push then it will break.
It is the same as send a group of new recruits to fetch Bin Laden instead of the Navy Seal 6

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I doubt Romans would have held much chance against a Swiss Pike Square, those could fight even when surrounded.

[torongill]

Those didn't have enough ranged troops and the usual Swiss square of 10x10 would've been smothered by pila from point blank range, if the Centurio of the maniple is smart.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Those didn't have enough ranged troops and the usual Swiss square of 10x10 would've been smothered by pila from point blank range, if the Centurio of the maniple is smart.

Except that the pikemen would laugh as the pila bounced of their plate armor. I am not talking about early pikes, more like these guys (iron does not pierce hardened steel the pila would bend pre-maturely):

[torongill]

Except that the pikemen would laugh as the pila bounced of their plate armor. I am not talking about early pikes, more like these guys (iron does not pierce hardened steel the pila would bend pre-maturely):

Oh, so you want the Romans to fight with technology that is 1500 years older? In that case let's up the BS and give the Romans chariot-mounted balistas and scorpions.
You might as well say "I doubt the Romans would have held much chance against the boys of South Central" and then announce the gangstaz have AKs, AR-15s and UZIs with AP rounds.
When you compare two fighting methods it's usually assumed you give both sides similar levels of technology. You know, just to avoid dumb **** like that.

[Maklodes]

Except that the pikemen would laugh as the pila bounced of their plate armor. I am not talking about early pikes, more like these guys (iron does not pierce hardened steel the pila would bend pre-maturely):

Is that typical? I was under the impression that Swiss pikemen generally preferred not to wear much armor: they regarded mobility as a priority over protection. (Also, I'm not sure how many could afford much armor even if they wanted it.) I'm not saying that no Swiss would be caught in a plate armor, but I thought that was the exception.

(This claim is made on Wikipedia, with a cite of Charles Oman's Art of War in the Middle Ages. It's also claimed by some book called European Warfare 1494-1660 by Jeremy Black.)

Update: Those aren't Burgundian pikemen, are they? I think a Burgundian lance included a pikeman (Burgundian lance = 1 man-at-arms + 1 coustillier (light cavalry) + 1 page + 3 mounted archers (dragoon-type, not Hun-style, I think) + 1 pikeman + 1 crossbowman + 1 handgonner).

Update 2: I tried to do a Google image search of that image in the hopes of finding the source. I couldn't find anything -- just a bunch more uses without attribution. Do you know where it came from? I notice that the kneeling guy with a helmet that looks like it has earphones has a "1" next to him, the standing guy with extensive armor and a sallet (?) has a "2," the unarmored man in the backgrond has a "3," and there's a drummer in the background with a "4." Perhaps knowing the source would clarify this.

[Sint]

Is that typical? I was under the impression that Swiss pikemen generally preferred not to wear much armor: they regarded mobility as a priority over protection. (Also, I'm not sure how many could afford much armor even if they wanted it.) I'm not saying that no Swiss would be caught in a plate armor, but I thought that was the exception.

I think later pikemen would be equiped by their employers and not by themselves,but I'm not sure if that is also correct for mercenarys though.

[Ichon]

The other problem is talking about formations vs purely men in the formation. Other states tried to copy Rome and failed because the training and discipline of regular legionaries was enough any formation they used would have been better than average. Phalanx isn't monolithic either as it could be large single block or was often described for many dense spear formations. Romans when they briefly used phalanx were not using Macedonian phalanx and we know Alexander's phalanx and later Swiss and others fought on more than only flat ground so obviously training makes a huge difference for phalanx just as it did for the Romans and later did for the Swiss who defeated repeatedly landsnechts formations using same tactics who themselves were able to defeat most other enemies they faced.

Macedonian drill was reported to be greater than any army of the time and the complex maneuvers done awed spectators of the time. If synchronized swimmers and dancers of modern times can perform in groups of hundreds we don't think ancient people could drill to do something much simpler relatively as marching in different directions or at different speeds IF trained and drilled often?

Macedonian phalanx of Alexander was not Macedonian phalanx Romans faced- we can acknowledge that I think. For terms of the game probably Alexander's phalanx might be represented by high XP or maybe elite Macedonian or Hellenic phalanx units but possibly not as Macedonians of Alexander's day in the average phalanx units on rosters. Even the degraded phalanx Romans faced gave them pause in the front but could be broken or flanked relatively easily when given weak supporting elements (where Romans vs Seleucids the Romans defeated everything else then attacked the better trained Seleucid phalanx units last as those units attempted to withdraw in order).

Polybius gives the Roman opinion there- http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancie...us-maniple.asp which could be accepted of Hellenic phalanx but we know can't be true of all phalanx as Macedonians under Alexander fought in rough ground without giving way as did later Swiss and even landschnechts though not quite as reliably. Even between Romans trained as legionaries performance varied greatly based on experienced, leadership, and training.

Represented in TW as a game- even the later average Hellenic phalanx would be very strong in front while perhaps not unbreakable on flat ground it would take superior unit to accomplish such or draw it to rough ground. TW battle maps have lately been 80% flat terrain (relatively flat) broken by some fences, small hills, ridges, forests... and not much else. If Rome 2 battle terrains are more varied that alone will weaken phalanx considerably. If people are concerned about phalanx being 'unbreakable' from the front in MP then as Polybius states- hopefully CA can show much worse performance in rough terrain though alot will depend on the battle maps and skills of opposing players I don't think it is necessary as flanking phalanx might be even easier if used overmuch (without strong supporting elements which might easily compromise 2/3 of army composition). Some few elite phalanx units might be elite not in amount of armor but in speed of maneuver and it seems from many descriptions of battle that well trained phalanx were capable of short bursts of speed but not very long as even smaller 256 man units could easily lose formation maintaining speed for much duration.

Cheap slow moving phalanx which are only dangerous 1 direction might well be useful in many armies just as velites are useful in a Roman army. Doesn't mean velites are superior but the task they are designed for they do well at but Romans also have Hastati which fight similarly than Principes but aren't quite as good just like some phalanx aren't as good as other phalanx and in case of phalanx that difference is as likely going to be speed of maneuver and morale more than any armor or attack stat differences. Alexander's phalanx were supposedly only vulnerable on their left and rear so perhaps being attacked on their right flank doesn't get the same bonus for enemies vs elite formations or can be a trait gained through tech and unlocked at the army XP level by a trait tree.

Enjoying this whole thread but Ive gotta say because it annoys me for some reason, Hannibal wasnt beaten in with the same army, he was beaten with a very crappy new army if i remember correctly.

Do you mean Scipio's army or the one Hannibal took command of arriving in Africa? Scipio had 1 Legion of experienced men and the rest were recruits but trained for nearly 1.5 years under Scipio and his picked men from Spanish campaigns.

Hannibal left most of his army in Italy but a few came with him- most accounts show about 2/3 of the 3rd line at Zama was mostly veterans so that means maybe 25% of his army might have been veterans if even that many as his 3rd line was smallest. Scipio had already defeated far more in earlier battles so Hannibal's veterans were probably less than 5% of Carthaginian soldiers in Africa.

[torongill]

Ichon, my solution would be that freshly recruited units have lower stats and higher upkeep costs for a turn, to represent the level of fighting prowess of raw rookies. After a few turns(well basically one turn after they are created) their upkeep lowers down to the standard level and their stats normalize.
The idea is that if you're in a hurry, you can use raw recruits, the way quite a few generals did, but these rookies won't have the level of training and skill, which they will acquire after they are recruited with continuous training.

This feature could be used for example with the Romans raising 8 new legions to fight Hannibal at Cannae, apart from the already serving legions. Or with Hannibal at Zama.

[Sint]

Why can't I edit my post?

[torongill]

You need to have more than 25 posts to get all the functions IIRC. Bot protection or something.

[JaM]

First, regarding the line movement - i'm not talking about small units from which Phalanx was made, those were in "columns". I'm talking about entire LINE - for example at Pydna, Macedonian Phalanx was almost 2km long...




Second - you cant compare Hellenic Phalanx to Swiss or Spanish Pike squares, those were using completely different tactics - Pike Squares could function separately, they didn't had to have single closed line. Whole point of their tactics was to get enemy into their formation so it could be attacked from several directions.





and btw, this article is actually summing up all my doubts perfectly: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancie...us-maniple.asp)

[Anna_Gein]

First, regarding the line movement - i'm not talking about small units from which Phalanx was made, those were in "columns". I'm talking about entire LINE - for example at Pydna, Macedonian Phalanx was almost 2km long...

But very small gap or irregularity won't makes your whole line falling ...

Two rocks in the way or one battalion who advance a little quickly than his neighbour. Only continuous obstacle along the majority of the line will do it.