Pike phalanxes - why ?

[torongill]

If you are addressing the second part of your post to me, I don't understand it, because I have not compared the Hellenistic phalanx with the Tercio formation, which was something more along the lines of a moving fortress of men.

[Deafening Milk]

@Ichon yeah I meant Hannibals army was no where near up to par with the army he had in Italy, thanks for the info

[vietanh797]

For the sake of god JAM did you even read my posts?
The phalangites was organized into sintagma so they can function separately not as a line but as a unit. They can react to the threat on side or rear if they trained enough as you already saw in my example. Yet you just simply ignore the others example and stick with your damn assumption which really make me feel that I am wasting time with someone who never even try to listen.

[JaM]

Small gap between units is all you need for Roman legionaries to exploit and get close to a sword range... and once they are close, Phalangitai didn't stood a chance...

[Anna_Gein]

But it won't necessary lead your whole line to fall ... I take that is a good part from this kind of situation the Romans would be able to inflict casualties to the phalanx during the first stage of the battle of pydna.

But of you really think one single scene as this following picture will lead your battle-line of 2 km to fall you are indeed a desperate cause ...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you think that would have been enough to cause defeat then Alexander would have never conquered the territory he did. He would have not even conquered Anatolia.

[JaM]

We cant tell how Alexander would fare against Romans because he never faced them. Pyrrhus did, but he was not "Alexander" even if he wanted to be... and he faced early form of legions, which improved dramatically over next several decades.. Between Pyrrhic wars and Pydna is 100 years of time, and during that time Romans faced Carthagians and won. Anyway my guess is that If Alexander lived like 200 years later, he would adopt similar units like Romans had, as he was quite adaptable and open to new ideas..


plus, its not fair to compare Alexander's Macedonians to Philip II Macedonians.. Their equipment changed over years as well. for example its mentioned they stopped to use shortswords and started to use much shorter dagger like swords, which made them quite ineficient in close combat if had to face Roman legionaries from close. Several historians mention Macedonians were in shock what Gladius was capable doing...

[Sir. Cunningham]

We cant tell how Alexander would fare against Romans because he never faced them. Pyrrhus did, but he was not "Alexander" even if he wanted to be... and he faced early form of legions, which improved dramatically over next several decades.. Between Pyrrhic wars and Pydna is 100 years of time, and during that time Romans faced Carthagians and won. Anyway my guess is that If Alexander lived like 200 years later, he would adopt similar units like Romans had, as he was quite adaptable and open to new ideas..

Exactly. By the time of the Empire the Romans had long developed a tactic which was effective at taking on the Phalanx head on (the one pictured & demonstrated earlier), so all this comparing of the phalanx vs the early republican legions is pointless and prove nothing.

[JaM]

One interesting thing about Pillum from statistical view - let say we take usual Roman Army, with about 30000 legionaries. Each of them has 2 Pila. If we assume that at average about 1 in 10 pila would cause casualty, entire Roman army would kill/wound about 6000 enemies just with javelins. 6000 dead and wounded is quite a number which can influence initial clash and give Romans an edge to force enemy to flee from field, where you can just chase them down and cause additional casualties. But of course, this is just theoretical number, which would differ on type of enemy. in some battles pillum would have much worse effectivity (Battle of Pharsalus casualties suggest ratio was 1 in 100), and in battles against less protected foes this number could be higher...

Anyway question is how long would it take for entire Roman army to spend all Pila. Some records from Caesars Iberian campaign mention examples where several cohorts spent several hour fighting enemy "until they ran out of javelins"

[torongill]

One interesting thing about Pillum from statistical view - let say we take usual Roman Army, with about 30000 legionaries. Each of them has 2 Pila. If we assume that at average about 1 in 10 pila would cause casualty, entire Roman army would kill/wound about 6000 enemies just with javelins. 6000 dead and wounded is quite a number which can influence initial clash and give Romans an edge to force enemy to flee from field, where you can just chase them down and cause additional casualties. But of course, this is just theoretical number, which would differ on type of enemy. in some battles pillum would have much worse effectivity (Battle of Pharsalus casualties suggest ratio was 1 in 100), and in battles against less protected foes this number could be higher...

Anyway question is how long would it take for entire Roman army to spend all Pila. Some records from Caesars Iberian campaign mention examples where several cohorts spent several hour fighting enemy "until they ran out of javelins"

First of all, Livius states that when on flat ground the majority of pila didn't reach the enemy formation(one out of three would be generous, but let's use that, 1/3). Of these the majority would've beed deflected by shields, armor , weapons like the sarissa or at best just punched though the shield(so a generous 1/5 passing though). The question is of the ones that actually land squarely and with enough force to punch though the shield and still be able to punch through the target's protection(leather, textile or metal armor), how many will cause incapacitating injuries or death? My guess is probably one in three at best, because the shield is big, but the body behind it not so much.

So in a normal two-legion Polybian consul army there are 8400 hastati and principes and the same ammount of allies, let's assume armed in the same way. that's a total of 16800 men with one, not two, one pilum each. Half of those men will be able to discharge their pila in the first charge, these would be the hastati; the principes would be able to discharge theirs only if they are able to exchange with the hastati and be at some distance from the enemy line, so in a fight against a good opponent that won't be very likely. You have 8400 pila. 1/3 reaching the enemy formation is 2800. 1/5 no being deflected, that's 560. 1/3 of these killing or wounding heavily an enemy combatant - rounded to 187. 187 neutralized combatants from a line of something like 2 km long, having 10 or 12 000 enemy combatants.

Seems miniscule, but that's not the point. The point is that the rest 9800+ men will have to move through a minefield of pila stuck in the ground in all kinds of crazy angles, discarded shields and the occasional dead fellow warrior(and the dead would've been those in the first ranks, the best fighters). Fear creeps in, if the best fighter can die like that, what about me? If I trip, will I manage to get up again or someone will stab me in the back while I try to get up? If someone else trips, will I manage to escape or will I trip as well? Of those 9800 quite a few will be dazed by the impact of a 2 kilogram projectile coming from the sky. Quite a few will have to discard their shields or stay behind to try hack off the pilum shaft and maybe whack the iron shaft flat against the shield, so that it doesn't bother them in the fight. The formation becomes messy. Add confusion to the mix.

The charge falters, because the men need to negotiate the ten meters of wreckage in front of the formation. And just when the first rank clears the maze of javelins, discarded equipment and dead and dying, the Roman line attacks. They have had time to dress the line, ensure all is well and take courage from the fact that the enemy morale is lower. They draw swords and charge.

As for the battle in Spain, that was one skirmish in a restricted area where iirc only one single cohort could contest the passage. Both sides continuously sent units to try and break through, but the result was inconclusive, precisely because both sides saw that attack through the passage would be suicidal.

[alstl]

I read an account of a battle between Romans and (I think) Parthians where the Parthians were resupplying their horse archers with arrows on carts pulled by camels. I could see a scenario of Romans if they were close enough to a supply of pila to use a similar method. Assuming they were in the field and have a limited supply it probably depended largely on how long the battle stayed at a ranged distance.

I'm not a historian but didn't they generally use the pila to disrupt the enemy prior to closing into hand to hand combat?

[Dan113112]

I'm not a historian but didn't they generally use the pila to disrupt the enemy prior to closing into hand to hand combat?

I think the pila is overrated at times. I'm sure the pila had some effect on enemy formations but remember that there were ranks of men behind the first rank and that they're were 5 pikes pointing out the front of a phalanx. I've never heard of a phalanx, on level ground, being defeated from the front. Even with traditional hoplites, they were defeated by more mobile tactics and not the pila.

[alstl]

I think the pila is overrated at times. I'm sure the pila had some effect on enemy formations but remember that there were ranks of men behind the first rank and that they're were 5 pikes pointing out the front of a phalanx. I've never heard of a phalanx, on level ground, being defeated from the front. Even with traditional hoplites, they were defeated by more mobile tactics and not the pila.

I doubt anybody would assert the javelin by itself won any major battles but if it was ineffective the Romans wouldn't have carried them around. My guess as to how they would be used against a phalanx is they would focus on a particular point instead of simply each Roman soldier throwing a javelin at the guy in front of him. If I have 10,000 infantry each with 2 javelins I would pass the javelins to soldiers in a particular point or two in my formation and concentrate on breaking one or two gaps in the enemy line, not simply throwing at the front line but at that area. My goal would be to create a gap so my swords can get in close and create havoc.

[Anna_Gein]

I am not saying Alexander and his army would defeat the Romans. Why do you understand it this way ?

Look at the battle of Issus and the battle of Gaugamela. The phalanx do not need to be one perfect single line without any gap or space to survive. Gaps and irregularity would appear there is no doubt for this. But those would not necessary be exploitable. Even less one single of these gaps would hardly be enough to provoke automatically the fall of the whole battle-line.

About the pilum we already saw earlier that it was described as without effect during the siege of Atrax. It would be nice if you took into consideration what is said during the discussion. But you should remember that the Roman infantry would not be able to throw its javelins at once as you explained by yourself here or in an other thread. So no they would not inflict 6000 casualties before the initial clash.

[JaM]

About the pilum we already saw earlier that it was described as without effect during the siege of Atrax. It would be nice if you took into consideration what is said during the discussion. But you should remember that the Roman infantry would not be able to throw its javelins at once as you explained by yourself here or in an other thread. So no they would not inflict 6000 casualties before the initial clash.

you didnt understand me i didnt say they will disable them in initial clash, but in initial phase of battle - all battles can be divided into stages, Pilum would be used during several stages, until one side gets upper edge, and the opposite side starts running. once enemy is broken, casualties are increasing as it is easier to inflict casualties on routing enemy. My point was, that Pilum would be used when tide of battle is deciding.

[Anna_Gein]

you didnt understand me i didnt say they will disable them in initial clash, but in initial phase of battle - all battles can be divided into stages, Pilum would be used during several stages, until one side gets upper edge, and the opposite side starts running. once enemy is broken, casualties are increasing as it is easier to inflict casualties on routing enemy. My point was, that Pilum would be used when tide of battle is deciding.

You mean "initial phase of battles" as the "fighting phase" in opposition to the "pursuit phase" once one side is fleeing ?

I agree javelins like Pila are powerful weapons and could inflict notable casualties during all the pauses between the shorts melee clash until one side flee. I wonder why it was abandoned in Northern West Europe.

[daelin4]

I can imagine ten thousand years from now someone will ask the same thing with today's US army: why on earth would they use large tanks, planes and various guns when you can just blow up their minds with incredible mind powers?
Duh, they didn't exactly design their military to fight guys with hugely evolved psyker minds. They designed their military to fight another military with similar tanks, planes and various guns. They don't even design their military to fight enemies armed with nothing but sticks and stones. You develop your military methods to fight who you would actually fight, not who might come around hundreds of years later.

Or if you don't know what I'm talking about, Philip II developed the phalanx to its next logical evolutionary step to defeat his immediate threats. The armies over a hundred years later, whose own developments were brought specifically to combat his methods, were not exactly the kind of army he intended to fight. When looking at the merits of a military formation of tactic, one must always consider the context of its usefulness. Philip II's enemies were Greeks that relied on the traditional hoplite phalanx, a large emphasis on the heavy infantry centre. For the Roman legions, the only reason you would want to fight them using a pike phalanx is for one reason only: if you inherited this form of fighting, and you have plenty of other supporting arms to back it up. No one sends a giant bunch of men and pikes straight at an enemy that has artillery, missile units, and heavy infantry and cavalry to flank it. That's stupidity.

[SirFork]

In some cases pilas were lauched at the right momentum to stop charges, but with phlanxes i guess they were useful only for create gaps.

[TR00PER7]

did more experienced or elite Pikemen train in sword fighting? Because it seems likely the roman legions could push through the pike wall but that cant really guarantee them success, they still have to fight in close combat. Now I wouldn't expect the pikemen to be good swordsmen but I wouldn't think that would make the pikemen absolutely useless in close quarters as they still have a sword and shield, although smaller than the romans, they still have the ability to fight back and hold the legions in place.

Or is it just some widely known fact that when ever legionaries got into a sword fight, they always won, very quickly with little casualties. Because that just seems as unrealistic as rome total war having Phalanxes butcher legionaries through their own shields with ease.

In the end there just different types of units with different uses, both can be used as the Main force of an army. I hear that western Europe had a lot more rough terrain so cavalry was never really preferred as a unit while it was very important in phalanx oriented armies which was to smash the enemy infantry in the rear and flanks while it was engaged with the phalanx.

From what I have heard in this thread, the legions had counter phalanx tactics by using small groups of individuals to attack the phalanxes in the gaps and to push through using their mass and shields. But how easy was this? was this only possible when the legions were trained hard enough and had many good officers in the legion to co-ordinate the attacks? Could they even be considered an equal to pikemen who may of had fewer officers and less training?

[torongill]

did more experienced or elite Pikemen train in sword fighting? Because it seems likely the roman legions could push through the pike wall but that cant really guarantee them success, they still have to fight in close combat. Now I wouldn't expect the pikemen to be good swordsmen but I wouldn't think that would make the pikemen absolutely useless in close quarters as they still have a sword and shield, although smaller than the romans, they still have the ability to fight back and hold the legions in place.

Or is it just some widely known fact that when ever legionaries got into a sword fight, they always won, very quickly with little casualties. Because that just seems as unrealistic as rome total war having Phalanxes butcher legionaries through their own shields with ease.

In the end there just different types of units with different uses, both can be used as the Main force of an army. I hear that western Europe had a lot more rough terrain so cavalry was never really preferred as a unit while it was very important in phalanx oriented armies which was to smash the enemy infantry in the rear and flanks while it was engaged with the phalanx.

From what I have heard in this thread, the legions had counter phalanx tactics by using small groups of individuals to attack the phalanxes in the gaps and to push through using their mass and shields. But how easy was this? was this only possible when the legions were trained hard enough and had many good officers in the legion to co-ordinate the attacks? Could they even be considered an equal to pikemen who may of had fewer officers and less training?

The elite phalanx units were elite because they were the best soldiers of the army. No evidence whatsoever suggests that the Romans could push through the pikes. As a matter of fact they were stopped cold practically every time they tried to do that. Whenever they managed to bypass the pike wall, however, the Romans made bloody work of the phalangites precisely because of their big shields and longer swords. The only exception seems to by the battles against Pyrrhos, but these were exceptional in every way.
The legions did not really have a counter-phalanx tactic. The counter-phalanx tactic suggested here is pure make-belief. The Romans didn't have small groups of individuals specifically to attack the gaps in the Phalanx formation. Rather, they used initiative and when they saw that gaps are appearing in the formation, they exploited them. But it was probably spur of the moment rather than a pre-thought out tactic.
Actually the Phalanx was supposed to have quite a few officers of different ranks. The syntagma was the main block of the phalanx, but it was composed of 32-strong subunits, each of them with a commander, second in command and two assistants.

@Jakeswe, the Romans were practically never at peace. The gates of the temple of Janus were opened(which signified the state being at war) by the third king of Rome. The next time they were closed was in 235 BCE, after a period of 400 years. That peace lasted eight years. The next time the gates were closed was in 29 BCE. Then they were closed in 25 BCE and apparently in 13 BCE

[vietanh797]

Back in the day of Philips and Alexander. The Macedons known for having good swordsmanship with horsemanship in Greek world. They still hard to match a skilled barbarian in a 1 vs 1 fight but it is possible to held till back up come. also their officer isn't just some crappy one like Antiochus. You can already saw Eumenes who just a "royal secretary" command the army and defeat Antiochus's army like a spear went through a human body.
The second generation of generals from Macedon's skill is nowhere near the first one's which result in downgrade of the tactic, training and equipment which eventually lead to the downfall of Hellenic world