Pike phalanxes - why ?

[The Bold Burgundian]

Simple.

Humanity is naturally drawn to the shape of the phallus. This is why all weapons and major architectural marvels are the way they are.

Gladius? Short and sharp phallus.
Pike? Long and narrow phallus.
Bow and arrow? Curved phallus that shoots other phallic objects to deadly effect.
Eiffel Tower? Giant four-legged phallic monster.
Tower of Piza? You guessed it, giant phallus.
Maginot Line? Unmistakably a network of short and fat phallus's.
I could go on and on, like a giant phallus, but I will spare you.

[HigoChumbo]

Simple.

Humanity is naturally drawn to the shape of the phallus. This is why all weapons and major architectural marvels are the way they are.

Gladius? Short and sharp phallus.
Pike? Long and narrow phallus.
Bow and arrow? Curved phallus that shoots other phallic objects to deadly effect.
Eiffel Tower? Giant four-legged phallic monster.
Tower of Piza? You guessed it, giant phallus.
Maginot Line? Unmistakably a network of short and fat phallus's.
I could go on and on, like a giant phallus, but I will spare you.

I don't know if i want to ask what the Colosseum, the Pantheon or the Parthenon mean to you...

And if you consider the Pyramids as a giant phallus as well... i suggest you go to the doctor... like asap dude.

[Dan113112]

Simple.

Humanity is naturally drawn to the shape of the phallus. This is why all weapons and major architectural marvels are the way they are.

Gladius? Short and sharp phallus.
Pike? Long and narrow phallus.
Bow and arrow? Curved phallus that shoots other phallic objects to deadly effect.
Eiffel Tower? Giant four-legged phallic monster.
Tower of Piza? You guessed it, giant phallus.
Maginot Line? Unmistakably a network of short and fat phallus's.
I could go on and on, like a giant phallus, but I will spare you.

Sounds like one of George Carlin's performances.

[Manu La Canette]

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTYuYxmICGo

here's how a phalanx style formation would have work. Look at the moment when the two formations are engaging each other. Thing is yes it is pretty much an ugly brawl but if one or the other side would have try to charge a phalanx with short weapons, they would have been slaughtered.

[vietanh797]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTYuYxmICGo

here's how a phalanx style formation would have work. Look at the moment when the two formations are engaging each other. Thing is yes it is pretty much an ugly brawl but if one or the other side would have try to charge a phalanx with short weapons, they would have been slaughtered.

the way tercio work isn't the same as phalanx honestly. Tercio is a combi of 3,4 types of troops insted of only pikeman using such vid make no sense if you apply to phalanx

[HigoChumbo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTYuYxmICGo

here's how a phalanx style formation would have work. Look at the moment when the two formations are engaging each other. Thing is yes it is pretty much an ugly brawl but if one or the other side would have try to charge a phalanx with short weapons, they would have been slaughtered.

Every single time i watch that movie i get pissed off for what it could have been and what it got to be.

And the battle was just the last straw... the ridiculously small size (that pike square should have been several thousand men at the end of the battle), the awful setting (it was meant to take place in Flanders in May, so at least a little bit of green should be expected, instead they give us a dry, yellow, summer spanish landscape with a damned clearly Spanish tower in the background...

At least they got the dresses, the combat and some actors right... but i was expecting way much more from the highest budget a spanish movie ever had.

the way tercio work isn't the same as phalanx honestly. Tercio is a combi of 3,4 types of troops insted of only pikeman using such vid make no sense if you apply to phalanx

I wonder if the phalanxes always fought as they have always shown us (pike up in the air, held down with both hands) and they never did stuf like getting the butt of the pike to the ground and holdint it there with the feet like the spanish did to counter cavalry charges.

[HauptmanT]

I honestly dont get what you people are even arguing about... Pikes piercing shields? spear points and chainmail? what? Joules, jewels, Jules? Who is Jules and what is he even doing here?

Armor does not make a person immune to injury. A pointy stick isnt made of magic. A shield isnt a forcefield. You dont need to kill a man to make him give up the fight.

Poke a guy in the eye with a toothpick, I'm sure he'll stop fighting.

And what is with the Legion vs Phalanx debate??? Why is this even a debate? Romans won. That is a little disputed fact. Swords and big shields proved an effective counter vs a long pointy stick, no matter how they were used. Hence the sword remaining an important weapon well into the 20th century. Now in game terms, this is simply old tech vs new tech. Any war where one side uses new technology against old, it always ends up very lopsided. Sword vs spear. Tank vs Cavalry. Abrams vs T55. This is not a debate, this is a debacle.

I own a lorica segmentata that i wear for halloweens and such. Romes greatest armor. Hit me in the shoulder with a bat, and I'm gonna drop like a log. Yet in Korea, american soldiers were going crazy because rounds fired out of their carbines wouldnt penetrate chinese winter uniforms. War is a funny thing. Weird things that make no sense happen. But in the grand scheme, you look for an advantage and use it, and that nearly always delivers victory.

So, Rome conquered the world because they used new tactics and weapons. Rome fell because they stagnated and lost their advantage. Byzantium stagnated and fell because it lost it's advantage. The ottomans fell for the very same reasons. He who holds advantage, holds victory.

And for the love of god this is an english language board... every time somone says "sarissa" or "Hasta" instead of pike or spear, I die a little bit more.

[Dan113112]

I honestly dont get what you people are even arguing about... Pikes piercing shields? spear points and chainmail? what? Joules, jewels, Jules? Who is Jules and what is he even doing here?

Armor does not make a person immune to injury. A pointy stick isnt made of magic. A shield isnt a forcefield. You dont need to kill a man to make him give up the fight.

Poke a guy in the eye with a toothpick, I'm sure he'll stop fighting.

And what is with the Legion vs Phalanx debate??? Why is this even a debate? Romans won. That is a little disputed fact. Swords and big shields proved an effective counter vs a long pointy stick, no matter how they were used. Hence the sword remaining an important weapon well into the 20th century. Now in game terms, this is simply old tech vs new tech. Any war where one side uses new technology against old, it always ends up very lopsided. Sword vs spear. Tank vs Cavalry. Abrams vs T55. This is not a debate, this is a debacle.

I own a lorica segmentata that i wear for halloweens and such. Romes greatest armor. Hit me in the shoulder with a bat, and I'm gonna drop like a log. Yet in Korea, american soldiers were going crazy because rounds fired out of their carbines wouldnt penetrate chinese winter uniforms. War is a funny thing. Weird things that make no sense happen. But in the grand scheme, you look for an advantage and use it, and that nearly always delivers victory.

So, Rome conquered the world because they used new tactics and weapons. Rome fell because they stagnated and lost their advantage. Byzantium stagnated and fell because it lost it's advantage. The ottomans fell for the very same reasons. He who holds advantage, holds victory.

And for the love of god this is an english language board... every time somone says "sarissa" or "Hasta" instead of pike or spear, I die a little bit more.

It isn't that simple. Most of the time when Romans won against the phalanx it was because of stupid mistakes the Macedonians made. Rome never, ever beat the phalanx from the front. They had to flank it. A flanking maneuver like this would doom any Roman army.

The phalanx by the time of the Macedonian Wars had deteriorated considerably. They lacked both good training and good equipment. For example, ancient historians mention that Macedonian swords during the Macedonian Wars were merely daggers. This points the idea that Macedonians were no longer trained to fight with swords nor expected to. Phalangites. . . Wait. . . I meant pikemen. . . Had proper swords during Phillip II/Alexander the Great's time. They were punished if they didn't bring the necessary equipment or lost a piece of it.

There are so many factors people seem to neglect. The lack of speed or maneuverability is questionable. Maybe it was true for the Macedonian army at the time of the Macedonian Wars but the Macedonian phalanx was highly maneuverable during Phillip II/Alexander the Great's time. And very fast on the march due to Phillip II reforms.

The Roman legion did have it's advantages over the phalanx in some areas. It's flexibility for one. It also didn't rely on combined arms. It was a nearly homogenous unit of heavy infantry.

[RGA]

So, Rome conquered the world because they used new tactics and weapons. Rome fell because they stagnated and lost their advantage. Byzantium stagnated and fell because it lost it's advantage. The ottomans fell for the very same reasons. He who holds advantage, holds victory.

And for the love of god this is an english language board... every time somone says "sarissa" or "Hasta" instead of pike or spear, I die a little bit more.

Ain't that ironic that someone who fanatically loves English said "ottomans" instead of "Turks"?

[Maklodes]

Ain't that ironic that someone who fanatically loves English said "ottomans" instead of "Turks"?

I don't see the irony. Turks are the ethnic/national name in English (and pretty close to being the ethnic/national name in Turkish too). Ottomans is the dynastic name in English (why it's not "Osmanids" is a mystery to me, but hey...). In Turkish, the name for the dynasty, according to my hasty Wikipedia research, Osmanlı Hanedanı (modern Turkish) or Hanedan-ı Âl-i Osman (Ottoman Turkish). Could you explain why it's ironic?

[MicCal]

I don't see the irony. Turks are the ethnic/national name in English (and pretty close to being the ethnic/national name in Turkish too). Ottomans is the dynastic name in English (why it's not "Osmanids" is a mystery to me, but hey...). In Turkish, the name for the dynasty, according to my hasty Wikipedia research, Osmanlı Hanedanı (modern Turkish) or Hanedan-ı Âl-i Osman (Ottoman Turkish). Could you explain why it's ironic?

I would say it's more ironic that he complains about using a words like "sarissa" or "hasta", yet he himself used the term "lorica segmentata" instead of "Roman segment armour"...

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.

I think that the battle of Magnesia is a very poor example here, as it clearly shows the ability of phalanx to protect its flanks and rear on its own in the midst of battle (thing that even the legendary flexible Romans were not always capable of).

[vietanh797]

......

1. Roman conquered but not by Military but more by Diplomacy
2. your lorica segmentata can be considered as crap
3. look at 1
4. good sire, those words that you complaining about are actually English. If you have problem please open your dictionary

[JaM]

1. Roman conquered but not by Military but more by Diplomacy

all i can say to this is LOL

[Dan113112]

all i can say to this is LOL

I some ways he's not wrong. A lot of territory Rome received when vassals or allies left their territory to them after their leaders died.

[vietanh797]

all i can say to this is LOL

You can read more books instead of laughing since it will be useful. Even in war Roman most the time only face 1 enemy so even if they lost a few battles they will win the war because they have much more manpower than any enemy.

[JaM]

Saying Romans conquest were more of a diplomacy thing than warfare is laughable, especially because of all those people killed in numerous wars Rome waged. Cities razed to the ground like Carthage, Corinth, entire nations wiped out (look at Ceasar conquest of Gauls)... just because they gained some land via diplomacy (illiria, and few cities in Little Asia) you cannot tell their military strength was secondary... its completely wrong and laughable.sorry...

i dont understand this downplaying of Roman military strength... Romans did conquer the world and ruled it for several centuries. this game will be called Rome2 Total War for a reason... if they were so inferior to Greeks, why don't we have Macedon Total War instead? Yes, Alexander was a brilliant General, but his conquests were incredibly shortlived, and everything fell apart after he died. Rome was not just about one man,but its history is full of great generals, bad generals, incredible leaders, and even mad psychos.. anyway their military was the reason why they kept their empire together. Only after military decline all this fell apart.

[Ichon]

Not sure where he was going with more diplomatically than militarily- maybe just saying even with all of Rome's military strength they played politics fairly well and that capability also aided their expansion- especially the vassal/allies status to 'conquered' people?

Roman military was strong no doubt- for TW perspective the question of military vs economic vs political strength is more relevant and historically Rome seemed relatively adept at all 3 with pure military might being perhaps the most frequently overshadowed at least in the Republican era. Where Rome suffered several large military defeats but vs Hannibal for example its economy was able to raise new armies repeatedly while politically its allied vassals did not break off nor did Rome surrender when most other states probably would have sued for peace. So as much as Roman Legions were successful or not- many times they weren't but the other strengths of Romans saw the state through those periods of military failure. In R2 if Rome gets units with all high stats, strong economy in Italy, and ability to transform rapidly into Imperium or at least benefit from more stable political control, what is the fun in playing as Rome?

My hope is that Rome has flexible legions where its units can fight well (or at least not at disadvantage while many other factions will get some bonus in native terrain but penalty in other terrains) in many terrains and especially excel during sieges. Roman infantry overall would be relatively numerous and cost effective but suffer from lack of cavalry and archers (at least within Italy, expanding from there and gaining vassal/mercenaries its sandbox). However even in heavy infantry the Phalanx and some Gaul or German champions should be able to match Legions in head to head fight with Advantage Romans in that phalanx can't storm walls in siege very well and the Gauls and Germans can't match in elite heavy infantry the numbers that Rome can field and their lower units are not as adept in so many terrains as Legionaries (though perhaps with experience can become adept).

"Rome benefits economically from its excellence in metalwork, enjoys enhanced military development, and can exploit the masses in order to maintain public order." Seems pretty strong but what does 'enhanced military development' actually mean in TW terms? Faster tech research, more frequent reforms giving stat boosts? Better ability to levy troops from vassals? I think it would be quite boring if Rome simply got powerhouse troops able to plow any enemy it encounters. The 2 enemy which they should have problems simply beating in a headfirst charge would be Greek/Hellenic phalanx and Gauls (where the initial charge vs Gauls seemed to be make or break it in many Roman battles. Parthians is also complicated because Roman infantry army vs cavalry winning in head on charge is questionable depending on mechanics and roster structure.

[TR00PER7]

Well, we know that the spear is the best weapon since it was commonly used by almost everyone, even the romans used it.

So one thing to know would be the advantages a spear has over most other weapons, reach. And what does a pike have? More reach. So in a melee, the romans legions would be taking hits but wouldnt be able to attack back because of their short gladius and pilum. In a duel, it may be much easier to flank the pike and get into close combat but in a tight formation the romans cant really maneuver inside the formation to close with the enemy. I would imagine some few of the romans would be able to crawl under the pikes or perhaps in some instances chop off the pike heads by using teamwork and their shields as a vice but not to any substantial degree that the hole pike phalanx becomes broken and useless.

Im not too sure about Armour, I would imagine that would hold up to pike thrusts or at least when combined with clothing/padding (if the romans wore that stuff). The shields to me seem like they would hold up quite well to thrusts but shields do tend to become "Thicker" at the center where the arm/hand is so this would indicate that stuff would penetrate the shield so the more vulnerable areas were made thicker to protect the arm. But I don't know even if the pikemen would bother attacking the shields, they would know its not going to have much effect so I would imagine they would go for the exposed feet, face or gaps inbetween the roman shield wall.

Also the impression I get from all the historical sources and what people have said, the romans beat the phalanx with experienced-battle hardened soldiers while the soldiers in the phalanx were poorly trained so they were unbalanced. And also those situations was on broken terrain, which indicates that phalanx require flat hard terrain like cavalry does.

What I wanted to know is, whether the roman could keep the phalanx in place using their shields and hope their cavalry-light infantry can outflank the phalanx or whether the phalanx could push through the shield wall and kill the Romans. I only ask because thats what I did on rome total war and it was fairly effective.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Here's how the Romans beat the Phalanx head on (Watch at 4:56 min):

[Kinjo]

Here's how the Romans beat the Phalanx head on (Watch at 4:56 min):

That's crap and not how a Macedonian phalanx was beat, I have never come across a single example where Romans beat a Macedonian phalanx head on. There was always some other factor like terrain or being outmaneuvered but never flat out overpowering them from the front.

In this example there are 5 layers of pikes there is no way you could do what he did in the video, the moment he puts his shield to the side he would get the **** stabbed out of him by the other pikes that are jut waiting for an opening to attack. I posted an SCA battle vid in this thread already and you can at least get an idea how pikes would have worked, now only imagine a lot more pikes with sharp tips. People just think they stood there but there is a lot of team work involved in a Phalanx especially when it comes to setting up and coordinating attacks.



As for game-play I'm betting CA will probably make swords the anti-spear unit anyways so really can't go into that until we get some more info.