Pike phalanxes - why ?

[vietanh797]

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

lol give me a sarrissa I will get both the shield and that guy
and may be you don't know but any guy who trained to fight with weapon will pick the spear over the sword. Reach is important even in duel, formation isn't the real reason.

[Påsan]

lol give me a sarrissa I will get both the shield and that guy
and may be you don't know but any guy who trained to fight with weapon will pick the spear over the sword. Reach is important even in duel, formation isn't the real reason.

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.

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".

[TR00PER7]

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

What a great idea, let the enemy willingly fix their spears onto your shields then hack at them.

Its almost as if the spearmen aren't even trying to attack....


This is why I said "surely the pikemen would not attack shields but rather the exposed areas like head, feet and gaps inbetween the shieldwall" and this video is just show the obvious, dont attack the shield.

[JaM]

What a great idea, let the enemy willingly fix their spears onto your shields then hack at them.

Its almost as if the spearmen aren't even trying to attack....


This is why I said "surely the pikemen would not attack shields but rather the exposed areas like head, feet and gaps inbetween the shieldwall" and this video is just show the obvious, dont attack the shield.

Again - 16-17.century PIkemen often mentioned they were unable to tell which pike head is theirs, so they thrusted their pike automatically without knowing what exactly they are hitting... It would be even worse with much longer Sarissa and 5-6 rows of Pikemen having their pikes lowered... (Renaisance Pike Square only used 3 ranks of lowered pikes.)


So you can forget about any aiming into weak parts as you cant even tell which pikehead is actually yours..

[TR00PER7]

So you can forget about any aiming into weak parts as you cant even tell which pikehead is actually yours..

good point.

but my point was that the pikes or spears would be moving backwards and forwards and there would be little opportunity to hack at them from an angle unless the spearheads would embed themselves into the shields in such a way that they became difficult to pull back allowing for someone to hack at them. The video shows the spears as static and the spear wielders look like they are aiding in motion which wouldn't make much sense as why would you try and force your spear through their shield when you know its only going to get stuck.

[JaM]

good point.

but my point was that the pikes or spears would be moving backwards and forwards and there would be little opportunity to hack at them from an angle unless the spearheads would embed themselves into the shields in such a way that they became difficult to pull back allowing for someone to hack at them. The video shows the spears as static and the spear wielders look like they are aiding in motion which wouldn't make much sense as why would you try and force your spear through their shield when you know its only going to get stuck.

yes thats true, anyway with shield like Scutum, you can go into lower guard and set your shield with some degree towards the pikes, so they will get deflected by the slope instead of pushing directly against it. This way its possible to get under the pike heads,move some distance and stand up to get in the middle of pike... And once you are in, Phalangitai would have to drop the pike and draw the shortsword or do nothing and get stabbed by gladius.. Only first 5-6 rows had pikes horizontal, men in seventh rank would not be able to see what is going on in front rank...

[JaM]

Spear is good weapon for relatively inexperienced people. All you need is to hold it to fend off attackers. Performing attacks with it are also simple forward thrusts. Anyway, spear due to its length is not that effective in close quarters battle. Romans used Hasta with early republican Legions, mostly as a weapon for their second and third line troops, while first liners were using javelins. Anyway once they faced more and more Spanish Mercenaries during first Punic War they realized the benefit of the short thrusting sword in tight close combat situations, and they equipped their soldiers with it.

COmbination of Scutum and Gladius was incredibly effective in close combat. Scutum thanks to its shape provided excelent protection from frontal aspect, anyway because it was held shield and not strapped to the hand like Greek shields (Aspis) it also allowed soldier to use it offensively, which providing him with greater standoff against weapons that could penetrate the shield - any penetrating hits against Aspis would face just about 10-20cm of standdoff before hitting the body. With Scutum this standoff distance was much greater as the shield was held at greater distance from the body, which meant that any short projectile would get stuck in shield and would not hit the men behind.

In close combat clashes, Roman legionary would use his shield agresivelly to bash the enemy in front to get him off balance, and then exploit any open spots with quick thrusts with gladius. This kind of formation combat was much less fatiguing than any other. Longer gallic swords were used for slashing thus required more space and much more energy to deal lethal damage. Spears would require much more space,anyway once legionaries pushed against spears with the shields, they were able to avoid them and attack the spearmen...

Many of you dont realize one extremly important rule of close combat - even super athletic men cannot fight in close combat longer than few minutes. Adrenaline, stress, and weight of armor and weapons would tire any men very quickly - just look at modern fencing - usually fencers have enough after few minutes of fencing. Melee combat was VERY TIRESOME thing. And here is the main advantage of Roman Way of fighting in close combat - use of short thrusting sword, didnt required brutal strength, so Legionaries tires slower than other infantry would. Also, Legion system was counting on this from the begining, which is the reason why they deployed in three ranks with young Hastati attacking first, once tired they were to retreat behind Principes, to regain their fatigue and replace Principes if needed. Only if Enemy proved too strong, they would both withdraw behind Triarii... This system was kept even with Late Republican Legions, where ROmans used bigger Cohorts in 4-3-3 deployment, and supported the front line from the second line. Anyway military historians consider replacement of entire cohorts impossible in combat, its more likely they replaced front ranks by century during battle luls.

btw, Battle luls - as mentioned above, no men could fight for more than few minutes in direct combat. This was well known fact to all sides, which means even barbarians had some tactics which was counting on this - no man is naturally suicidal, if there was no replacement, and you would left to fight till death, your morale would be very low... So, you can forget on everything you seen in RTW and other games, those melee fights would not look like that at all... instead, two formations would clash for few minutes, and then both would withdraw few meters back to restore their strength and prepare for next clash. During this lul, skirmishers were deployed forward to harras enemy. Romans usually replaced tired men from front line with fresh centuries from second line, while men who still had their javelins would throw them at the enemy...

What is exceptional on roman tactics, is this energy management of their troops. With late Republican Legions, Cohortal system gave them more individual flexibility, where each Cohort had two commanders who led the cohort independently based on initial plan, but were not affraid to exploit and gaps in enemy formation, or seize the opportunity if it presented itself. This flexibility is exactly what made Legion so powerful and it took several hundred years to see this again to be used - with emergence of Regimental structure.

[JaM]

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.

Actually what Romans did at Pydna, was that they attacked Phalanx walking in bad terrain as independent units, instead of attack with full line. THis way, only certain parts of Phalanx were attacked, while other parts still walked forward, which created the gaps that other individual Maniples could exploit. Major problem of Phalanx was its focus on frontal attack and inability to respond on flanking attacks - that is why Macedonians and Greeks used other light troops to protect flanks of the phalanx..

Personally if I had to face Phalangities, i would deploy my men similar way as Hanibal did in Canae - heavy troops at flanks, center possition to give ground but with second line to support it if needed. Heavy infantry would then destroy light troops guarding flanks and attack the Phalanx in the flank. Cavalry would stay in reserve to counterattack any attempts to to flank heavy troops with enemy cavalry.. Uniformity of Roman legion would easily allow me to confuse enemy, because you cant tell Hastati from Principes if they are holding the shield...

[Påsan]

I'd just like to add that "The emperors pack mules" was widely known to be one of the most enduring fighting infantry in the world in any time period. They essentially carried so much weight at march (And march they did a lot) to make them extremely enduring. We still used a roman march technique when I was in the army, which involved a 30 man column where the two rear soldiers would sprint to the front and repeat, thus speeding up the entire column and you can do this for hours.

A Gladius is also like the video above suggest a very good weapon, I own a Gladius and a Longsword, and while the Longsword hit with the momentum you give it, the Gladius feels more like an extension of your arm, and you are able to put your whole weight behind every trust with little loss in fatigue. I am pretty sure a chain mail would be penetrated fairly easy with a good thrust.

So basically what you got with a legionary is an extremely flexible and highly enduring fighting formation of 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.

[Påsan]

Well in the video was not a Macedonian phalanx. Given the spear was the weapon most often faced by Romans from Gaul to Egypt I'd say the technique looks plausible. Not every formation of spears is the Macedonian one.

[Kinjo]

Well in the video was not a Macedonian phalanx. Given the spear was the weapon most often faced by Romans from Gaul to Egypt I'd say the technique looks plausible. Not every formation of spears is the Macedonian one.

You could hardly call Gaul spearmen a phalanx and the topic is about Pike phalanxes.

[JaM]

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...

[JaM]

Actually term Phalanx was used for any sort of Spearmen formation, from Gaul and German Spearmen to Greek Hoplites and Macedonian Phalangities. Some historians even call Roman Cohorts formed in single line as a "phalanx" but they dont refer to use of Pikes, just to the single block of men...


and term - Pike - is valid for any spear that is held in both hands and is used for thrusting attacks...

[JaM]

And another very important thing about ancient combat is source of informations.. For example, Third Seville war, after it ended Roman Senate Prohibited anybody to talk about Spartacus, to write about him, or mention him anyhow. All Written sources were destroyed. This information ban was in effect for about 100 years, and the only info we have about it is from historians who lived 100-150 years after Third Servile war ended.. The only two sources we have, are actually quite contradicting themselves, so nobody can tell how exactly was this war waged, and what was the actual result... important fact is, Romans never ever did something like this information embargo on any their defeat... so what exactly was the reason for this???

[vietanh797]

They did a lot. We just don't know about it.

Example like the defeat when they attack Sparta was written as "a small skirmish that Spartan won".
And how did they reacted to that "small skirmish" ? bring 25000 troops to get a Sparta with no more than 5000 even if the citizen soldiers fought with the tyrant's army

[JaM]

They did a lot. We just don't know about it. Example like the defeat when they attack Sparta was written as "a small skirmish that Spartan won". And how did they reacted to that "small skirmish" ? bring 25000 troops to get a Sparta with no more than 5000 even if the citizen soldiers fought with the tyrant's army

Check your sources again.. i told you once and provided you with links about that skirmish... it happened when Spartans attacked Auxilia which protected the camp builders, and Spartans immediatelly retreated behind their walls once Roman Cohorts arrived on the field... so all in all, just a small skirmish.nothing else... in the end Spartans got destroyed and they had no chance against Roman Legionaries...

[Husayn Bayqara]

I'll just leave you guys to it then. Some interesting posts (some ...... very thoughtful, JaM). Dan113112, I am confused by your opinion that "table top wargames are nonsense" - I would think that all TW simulation fans would also have a feeling for miniature wargamers' table top recreations of these battles . The good rules systems ( DBM et al ) are very rigorously devised and certainly rate re credibility and intellectual interest. Go down to your local war gamers club on Saturday and see Cannae, Magnesia, Flodden, Marengo - who knows ? - being refought and rethought. Surely anyone here is susceptible to the charms of hundreds of painstakingly painted 28 mm combatants recreating military history, manouvered by knowledgeable, thoughtful generals. What's not to like about all that ?

[JaM]

Romans were capable protecting their flanks, anyway this depends on situation. With early Republican Legions, Triarii could respond on any such flanking attacks. Anyway If entire battle was engaged, Romans used their reserves to replace their front ranks to keep fighting men less fatigued. This required 2x the number of men to be engaged in fighting which left limited amount of men able to respond to situation on flanks.

Late Cohortal Legion was different. Each Cohort was independent. Romans used 4-3-3 deployment by default, anyway they were flexible with third rank. For example at Pharsalus, Caesar used some of men in the third rank (6 cohorts) to countercharge Pompey's cavalry that wanted to flank Caesar's main line.. Instead, 6 cohorts was able to rout entire cavalry which practically resolved the battle as Caesar then was able to outflank Pompey's men.

[MicCal]

Romans were capable protecting their flanks, anyway this depends on situation.

I did't say they weren't, I said they weren't always capable of doing this.

6 cohorts was able to rout entire cavalry which practically resolved the battle as Caesar then was able to outflank Pompey's men.

As you said, Roman capablity to protecting their flanks depended on situation, and I think Pharsalus is great example for this - Caesar's men were able to do this, but Pompey's men were not. And so was the phalanx - sometimes they could protect their flanks by manouvers, sometimes not. All I want to say is that people usually tend to think that there is a dychotomy between the extremely flexible and movable legionaries on the one side, and the extremely clumsy, rigid and immovable phalanx on the other side. I don't neglect the fact that there was a difference, but still this difference was not that huge, and in fact it depended on many other factors.

[Påsan]

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).

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, 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.

Another instance where Roman legionary forces defeated eastern style army heavy on cataphracts can be found here. Not exactly Carrhae.