Phalanx Explanation

[chadwicknight]

Hello everyone.


Searching the web for clues about the Phalanx formations in Total War: Rome 2, led me to nothing...
Except that I found out that there is a bit of general confusion regarding the historical facts. I hope this post will help to clarify what is unknown or misunderstood, or just hard to find.


Origins and Evolution


The pure phalangite warfare was effective from 7th century B.C. until the Persian wars (449 B.C.).


The units of the Phalanx of the time were heavy-armoured. The panoply (hoplite's equipment) was composed of: shield, helmet, breastplate, greaves, sword and spear and weighed about 70 pounds (all this on a soldier who himself probably weighed no more than 150 pounds). The hoplite's shield was his defining piece of equipment, even lending its name hoplon to the soldier himself. It was a large and concave, rested on the left shoulder, and stretching down to the soldier's knees. The shield was large enough to protect the right side of the man to each soldier's left, and so formed a wall behind which the hoplite was protected.


The entire panoply was not conceived for individual combat, in fact (despite what we've seen in movies) the unlucky hoplite forced to stand and fight outside of the phalanx would have found himself literally crippled by his own equipment.


The phalanx was organized in 8 or 12 ranks normally, later the Thebans (with Epameinondas) started to use 16 ranks.


During the pure phalangite warfare time interval, the conflicts of the hellenistic world were fought pretty much in the same way. This way was thought to end the conflict as quickly as possible, so the "farmer-soldiers" (with the exception of the professionals spartiate hoplites) could go back to their home and their crops, instead of being stuck in long military campaigns.


The way was simple and brutal: Phalanx against Phalanx, 4 phases.


1- A smooth and flat terrain was chosen by both rivals.
2- The two opposite heavy-armoured phalanx slowly advanced towards each other.
3- A brief and powerful charge and the impact between the two formations.
4- The collapse of one of them and the almost inevitable massacre of the broken fleeing units, by light infantry and cavalry (brought to the battlefield for that role only)




The Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.), between Athens and Sparta (and related alliances) changed the static tactical approach of the warfare.


This war was characterised by a strong "asymmetric" component, since its very beginning. Amphibious operations, sieges, raid in enemy territories, guerrilla and counter-guerrilla offensives, forced the "old" heavy hoplites to lighten their equipment, more and more to the point that (about the end of the war) they fought only with the protection of the helmet and the shield.


Macedonian Phalanx



King Philip II of Macedon revolutionised not only the phalanx itself, but its very tactical approach in the battlefield. He kept the 16ranks-depth scheme of the Thebans and the concept of "light armoured hoplite". He replaced the regular eight-feet long spears with the thirteen-to-twentyone-feet long sarissa. The new hoplites, called pezetairoi were lightly-armoured, with a little shield they kept hanged over the left shoulder, so they could handle the long sarissas with both hands. This macedonian formation was less tight than the greek phalanx, every pezetairoi had about 1 square meter space from the others.


Besides the technical improvements, the big difference between the classic greek phalanx and the macedonian one was their use in combat. The greek one was slower, heavier but somewhat more offensive. The latter was the true example of what an "anvil" should be in the "hammer and anvil" strategy: almost impenetrable from the front and supported by light infantry and skirmishers, the macedonian phalanx was marvellous in keeping the enemy lines engaged, while the cavalry performed aggressive maneuvers to the flanks and rear of the opposition.


This new phalanx and its application in the battlefield would be later adopted by the son of Philip, Alexander III (the great) becoming the uncontested tactical approach on the battlefield of the "civilized" world.


Until the discipline and the flexibility of the Romans changed everything.. again.


Quick Facts


Early Greek Phalanx


- Very tight formation
- 8-12 Ranks depth
- Heavy-armoured units (hoplon, helmet, breastplate, greaves)
- Very Slow
- Brief and explosive charge to gain momentum for the impact with the enemy
- Eight feet Spears


Late Greek Phalanx


- Very tight formation
- 16 Ranks depth
- Light-armoured units (they used only the hoplon and the helmet for protection)
- Brief and explosive charge to gain momentum for the impact with the enemy
- Eight feet spears


Macedonian Phalanx


- Less tight formation (1 square meter space between soldiers)
- 16 Ranks depth
- Light-armoured units (usually leather corset, lighter bronze helmet, little shield hanged over the left shoulder)
- Used in combination of light troops and skirmishers to hold the line
- Twenty one feet spears (sarissa), held with both hands.


Phalanx Strong Points


- Very tough (at the least) to break from the front
- Depending on the depth, hard to absorb its impact
- Does not require the single soldier to have exceptional capabilities, in comparison of the heroic world in the homeric poems


Phalanx Weaknesses


- Lack in versatility, thus weak against more versatile units and tactics
- Very weak if the formation breaks
- Very weak if charged in the flanks or rear
- Very weak if not supported by light infantry and skirmishers
- Risky, when fighting on uneven, irregular terrain




These are some basic historical facts (part from my books, part from the internet). Enjoy

[Argon Viper]

I like it, +rep. Great discussion of historical strategy in detail.

[RGA]

Very informative. I would like only to disagree at two points:

- There is a theory that the name "hoplite" was not derived from the word "hoplon" (shield), but its plural form "hopla" (meaning "arms"). IIRC, the Greeks called their shield "aspis".

- In classical phalanx battles, casualties were actually minimal. Light infantry was not widely used until the Peloponnesian wars, after Athens suffered some heavy defeat by the lightly armed Thracians.

[vietanh797]

the weakness mostly apply for Macedon's phalanx not the Greek's one

[chadwicknight]

the weakness mostly apply for Macedon's phalanx not the Greek's one

If you are referring to the game, you are right. In reality, both phalanxes were extremely vulnerable outside their ideal spot and without support. The early phalanx didn't use support (with the exception of light cavalry to eventually chase the fleeing enemy) simply because they didn't have to against another single phalanx.