how to beat phalangites head on?

[SamueleD]

DogSoldierSPQR : there is nothing cowardly about their battle tactics.. whole point of warfare is to win while taking minimal casualties. If you win by taking large casualties just because you want to fight fair, you are failing your own men.. War was never some kind of a sport, or a duel.. and it never will be.

Exactly, that's why horse archers were such a great invention.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

DogSoldierSPQR : there is nothing cowardly about their battle tactics.. whole point of warfare is to win while taking minimal casualties. If you win by taking large casualties just because you want to fight fair, you are failing your own men.. War was never some kind of a sport, or a duel.. and it never will be.

Depends on how you look at it. Sure, people fight to win. That's how it always has been. However, there is nothing wrong with saying one person's tactics are cowardly.

Guerilla warfare, Phalanx warfare and archery. Methods of warfare I'll never respect.

[Maklodes]

Depends on how you look at it. Sure, people fight to win. That's how it always has been. However, there is nothing wrong with saying one person's tactics are cowardly.

Guerilla warfare, Phalanx warfare and archery. Methods of warfare I'll never respect.

What about wearing lots of armor? Isn't it cowardly to attempt to make oneself immune to the enemy's blows?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

What about wearing lots of armor? Isn't it cowardly to attempt to make oneself immune to the enemy's blows?

Armour doesn't come into it. Protecting yourself is a human instinct. When things fly to your face, you instantly try to protect your eyes. When there are sudden movements which you didn't expect, you flinch. Self-protection is an instinct found in every species as well as humans.

Wearing armour cannot be considered cowardly as we are just doing what is in our nature. We just have the intelligence to actually expand upon this feature and actually design armour to wear. Besides, it doesn't make you immune. Chances are you will break a bone when struck regardless of armour, or just come away with serious bruising. Armour doesn't absorb anything. It just tries to stop people dying from cuts. You will still feel the blows.

Even modern-day armour, it is mostly there for peace of mind.

[Maklodes]

Armour doesn't come into it. Protecting yourself is a human instinct. When things fly to your face, you instantly try to protect your eyes. When there are sudden movements which you didn't expect, you flinch. Self-protection is an instinct found in every species as well as humans.

Wearing armour cannot be considered cowardly as we are just doing what is in our nature. We just have the intelligence to actually expand upon this feature and actually design armour to wear.

Isn't trying to get out of the way and dodge also part of that self-preservation instinct? I don't see how unarmored horse archer avoiding (say) the lance of a companion cavalryman by running away is somehow less in accord with natural instinct than (say) a companion cavalryman wearing armor to protect himself from the horse archer's arrows.

Besides, it doesn't make you immune. Chances are you will break a bone when struck regardless of armour, or just come away with serious bruising. Armour doesn't absorb anything. It just tries to stop people dying from cuts. You will still feel the blows.

Sure. I wrote that wearing armor is an "attempt to make oneself immune" -- attempt meaning it doesn't always work perfectly. If you have armor, you want it to be as good as possible -- if you could wear armor that made you completely immune without immobilizing you or being prohibitively costly, you'd wear that, right? Armor isn't perfect. Neither is phalanx warfare, archery, or guerrilla warfare. Sometimes phalanxes fall apart and lose cohesion and effectiveness, or get flanked. Sometimes archers get overrun by mêlée soldiers. Sometimes guerrilla's ambushes get detected and they get caught by superior forces. Nothing is perfect -- armor or anything else -- but isn't the point in combat* to kill opposing forces while not getting killed? The "not getting killed" part may be cowardly at some fundamental level, but no effective military would neglect that part, whether through armor, mobility, surprise, or something.

* I say "combat," rather than "warfare," because the point of warfare is generally to achieve political goals or something. By combat, I mean the raw, kill-or-be-killed bits.

Even modern-day armour, it is mostly there for peace of mind.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think someone with a 5.56 mm assault rifle poses much threat to someone in a Challenger 2 tank. Of course there are other weapons which pose a real threat a main battle tank, like an RPG with a HEAT warhead. Armor protects against some things, but not everything. Ultimately, these days nuclear arms trump almost everything, but that hardly makes armor incapable of withstanding nuclear arms worthless.

[JaM]

Horse archers were also not all defeating force.. Romans managed to defeat them on several occasions (like for example Bassus managed in few battles). As in medieval times, all you need is to have enough of skirmishers that can engage them effectively - horse archers are effective against tightly packed men, but against smaller targets they would have to go quite close to get accurate shots. Romans usually employed more Slingers to face them with good results. no unit was invincible. you just need to fight it properly. Crassus failure was, he accepted the Parthian game, and tried to fight them in their ideal terrain. Bassus at the other side, forced them to fight in terrain that didnt suited them, and it resulted in Parthian massacre.

[SamueleD]

Horse archers were also not all defeating force.. Romans managed to defeat them on several occasions (like for example Bassus managed in few battles). As in medieval times, all you need is to have enough of skirmishers that can engage them effectively - horse archers are effective against tightly packed men, but against smaller targets they would have to go quite close to get accurate shots. Romans usually employed more Slingers to face them with good results. no unit was invincible. you just need to fight it properly. Crassus failure was, he accepted the Parthian game, and tried to fight them in their ideal terrain. Bassus at the other side, forced them to fight in terrain that didnt suited them, and it resulted in Parthian massacre.

Sure, I just brought them up as an example of fighting style that tries to minimize losses and maximize casualties to the enemy, and can potentially do so very well, compared to a guy charging with a sword.

[JaM]

i believe you would if you were a soldier in an ancient army.. In such case you would rather fight "unfair" and won, than fought fair and died.

[VanGoth]

Any kind of warfare earns some sort of respect as long as it was successful, and guerilla warfare can, in some instances, be part of the highest arts of war.

As to beating a phalanx head on: Easy, fix their pikes with your shields, then have other men exploit that. If they want to avoid fixation they'd have to move which might end up in broken cohesion. Boom job done.

[Dan113112]

Any kind of warfare earns some sort of respect as long as it was successful, and guerilla warfare can, in some instances, be part of the highest arts of war.

As to beating a phalanx head on: Easy, fix their pikes with your shields, then have other men exploit that. If they want to avoid fixation they'd have to move which might end up in broken cohesion. Boom job done.

No. Not boom job done. The Macedonian army under Philip and Alexander faced many foes. Many with large shields. This tactic never worked for them. You could only beat a phalanx head on if they were ill-trained or not formed up yet. Romans lured ill-trained Macedonian troops onto rugged terrain to break their cohesion and then attacked them. They also shattered Macedonian units with elephants or flanked the phalanx with cavalry.

how to beat them head on?? make a 60ft spear

What about Polish Winged Hussars? I think they carried a 20-22ft lance. It was long enough that the Hussars could hit the pikemen in a pike square without being touched.

[hochmeister devin]

No. Not boom job done. The Macedonian army under Philip and Alexander faced many foes. Many with large shields. This tactic never worked for them. You could only beat a phalanx head on if they were ill-trained or not formed up yet. Romans lured ill-trained Macedonian troops onto rugged terrain to break their cohesion and then attacked them. They also shattered Macedonian units with elephants or flanked the phalanx with cavalry.
What about Polish Winged Hussars? I think they carried a 20-22ft lance. It was long enough that the Hussars could hit the pikemen in a pike square without being touched.

Winged Hussars were insane and there is documented cases of them routing pikemen from a frontal charge. Mostly due to their 7m lance vs 5m pikes.

[Dan113112]

Winged Hussars were insane and there is documented cases of them routing pikemen from a frontal charge. Mostly due to their 7m lance vs 5m pikes.

Yeah. They were one of the most fearsome cavalry forces in Europe in their day. Sometimes units would route before the Hussars made contact with their line.

A tight Roman large shield wall would do the job. As you advance towards the spears will start to get stuck or brake.

Doubtful. There isn't really any evidence to support the idea that Romans beat a cohesive phalanx from the front. Not to mention the fact that sarrisae were thick and heavy and cornel wood was very strong. You couldn't just hack at or break the sarissa. The Romans weren't the only ones with big shields and pretty much every enemy Phillip and Alexander faced were defeated.

[hochmeister devin]

Yeah. They were one of the most fearsome cavalry forces in Europe in their day. Sometimes units would route before the Hussars made contact with their line.

Only if we had winged Hussars in Rome II.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yeah. They were one of the most fearsome cavalry forces in Europe in their day. Sometimes units would route before the Hussars made contact with their line.
Doubtful. There isn't really any evidence to support the idea that Romans beat a cohesive phalanx from the front. Not to mention the fact that sarrisae were thick and heavy and cornel wood was very strong. You couldn't just hack at or break the sarissa. The Romans weren't the only ones with big shields and pretty much every enemy Phillip and Alexander faced were defeated.

I doubt a phalanx formation can do anything to a Roman hastati in textudo formation. The phalanx unit would either have to back down as the Romans pushed making them vulnerable to people that slip or the Romans would be able to push the spears up and get closer.

[JaM]

Fixing pikes against shields would not work, Pikes were held both hands, which gave them much greater force and penetration. If you combine it with a mass of men moving forward, they might deliver enough of force to actually penetrate shields. Fixing would definitely work against spears, which were held in one hand, as no human is able to deliver enough of force with one hand to penetrate the shield... (fixing pikes with shields might work against stationary phalanx though)

Fighting through pikes if phalanx moved forward would be quite problematic. It would be much more effective to feint local retreat while other parts of roman line would fight.. that way part of phalanx that saw romans retreated would press forward, creating a gap that could be exploited by reserves. Roman tactics was superior because it could adapt. Each centurion was allowed to adjust the tactics based on situation in his sector. They didnt waited for orders coming from army commander or Legatus,but actively engaged and disengaged as they saw fit.

[hochmeister devin]

Fixing pikes against shields would not work, Pikes were held both hands, which gave them much greater force and penetration. If you combine it with a mass of men moving forward, they might deliver enough of force to actually penetrate shields. Fixing would definitely work against spears, which were held in one hand, as no human is able to deliver enough of force with one hand to penetrate the shield... (fixing pikes with shields might work against stationary phalanx though)

Fighting through pikes if phalanx moved forward would be quite problematic. It would be much more effective to feint local retreat while other parts of roman line would fight.. that way part of phalanx that saw romans retreated would press forward, creating a gap that could be exploited by reserves. Roman tactics was superior because it could adapt. Each centurion was allowed to adjust the tactics based on situation in his sector. They didnt waited for orders coming from army commander or Legatus,but actively engaged and disengaged as they saw fit.

If an exploitable gap apears in my Phalanx line I would immediatly fill it with Thorokitai or a similar unit. The problem with this thread is who are you fighting? If its AI the would work fine but, a player would be an idiot to not have reserves for that.

[JaM]

If an exploitable gap apears in my Phalanx line I would immediatly fill it with Thorokitai or a similar unit. The problem with this thread is who are you fighting? If its AI the would work fine but, a player would be an idiot to not have reserves for that.

No,because those were placed on the flanks and not in the middle of phalanx.. Usually Phalanx deployment was just a single line, it was asumed that its not possible to break through it frontally, therefore reserves were placed on flanks where was a weakspot of the phalanx.

[Dan113112]

No,because those were placed on the flanks and not in the middle of phalanx.. Usually Phalanx deployment was just a single line, it was asumed that its not possible to break through it frontally, therefore reserves were placed on flanks where was a weakspot of the phalanx.

In the film Alexander (2004), you can see Agrarians and Hypaspists in between phalanx units sallying out. Just because it may not have been done all of the time or even most of the time doesn't mean no one did it or it wasn't possible. I almost always keep some Thorakitai or Thureophoroi in reserve behind my line in RTR VII.

[JaM]

In the film Alexander (2004), you can see Agrarians and Hypaspists in between phalanx units sallying out. Just because it may not have been done all of the time or even most of the time doesn't mean no one did it or it wasn't possible. I almost always keep some Thorakitai or Thureophoroi in reserve behind my line in RTR VII.

just because you would do it, it doesnt mean they would do it too. central phalanx line didnt need protection from the front, but from flanks. It was standard tactical deployment to concentrate mobile troops to protect vulnerable parts. yes, in game, you try different approaches but if you check any ancient battle you would see Greeks usually followed standard deployment wherever possible. Plus, placing nonphalanx units into phalanx formation would mean that parts of phalanx would be easier to defeat (no pike wall)

[need help]

If an exploitable gap apears in my Phalanx line I would immediatly fill it with Thorokitai or a similar unit. The problem with this thread is who are you fighting? If its AI the would work fine but, a player would be an idiot to not have reserves for that.

I was simply wondering if manipular units had specific tactics for engaging phalanxs head on in real life, not in RTW, and I have received a ton of answers to that question.

So cheers