how to beat phalangites head on?

[roarer]

I sincerely think when this type of threads pop up...a counter balance question has to be asked : how to beat legions head on with a phalanx if tactics discussed above is employed by the Roman.

This world is not static...if the enemy know what you are going to try to do, they will counter it.... and the strategic cycle continues. This is why this kind of game is interesting afterall.

[SamueleD]

I sincerely think when this type of threads pop up...a counter balance question has to be asked : how to beat legions head on with a phalanx if tactics discussed above is employed by the Roman.

This world is not static...if the enemy know what you are going to try to do, they will counter it.... and the strategic cycle continues. This is why this kind of game is interesting afterall.

Indeed, those kind of questions are always too artificial.

[twp127]

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

[Dan113112]

Double post.

[PointOfViewGun]

I enjoy reading up on ancient history but am but no means a historian, so I am wondering if it is possible to ever beat phlangites in a frontal assault (no flanking) if manipular units like Roman Legionaries are used. Since phalangites carry 30 ft. long sarissas, how is it even possible to break their formation if no archers/javelins are used. I can just imagine the wall of sarissas and don't see how it is possible to advance through them with just the use of a short sword.

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

[O'Hea]

Alexander was smart enough to win on the flanks so we would never have to find out how his phalangites could be broken. If he had relied on them to grind their way through the enemy masses then the outcome may have been very different- like how the Epirote phalanges were split apart by the Romans when the infantry battle ground on long enough. Compared to the Roman infantry, the phalangites were more vulnerable to missiles, less mobile, more dependent on keeping close order, less effective on broken ground, and less able to move fresh troops up to the front. The disintegration of the phalanx was an inevitability as the men in front became fatigued or were cut down by missile fire and as the formation drifted, creating clumps and thin patches. If you don't win on the flanks then your phalanx can and should eventually fold.

[Dan113112]

Alexander was smart enough to win on the flanks so we would never have to find out how his phalangites could be broken. If he had relied on them to grind their way through the enemy masses then the outcome may have been very different- like how the Epirote phalanges were split apart by the Romans when the infantry battle ground on long enough. Compared to the Roman infantry, the phalangites were more vulnerable to missiles, less mobile, more dependent on keeping close order, less effective on broken ground, and less able to move fresh troops up to the front. The disintegration of the phalanx was an inevitability as the men in front became fatigued or were cut down by missile fire and as the formation drifted, creating clumps and thin patches. If you don't win on the flanks then your phalanx can and should eventually fold.

Alexander's men were better trained on difficult terrain. It was proven in a battle he fought against the Thracians before invading Persia where he fought uphill on difficult terrain. The amount of training and discipline Phillip and Alexander instilled in their army was insane for the time in their region.

I am aware that a phalanx is not meant to be a battle winner. It was only meant to hold the enemy in place so the support infantry and cavalry could attack the enemy's flanks and rear. Hellenistic armies ignored this fact and they also increased the percentage of pikemen in their armies and reduced the amount of supporting units and cavalry. Not a good move.

I can't agree with the arguments that say A) the Roman system was the best or B) the Macedonian system was the best. Both had their ups and downs and both were good provided that their commanders used them properly. A lot of the mistakes made by Macedonian leaders would have doomed a Roman army as well. I think poor generalship and poor phalanx organization is what led to Macedonian/Hellenistic defeats. Kings and princes don't always make the best generals.

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.

Speculation. I'm speaking about what was actually recorded. Romans never really beat the phalanx from the front. Also, the Testudo was an anti-missile formation. It would never have been used to attack a phalanx.

Roman formations weren't dense or deep enough to push back a phalanx. We're talking 16 dense ranks against 6 loose ones, it's just not even a contest.

EDIT: Also keep in mind they would be pushing upwards with one arm (while holding a fairly heavy shield) against spears pressed down with both arms. They have a bit of a leverage advantage but lifting the sarissa or pushing it aside would be easier said than done.

Good point. Also, it isn't just the point of a pike you have to worry about. The sheer weight of the pike could make it an effective bashing weapon if it was swaying around or being pushed by an enemy.

[PointOfViewGun]

Roman formations weren't dense or deep enough to push back a phalanx. We're talking 16 dense ranks against 6 loose ones, it's just not even a contest.

EDIT: Also keep in mind they would be pushing upwards with one arm (while holding a fairly heavy shield) against spears pressed down with both arms. They have a bit of a leverage advantage but lifting the sarissa or pushing it aside would be easier said than done.

A modified testudo formation would be tight enough to render spears useless. Of course it's not a piece of cake.

Speculation. I'm speaking about what was actually recorded. Romans never really beat the phalanx from the front. Also, the Testudo was an anti-missile formation. It would never have been used to attack a phalanx.

The thread doesn't ask for how phalanx was defeated. It's asking for a possible way of defeating the phalanx formation without flanking or missiles.

[xjlxking]

A modified testudo formation would be tight enough to render spears useless. Of course it's not a piece of cake.

The Sarissa was able to pierce through the Roman Shield Scutum.

[War lord]

I am of the opinion that the reason the Romans were able to beat the late Phalanx head on was the serious degradation of the Successor system, the Cavalry arm was all but gone and the Phalanx had became little better then glorified Hoplites.

EDIT: And the Testudo was an anti-missile formation, usually for Siege assaults where the enemy had no way of attacking the Cohort hand to hand. It wasn't the human tank you seem to be imagining.

EDIT 2: Oh and according to EB the Galatians faced Phalanxes head on by using the youngest warriors, equipped with short-swords and bucklers to crawl under the spear wall. Once they had got inside the formation and disrupted it, I assume the older men would have charged in to finish it.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

I am of the opinion that the reason the Romans were able to beat the late Phalanx head on was the serious degradation of the Successor system, the Cavalry arm was all but gone and the Phalanx had became little better then glorified Hoplites.

EDIT: And the Testudo was an anti-missile formation, usually for Siege assaults where the enemy had no way of attacking the Cohort hand to hand. It wasn't the human tank you seem to be imagining.

EDIT 2: Oh and according to EB the Galatians faced Phalanxes head on by using the youngest warriors, equipped with short-swords and bucklers to crawl under the spear wall. Once they had got inside the formation and disrupted it, I assume the older men would have charged in to finish it.

The Seleucids had a very strong cavalry corp. The Macedonians on the other hand...

[rudthemighty]

Beating phalanxes?
Easy.


Use skirmishers to weaken and harass, hold them in place with your heaviest infantry and then flank with cavalry or skirmishers.

[Frost, colonel]

Beating phalanxes?
Easy.


Use skirmishers to weaken and harass, hold them in place with your heaviest infantry and then flank with cavalry or skirmishers.

This would work well if the AI doesn't support the flanks well. Most if not all of the phalanx based armies have strong cav, so we will see.

[Briareos]

Head on? You just don't. Tire them out, outflank them, route them. In Roma Surrectum 2.5 there were however indestroyable armored elephants, available to Seleucids, who could and did just kill everything. Eeeeverything. More of an exploit really. Loved it though.

[craziii]

I plan to use siege vs those pesky long pikes if head on is the only option. but they will present a huge problem in street fighting if they are defending. I wonder how wide or narrow the streets are in the provincial capitals. if one unit can hold a way into a capture point they will be the ultimate defenders, just like in rome 1. I once defended a minor city by just using 3 militia grade ones the city only had 2 ways into the center, was a slaughter.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

The weakness of the Successor armies was that they could not rely on their native troops. A reason why they focused on the Macedonian phalanx.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

The following is from Polybius, 18.31


Why the phalanx fails.

Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work.

If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory.

The phalanx being very tough to beat from the front was a simple fact.

Appian's description of the Battle of Magnesia is in lock step with Polybius...

They challenged the Romans to close combat and preserved at all times the appearance of being about to charge. Yet they did not advance, because they were foot-soldiers and heavily armed, and saw that the enemy were mounted. Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again.

The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps; but circled around them and assailed them with javelins and arrows, none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them.

After suffering severely in this way they yielded to necessity and fell back step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans. The latter kept their distance and continued to circle around and wound them, until the elephants inside the Macedonian phalanx became excited and unmanageable. Then the phalanx broke into disorderly flight.

[General David]

Cataphracts should be able to do some decent work, right?

[Maklodes]

Cataphracts should be able to do some decent work, right?

Head on? I doubt the cataphracts would make much impact on a phalanx.

In fact, attacking a pike phalanx, head on, with heavy cavalry is just about one of the worst tactical ideas that there is without delving into outright suicidal ideas like charging over cliffs. There are probably a few worse ones, like sending heavy infantry chasing after horse archers, but not many.

[hochmeister devin]

Head on? I doubt the cataphracts would make much impact on a phalanx.

In fact, attacking a pike phalanx, head on, with heavy cavalry is just about one of the worst tactical ideas that there is without delving into outright suicidal ideas like charging over cliffs. There are probably a few worse ones, like sending heavy infantry chasing after horse archers, but not many.

Theoritically if you had Heavy Cavalry armed similar to the Winged Hussars you should be able to do it.