how to beat phalangites head on?

[JaM]

The following is from Polybius, 18.31


Why the phalanx fails.



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...

and yet everybody was trying to convince me there is no example where Romans defeated phalanx with their javelins...

[Akrotatos]

and yet everybody was trying to convince me there is no example where Romans defeated phalanx with their javelins...

Read the damn quote. This happened after the Seleucid cavalry had left the field and the phalanx broke when the ELEPHANTS within their ranks panicked.

[BroskiDerpman]

In real life you most likely don't attack a phalanx head on; you're playing their game. Instead you want to flank, break their cohesion or focus attackson specific parts of the line.

[TR00PER7]

I don't know, haven't seen the game yet but if its anything like the first then nothing beats a phalanx head on, only units which can "match" the phalanx such as another a phalanx or a legion unit on the defensive. Although, I found that by using a legions pila throw before charging a phalanx can rout them since the rapidness of being hit with missiles and charged will cause demoralization despite causing few casualties.

In reality the roman legion were able to beat the phalanx although the only example I know of is the battle of pydna when the legions fell back to rough ground and luring the phalanx onto rough terrain which broke the formation and the legions were able to exploit this by attacking in small groups at weak spots rather than attacking as a hole line.

But they were still able to hold the legions back on flat even terrain, so they were useful at pinning the enemy. And most of the time they would of had supporting units to aid them.

[jmlinden7]

-Better Phalanx

-Elephants. Followed by strong assault infantry.

-Abuse terrain/gaps in phalanx with strong legionary infantry

[karamazovmm]

I can't believe no one said drugged naked men

[Holger Danske]

how to beat phalangites head on?

By defeating their supporting cavalry...

[Frost, colonel]

By defeating their supporting cavalry...

Which won't be easy unless you support the attack with spearmen, as the pike phalanx based armies were ideally super tough on the flanks. The Roman cavalry for example will have to take on Mak Companion cav, or against the Seleucids, Cataphracts with elite inf in support.

Going by Lusted's Pike video the AI was active on the flanks, so it may be interesting, but the AI will have to be clever to support the flanks of pike based armies well.

[JaM]

Which won't be easy unless you support the attack with spearmen, as the pike phalanx based armies were ideally super tough on the flanks. The Roman cavalry for example will have to take on Mak Companion cav, or against the Seleucids, Cataphracts with elite inf in support.

Going by Lusted's Pike video the AI was active on the flanks, so it may be interesting, but the AI will have to be clever to support the flanks of pike based armies well.

no, not really. Cavalry was formed on wings of usual Macedon army, not flanks. (there is a quite big difference between Flank and Wing btw...) Phalanx flanks were protected by assault infantry armed with shorter spears, swords and shields. Those men, even if elite, were easier target for Roman Legionary. Not all Sucessor armies were able to field super-elite Hipaspists/Thorakitai who could match Roman Legionaries in close combat..

And regarding other things, i'm quite surprised by selective use of historical mentions, Phalanx defenders like to cite Plutarch, Livy, but ignore writings of these authors which mention Phalanx was only good in one single type of terrain while Roman Legions could fight in (almost) any terrain. So somewhat experienced Roman General would ignore Phalanx preparing for battle in their ideal terrain and instead would move towards their homeland bypassing that position and cutting the Phalangitai army off their supply chain... So even if Phalanx would be hard to crack in pitch battle, strategically, Romans defeated them due to superior strategical maneuverability and mobility.. Only option Macedonian General would have in such situation is to accept battle in much less favorable conditions which would give advantages to Romans.. both major defeats at Cynoscephalae and Pydna are good examples of that.

[Dan113112]

no, not really. Cavalry was formed on wings of usual Macedon army, not flanks. (there is a quite big difference between Flank and Wing btw...) Phalanx flanks were protected by assault infantry armed with shorter spears, swords and shields. Those men, even if elite, were easier target for Roman Legionary. Not all Sucessor armies were able to field super-elite Hipaspists/Thorakitai who could match Roman Legionaries in close combat..

And regarding other things, i'm quite surprised by selective use of historical mentions, Phalanx defenders like to cite Plutarch, Livy, but ignore writings of these authors which mention Phalanx was only good in one single type of terrain while Roman Legions could fight in (almost) any terrain. So somewhat experienced Roman General would ignore Phalanx preparing for battle in their ideal terrain and instead would move towards their homeland bypassing that position and cutting the Phalangitai army off their supply chain... So even if Phalanx would be hard to crack in pitch battle, strategically, Romans defeated them due to superior strategical maneuverability and mobility.. Only option Macedonian General would have in such situation is to accept battle in much less favorable conditions which would give advantages to Romans.. both major defeats at Cynoscephalae and Pydna are good examples of that.

We know that crap successor state pikemen didn't perform well on rough terrain. Nobody is denying this. However, a good quality phalanx could and did perform well on rough or even uphill terrain. Alexander fought in such situations. Training and equipment were lacking in successor state phalanxes. They also had an unwieldy amount of pikemen compared to support troops.

Didn't successor states often employ mercenary heavy and light infantry for flank protection? Mercenaries are of varying quality so that could potentially cause a problem.

[General Sherman]

We know that crap successor state pikemen didn't perform well on rough terrain. Nobody is denying this. However, a good quality phalanx could and did perform well on rough or even uphill terrain. Alexander fought in such situations. Training and equipment were lacking in successor state phalanxes. They also had an unwieldy amount of pikemen compared to support troops.

Didn't successor states often employ mercenary heavy and light infantry for flank protection? Mercenaries are of varying quality so that could potentially cause a problem.

Comparing Alexander's phalangites to successor phalngites is a futile exercise if you ask me. Whats the basis for saying successor phalanxes were so woefully inadequate? Because they were less successful? Only against the Romans.

We don't know how Alexander would have faired against legionaries, because he never faced them. Roman legionaries were able to dominate pretty much all of Europe for centuries, Alexander's Empire fell apart upon his death. How come the Roman legionaries were able to be dominant for so many centuries and under so many commanders, while the phalanx apparently lost all of its discipline and skill within a generation of Alexander? Did the ability to fight on "rough terrain" reside in Alexander or the phalanx itself or the particular phalangites in Alexander's army? Either way it is obvious that the legionary formation has an inherent advantage in rough terrain over the phalanx, as even in your own arguments it takes the superlative example of Alexander the Great in a hypothetical battle for the "invincibility" of the phalanx to be realized.

The romans employed allies, auxiliaries, and mercenaries on the battlefield as well as the successors. And they faced a variety of phalanxes from different cultures/regions/ and even eras under Generals of varying degrees of ability. In the end, the Roman legionaries won out.

[GatorMarine1833]

And regarding other things, i'm quite surprised by selective use of historical mentions, Phalanx defenders like to cite Plutarch, Livy, but ignore writings of these authors which mention Phalanx was only good in one single type of terrain while Roman Legions could fight in (almost) any terrain. So somewhat experienced Roman General would ignore Phalanx preparing for battle in their ideal terrain and instead would move towards their homeland bypassing that position and cutting the Phalangitai army off their supply chain... So even if Phalanx would be hard to crack in pitch battle, strategically, Romans defeated them due to superior strategical maneuverability and mobility.. Only option Macedonian General would have in such situation is to accept battle in much less favorable conditions which would give advantages to Romans.. both major defeats at Cynoscephalae and Pydna are good examples of that.

At Cynoscephalae it was the Romans' Greek Allies, using elephants, who were able to beat the unformed Macedonian left, then turn to attack the Macedonian right. The Macedonian right was beating the Roman left pretty severely up until that point despite the horrible terrain they were fighting on.

[Anna_Gein]

And regarding other things, i'm quite surprised by selective use of historical mentions, Phalanx defenders like to cite Plutarch, Livy, but ignore writings of these authors which mention Phalanx was only good in one single type of terrain while Roman Legions could fight in (almost) any terrain.

What do you want us to do ? Polybe whole work is to show how the the Roman came to dominate the world. He was Achaean (hardly the most fervent supporters of Macedonia) and was more familiar to Romans ruling class circle than Achaean circles. His personal thought on military affairs are not that much valuable contrary to his battles accounts. Other authors use his work as a basis.

And to be honest Phillip V army was mainly composed of levy pikemen at Cynocephalae while most of his professional force were either lost in previous conflicts because of his adventurous politic or blocked in the siege of the Greek place they garrisoned. Perseus almost annihilated a Roman army at Kallinokos wasn't it for Perseus indecision and the Thessalian cavalry who covered the retreat.

[Maklodes]

By defeating their supporting cavalry...

Isn't that how you avoid having to face phalangites head on, rather than how you beat them head on? I thought the point of defeating their cavalry was to allow you to attack them from non-head-on directions.

[King_Shazam]

The romans would march up lock the spears into place with their shields and some others would go through the gaps and kinda work there way down pushing the spears aside and get close enough to deliver the gladius.

[Frost, colonel]

The romans would march up lock the spears into place with their shields and some others would go through the gaps and kinda work there way down pushing the spears aside and get close enough to deliver the gladius.

In the game Lusted states that after a while this will happen, but in reallity on 'unbroken terrain' it did not happen, the Romans were driven back by the Phalangites advance.

[Dan113112]

In the game Lusted states that after a while this will happen, but in reallity on 'unbroken terrain' it did not happen, the Romans were driven back by the Phalangites advance.

Exactly. The Romans were only able to push through the pikes when the pike formation was disrupted by a flanking maneuver or rough terrain. Rough terrain didn't seem to hinder Alexander's army as much. Probably because Alexander's army had better training.

[King_Shazam]

Yeah i guess your right never thought of the terrain playing such a big part. I just remember reading that or hearing that somewhere.

[Anna_Gein]

^ If I might add the quote tell that javelins and arrows inflicted important casualties but were not enough to properly defeat the pikemens. Otherwsie they would not be able to fall back 'in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans" until the elephants panicked.

Which won't be easy unless you support the attack with spearmen, as the pike phalanx based armies were ideally super tough on the flanks. The Roman cavalry for example will have to take on Mak Companion cav, or against the Seleucids, Cataphracts with elite inf in support.

Theses cavalry troops were few in numbers. Most Hellenic cavalry would be of similar strength to Roman cavalry. Still Eumenes II cavalry should be putted into good use by a player willing to defeat a hellenic army in good shape ...

[JaM]

hills are not that a big issue, small trees (or practically any tree) and rough terrain is. It would be quite problematic for such tightly packed formation to maneuver over such obstacles (bushes, trees,boulders, fallen wood etc) and keep the formation.


small example from Pydna:



and some artistic example how it could look like: