how to beat phalangites head on?

[JaM]

attack on Macedonian right was conducted by 20 maniples lead by one of Tribunes, not by Allied infantry. Anyway both Roman Legions (15000men) were supposed to play delaying actions against Macedonian phalanx (21000men). wiki description is tricky, because it sounds like if Greek Allies defeated macedonian themselves, while it was the heavy fighting that fixed phalanx in place so it could be flanked..

[GatorMarine1833]

attack on Macedonian right was conducted by 20 maniples lead by one of Tribunes, not by Allied infantry. Anyway both Roman Legions (15000men) were supposed to play delaying actions against Macedonian phalanx (21000men). wiki description is tricky, because it sounds like if Greek Allies defeated macedonian themselves, while it was the heavy fighting that fixed phalanx in place so it could be flanked..

As I understand the events of that battle, the Roman commander wasn't trying to pin the phalanx then flank it. One of the lower ranking Roman commanders (on the Roman right) decided on his own to take four maniples to flank the Macedonian right. Either way, it was largely the use of elephants and attacking the Macedonian left before it had formed that won the Romans the battle. Had the phalanx been formed properly on the left this may not have been the case. From what I've read it seems more like the Roman commander, upon seeing his left beginning to falter, rushed to right to salvage what he could of the battle by trying to break the unformed Macedonian left before the Macedonian right defeated the Roman left.

In this particular case I would argue that the terrain proved more of a problem to the Macedonians not because the phalanx couldn't fight on it, but because it forced the Macedonian left to march to the battle in columns and at a rate that was too slow for them to be of much use.

I agree with what your saying for the most part; attacking a pike phalanx from the front is fighting on their terms and thus is not the ideal way to fight a phalanx. It certainly could be defeated from the front, but mainly due to clever use of terrain and / or variable force along the battle lines to create gaps.

[JaM]

As I understand the events of that battle, the Roman commander wasn't trying to pin the phalanx then flank it. One of the lower ranking Roman commanders (on the Roman right) decided on his own to take four maniples to flank the Macedonian right. Either way, it was largely the use of elephants and attacking the Macedonian left before it had formed that won the Romans the battle. Had the phalanx been formed properly on the left this may not have been the case. From what I've read it seems more like the Roman commander, upon seeing his left beginning to falter, rushed to right to salvage what he could of the battle by trying to break the unformed Macedonian left before the Macedonian right defeated the Roman left.

In this particular case I would argue that the terrain proved more of a problem to the Macedonians not because the phalanx couldn't fight on it, but because it forced the Macedonian left to march to the battle in columns and at a rate that was too slow for them to be of much use.

I agree with what your saying for the most part; attacking a pike phalanx from the front is fighting on their terms and thus is not the ideal way to fight a phalanx. It certainly could be defeated from the front, but mainly due to clever use of terrain and / or variable force along the battle lines to create gaps.

yes, and that is one of the biggest advantages Romans had over Hellenistic armies.. Chain of command.. Hellenistic Generals commanded the battle themselves, while their commanders were usually expecting the orders from main commander. Own initiative was very rare. On other side, Romans promoted own initiative. Every Centurion could act on his own if he saw an opportunity. he didnt had to wait for orders from Legatus, or main commander.As described at Cynoscephalae Roman Tribune Militi took several maniples to flank Macedon phalanx, which practically decided the battle, anyway even if you look at the initial positions, Romans thanks to their flexibility had advantages as they could deploy their forces on battlefield faster, so they practically catch the Macedonian wind unprepared.

And from tactical perspective, Maniples and later Cohors had advantage of being able to operate individually. They didn't had to preserve Legion formation, as they always had several reserve cohors behind them which would immediately cover them from back, or replace them if needed. That gave individual commanders huge edge against their adversaries, who had to wait several minutes until orders from main General arrived... So it is not far from truth to tell, that Initiative was the most dangerous weapon Legions had...

[JaM]

I wasnt weak, but it was beatable. same way Roman Manipular formation was beatable if one used their weaknesses against them... like Hannibal did

[Anna_Gein]

I wasnt weak, but it was beatable. same way Roman Manipular formation was beatable if one used their weaknesses against them... like Hannibal did

Or the Sotiates.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

20 About the same time, P. Crassus, when he had arrived in Aquitania (which, as has been before said, both from its extent of territory and the great number of its people, is to be reckoned a third part of Gaul,) understanding that he was to wage war in these parts, where a few years before, L. Valerius Praeconinus, the lieutenant had been killed, and his army routed, and from which L. Manilius, the proconsul, had fled with the loss of his baggage, he perceived that no ordinary care must be used by him. Wherefore, having provided corn, procured auxiliaries and cavalry, [and] having summoned by name many valiant men from Tolosa, Carcaso, and Narbo, which are the states of the province of Gaul, that border on these regions [Aquitania ], he led his army into the territories of the Sotiates. On his arrival being known, the Sotiates having brought together great forces and [much] cavalry, in which their strength principally lay, and assailing our army on the march, engaged first in a cavalry action, then when their cavalry was routed, and our men pursuing, they suddenly display their infantry forces, which they had placed in ambuscade in a valley. These attacked our men [while] disordered, and renewed the fight.

Caesar's De Bello Gallico. Book III

[JaM]

long story short, facing them head on means playing the game on their terms...and in war it is never a good idea to play on enemy terms...

[Dan113112]

I wonder if it will be possible to modify unit cohesion in TWR2. That way more veteran or elite pike units would have better cohesion on rough terrain and the levy pike units will have a much tougher time on rough terrain.

[JaM]

i guess it should, R2 is a Warscape game, and previous games had this implemented. Problem is how bad terrain will be portrayed... all Warscape games have a huge problem with obstacles. usually units end up in "snake" like formation and they dont reform, which quite kills the immersion.. and sad thing is, such behavior can be seen in official R2 video... (Roman vs Samnites battle in the port)

[Smiling Hetairoi]

I believe the reason Alexander's troops were so good was because they fought most of the time while the successors were farmers that fought when called upon.
The Seleucid Argyraspides were always ready for war so they were far better soldiers then the phalanx levy.

[Dan113112]

I believe the reason Alexander's troops were so good was because they fought most of the time while the successors were farmers that fought when called upon.
The Seleucid Argyraspides were always ready for war so they were far better soldiers then the phalanx levy.

Phillip/Alexander's army was also a standing army. Something the Romans didn't even have at the time. They were also rigorously trained all year round it seems. They even had training competitions between units.

Yes, you are right...however don't exepct them to have the same strenght of the late phalanx.

Alexander phalanx did have a lot more flexibility but a lot less strengh so defeating them head on would not be imppossible since there would be a lot less spear pointing at you

The sarissa in Alexander's army was only slightly shorter than the Diadochi sarissa so you still had 5 rows of pikes to worry about.

I actually think Alexander's force was superior to the Diadochi states for the reasons mentioned above. Better training, better equipment, more flexible. Phillip/Alexander's army was also not as stagnate as the Diadochi phalanxes. Individual pike units could hold their own for a while without support troops as shown in the battle of Gaugamela.

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

Yeah but the Winged Hussars had a 22ft lance. Longer than the sarissa used by infantry or the xyston used by cavalry.

[Biggus Splenus]

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.

30ft!!! Longest ever we know about was 26ft, but that was only experimental and quickly abandoned for the previous 22ft. Alexander used between 15 and 18 foot sarissa.

[Dunadd]

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.

Heavy throwing weapons like Roman pila could cause enough casualties to break up the formation to some extent -and gaps in the formation might open up on rough, rocky ground. If that allowed swordsmen (like Roman legionaries or renaissance sword and buckler men) to get past pikemen's pikes, after that, the pikemen were extremely vulnerable.

The phalangites that the Roman won their major battles against (Cynoscephalae, Pella, Magnesia) were mostly green new recruits though, up against experienced legionaries, so it's hard to say who would have won if they'd been of equal experience.

Phalanxes were very vulnerable to the flanks and rear and often broke if charged in the flank with cavalry as they were organised in single man wide files.

However again these two weaknesses may have been partly due to the lack of experience of the phalangites. Veteran phalangites fighting in the battles among the successors often withdrew to higher (and rougher) ground in good order if outflanked by cavalry and turned some phalangites to face outflanking troops.

A phalanx was also typically made up of 1,000 to 4,000 men as the smallest separable unit, while Romans were organised into much smaller maniples that could operate independently if required to.

It would also likely be much easier for troops without long pikes to change formation or move small units separately without chaos resulting than it would be for a close packed body of phalangites all with long pikes.

[Biggus Splenus]

Heavy throwing weapons like Roman pila could cause enough casualties to break up the formation to some extent -and gaps in the formation might open up on rough, rocky ground. If that allowed swordsmen (like Roman legionaries or renaissance sword and buckler men) to get past pikemen's pikes, after that, the pikemen were extremely vulnerable.

Actually Livy states that the Roman pila didn't have much effect on the phalanx's cohesion at all. This was in a position where their flanks were secure though (a wall breach), but I don't think that makes much of a difference.

The phalangites that the Roman won their major battles against (Cynoscephalae, Pella, Magnesia) were mostly green new recruits though, up against experienced legionaries, so it's hard to say who would have won if they'd been of equal experience.

The Antigonid levy was usually raised annually to fight wars with neighboring and invading Thracians, Celts and Illyrians; usually not the whole levy though. There definitely would have been some fresh recruits in the Romano-Makedonian wars, but definitely some seasoned veterans too (especially the agema and cavalry).

A phalanx was also typically made up of 1,000 to 4,000 men as the smallest separable unit, while Romans were organised into much smaller maniples that could operate independently if required to.

The basic tactical unit in all hellenistic armies was the speira, 256 men (16x16) with a head officer, standard bearer and musicians; these could easily operate independently from one another.

[Dunadd]

Thanks for the corrections Splenyi - interesting. I definitely read about veteran successor phalangites who were outflanked by cavalry withdrawing to high, rocky ground in good order - but it was in a book and i don't know what the primary source for it was. I still think the Romans might have had a tougher job if e.g they had come up against forces entirely made up of veteran phalangites like the Silver Shields that fought for Alexander's successors (i know they just became an elite unit that weren't necessarily veterans later on).

Phalanxes also must have been hard to break, but they can't have been all that deadly if the Roman and Greek writers' figures for their casualties when fighting them are accurate (though i suppose they might not be).

[daelin4]

It sort of depends on what standard you hold in regards to what's "possible".

In my standards, asking legionaries to engage a pike phalanx head on without manoeuvring or use of missiles would be like asking Sgt. Ramirez to engage that horde of BTR-90s with a spoon. Filled with yogurt. And he can't spill it. Oh, and walking on his hands. I mean THAT's sort of possible, according to videogames.

But seriously regardless of possibility, the legionaries are playing to the pikemen's strengths. However you approach it and succeed or fail, you're not really doing it right and will incur unnecessary consequences like lots of dead bodies. The only time armies engaged such formations head on are either in desperation, gamble, or sheer confidence in the superiority of their own frontal forces. In every other case they try to get around this obstacle.

Carrhae was an example where the Parthians played to their on strengths and not to the Romans, avoiding direct engagement and keeping distance whenever possible. This minimizes the ability for the Romans under Crassus to fight back.

[Biggus Splenus]

I still think the Romans might have had a tougher job if e.g they had come up against forces entirely made up of veteran phalangites like the Silver Shields that fought for Alexander's successors (i know they just became an elite unit that weren't necessarily veterans later on).

You're definitely right, but we'll never know

The silver shields were a unit of 2,000 men that fought for both Phillip and Alexander; they were verterans of military service spanning their entire life, and accomplished much more than any Roman citizen. When they were disbanded by the Antigonus after he acquired them at the battle of Gabiene from Eumenes, by stealing their baggage and and offering to return it for their service and the handover of Eumenes, he disbanded them because they were... well... kind of crazy. They didn't enjoy being under the service of anyone apart from Alexander or Philip, because they saw it as degrading to be under the command of much lesser generals.

The Seleukidai has their own unit of silvershields, but they were 10,000 strong, and didn't have anything in common with Alexander's formation except their name.

[Dunadd]

he disbanded them because they were... well... kind of crazy. They didn't enjoy being under the service of anyone apart from Alexander or Philip, because they saw it as degrading to be under the command of much lesser generals.

I thought it was because they had changed sides so many times he didn't trust them - though that's just my guess. I think Antigonus had captured not just their baggage (pay, life savings and food) but their wives and children from their camp, so i can't really blame them for changing sides to save their wives and children.

[Dunadd]

Huang caesar wrote

Different troops? What different troops?

I'm pretty sure the Seleucids used some Thorakitai (chain armoured thureophoroi) and mock legionaries who would either be equipped the same as thorakitai or the same as legionaries, with pila, though don't know whether they had any at Magnesia.

[Anna_Gein]

My main point is the arrow fire of the Parthians definetley did delpete Roman morale to cause them to make a tactical retreat, just like the Roman pila fire at Magnesia caused the Phalanx to retreat tactically. It was not a complete route, but "retreating in well order" means the command knows the formation can't take it anymore.

Or that an officer preffer to not uncover his troops indefinitely in a situation where they can not achieve anything.

Different troops? What different troops?

"Sight" ...

It simple, possible intervention of spearmen in support, peltast and who knows what else. Intervention of an hypothetical force. Indeed it did not happened. Did you really expected me to completely riwrite the Battle of Megnesia ?

I jumped into this conversation as I thought intelligible discussion was going on but apparently it is too much to expect. Claim what you want, it is equal to me. I am only wasting my time and it ends now.

Well from some things i've read it seems like legionaries had to run or charge to throw pila. Caesar for instance mentions an ambush by Gauls in forest in which the legionaries didn't have time to throw their pila before the Gauls were on them. So probably pila should only be able to be thrown at full effect when charging. Roman legionaries shouldn't be able to throw them all through a combat.

But in this situation, no Macedonian charge was to be expected.

I'm pretty sure the Seleucids used some Thorakitai (chain armoured thureophoroi) and mock legionaries who would either be equipped the same as thorakitai or the same as legionaries, with pila, though don't know whether they had any at Magnesia.

Achaeus forces included thorakitai soldiers so these mens were around well before the possible reforms of Antiochos IV. However they don't seems to be present at Magnesia.

[Vaðarholmr]

Moved to the historical discussion subforum.