how to beat phalangites head on?

[BSGfan]

flexebility and probably their large scutum has something to do about it also
did the phalanx really went out of fashion ? the pike was reintroduced during the middleages with devastating results and would be used till the mid 17 th century by all european armies
one can even argue that the introduction of the bayonet and musket combo just made them shorter or even longer depends on how you look at it

[JaM]

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.

Splenyi: Livy is the least reliable source of all ancient historians.. he was not a soldier, and he just rewrote in his works things he read elsewhere, with quite a lot of additions out of his head. For example, he stated that Macedonians dropped pikes and rather fought with swords at Cynoscephalae, yet it was just a misinterpreted thing, as Macedonian Phalangitai were surrendering by rising the pikes - their intention was to surrender, yet Romans didnt understood the motion (rising pikes as sign of surrender) and they attacked them in close combat, they couldnt lever pikes again, so they dropped them and tried to defend themselves with swords but got butchered..

and regarding his comment on Pila, it has nothing to do with its effects, it was his version of fact that Phalanx was usually quite deep and killing the front row had no effect as other ranks had their pikes leveled so there was no effect on phalanx pike wall (usually there were 5 rows of pikes leveled) - Where disruptive power of javelins is at its best is at stopping moving formation - while phalanx is stationary, killing men in front makes no obstacle for men in rear ranks. but if that formation was moving forward, and javelins would kill several men in front rank, their bodies would be quite an obstacle for tightly packed formation to get through.. there would be quite a good chance some gap would be created which could be exploited by legionaries.. at Pydna, it was some rocks and fallen trees, together with Pila discharges that created gaps in pike wall, combined by phalanx moving forward..

[Biggus Splenus]

You're right, Livy isn't exactly the best source for these things buuuuut, killing the men in the front of a phalanx would be rather devastating; they were the file leaders, and very important for morale and cohesion. So, if the pila did inflict casualties on the front ranks, then that would be pretty devastating to the formation, and something note worthy for Livy.

[JaM]

Maybe, and maybe not.. at Magnesia, Polybius reported that Pike blocks formed squares to protect themselves from all sides, yet Romans used pila at them and slowly killed them where they stood... another thing worth considering are casualties Pyrrhus and his Phalanx took facing Romans - they (romans) were not able to pass the pike wall, yet they caused Epirotes a lot of casualties which made those victories Pyrrhic..

I think a lot of people have wrong idea about heavy javelins and their role in combat. Gamers are influenced by game logic, where kill ratio is the only thing that counts.. but that was not the only effect ranged weapons had.. be forced to stand in place, holding a pike in both hands, while enemy standing few meters back is using you for target practice.. is something that would have quite a big morale impact.. also, if you imagine all those javelins thrown, they didn't disappeared after they hit the ground (as we have in Rome2), they were quite an unpleasant obstacle under soldiers feet, that was quite problematic to pass through especially if you are in tight formation where you have just 0.5m of space..

Some studies says Pilum has 1 in 10 chance to cause casualty, but at some battles that was even lower (Pharsalus battle for example shows quite low number of casualties. Even if Caesar underestimated his losses, and overestimated losses on Pompey side, only 1 in 25 pila thrown would result in casualty). yet, these rates are way higher than other weapons had through history.. (18.century musketeer would have to fire 500-2000 rounds for single casualty in battle, and Vietnam War US soldier had to fire 30.000 rounds to kill single Vietnam soldier, yet, nobody is telling that Brown Bess was more effective than M16, or AK)

[RGA]

Maybe, and maybe not.. at Magnesia, Polybius reported that Pike blocks formed squares to protect themselves from all sides, yet Romans used pila at them and slowly killed them where they stood... another thing worth considering are casualties Pyrrhus and his Phalanx took facing Romans - they (romans) were not able to pass the pike wall, yet they caused Epirotes a lot of casualties which made those victories Pyrrhic..

I think a lot of people have wrong idea about heavy javelins and their role in combat. Gamers are influenced by game logic, where kill ratio is the only thing that counts.. but that was not the only effect ranged weapons had.. be forced to stand in place, holding a pike in both hands, while enemy standing few meters back is using you for target practice.. is something that would have quite a big morale impact.. also, if you imagine all those javelins thrown, they didn't disappeared after they hit the ground (as we have in Rome2), they were quite an unpleasant obstacle under soldiers feet, that was quite problematic to pass through especially if you are in tight formation where you have just 0.5m of space..

Some studies says Pilum has 1 in 10 chance to cause casualty, but at some battles that was even lower (Pharsalus battle for example shows quite low number of casualties. Even if Caesar underestimated his losses, and overestimated losses on Pompey side, only 1 in 25 pila thrown would result in casualty). yet, these rates are way higher than other weapons had through history.. (18.century musketeer would have to fire 500-2000 rounds for single casualty in battle, and Vietnam War US soldier had to fire 30.000 rounds to kill single Vietnam soldier, yet, nobody is telling that Brown Bess was more effective than M16, or AK)

Any primary sources or credible researches which confirm the devastating effect of the pila, as you said? I seriously doubt pila had THAT killing power.

[JaM]

can you be more specific which statement doesn't sounds ok for you?

[HuangCaesar]

About Pila fire on Phalanx: (Heraclea and Magnesia)

The Romans were busily crossing the Siris river and Pyrrhus launched the phalanx at their leading maniples. A severe struggle ensued as the Pikemen suffered the hail of Pila and then pressed forward against the Hastati.

"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"
Appian.


Although the phalanx didn't break to the Roman Pilum and arrow fire at Magnesia(until the were caught between their own elephants) they did retreat due to the effect of it and "suffered severly" and took many causualties.

The only thing that I found on Livy saying the Pila was "useless" was in some siege where he walls were broken very poorly and he gap was narrow enough for the phalangites to put their best troops quoted by Livy as their "best men" and to form "unsual deph". This is only made possible during sieges with small gaps.

"But after a portion of the wall had been battered down by rams the soldiers began to march over the debris into the city....the Macedonian garrison considered it to defend the wall in unusual depth.
But in the narrow space - for the breach in the wall was by no means a wide one - the kind of weapon he used and his style of fighting gave the enemy an advantage. When the serried Macedonian ranks presented their enormously long spears it was like a shield-wall, and when the Romans after fruitlessly hurling their javelins, drew their swords they could not get to close quarters, nor could they hack off the spear-heads; if they did succeed in cutting or breaking any off, the splintered shafts kept their places amongst the points of the uninjured ones and the palisade remained unbroken. " Livy.

[JaM]

yes, i was refering to exactly this quote of Appian.. plus, if you think about it - Romans couldnt attack them with swords, as they were unable to get pass the pike points, yet, Battle ended with Epirotes taking quite a lot of casualties, enough for Pyrrhus to be concerned about it.. he would be not that much concerned if he lost some local allies he had, those he could replace quite quickly... only weapon Roman Legionaries had, which could reach Phalangitai was pilum... it all makes perfect sense if you think about it.

[Anna_Gein]

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-Macedonian wars, but definitely some seasoned veterans too (especially the agema and cavalry).

I was under the impression that the Macedonian Kingdom was forced to an unusual effort in term of recruitment before the Battle of Cynoscephalae. The new recruit probably formed the Macedonian flank who failed to deploy and was easily defeated by the elephants.

Also what Macedonian military activities happened from the 2nd Macedonian War until the 3rd ? I was under the impression that nothing happened during Perseus reign until his war against Rome.

Nice initiative HuangCaesar. Please allow me to propose an interpretation more "phalanx-friendly".

At Magnesia the pikemen were forced to withdraw that's right but was the damaged inflicted by projectiles that high ? Apparently not really or the pikemen would not have been able to fall back "step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans". It is indeed true that the phalanx found itself in an extremely difficult situation as they were suffering from the enemy fire without the possibility to reply. And so the Seleucid officers took the right and probably only viable action : to retreat. From this point of view the pikemen phalanx is indeed inferior to a less dense and compact formation with projectiles. In fact this particular event is extremely similar to the battle of Lechaeum.

You did well to not quote a single sentence but somehow you base your interpretation of this passage from a single sentence and not the whole passage.

I don't remember the name of the siege you quote. It would nice you use the quote option and links or at least give the reference of the author, book, chapter and paragraph btw. I forgot the description of the pikemen as the "best men" who would probably be equipped with the best armour. But still the Romans had all the time they needed to fire their projectiles to the enemy who were once again in no ability to reply. Despite theses advantage and the compact nature of the phalanx, the Roman fire was insufficient to defeat the pikemen or even inflict them important casualties as the javelin fire is described as fruitless.

As for Heraclea I don't see how this passage can be interpreted by any side of this argument. The author just says that the pikemen "suffered" the fire of javelins and not if this fire was effective, destructive or inefficient.

can you be more specific which statement doesn't sounds ok for you?

How about starting with serious passage to support your fate in the destructive power of pila and back up you evaluation of the Pyrrhic figures ?

Cause for now, apart some free declaration about the Epirote losses caused only by pila, you are just defending the phalanx as unbeatable in melee. Needless to say, we all know it is not your objective or your opinion on the matter. As a pro-macedonian phalanx, I must oppose your assumption that no close combat between swordsmen and pikemen would happen because of the pikes reach. The pikemen would suffer casualties from the front in melee but note as much as their non-pikemen enemies if all things are equals. Though it would be ferocious melee the swordsmen/spearsmen would probably not be able to sustain for too long as it was the case at Pydna for example.

[HuangCaesar]

Nice initiative HuangCaesar. Please allow me to propose an interpretation more "phalanx-friendly".
At Magnesia the pikemen were forced to withdraw that's right but was the damaged inflicted by projectiles that high ? Apparently not really or the pikemen would not have been able to fall back "step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans". It is indeed true that the phalanx found itself in an extremely difficult situation as they were suffering from the enemy fire without the possibility to reply. And so the Seleucid officers took the right and probably only viable action : to retreat. From this point of view the pikemen phalanx is indeed inferior to a less dense and compact formation with projectiles. In fact this particular event is extremely similar to the battle of Lechaeum.

I am not bashing on the Phalanx, I am just saying it has weaknesses just like the Romans have weaknesses. Seriously? You really expect ever single pike to deflect missle fire?

I don't get your point. The quote clearly says no missle missed and caused serious causalties, so the Selucid Phalanx retreated. A tactical retreat yes, but a retreat nonetheless, just like the Roman retreat at Cahrae. Yes the Pilum fire from Legionaires and javelin fire from the Roman cavalry and Pegamese Cavalry caused them to retreat. Its simple. Missles inflicts damage on Phalanx. That happened in the Battle of Ipsus as well.

Here is another quote of Livy.

"Whilst they were in this disorder the Romans advanced against them and discharged their javelins. Even the elephants posted between the divisions of the phalanx did not deter them"
The Phalanx got steamrolled easily so the elephants retreated causing the Phalanx to form square. The Romans having no way to defeat the Phalanx head out due to the square, launched their reserves and another Pila barrage as quoted by Appian, the Phalanx square THEN retreated, THEN ran into their elephants on their way.

You did well to not quote a single sentence but somehow you base your interpretation of this passage from a single sentence and not the whole passage.

I don't remember the name of the siege you quote. It would nice you use the quote option and links or at least give the reference of the author, book, chapter and paragraph btw. I forgot the description of the pikemen as the "best men" who would probably be equipped with the best armour. But still the Romans had all the time they needed to fire their projectiles to the enemy who were once again in no ability to reply. Despite theses advantage and the compact nature of the phalanx, the Roman fire was insufficient to defeat the pikemen or even inflict them important casualties as the javelin fire is described as fruitless.

As for Heraclea I don't see how this passage can be interpreted by any side of this argument. The author just says that the pikemen "suffered" the fire of javelins and not if this fire was effective, destructive or inefficient.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kFs...velins&f=false
here you go.

Its Livy's quote on the siege of Thesally and Phocis.

He clearly says the wall was broken but only narrowly. The Phalanx was able to line themselves in "unusual deph"(that means unlike a battle line) where the Phalanx could use their deph to be more formidable to the Romans. And Livy clearly states "Picked men" Think about it, in a battlefield the Phalanx has to spread out to provide a wider front making the pikes less capable of delecting missle fire, while in a narrow gap, all the Phalangites with the most picked men could be distributed to a single front, making missle fire more fruitless due to the numbers of troops in a single point, and the deph of the pikes deflecting missles.

Again the Battle of Heraclea was no easy day for Pyrhuss.

[JaM]

Its Livy's quote on the siege of Thesally and Phocis.

He clearly says the wall was broken but only narrowly. The Phalanx was able to line themselves in "unusual deph"(that means unlike a battle line) where the Phalanx could use their deph to be more formidable to the Romans. And Livy clearly states "Picked men" Think about it, in a battlefield the Phalanx has to spread out to provide a wider front making the pikes less capable of delecting missle fire, while in a narrow gap, all the Phalangites with the most picked men could be distributed to a single front, making missle fire more fruitless due to the numbers of troops in a single point, and the deph of the pikes deflecting missles.

Again the Battle of Heraclea was no easy day for Pyrhuss.

Also hole in the wall would also limit amount of legionaries that were able to use their pila to just few men at the time..

[Anna_Gein]

I am not bashing on the Phalanx, I am just saying it has weaknesses just like the Romans have weaknesses.

Did I said otherwise ? When I declare my interpretation as more "phalanx-friendly" it was just an attempt to smooth the mood of the discussion. I take it failed miserably. This debate happened again and again before RII was released so a good share of us already know the opinion of each other. I expected my interpretations to be enough reasonable and balanced so no one would mind of feel offended but I see it is not the case.

I am going for a precise reply to every point you made. Please to see it as hostile but after reading your post I thought you simply misinterpreted by opinion and immediately replied in "automatic defence mode". (Again, no offence intended, it is not as if it never happen to me anyway)

Seriously? You really expect ever single pike to deflect missle fire?

Did I claim such fantasy ?

I don't get your point. The quote clearly says no missle missed and caused serious causalties, so the Selucid Phalanx retreated. A tactical retreat yes, but a retreat nonetheless,

Think to second about it. The pikemen are in very close order. How are they supposed to retreat with this formation ? If the projectiles fire inflict that much casualties the whole formation would have probably collapsed and the pikemen would had flee in disorder.

I don't understood how can you interpret this passage differently. Unless you understand "no missile missed" as every one inflicted casualty. Please don't tell me it is the case ...

Yes the Pilum fire from Legionaires and javelin fire from the Roman cavalry and Pegamese Cavalry caused them to retreat. Its simple. Missles inflicts damage on Phalanx. That happened in the Battle of Ipsus as well.

It inflict damage to the phalanx but not enough to defeat it on its own. The Seleucid found themselves in a situation where they were suffering without the ability to reply. Not matter how light the damage might be, a formation in such situation would naturally fall back unless their only hope of victory was to stand their ground against any odds. Just as it was the case at the Siege of Phocis.

Here is another quote of Livy.

"Whilst they were in this disorder the Romans advanced against them and discharged their javelins. Even the elephants posted between the divisions of the phalanx did not deter them"
The Phalanx got steamrolled easily so the elephants retreated causing the Phalanx to form square. The Romans having no way to defeat the Phalanx head out due to the square, launched their reserves and another Pila barrage as quoted by Appian, the Phalanx square THEN retreated, THEN ran into their elephants on their way.

Don't you think square formations would have been even more vulnerable to projectiles ? How do you explain that the soldiers did not flee but became even more vulnerable to retreat in good order ? "Still formidable" is hardly an accurate description of a formation completely beaten ...

He clearly says the wall was broken but only narrowly. The Phalanx was able to line themselves in "unusual deph"(that means unlike a battle line) where the Phalanx could use their deph to be more formidable to the Romans.

More like the breach was not wide enough for a single syntagma to deploy as usual so the pikemen were forced to use a smaller front, the wider allowed by the breach. I doubt there was any intentionally decision there

And Livy clearly states "Picked men" Think about it, in a battlefield the Phalanx has to spread out to provide a wider front making the pikes less capable of delecting missle fire, while in a narrow gap, all the Phalangites with the most picked men could be distributed to a single front,

I doubt that 16+ ranks will deflect missiles with their pikes.

making missle fire more fruitless due to the numbers of troops in a single point, and the deph of the pikes deflecting missles.

Since when missile fire is "more fruitless" because there is more targets on a single point ?

Again the Battle of Heraclea was no easy day for Pyrhuss.

Where did I said otherwise ?

Also hole in the wall would also limit amount of legionaries that were able to use their pila to just few men at the time..

It is not as if the legionaries had all the day to throw their javelins. Ho wait ...

[JaM]

It is not as if the legionaries had all the day to throw their javelins. Ho wait ...

Yet, during Siege of Sparta, they managed to get through Spartan Phalangitai quite well.. They were only stopped by fire, as Spartans burned down their houses to slow Romans down, yet it didnt prevented Romans to attack next time.. after few days Sparta surrendered.


Anna_Gein: you have quite strange understanding what is and what is not effective.. in close combat, usual casualties were quite low.. not more than 5% of total casualties.. majority of casualties happened when one side gave up and routed.. Yet, Pyrrhic victories are well known for him taking heavy casualties to win.. so how exactly his veteran men died in battle, if #1 phalanx was unbeatable from the front and #2 javelins were not effective against Phalanx? did they die out of boredom or what?

[Anna_Gein]

Yet, during Siege of Sparta, they managed to get through Spartan Phalangitai quite well..

Are you talking about the javelins or the Roman forces ?

Anna_Gein: you have quite strange understanding what is and what is not effective.. in close combat, usual casualties were quite low.. not more than 5% of total casualties.. majority of casualties happened when one side gave up and routed.. Yet, Pyrrhic victories are well known for him taking heavy casualties to win..

Fair observation. I should check what Pyrrhus casualties rate was at each of his battles. A comparison between the Epirote pikemen, the mercenaries and the levy from Magna Grecia would be extremely interesting but I doubt we have such detailed infos. Even after his Pyrrhic victories, the man had an army large enough to attempt an invasion of Macedonian and his force were enough impressive to provoke a large desertion of Macedonian soldiers.

so how exactly his veteran men died in battle, if #1 phalanx was unbeatable from the front and #2 javelins were not effective against Phalanx? did they die out of boredom or what?

Unbeatable from the front is probably exaggerate. The problem is when we are discussing the merits of different formations and equipments, we do so as if all the other variables were equalled. As if the training, experience and morale of each side was equal. As if none of them was troubled by the march, provisions, climatic considerations or even the smallest variable as so the only thing to distinguish their value was their formation or equipment. In such case the Pikemen have undoubtedly an important advantage in the front. But such scenario is rarely the case in reality.

How the Epirote suffered casualties ? Probably like that :

The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy. Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides. For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands; while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that p409met them, and a certain death. When the first line had thus been cut to pieces, those arrayed behind them were beaten back; and though there was no flight, still they retired towards the mountain called Olocrus, so that even Aemilius, as Poseidonius tells us, when he saw it, rent his garments. For this part of his army was retreating, and the rest of the Romans were turning aside from the phalanx, which gave them no access to it, but confronted them as it were with a dense barricade of long spears, and was everywhere unassailable.

Plutarch. The Life of Aemilius. Paragraph 20. On the battle of Pydna before the Romans retreat in difficult terrain. Link

[JaM]

Fair observation. I should check what Pyrrhus casualties rate was at each of his battles. A comparison between the Epirote pikemen, the mercenaries and the levy from Magna Grecia would be extremely interesting but I doubt we have such detailed infos. Even after his Pyrrhic victories, the man had an army large enough to attempt an invasion of Macedonian and his force were enough impressive to provoke a large desertion of Macedonian soldiers.

Yet, i really doubt Pyrrhus would be so worried if losses were just to his local allies.. he would not comment that "One more like this and we are undone" just because he lost some local militias or Italian allies.. he said that because his core force god badly damaged.

regarding Plutarch, i would be careful, as he seems to comment on what happened with one of Maniples (throwing standard), not the entire battle line. later he says:

But the ground was uneven, and the line of battle so long that shields could not be kept continuously locked together, and Aemilius therefore saw that the Macedonian phalanx was getting many clefts and intervals in it, as is natural when armies are large and the efforts of the combatants are diversified; portions of it were hard pressed, and other portions were dashing forward. 8 Thereupon he came up swiftly, and dividing up his cohorts, ordered them to plunge quickly into the interstices and empty spaces in the enemy's line and thus come to close quarters, not fighting a single battle against them all, but many separate and successive battles. 9 These instructions being given by Aemilius to his officers, and by his officers to the soldiers, as soon as they got between the ranks of the enemy and separated them, they attacked some of them in the flank where their armour did not shield them, 10 and cut off others by falling upon their rear, and the strength and general efficiency of the phalanx was lost when it was thus broken up; and now that the Macedonians engaged man to man or in small detachments, they could only hack with their small daggers against the firm and long shields of the Romans, and oppose light wicker targets to their swords, which, such was
their weight and momentum, penetrated through all their armour to their bodies. They therefore made a poor resistance and at last were routed.

clearly mentioning that part of Phalanx was facing resistance while other part didnt.. Roman battle line was formed into three lines, where first line was supposed to retreat behind second one. anyway later part clearly shows the main advantage of Legion, which was the flexibility of its units that could exploit any gap in enemy line.

another interesting part:

Finally, the three thousand picked men of the Macedonians, who remained in order and kept on fighting, were all cut to pieces; and of the rest, who took to flight, the slaughter was great, so that the plain and the lower slopes of the hills were covered with dead bodies, and the waters of the river Leucus were still mingled with blood when the Romans crossed it on the day after
the battle. 7 For it is said that over twenty-five thousand of their enemies were slain; while of the Romans there fell, according to Poseidonius, a hundred, according to Nasica, eighty.

80-100 dead on Roman side is quite a small number that doesnt correspond well with "dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides" mentioned earlier.. even if it was 10x more in reality it would be still quite low casualty number.. so to me, it really looks like description of what happened to single Maniple (the one with the standard thrown into the phalanx) which took serious casualties..




Also, Plutarch is mentioning Cohorts, yet during Pydna (168 b.c), Romans still used Maniples as tactical units. we just cant take his description too literally, as he was writing it 250 years after the battle was fought.

Plutarch. The Life of Aemilius. Paragraph 20. On the battle of Pydna before the Romans retreat in difficult terrain.

- he says uneven ground, not difficult (here comes my "not taking it literally" lol). Plain at Pydna was not completely flat ground, there was a lot of obstacles that would have impact on tight formations moving forward.. Keeping Line formation was always very problematic. 18.century soldiers who were drilled for several years, were never marching longer distances in Line. Practically any Infantry formation needed readjustments for every 100m they walked in line.. that is why columns were preferred form of maneuvering around battlefields. I doubt it was any different in Ancient times, especially with Phalanx, as soldiers were supposed to carry 4m long pike.. with line 2km long (as the one at Pydna) it was normal that if it had to move forward too much, it would have big difficulty to keep the entire line intact.

[Anna_Gein]

Yet, i really doubt Pyrrhus would be so worried if losses were just to his local allies.. he would not comment that "One more like this and we are undone" just because he lost some local militias or Italian allies.. he said that because his core force god badly damaged.

I didn't meant his "national" and mercenary force was undamaged. My remark on different causalities rate was just innocent curiosity.

But can we legitimately put this words on Pyrrhus mouths ?

regarding Plutarch, i would be careful, as he seems to comment on what happened with one of Maniples (throwing standard), not the entire battle line. later he says:
[...]
so to me, it really looks like description of what happened to single Maniple (the one with the standard thrown into the phalanx) which took serious casualties..

That's how I understand it too. I underlined this specific passage because the pikemen suffer casualties too in this passage even if they get the upper hands.

80-100 dead on Roman side is quite a small number that doesnt correspond well with "dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides" mentioned earlier.. even if it was 10x more in reality it would be still quite low casualty number..

How much trust can we put in theses causalities estimations ? The same for the Syrian War and the First Mithridatic Wars. Pydna was a Macedonian disaster. Contemporaries rightly saw it as such but this casualities estimations are in my humble opinion pure fantasy and don't match with the accounts.

Also, Plutarch is mentioning Cohorts, yet during Pydna (168 b.c), Romans still used Maniples as tactical units. we just cant take his description too literally, as he was writing it 250 years after the battle was fought.

Are you certain ? When did the transition from maniple to cohort happened ? I am not trying to make an argument here, it is just that ... well I am not that much informed on the matter. I understand it should have happened somewhere from the the 2nd Punic War to the Marian Reforms though maniples continue to exist in name even when the cohorts were in use.

Anyway I don't think this possible error threaten the whole account value.

- he says uneven ground, not difficult (here comes my "not taking it literally" lol).

Sorry. I admit the distinction between "uneven ground" and "difficult ground" is a little obscure to me.

Plain at Pydna was not completely flat ground, there was a lot of obstacles that would have impact on tight formations moving forward.. Keeping Line formation was always very problematic. 18.century soldiers who were drilled for several years, were never marching longer distances in Line. Practically any Infantry formation needed readjustments for every 100m they walked in line.. that is why columns were preferred form of maneuvering around battlefields. I doubt it was any different in Ancient times, especially with Phalanx, as soldiers were supposed to carry 4m long pike..

Of course I don't expect the battlefield to be as flat and clean as a soccer terrain.

I don't think a unremarkable terrain would be enough to disorganize a phalanx. As you repeat so many times, the melee combat would not continue for hours without stop but would consist of succinct melee affrontement with one side or the two disengaging until the next assault. Just as many occasion for the pikemen to readjust the line. Also the Roman infantry would face the same challenge even if they were less vulnerable in this situation.

with line 2km long (as the one at Pydna) it was normal that if it had to move forward too much, it would have big difficulty to keep the entire line intact.

I don't think the Macedonian "line of battle" consisted of a single line of pikemen of 2km.

[JaM]

Are you certain ? When did the transition from maniple to cohort happened ? I am not trying to make an argument here, it is just that ... well I am not that much informed on the matter. I understand it should have happened somewhere from the the 2nd Punic War to the Marian Reforms though maniples continue to exist in name even when the cohorts were in use.

Cohorts were used as organisational unit,formed of Maniples of Hastati, Principes and Triarii. Yet, in battle Maniples fought separately, with Hastati in first line, Principes in second and Triarii in third. It was defeats with Cimbri and Teutones that showed Romans that Maniples were too small as a tactical unit, and Cohort took over. Yet that was about 60 years after Battle of Pydna.

I don't think the Macedonian "line of battle" consisted of a single line of pikemen of 2km.

Entire army was deployed at 2 km front. As they moved forward, gaps between units occurred and Romans took advantage of it.

How much trust can we put in theses causalities estimations ? The same for the Syrian War and the First Mithridatic Wars. Pydna was a Macedonian disaster. Contemporaries rightly saw it as such but this casualities estimations are in my humble opinion pure fantasy and don't match with the accounts.

If we don't trust these estimations, then why trusting other things he is writing about.. What i find interesting is the amount of casualties in all battles Romans fought against Hellenic armies is quite low. That doesn't sounds like Hellenistic Phalanx was all that superior to legions. Sulla defeated Mithridates/Archelaus even when greatly outnumbered and yet took minimal casualties in the process, so it seems like a pattern is there whenever Roman Legions met Phalanx.. (yes, at Chaeronea Romans built earthworks, yet it is another proof of superiority and skill of Roman Legionaries who managed to built strong defensive positions very quickly.)

[HuangCaesar]

Think to second about it. The pikemen are in very close order. How are they supposed to retreat with this formation ? If the projectiles fire inflict that much casualties the whole formation would have probably collapsed and the pikemen would had flee in disorder. ...

Simple just leave the dead behind.

It inflict damage to the phalanx but not enough to defeat it on its own.

yes it is. A retreat is a defeat. The Romans retreated in well order away from the Parthian horse archers. Still a defeat.

Don't you think square formations would have been even more vulnerable to projectiles ? How do you explain that the soldiers did not flee but became even more vulnerable to retreat in good order ? "Still formidable" is hardly an accurate description of a formation completely beaten ...

Read the quote again. The Legionaires threw their javelins...
the phalanx did not deter them..the elephants ran away.
THEN formed squares
THEN Legions threw javelins again causing phalanx to retreat

Yes and the Romans at Cahrae were still not defeated till they reached nightfall, but they were moraley defeated a long time ago. Again if you retreat it means your formation can't take it anymore. If the Phalanx was truly formidable it would engage the Legions, not march away.

Since when missile fire is "more fruitless" because there is more targets on a single point ?...

Think about it, a battle line is spread out and more thinner.
A chokepoint means your formation is more dephed in and more troops in a single point making the formation more formitable.

It is not as if the legionaries had all the day to throw their javelins. Ho wait ...

Why would they have all day?

[Anna_Gein]

Cohorts were used as organisational unit,formed of Maniples of Hastati, Principes and Triarii. Yet, in battle Maniples fought separately, with Hastati in first line, Principes in second and Triarii in third. It was defeats with Cimbri and Teutones that showed Romans that Maniples were too small as a tactical unit, and Cohort took over. Yet that was about 60 years after Battle of Pydna.

I thought the shift happened some times before Marius and the Cimbrian War.

Entire army was deployed at 2 km front. As they moved forward, gaps between units occurred and Romans took advantage of it.

I think it is more like the terrain became so difficult that coordination between different syntagma was broken if it is was not the cohesion of each phalanx that was broken.

If we don't trust these estimations, then why trusting other things he is writing about..

Maybe because casualties estimations are generally the most contested and contestable estimations.

And since when do we have to completely trust a source to work on it ?

What i find interesting is the amount of casualties in all battles Romans fought against Hellenic armies is quite low.

Probably. I mean if you ignore the Pyrrhic War and accept ratio of 100 dead for 10 000. Yes. It seems perfectly fine ...

That doesn't sounds like Hellenistic Phalanx was all that superior to legions. Sulla defeated Mithridates/Archelaus even when greatly outnumbered and yet took minimal casualties in the process, so it seems like a pattern is there whenever Roman Legions met Phalanx.. (yes, at Chaeronea Romans built earthworks, yet it is another proof of superiority and skill of Roman Legionaries who managed to built strong defensive positions very quickly.)

With all the respect I have for Sulla, the casualties estimations of his battles are some of the most ridiculous I ever found. Hardly something to be taken seriously in a discussion.

Simple just leave the dead behind.

Ho right. How could I forget it ! It is not as if the remaining soldiers would fear for their life ! Who would ?

yes it is. A retreat is a defeat. The Romans retreated in well order away from the Parthian horse archers. Still a defeat.

There is a whole world between an ordered retreat and a complete root.

I don't see what battle you are referring with the romans and the parthian horse archer. Is it Carrhae ? Because in this battle the Romans were buthcered by the coordinated action of the horse archer with the cataphract.

Read the quote again. The Legionaires threw their javelins...
the phalanx did not deter them..the elephants ran away.
THEN formed squares
THEN Legions threw javelins again causing phalanx to retreat

Yes. Retreat and not flee or root. A complete defeat of the pikemen would have allowed the Romans to pursue them but it was not possible because the pikemen remained "formidable" and in capacity to fight.

Yes and the Romans at Cahrae were still not defeated till they reached nightfall, but they were moraley defeated a long time ago. Again if you retreat it means your formation can't take it anymore.

Ho but I certainly agree with you that the Seleucid pikemen were screwed in this situation and could only hope the intervention of a different type of troops to turn the tide.

If the Phalanx was truly formidable it would engage the Legions, not march away.

Maybe because the Romans were refusing the close combat engagement ?

Would you consider any infantry force inferior to distance cavalry because they can not engage the cavalry but only retreat ?

Think about it, a battle line is spread out and more thinner.
A chokepoint means your formation is more dephed in and more troops in a single point making the formation more formitable.

A chojepoint also means that the enemy can concentrate his fire on a single point.

Why would they have all day?

Because it was a siege ? Because the only hope for the Macedonian was to stand their ground at the breach ? The Romans were in position to delay their assault until they used all their projectiles.

[JaM]

I don't see what battle you are referring with the romans and the parthian horse archer. Is it Carrhae ? Because in this battle the Romans were buthcered by the coordinated action of the horse archer with the cataphract.

nope, Horse archers were mostly a nuisance, and Cataphract charges lead to practically nothing. Only battle success was elimination of Gallic light cavalry lead by Crassus son, but they didnt managed to break Roman positions. Major problem for Romans was lack of supplies (water) and a lot of wounded that needed attention. but that was thanks to Crassus being idiot to walk into desert with limited supplies.. Overall, Carhae is a monument to Crassus stupidity that cost him his life in the end.